Progressives and the LEFT hate the 4th of July and patriotism …

wow reman, out of left field. this post is months old

thanks for your kind thoughts, love us or hate us but without the right the country would implode. you really should try meditating timeboy, it'll expand ond open your mind. fortunately for us all current for the most part believes in freedom of expression and speech. a lesson the left could well use

cool, keep your dream alive. many who made the same mistake you did are looking elsewhere

wow, you really should try googling corruption on the left and their ties to big oil and corps and such once in a while. youre hooked

no more or less valid than the shit you guys dream up

another attempt by the homosapien leftylibs to quell freedom of expression and speech. i always thought you libs were all for these freedoms. oh thats right, only when it aligns with your own narrow mind set. no thanks on the viagra, my own little harem keeps me strong and virile.

thanks for your intelligent and wise words.

certainly a dream worth pursuing and many in the more civilized western cultures share it. its unfortunate that a great deal of the world would rather see us dead so the utopia many seek is probably way beyond the lifetime of anyone currently living. borders and the protection of citizenry by governments has been around since early man. it would be nice if we could just willy nilly traverse the world unconcerned with borders but you'll find most countries disagreeable with allowing just anyone to freely pass through without proper authorization and documentation. patriotism is a state of mind that most folks in most countries share within their own borders

Most countries are having to bow to the will of their people. The time is nearer than many think I believe.

Individually and together we have to reevaluate our community and approach to life. We can no longer think the impact of one bad action doesn't have implications for people far from our local to whom we owe the same respect in our decisions that they expect in return from us. So far the justification is not there due to gov'ts acting horribly in the name of their citizens, Borders are irrelevant to our future hope...without them we can get to work for us all.

well you just now defined what it means to be "not living in reality".

REALLY? which ones exactly

Reality is nothing more than the combined perceptions of us all. The more of those you see from your individual "I" the more of truth you'll see. Limit your thought not mine.

funny, i havent seen much of that. regardless there is much hatred for america in the world. some justified some not. when push comes to shove self preservation and the protection of what the majority of us hold dear is well worth protecting, by any means.

not very realistic but good luck with that. btw i thought you were retiring

some realities are shared others not. i prefer my own

and no one should try to take that from you, the trouble is some get stuck in a rut and stop learning and amending. Closing your mind from possibility is never healthy even when something seems ludicrous. That is how Holmes always solved the case despite improbability.
Will be around when I can.

agreed and thanks

I think it was a hell of a lot gutsier on July 4, 1776 to write a letter to the King and flip him the bird and sign it as if to say "FUCK YOU GEORGE, come get us IF YOU CAN!" than it was to ratify a constitution once the war was over.

I think we have the date right, thanks.

so whats your point? folks also celebrate the birth of the baby heebus on dec. 25th

it would have been if that was what the we did.
but it isn't.
The first half of the Declaration of Independence was an intellectual philosophical Enlightenment treatise on Human civil rights, the vast majority of which was written as being completely purely hypothetical.
The second half was a list of complaints that the citizens of the colonies had against the crown and the British Empire.
All of it was written extraordinarily courteously and politely. We weren't so much declaring our independence as we asking for it.
The most that the Declaration of Independence ever says it that the colonies SHOULD be independent, and it is left an open question whether they were asking the British to be one sovereign nation, or whether each individual colony was requesting to be made a nation in and of itself.
We were inquiring as to whether or night it might be possible for us to not be british anymore.

Not me.
I celebrate christmas from good friday to easter sunday (Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth was born in March or April of 6 CE).
And i celebrate easter from December 19-January 1 (Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire in the middle of winter of 36 CE).
But the winter solstice celebration of the messiah savior's birth in Bethlehem is not the fault of Americans, but of the Christian church, as it predates America by nearly two millennia.
We celebrate christmas on December 25 because in the fourth century CE, the Christian church needed a birthday for their mythical savior messiah, and the real man's actual birthday didn't work out well with their church schedule, and so they decided to hijack the pagan celebration of the winter solstice in order to assimilate the pagan civilizations of Eurasia, or rather those that they didn't exterminate, or hadn't already annihilated.
We celebrate July fourth as the date of our independence for no other reason than because it was as good a date as any to have a holiday, and we hadn't had a holiday in a while.

yes i know a bit about history and its a good thing god put those pegans and their golden idol worshiping to rest. july works for me. so whats your point?

The problem was that the Christians were pagans too.
The christian myth of their "Mashiah" [Hebrew: "Anointed"] that they called "Khristos" [Greek: "the anointed one"] was an amalgamation of the Solar Deities ["the Son of God" = "the god of the sun"] from the polytheistic pantheons of the classical ancient civilizations of the known Mediterranean world: Egypt, Greece, Persia, and Rome.
This is why every image of Christ appears with the ancient Egyptian solar disc of the sun god Ra (or halo [Helios (Apollo) Greek god of the sun]) behind or above his head.
Christianity was also the first sect of Judaism wherein the creator god "Jahweh" or "Jehova" (from which we get "Jeshua" or "Jesus") did not have a wife in the ancient Canaanite fertility mother goddess Ishtar. Up until Christianity, Judaism had been polytheistic as well.
So the pagan Christians, with their own idols of worship, were really just wiping out OTHER pagans with OTHER idols of worship, turning their symbols (such as the pentagram [five-pointed star], the symbol of fertility and feminism) into demonic symbols of "satan" ["shaitan" Arabic: "adversary"] or "Beelzebub" [Greek/Latin: "Lord of the Flies"; From "Ba'al Zebul" Hebrew/Canaanite: "High Lord of Heaven"].

actually you seem to know very little about history......you are however very up to date on the mythology you have been spoon fed. I seem to recall you liking to call yourself a free thinker.

no one spoon feeds me. i get my info from the top

so did i. guess we were both wrong

no need to burn them, a good spanking should do

it's a stupid image, a stupid concept, and reveals the shallowness of your intellect.

Actually, I think it's a good (albeit irrelevant) image but a stupid, non-sequitur caption.

It's a reminder of where our strong secular principles come from, and why it's important to have them to begin with. Strange as it sounds, shit like this really would still happen in some parts of the country were the first amendment not federally enforced.

There was a story here on current about a year or two ago about a teacher being fired because the staff became concerned he was a "wizard" working with satan. No shit, like a real fucking wizard, someone who casts spells and such.

I'll grant you your assessment of the image, although I still think it's goofy considering the subject of the article posted above.

But as far as the "wizard", I don't know the details, but I'd have to say that if I found out some moonbat devil worshiper was teaching my kids I'd probably feel the same way.

and no, it's not the same thing to be a devil worshiper as it is to worship God. so let's not start down the path of relativism again.

It was made up, he didn't even believe in any of that crap. The point being is that these people were so fucking stupid that they were actually *afraid* that this man was going to cast spells on them, as if magic was actually -real-.

But it's not relevant, because you'd have to suck it up even if he really was some idiot who worshiped Satan. That's the point of the first amendment. So long as your religion is really a religion, the government cannot restrict its free practice nor establish its principles as law (so long as the practice does not substantially interfere with secular laws).

If you wanted to be upset about it that's a different story, but so long as it never came up in class they would be, legally speaking, in the right.

I'll agree that it's "not the same thing" as regular "god" worship, but it would not be "relativism" to claim that they were. What you seem to suggest is that one is "right" and the other is "wrong," which I have no way of verifying. If I had to choose between say, Westboro Baptist or a Satanic Cult that helped the poor and educated people, I'd pick the Satanic Cult everyday.

But you're asking me to make a blanket assertion without context, which I cannot do. I can only comment on the legality and constitutionality of the situation. And, in that respect, the original image makes a good point about the dangers of mixing religion and state.

A wizard teacher ? Cool . I would go to school every day and pay attention too .....

ah, u made a funny!

your antagonism reveals your non objective agenda, "dude"

well said sally, and agreed. the only thing i would add is both the left and right are mired in your analysis. its recognizing your own faults and acting positively on them that help stimulate individual growth

Very clearly illustrated . Voted up !

Exactly, it's why conversations like this are important and why it's never productive to call someone unpatriotic.

Because unless someone is LITERALLY a traitor, actively seeking to destroy us, if they don't like the United States we should attempt to remedy that with perspective or political change, not deride them if their opinion is valid.

And definitely not call then unAmerican or something equally stupid. Because with that kind of attitude, we're -all- essentially American every 4-8 years.

You also have ti place that dude's comments in context. If you feel frustrated by your fellow Americans lack of awareness and are constantly insulted by them when you attempt to remedy it, well, that can leave a stain of bitterness that makes it hard to be patriotic. It's hard to play along when you don't fit in.

ive always kind of prided myself for being a square peg. but at some point compromises have to be made and agreements have to prevail

"If you have children, you will be ashamed of them if they fail. But does that mean you don't love them anymore? Can a parent honestly be told they hate their children for rebuking them because of the mistakes they've made? How does one even prove that they hate their children?"

What would you say of th eparent who says "I wish you were never born", or "you're nothing but a piece of shit", or constantly tells his kid "You're not as good, as smart, as your European cousin", etc etc.

I'd have to say that this pretty well sums up what many liberals do and say about America.

nonsense. Let's point out that a certain Head of State right now ran around the world talking about how ashamed he was for the country, due to the policies of that country, apologized for that nation's 'arrogance'. He did that to speak of HIS opinions, not that of the NATION. That did not demonstrate patriotism, that was selfish and egotistical and did nothing to fix the nation or to strengthen her standing in the world.

And how ironic that he then adopted all the policies he had apologized for...with the exception of extreme interrogations, he just kills the enemies now, no need to extradite or jail or interrogate.

But I disagree that you can't say he's not patriotic, because his behavior demonstrates time and again that he is NOT. Anyone who is uncomfortable saying the pledge of allegiance, who can't respectfully put their hand over their heart when it's spoken or when the national anthem plays...all these are signs that the guy has chosen to see only the flaws and is unappreciative of all the good in the nation.

"What would you say of th eparent who says "I wish you were never born", or "you're nothing but a piece of shit", or constantly tells his kid "You're not as good, as smart, as your European cousin", etc etc."

Well let's not stretch the metaphor too far. America is not a child and criticizing it is not the same as abusing a child. The reason I used the metaphor was to point out that it's entirely possible to be critical and ashamed of something that you actually love. In fact, if you really do care about something, you're far more likely to be ashamed and critical of it, because you don't want to see it fuck up.

If you really want to continue the metaphor, what do you say of the parent who lets their kid get fat and bully and injure other children? What would you say if they shoplifted and gambled away their college savings and went to loan sharks to pay for a drug habit and the parent still just "loved their little boy?" What would you say if this kid used to be good in school but now dropped out and tried to write bad rap songs all day and the parent just loved it?

If there's a point where too much criticism is a sign of actual hatred, then there is also certainly a point where too much affection is a sign you really don't give a shit about it.

"nonsense. Let's point out that a certain Head of State right now ran around the world talking about how ashamed he was for the country, due to the policies of that country, apologized for that nation's 'arrogance'. He did that to speak of HIS opinions, not that of the NATION. That did not demonstrate patriotism, that was selfish and egotistical and did nothing to fix the nation or to strengthen her standing in the world."

I'd say the exact opposite, aren't I part of the nation? At least 40% of people agree with me, so it's certainly not egotistical.

Also, we HAVE been arrogant and stupid and embarrassing. Compared to the Americans that lived in thr 40's and the 60's, I really do feel ashamed to be an American.

We have become a nation of lazy, asshole, irresponsible, wasteful morons who go to war at the drop of a hat (but never fight the wars) and lie to ourselves about our own history so we can justify what pathetic little consumers we've become.

This is true on all sides, and I do not exempt myself.

"And how ironic that he then adopted all the policies he had apologized for...with the exception of extreme interrogations, he just kills the enemies now, no need to extradite or jail or interrogate."

You won't get any argument from me there, Obama receives an F from me in terms of his foreign policy and his security policy. And it only gets more and more dangerous by the day, shit like that does not keep us safe.

I am confused though, because I was under the impression you support that kind of disgusting behavior, in which case, why aren't you praising him for it? I hated Bush, but there were plenty of times (ok, maybe only enough to count on one hand) where I felt he made the right call and supported him for it.

And that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Patriotism really doesn't mean anything if half the nation essentially flip-flops back and forth between it every time election season rolls around. It has to mean something separate or it doesn't make sense.

"But I disagree that you can't say he's not patriotic, because his behavior demonstrates time and again that he is NOT. Anyone who is uncomfortable saying the pledge of allegiance, who can't respectfully put their hand over their heart when it's spoken or when the national anthem plays...all these are signs that the guy has chosen to see only the flaws and is unappreciative of all the good in the nation."

How do you demonstrate that? How do you show that someone actually hates the country -without- pointing out that you just disagree with their policies?

If you were doing the pledge of allegiance and an 8 foot tall man ran waving a twelve foot flag and screaming the pledge as loud as he could, would that not make you uncomfortable? Would it then be fair of him to call you unpatriotic if you didn't indulge in the same way?

I often get uncomfortable doing the pledge, not because I hate this country, not because it has "under god" in it, which I still occasionally say, but because patriotism is often supplanted with crypto-fascist nationalism. There comes a point where you can't just be patriotic, you are COMPELLED as if the nation was running some kind of personal inquisition.

And that is weirdo fascist shit. I shouldn't have to engage in some weird ritual if I don't want to, it should be my choice because I like the country. But politics have become so divisive and so acidic, that it's more like a verbal tick that everyone must engage in to avoid the ridiculous criticism of people who don't even have a right to care in the first place.

i do assuage my own, the point here is to get others to do the same by recognizing their own hypocrisy's

Agreed .

you really should open your mind. there's a whole world of truth, love and understanding for those who seek it. try meditating

Even though I don't think they know what a teabagger is (or even remove the commentary), that's still funny. *poot

we know exactly what you are saying and how vulgar and insulting you are and intend to be. you must be arrogant beyond belief to think that only you can get such a crass and disgusting "joke".

sounds like sage advice both sides of the aisle could learn from

so whats your point? progressivism is a dead concept, never got off the ground for lack of support

1.) My point is that July 4, 1776 was not when our nation was founded.
The United States of America was founded on December 15, 1791.

2.) WRONG
PRogressivism has been around since the beginning of human civilization, and has been solely and exclusively responsible for each and every one of the societal and cultural advancements throughout known recorded human history.
the discovery of fire,
The Invention of writing, of letters, the alphabet and the written word
The invention of the wheel,
The invention of sailing
The invention of metalworking,
The invention of democracy,
The invention of representative government,
the discovery of friction,
the discovery of gravity,
the discovery of evolution,
the discovery of genetics,
the discovery of electricity,
the invention of railways,
the invention of flight,
the first computer,
the invention of the microchip,
the invention of the internet,
the invention of nanotechnology,
the discovery of climate change,
the invention of hydroelectric power,
the invention of solar power,
the invention of wind power,
the invention of the electric car,
the invention of high-speed trains,
the invention of metro rail.
The list goes on
and on
and on.
Progressivism has more support than any other ideology.
It's even more popular than liberalism, which comes in a close second (people like the Bill of Rights, the right to vote, and not having to be slaves).
Libertarianism used be third, but its been given a bad name by the self-proclaimed faux-"libertarian" teabagging party.
Regressivism (NeoConservatism) is not only just near to the bottom, but is dead last.

John Adams was a man who felt alienated himself due to circumstances surrounding Washington's becoming president and his own falling popularity due to his disapproval regarding a war with France. He was also constantly at odds with those Federalists (the true Fascists of the day imo) who pursued those acts and used all of their influence to have him sign them. He signed those acts of course for the wrong reasons after being very conflicted about them and should not have signed them at all. However, it was that signing that actually garnered him favor with those Americans who were clamoring for war with France. It is for sure one of the first times we see just what politics can do to the soul of a man and why he, Jefferson and Washington left the presidency without looking back.

love your post, appreciate your attempt to educate congoboy, however, I hope you know that he has fallen so far down the rabbit hole that we only hear his echoing laments from the pit of his own self-deception

Yo, Progressivism has been the mechanism for social change since the beginning of written history. If you are going to expound, get a grip on you subject please and don't launch like a college freshman.

voted up in multiples. should have read down further before i repeated you.

Piercingly perceptive.

Excellent post. I question whether the 4th and Thanksgiving celebrate the negative acts which you cite, or whether they celebrate achieving independence and survival and are merely predicated on those negative facts.

A couple of corrections, if i may:

American Independence was achieved on May 20, 1784 with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris.
The first Thanksgiving was observed by 38 English settlers of the ship Margaret at the Town and Hundred of Berkeley [Berkeley Plantation] (a 1618 land grant from the Charter of the Virginia Company of London to Sir George Yeardley); 20 miles upstream from the May 14, 1607 first permanent settlement of the Dominion and Colony of Virginia at James Town Island; on December 4, 1619.
1619 was also the year that Dutch trader brought the first African slaves to Jamestown.

thx ian. but what exactly are you correcting, i'm not aware of having made an assertion on those precise points.

only by those with a closed mind. i thought you had given up on revisionist history ian. what gives?

wonder if obamas popularity will continue to sink for the same reasons. war with libya and yemen for example

as a happy, well adjusted, fear nothing kind of guy i take that as a compliment. i couldnt have said it better myself.

ahh it keeps me young and happy

ians always looking on the dark side, even if he has to rely on revisionism

was that after the advent of white slavery in america or before?

the fourth of July does not celebrate achieving independence.
We didn't achieve our independence on the Fourth of July, 1776.
We don't celebrate the date we achieved independence.
Nobody celebrates the Third of September (Signing), 1783 or the Fourteenth of January (Ratification [US]), or the Ninth of April (Ratification [UK]), or the Twelfth of May (Ratified [Paris]).

To me, celebrating the Fourth of July, the date we declared war on Great Britain, in 1776, is comparable to celebrating the Eighth of December, the date that the US declared war on Japan, or the Eleventh of December, the date we declared war on Germany, in 1941.
We don't Celebrate January and February of 1945 either, the date that Japan formally surrendered, because no one was paying any attention.
Instead, we celebrate August 1945, the date we massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians eight months AFTER the Japanese had already surrendered.

It's just like Easter and Christmas. The historical record, clearly states that Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth was born in March or April, and was executed in the middle of winter.
Yet we ostensibly celebrate his birth in the middle of winter, and we celebrate his execution in the spring.

We celebrate thanksgiving with pilgrim hats on November 26, the fourth Thursday in November, when the first thanksgiving was not by Pilgrims at Plymouth, but colonial settlers in Virginia, and was not on November 26, 1621, but December 4, 1619. (The Plymouth settlement's thanksgiving was not on November 26, 1621 either, but July 30, 1623)
The Massachusetts colony's first Thanksgiving was on June 29, 1671.
It was not until the Civil War that President Abraham Lincoln Declared the 26th of November, the fourth Thursday, to be Thanksgiving in 1863.

The US Congress did not make Independence Day (July 4) an official national holiday until 1938.
Before then, since 1870, Independence Day had been an unofficial informal observance.

I hope congoboy reads this , but , i doubt that he can digest all your noble ideas . Voted up anyway !

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm
Slavery has been illegal in the United States of America since the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America on December 6, 1865; which reads:
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

Progress enjoys popularity.
Going backwards is unpopular.
What's revisionist about that?

Dear ian, It is given that this country does not celebrate every event on the precise calendar day of it's actual prior occurrence. Rather, we celebrate events on designated days, most often. While most of the world celebrates Christmas on the same day, it is merely a designated day, as there is no verifiable evidence that Christ was born on the designated day. July 4th / Independence Day is a designated day, as is the Pilgrim's day of thanks giving. It is the concepts which are celebrated in those instances, and not the day. While Europeans systematically committed mass genocide against the Indians over several centuries, it doesn't negate the fact that some of the earliest European immigrants to America did not set aside a day to give thanks to their lord for having sufficient food to eat and for their survival to that date, and feast. If you permit factual date occurrences to prevent you from celebrating the greater significance of ideas and concepts, you'll continuously deprive yourself of the pleasure of many fun parties and activities, while appearing oppositional and obstreperous to most. Please correct my notions if I am off the mark. Thank you.

So, if it is all nothing but symbolism anyway, why, then is anyone like me who does not celebrate the Fourth of July, a date seven years before we gained our independence, deemed "unpatriotic"?
I celebrate Christmas from Good Friday through Easter Sunday, since it falls in march and april when Jesus, as you call him, was historically born, and Celebrate Easter on Christmas.
I would like nothing more than to be able to celebrate the ACTUAL date of American Independence, but there are no national holidays in the middle of May.
I do my best to celebrate Thanksgiving accurately, but that is difficult since the first three Thanksgivings were in three different months, two in summer and one in winter.

Neither I or most herein question your patriotism. You would be doing yourself a disservice if you took the comments of congoboy to heart. Banter with him is merely practice sparring. No?

you just proved the point.

you don't get the 4th of July significance, you are not patriotic, you hate patriotism and think you are too smart, too refined, too clever to engage in such a pathetic exercise.

And you're a progressive.

Thank you for demonstrating that the premise of the post was totally accurate.

not to mention he just proved the point--liberals are not patriots.

BWA HA HA HA that's HILARIOUS

Progressivism did all that? now that's funny right there.

it was a progressive that invented fire, huh?

How about obsidian spear tips? That was a progressive too right?

damn that's funny. I guess by that definition, everyone everywhere who ever did anything new was "a progressive".

Let me remind you that Marx, Stalin, and Hitler were also considered "progressive" at one time. And the people who opposed them were yelled at by the left as nuts.

you've probably broken your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back.

dude how right you are. and you can hold up for the world to see such esteemed names as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Good on you, you've got so much to be proud of.

what a maroon. the 4th of july is not about celebrating the anniversary of when we ACHIEVED our liberty, but the date a roomful of brave souls declared their grievances against a tyrant and declared their intention to oppose his power, and actually signed their names.

you really don't get it do you?

you write huge soliloquies that do nothing but demonstrate how little you really understand about those brilliant and valient men.

No, it's not some random or purely symbollic day.

During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain occurred on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a Committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4. A day earlier, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Adams's prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress.

why don't you use wikipedia and educate yourself before spewing moronic opinion all over the web?

I certainly do, based upon his comments.

In fact, even HE has disparaged the notion of patriotism itself, so how can he say that patriotism is bad and leads to fascism and then whine that someone questions his patriotism?

He contradicts himself constantly. He's NOT a patriot, by definition.

actually going backward in some cases would be prefered and in the opinion of many making real progress

whats the law have to do with reality? take obamacare as another prime example

If its not the date of our independence, why is it called "independence day"?
Why not call it something else, since a DIFFERENT date is the day of our independence?
May 12 is the date of our independence; our "independence day".
If the fourth of July is all about courage, then why don't we call it "valiance day"?
Besides, i thought we already had a holiday where we celebrated brave men.
Isn't that what Memorial Day is supposed to be all about?

The Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ratified by the Congress of the Confederation on January 14, 1784, and by the King of Great Britain on April 9, 1784 (the ratification documents were exchanged in Paris on May 12, 1784), formally ended the American Revolutionary War between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, which had rebelled against British rule.
The treaty document was signed at the Hotel d'York – which is now 56 Rue Jacob – by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay (representing the United States) and David Hartley (a member of the British Parliament representing the British Monarch, King George III). Hartley was lodging at the hotel, which was therefore chosen in preference to the nearby British Embassy – 44 Rue Jacob – as "neutral" ground for the signing.
The American Congress of the Confederation, which met temporarily in Annapolis, Maryland, ratified the treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784 (Ratification Day). Copies were sent back to Europe for ratification by the other parties involved, the first reaching France in March. British ratification occurred on April 9, 1784, and the ratified versions were exchanged in Paris on May 12, 1784. It was not for some time, though, that the Americans in the countryside received the news due to the lack of communication.

Preface. Declares the treaty to be "in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony."
Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America;
Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
The Congress of the Confederation 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 [Loyalists]";
United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);
Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;
Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

Privileges which the Americans had received from Britain automatically when they had colonial status (including protection from pirates in the Mediterranean Sea in respect of which see: Barbary Wars) were withdrawn. Individual States ignored Federal recommendations, under Article 5, to restore confiscated Loyalist property, and also evaded Article 6 (e.g. by confiscating Loyalist property for "unpaid debts"). Some, notably Virginia, also defied Article 4 and maintained laws against payment of debts to British creditors. Individual British soldiers ignored the provision of Article 7 about removal of slaves. The real geography of North America turned out not to match the details given in the Canadian boundary descriptions. The Treaty specified a southern boundary for the United States, but the separate Anglo-Spanish agreement did not specify a northern boundary for Florida, and the Spanish government assumed that the boundary was the same as in the 1763 agreement by which they had first given their territory in Florida to Britain. While that dispute continued, Spain used its new control of Florida to block American access to the Mississippi, in defiance of Article 8. In the Great Lakes area, the British adopted a very generous interpretation of the stipulation that they should relinquish control "with all convenient speed", because they needed time to negotiate with the Native Americans, who had kept the area out of United States control, but had been completely ignored in the Treaty. Even after that was accomplished, Britain retained control as a bargaining counter in hopes of obtaining some recompense for the confiscated Loyalist property. This matter was finally settled by the Jay Treaty in 1794, and America's ability to bargain on all these points was greatly strengthened by the creation of the new constitution in 1787.
Only Article 1 remains in force as of 2011.
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc02617))
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/83043.pdf