Talk:List of United States treaties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just some to do notes: 1) check this list against the Avalon Project; 2) separate into bi-lateral and multilateral treaties. older≠wiser 19:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Treaty between Prussia and the U.S.

Here is the website for the Prussia U.S. treaty that needs to be added.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga1-860606.htm

Best Wishes King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia info@houseofhohenzollern.com

[edit] Non-Ratified Treaties

I think we need to come up with a consensus on treaties that are not ratified and will almost certainly not be ratified: should they be included or not? I am leaning towards 'no' unless there is a very compelling reason as in the case of the Post-WW1 treaties. AlexeiSeptimus 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treaties with Native American entities

Most of the treaties between the United States and Native American entities were not with what we normally call 'governments'. The U.S., like the European colonizers and their successor states, tried to impose a model of political organization on Native American entities that did not fit. Signatures on the treaties were usually obtained from chiefs who had limited authority, particularly in regard to alienation of land and/or relocation. To say that Native American entities were governments because only governments can enter into treaties is a non sequitur. -- Donald Albury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See Tribal sovereignty. CJLippert 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While true in certain cases, I don't see how it affects us here. We simply list everything the U.S. considers a treaty. If the whole debate is over the phrase: "between the U.S. and Native American governments", it can easily be rephrased to "between the U.S. and Native Americans" or something. Rmhermen 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note, in a system of confederation of village nations where a grand council formed from the participating village nation parties bringing up resolutions and acts, the authorized representatives of the grand council are allowed to act on only the items that were passed on a consensus (and not a compromise), and only on behalf of the participating village nations of the grand council. In addition, each village nation had its own council, and only the resolutions and acts passed in a consensus (and again, not a compromise) was allowed to be brought up to a grand council, if the village nation so chooses to participate in such a grand council. The error on the European governments and their daughter governments were to assume that a there was a federal system government in place, and applying many of these treaty items to non-participating governments.
Only as a hypothetical example, if Spain treated Germany, Austria and the Switzerland as a single peoplehood, the germanic governments would have been offended, especially the Germans of pre-federated Germany. Continuing with the example, if Spain then signed a treaty with Germany and Austria, but Saxony did not participate in the treaty party process for that pre-federated Germany, and then Spain applied the treaty items to Switzerland and all of Germany, the Swiss and the Saxons would be highly angered at Spain. Often, this type of experience was what the village nations of Indigenous North American peoples experienced with the European governments and their daughter governments. CJLippert 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)