Treaty of Paris 1783

501 Words3 Pages
Treaty of Paris 1783 Throughout history man has been pitted against his fellow man in the race for survival and dominance. The conflict continued in history to the scale of nation state versus nation state. In the conflict, the parties involved have always used whatever means are advantageous to them, for example, subterfuge, face-to-face diplomacy, or naked aggression. The events surrounding the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War and the 1783 Treaty of Paris show the willingness of nation states to exert their political will by whatever means that are expedient over their rivals. In essence what is war? What is a treaty? Carl Von Clausewitz, a philosopher on western military theory and the interaction with war and the state, states that, “War is thus an act to compel our enemy to do our will (83)”. In theory, war is merely a militant tool to justify an end. “The intensity of war and continued waging is controlled by the importance of political motivation (90-91)”. Again, in theory, a treaty is merely a diplomatic tool to justify an end. Finally, “War is never final (89)”. The end is all that matters. In practical application, all parties involved in the 1783 Treaty of Paris kept their best interest in mind. According to Alfred Thayer Mahan in, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1600-1783, Britain’s objectives were to defend all their assets. American and West Indian. France and Spain’s objectives were to weaken the British in any way; strengthen their nations in any way possible, due to the detriment from the Seven Years War, by seizing the West Indies, and harassing the British Naval power. America’s objective was to end the war and independent nation (506-508). France and America were allies merely as a means to an end. They both disliked Britain and wanted to weaken its forces. However, peace talks between Britain and America began in 1781,
Open Document