[lentulusgracchus]

Here they had been referring to themselves as states for some time prior to the signing of the Treaty of Paris. But finally it had the royal stamp of approval to use that term.

I'll wager your affectation of scorn wasn't shared by Benjamin Franklin and John Jay.

This was the British Empire we are talking about, not Sweden. Getting the British to accede was a huge legal and practical success -- and it changed the basis of American sovereignty from "if you say so ..... for now" to "okay, you won it, you've got it".

Remember, Britain's first offer was autonomy -- a status similar to Australia's. What our diplomats landed was sovereignty, which is the whole cake with icing and candles on top.

[Non-Sequitur]

This was the British Empire we are talking about, not Sweden.

So if the British had referred to them as 'sovereign former colonies' would we be the United Former British Colonies of America today?

[capitan_refugio]

American sovereignty was predicated solely on the basis of natural law and our declaration of those rights. George could have up and left and never concluded a peace, and we would have still been a sovereign nation in the community of nations.