I've posted it to you at least twice on this thread, and I know that I've posted it to you on other threads as well.
The treaty recognized thirteen sovereign states. Your repeated posting to the contrary has gone beyond amusement into severe annoyance. You're more like a chihuahua with a firm grip on the hem of my pants than someone capable of sustaining an argument.
Article 1His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Identifying the states which composed that NATION did not change the fact that it was a NATION which had negotiated the treaty.
And using capital letters does not make that statement any more true or less rediculous than it has been over and over, my little taco-bell dog friend. The treaty was approved by the states unamimously via their representatives in the Continental Congress, but neither his Brittanic Majesty nor the CC did not pretend that they had the power to coerce the states or bargain away the spoils of war, which is why the treaty repeatedly petitions the CC to request of the states for reinstatement of property and freedom to move among the several states.
Article 5 It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation. And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.
It is a flat out LIE that the NY or Virginia ratifications stipulated ANYTHING allowing secession or that Hamilton was defeated in NY.
All one has to do is read their ratification documents, as I posted them, and see you go into a hissy-fit of capitalization. You lost this argument long ago, I'm just hanging around to see if you implode now.
The Theoretic description of all power flowing from the people
Watch it now... you're heading down the same path you took before, where the Constitution was nothing but a hoax perpetrated by power-hungry nationalists who staged a silent coup in it's aftermath to grow federal power. Does the thing mean what it says, or only what takeit tells us?
The first part of the sentence speaks of the "People" (the American people) while the second specifies the "...People of the several states..."
You're channeling Farber again, and what you say is no less nonsense than the idea that there existed a metaphysical union with a secret legal potency detectable only by its normative aura. If, as you say, New York was able to speak for the American People, South Carolina was no less wrong to do so 80 years later.
Who signed the treaty? Representatives from each individual 'sovereign' state? Or representatives from the United States?