Property Management Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

The causes of the American Revolution revolve around one central issue: taxation. I will also focus on some other issues though. This is going to be a very in-depth answer, so I hope you have the patience to stick around.1763You see, before 1763, British administration of the American colonies was very hands-off, and the colonies were allowed large degrees of autonomy, with most state functions (including taxation) being delegated to local assemblies such as the Virginia House of Burgesses.After the end Seven Years War in 1763, the new Prime Minister George Grenville had three major issues to deal with.How to defend Britain’s overseas holdings.How to check the colonists’ unceasing claims on Native American lands.How the fuck are we supposed to get money?The plan for point one was to have British regular troops man a line of forts from Canada to Florida, to protect the colonies from enemies on all sides. While this was ostensibly for the colonists’ protection, the colonists themselves felt like the troops were more of an occupation force. Their thought process was “Well, we just won a war against the French, so the biggest threat to us is gone. Now you station troops in our lands?” The whole thing reeked of despotism, and the colonists didn’t like it one bit.The second point was addressed by George III, who announced the Proclamation Line of 1763, which was a line drawn down the Appalachian Mountains. It restricted the colonists to the east side, and left the western side to the American Indians. Unfortunately, all this really did was stir up resentment for Britain, as land was becoming a rarer and more expensive commodity in the colonies.The third point was the big one. Britain had accumulated over £120,000,000 in debt by the end of the war with the French. Grenville needed to pay for this somehow, so he resolved to raise taxes on the people of the empire. At this point, he did not tax the colonists too hard; he merely thought that they should send more tax back to the mother country than the meager amount they were currently paying in tax to the central government. So the Prime Minister passed the Sugar Act.1764The colonists had been evading the six pence duty on molasses by bribing the agents who were supposed to monitor it with one and a half pence, so they would keep quiet. Grenville thought that by cutting the tax in half, that the colonists would be encouraged to use their money for paying the tax, rather than bribing the agents tasked with collecting it. They were not expecting any sort of pushback whatsoever.They were wrong in this assumption. The formerly lax tax collectors were replaced with incorruptible and diligent agents. This made the bribery (yes, the colonists still planned to do that) nearly impossible, and the colonists were stuck with paying twice what they used to be able to bribe the tax collectors with. On top of this, the Sugar Act reached the colonies during a post-war economic recession. This further angered the colonists who had little money to spare.The colonists began urging Parliament to repeal the Act. Some did so on purely economic terms, but others began arguing that Parliament did not have the right to tax the colonies, because the colonists were not represented in Parliament. The idea that your property should not be unjustly taxed went all the way back to the English Civil Wars. Where property rights existed, there was liberty. Where property rights did not exist, tyranny reigned. The colonists believed that they had the right to not be unfairly taxed, because, after all, they were proud Englishmen.1765Grenville’s ministry didn’t really pay much attention to the opposition, and decided to go ahead with phase two of their revenue plan: the Stamp Act. It was a tax on paper. The paper would be distributed by officials from Britain, and it was required that most printed materials would be printed on the stamped paper. The act was scheduled to take effect November 1, 1765.Opposition to this Act was strong, however, and dissidence rang throughout the Thirteen Colonies. In the Virginia House of Burgesses, Patrick Henry made his first appearance on the revolutionary stage with a vehement speech opposing Parliament’s taxes, and the next day, the Virginia Resolves were passed by the House of Burgesses. They stated, as follows:Resolved, that the first adventurers and settlers of His Majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other His Majesty's subjects since inhabiting in this His Majesty's said colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.Resolved, that His Majesty's liege people of this his most ancient and loyal colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws, respecting their internal policy and taxation, as are derived from their own consent, with the approbation of their sovereign, or his substitute; and that the same has never been forfeited or yielded up, but has been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain.Resolved, therefor that the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and exclusive Right and Power to lay Taxes and Impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony and that every Attempt to vest such Power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid has a manifest Tendency to destroy British as well as American Freedom.The Virginia Resolves (coming from the largest and most influential colony) circulated throughout the colonies during the summer, and many colonies passed similar resolves. The first signs of colonial unity began to show.In Massachusetts, the opposition took a more violent approach. An effigy of a stamp distributor was hanged from a tree, and when a sheriff tried to take it down, he was stopped by an angry mob. That night, a shoemaker led a crowd down to the stamp distributor’s offices by the docks. They smashed the offices to splinters. Then they went down to the distributor’s home, carrying the effigy. They beheaded it in front of the house, and then stamped it into the ground (hahaha, these guys are a riot). They then smashed up the distributor’s house, before retiring for the night.The next day, a delegation from the mob contacted the stamp distributor and said “Why don’t you just resign?” and the distributor said “Yeah, I think that would be good.”In August, the mob reconvened. They managed to get themselves very drunk, and decided to attack the house of the local governor, Thomas Hutchinson. They gave it the same treatment as they did to all the other houses they systematically dismantled. The destruction, however, was highly organized and disciplined. This stoic opposition to a law that wasn’t even going into effect for months shocked and startled the politicians back in Britain.Grenville was replaced by Lord Rockingham as Prime Minister in July, and Rockingham quickly started looking for a way out from under the policies of Grenville. In October, the Stamp Act Congress met in New York City, with delegates from nine of thirteen colonies in attendance. They met to discuss a joint response to both the Sugar and Stamp acts.They concluded that Parliament did not have the right to levy “internal taxes” (taxes to raise revenue), but that they did have the right to levy “external taxes” (taxes to regulate trade). At the same time that the Stamp Act Congress was meeting, the first signs of non-importation were brewing. Non-importation agreements would grow to become a crucial building block of colonial opposition to Britain.Parliament convened in December, but while they wanted to repeal the Stamp Act itself, they also wanted to assert their right to tax the colonies however they saw fit.1766By February, they had reached a decision. They repealed the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act, but they also passed the Declaratory Act. It stated that “[Parliament] ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”Only a few colonial leaders really saw what the Declaratory Act foreshadowed. Mostly, celebrations for the repeal of the Stamp Act ran rampant throughout the colonies. In the first major showdown between the colonies and Britain, the colonies had won.1767Back in July of 1766, Rockingham had been dismissed as Prime Minister, and replaced by William Pitt, a strong advocate for the colonies. But Pitt was old, and frequently absent from Parliament. So his divided ministers battled it out for control. The most influential among them was Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Townshend.He used his position to pass what are now called the Townshend Acts. These were actually five interconnected bills, but the most important to the American colonies was the Revenue Act. It stipulated import duties on commodities such as lead, paper, printer ink, glass, and tea. If you recall, the Stamp Act Congress had conceded that Parliament had the authority to levy external taxes for regulating trade: exactly the kinds of taxes stipulated in the Revenue Act. Well, turns out they were just saying that.A Board of Customs was formed to enforce the paying of these taxes, so even more British agents would be running around in the colonies (something the colonists had shown their dislike for). On top of that, the government agents would be paid with the revenue from the duties, rather than by the colonial assemblies. Before, the colonies had been able to exert a degree of influence over the agents, (they were paying them, after all) but not anymore.Charles Townshend himself would not live to see the blowback to his Acts, however, as he died in September 1767. The power vacuum left by his death was filled by some guy who you don’t need to know about because he’s not important. Opposition in the colonies was slow to get started as I mentioned, as everyone was still weary from the opposition to the Stamp Act.Opposition was somewhat muted, as the Stamp Act riots had been exhausting to the colonists and they didn’t have much energy to continue resisting. However, John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, which began circulation in December, gave the colonial opposition a second wind. The letters reinforced the idea that Parliament did not have the right to tax the colonists at all, internal or external.1768By February, Samuel Adams had been able to drum up enough support in the Massachusetts House of Representatives to push through a petition to Britain to repeal the Revenue Act. He followed this up with a Circular Letter to the other colonies, urging them to send similar petitions to Parliament.While the news of the Circular Letter was making its way to Britain and back, the Board of Customs launched a series of attacks on John Hancock, both of which backfired. First, they sent an agent onboard one of his ships to search it. He went below deck where his search warrant did not extend; thus, he was thrown off the ship by Hancock, and his actions were upheld by a local court.The second attack was when the Board seized one of his ships and held it on a technicality. When the Navy tried to move the ship out of port, a mob coalesced and managed to stop Hancock’s ship from being taken away. The mob, like the one during the Stamp Act Riots, was disciplined and under control.Back in Britain, news of the Circular Letter finally reached Britain. The new Colonial Secretary had no way of knowing that affairs in Boston had already progressed to organized mob violence. He ordered the governor, Francis Bernard, to order the House of Representatives to rescind the Circular Letter or be dissolved.The House of Representatives voted 92–17 not to rescind. Bernard, in turn, dissolved the House.The merchants of the colonies were starting to get pretty pissed about the new taxes and custom agents, and they began discussing a new non-importation agreement. However, each city was afraid to make the first move, because they feared that if they did, that business would simply move down to the next city who didn’t join the agreement. Non-importation, it seemed, was an all or nothing kind of deal.Massachusetts proposed the first successful non-importation pact on August 1, which was to commence on January 1, 1769. New York and Pennsylvania quickly followed suit, and Rhode Island signed on too, with a little “persuasion-not-a-trade-embargo.”Remember the mob violence that took place over John Hancock’s seized ship? Well, the administration in Boston had called 4000 troops down from Halifax to keep the mob under control. The Massachusetts Assembly tried to reconvene, but were shut down by the governor. An unofficial convention of towns met in Boston a week later, to try to urge the governor to reconsider. It was ineffective however, and on October 1, British soldiers began disembarking onto the docks of Boston.The radicals in Boston decided to cease overt resistance, but there was still resistance. That was evidenced by the fact that the soldiers could find no one willing to rent them lodgings. It took them weeks to get suitable winter quarters in some leased warehouses.1769In Boston, tensions continued to boil between the civilians and the loitering soldiers, who were a constant pain in the neck for the commoner in Boston. They did all the things that soldiers do: get drunk, flirt with the girls, etc. All they did was stir up further resentment among the colonists for the central government in London.In the rest of the colonies, the non-importation agreement adopted last year was expanded to Virginia, and thus the rest of the southern colonies. George Washington (yes, that George Washington) and George Mason helped push the pact through the Virginia House of Burgesses.The Townshend Acts, like the Stamp Act before them, seemed to be becoming more trouble than they were worth.1770In January, George III finally relieved that one guy whose name doesn’t matter of his duties as Prime Minister, and replaced him with Lord North, who had previously been Chancellor of the Exchequer. This guy will be around for a while, so I no longer have to try to stick in awkwardly worded paragraphs about British politics.In Boston, an 11-year-old boy had been shot and killed in February, and a crowd of thousands turned out for his funeral, which was more a show of political force than in memorial to the boy. Over the next few weeks, tensions rose rapidly, with fights between civilians and soldiers a common sight on the street.On March 5, the culmination of months of frustration, anger, and brewing enmity finally took place. The Boston Massacre.A sentry named Hugh White was talking with some of his comrades near the Customs House, when a civilian made a joke about his commanding officer. He punched the guy in the face, and his comrades ran off, leaving him to deal with the mob himself. He backed up against the Customs House with his gun drawn.Captain Preston of the Customs House garrison quickly saw that the situation would not resolve itself, and led his eight soldiers through the crowd. He had them form a semicircle facing the crowd. Guns drawn.For fifteen minutes, taunts, heckling, snowballs, and ice rained down on the soldiers, who were growing more and more jumpy by the moment. Finally, a private at the end of the line was hit, slipped on ice, and when he pulled himself back up, he fired his musket into the crowd.The whole group of soldiers was soon firing into the crowd. 11 men were hit; five died, and six were wounded. The mob fell back, but was only dispersed when Thomas Hutchinson, the acting governor, promised a full inquiry, and Preston and his men were arrested the next morning.John Adams defended the soldiers in court, and he got almost all of the soldiers acquitted with his eloquent defense. A propaganda war was waged between the conservative and radical presses in Boston, each trying to spin the story to suit their own ends.The Townshend Acts were finally repealed in April 1770. However, Parliament opted to leave the duty on tea in effect. This was to keep in place the precedent that Parliament could, should, and would tax the colonists whenever they saw fit. This was a nice impasse, really. The colonists were free of Britain’s incessant money grubbing, and Parliament maintained their right to tax the colonies. This ushered in a period of relative calm.1771Not much to say here. Non-importation ceased, and both sides of the crisis seemed to think that this was the beginning of a return to normalcy.1772Nothing to report until June, when a ship called the Gaspee ran aground while chasing smugglers off the coast of Rhode Island. A mob of patriots quickly boarded the ship, seized it by force, and burned it. This was a sign that hostilities had not yet ceased.Remember when Parliament took the right to pay the governors away from the colonial assemblies? Well, that hadn’t been repealed with the rest of the Townshend Acts, and later that year, Parliament decided to expand this to all the judges in the colonies. The colonists were, of course, enraged at the judiciary becoming a mere puppet of the Crown. Committees of Correspondence were again formed to discuss a response.1773In January, Thomas Hutchinson started off the year by making things ten times worse. He made inflammatory declarations that Parliament’s authority was supreme, that the Committees were completely wrong and should never have convened, and, most significantly of all, he said that “no line can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and total independence of the colonies.”See, he thought that independence was so absurd even to the most radical of radicals that the supreme authority of Parliament would be the only logical option left to them. However, all he did with this statement was legitimize the small independence movements beginning to take shape.In May of 1773, the years of calm in the colonies finally ended, with Parliament passing the Tea Act. This act would allow the floundering British East India Company to import their tea directly into the colonies, totally bypassing the colonial merchants who made their living as middlemen.This shouldn’t have made such a large impact in the colonies, but then again, nothing else that Parliament did should have, so of course it had lots of opposition right off the bat. The greatest fear of the colonists was that this was only the start of other British companies being able to import directly into the colonies. This might be better for the consumer, but long-term, it would destroy the colonial economy, and reduce them to manual laborers harvesting raw materials.Around this time, some secret letters from Thomas Hutchinson and his conservative allies to someone in Britain were leaked by Samuel Adams and one of Benjamin Franklin’s friends. The letters contained explicit recommendations from Hutchinson that certain civil liberties be suspended in the colonies. These letters all but confirmed every conspiracy theorist’s wild theories, which, once regarded as nothing but wild speculation, now seemed like the truth.Opposition to the Tea Act spread through the port cities of the colonies. Spearheaded by John Dickinson, the Philadelphia merchants led a resistance campaign, and convinced the merchants of several major port cities to stop any tea from being unloaded.On November 28, the cargo ship Dartmouth arrived in Boston, carrying assorted cargo. Among that cargo: East India Company tea. They were planning to unload, take on some more cargo, and sail away. The Sons of Liberty, however, were not planning to allow the tea to be unloaded. Giant “public meetings” congregated in Boston daily, with a sole objective of preventing the Dartmouth from offloading its cargo. The mob gave the ship one choice: get the fuck out of here.The poor owner of the Dartmouth had no way of knowing that he wouldn’t be able to unload his tea, however, and so he requested permission from Hutchinson to leave. Hutchinson responded with “no, you haven’t cleared customs yet.” But of course, to do that… the cargo had to be unloaded, and the owner couldn’t exactly do that. So this poor owner is stuck in the middle of the conflict between Hutchinson and the Sons of Liberty, and has no way of getting out.The Sons of Liberty, out of necessity, began considering drastic measures. There was a law stipulating that if a ship spent 20 days in port without paying customs, the ship would be seized and have its cargo unloaded. They couldn’t have that, of course. Just as the Sons were considering their options, two more tea-carrying ships sailed into port.On December 16, a public meeting was convened, where it was decided that the Sons of Liberty would board the ships and dump the tea into the ocean. So, of course, that’s what they did. 90,000 pounds of tea was dumped into Boston Harbor. This would become known as the Boston Tea Party.1774When news of this incident reached Parliament in late January… boy, were they pissed. They summoned Franklin to the Privy Council to defend the actions of his countrymen. They attacked him viciously and tore down his reputation. He stayed silent. After this incident, he swung decisively into the independence camp.In response to the Boston Tea Party, four bills were passed by Parliament between March and May, dubbed the “Coercive Acts” in Britain, but which were called the “Intolerable Acts” in the colonies.Boston Port Act: Trade in Boston was blockaded, and nothing but a few necessary commodities were allowed into the city. The blockade would remain in effect until the East India Company was reimbursed for the lost tea.Massachusetts Government Act: Massachusetts’ charter was taken away and the colony was placed under direct control of the British crown. Nearly all administrative posts would be appointed by the governor, Parliament, or the King.Administration of Justice Act: Royal officials accused of crimes could be tried in Britain if the governor ordered, and not by the local colonial courts.Quartering Act: The governor was given the authority to order civilians to house soldiers in their residence if suitable quarters could not be found.There was also another bill, technically separate but often lumped in with the previous four bills: the Quebec Act. This act extended the province of Quebec southwest down the Proclamation Line, and it cut off the colonies’ ability to expand further west.The colonists began to debate what they should do in response. There was divisive debate, but conservatives and radicals alike thought that representatives from all the colonies should meet and discuss a joint response.The First Continental Congress convened on September 5. 56 delegates from twelve colonies (not Georgia, they actually wanted British troops to help with an uprising) met at Carpenter Hall at Philadelphia. While they deliberated, meetings of the Committees of Correspondence in Boston passed the Suffolk Resolves on September 9. These resolves:Urged the citizens to boycott British goodsEncouraged the citizens to ignore the new taxes altogetherSuggested that the colonists acquaint themselves with the local militias, and be seen under arms at least once per week.The Resolves were endorsed by the Congress on September 17, which basically guaranteed that the radicals would be steering the ship from this point forward. The Massachusetts delegation felt secure enough in their position to propose a new step in opposing Britain: non-exportation.Debate was heated all through late September and October, but a blanket non-exportation pact was pushed through, with only two exceptions: Virginia would get to ship out its latest tobacco harvest, and rice would be exempted for South Carolina. Non-importation was scheduled to begin December 1, and non-exportation would begin September 10, 1775.The enforcement of the boycotts would be overseen by the Continental Association, which formed local committees to oversee that no one disobeyed the boycott. These committees would become a crucial part of colonial organization when the war finally broke out in the spring of 1775.The response in Britain was apoplectic, as Lord North began discussing plans for a continental blockade, to prevent the colonies from trading with anyone. Thomas Gage saw how badly the Intolerable Acts had backfired, and sent dispatches to Parliament urging them to repeal the Intolerable Acts. Parliament responded by sending three generals to act as his advisers, because they thought he wasn’t the best man for the job. These three generals, Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne, would become the leaders of the British side in the coming Revolutionary War.1775On April 18, Joseph Warren received intelligence that British troops were on the move. This was confirmed by another source, and so Warren sent Paul Revere and William Dawes to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that they were about to be arrested.Revere sent some men to the Old North Church to light a signal, so that there would be a horse for him on the other side of the Charles River. He arrived at Lexington around midnight, and he told Hancock and Adams to run the fuck away, before moving on to Concord with Dawes and another rider, Samuel Prescott.The three were ambushed by a British cavalry patrol on the road to Concord. Prescott and Dawes escaped, Prescott managing to ride on to Concord. Revere was captured, and told the British troops exactly who he was, what he was doing, and also that five hundred militiamen were massing in Lexington. (That was bullshit.)The British led Revere back to Lexington to test his bluff, but as they approached, they heard gunshots. They ran to inform the main British force that an army of militiamen was massing in Lexington.Revere raced back to Adams’ and Hancock’s house to check that they had gotten safely away, but was shocked to find that they were still just sitting around. With some more urging, they finally decided to leave, and were able to evade capture when the redcoats arrived in force the next day.The next day, the British regulars arrived in Lexington, and they had an intense staring contest with the militiamen. The commanding officer of the redcoats ordered the militiamen to disperse, and after a few seconds, they did.And then, someone fired a shot.No one knows who, and no one knows why.But one thing was for sure: The American Revolution was on.

It's a bit like asking why France can't just have the Azores… because they can't. However, this is worth looking into in order to understand it better: (Get ready for a history lesson)Firstly, Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falklands. It has no right to them. The Falklands were first discovered by English Captain John Davis in 1594 and first claimed by English Captain John Hawkins in 1594 from where they received their first given name, “Hawkins Maiden Land”. This importantly makes England (and therefore the UK latterly by law of Succession of States) the lawful Original Sovereign, which is one of the most powerful terms in international law regarding territory.At this time, international law wasn't a very exact science but there were certain agreements one had to uphold. One was usage of that territory (no settlement was required) and the other was to publish newly claimed territories in the only pan-European newspaper, The Luxembourger, both of which were done. Yes, everyone knew they were British.Go forward to 1690 and Great Britain, represented by Captain John Strong, sends a mission to the Falklands, convened by Anthony Carey, 5th Viscount Falkland and Head of the Navy, to take Formal Possession. Strong becomes the first man to set foot on the Falklands and plants the British flag. The mission then maps and charts the islands and finally, with a decent enough idea of them, they are published to the world in the 1700 World Atlas under their new name of “Falkland’s Islands” and then in the revised 1702 edition finally as “The Falkland Islands”.At around this time, somewhere between 1702–1708 French sailors from St Malo started to put in on the Falklands for shelter and referred to them as “Malouines" and it was first seen in writing between 1708–1710 although France claimed no sovereignty. Then France lost “New France” - which we now call Canada - to Britain and things began to change.French Admiral Antoine de Bougainville, had to sign the surrender in Canada and French Foreign Minister Henri de Choiseul, had the ignominious duty to formally sign the cession of New France over to Britain. From there, they became close friends who seethed to punish the British for humiliating them, in the most decisive way they could: they were going to conquer Britain itself.Choiseul hit upon an old plan which had nearly worked a few times before. He needed to distract the British army so that he could send a force to attack London, and so he called upon Bonnie Prince Charlie. This was in 1758, twelve years after Culloden, and the Prince was no longer the beautiful hero of his youth but a corpulent alcoholic. He turned up late, he turned up drunk, he was impossible to work with and then exploded at Choiseul, who somehow didn't quite understand that the Highland clans had been broken up and that there was no more Highland army. Choiseul dismissed him, but the idea was firmly set.Fast forward a few more years and Bougainville and Choiseul have a brainwave: They're going to land displaced Acadians (French Canadians) on these new “Falkland Islands” and pretend they've just discovered them. Then, using a clause from the Treaty of Utrecht, they will throw their hands in the air, declare “mea culpa" and give these islands to Spain. When Britain finds out, there will be a war 8,000 miles south and with the Royal Navy away, the French invasion can begin. Choiseul, convinced he's got a cast iron strategy, even submits three different plans for the invasion to the War Ministry (which still exist in their archives) for an invasion requiring no less than 100,000 men. There's one glitch though: the British have announced they are getting ready to build a settlement and France has to act quickly.In late 1764 the French land there first and begin building Port Louis on East Falkland as a few months later, in early 1765 the British land on West Falkland and begin building Port Egmont. The British had no idea that the French were there.Then in 1767 France throws the door open to Spain and offers them the islands and the Spanish, full of bluster and a faux ruptured pride, set off… and can't find the Falklands. A second time they try… still nothing. Finally, Bougainville has to take them himself, describing the Falklands as “Some islands which no Spaniard has ever been to or seen and which, seemingly, they are unable to find for themselves.”Here was the rub; Bougainville quite liked the islands and was getting rather annoyed at haughty Spanish pretensions to them and assertions that they were theirs all along, whilst they couldn't even find them. Finally the day came for a deal which, oddly, was only for East Falkland, and here they tripped up. Bougainville put in his terms that he would sell them to the Spanish. The Spanish, asserting that anything in this part of the globe must be theirs by Papal decree (a complete croc, but there you go) say no, they will only compensate Bougainville for his time and for costs incurred in building the settlement. In the end, neither agree, but both pretend to, and both sides diddle the other in this sham of a deal over stolen British property.Finally, British and Spanish sailors meet when a British ship, seeing a floundering Spanish vessel, go to help, and then find themselves abused and told to go away. Spain rages and shouts about the British presence and in London, a Spanish Prince arrives with an entourage of diplomats, enquiring after the British title to sovereignty. He is shown the maps, the atlas, the charts, the newspaper and so on, and agrees that yes, Britain has the prior right.In Madrid, this doesn't go down too well, so it is determined to find out the validity of the British claim and the acknowledged leading expert in international sovereignty law, the Italian Foreign Minister, is asked to look at the case and pronounce upon who owned the Falklands.In Versailles, there is a meeting in which finally, the Italian Foreign Minister bursts in and announces his findings: Spain has been sold a dead dog. The French have diddled them. The Falklands are British. The Spanish go crazy at Bougainville and Choiseul who are right on cue, as Choiseul suggests that, in that case, Spain had better attack and remove the British settlement before it gets any bigger. In 1770 Spain attacks and it's no competition. The British are eradicated.In London, this outrage is condemned and George III vows revenge. Choiseul's plan is working perfectly. The British mobilisation, however, is off the chart. Inside a month, Britain readies fifty new warships whilst Spain barely manages ten, and then George III announces to hell with fighting the Spanish in the Falklands, we're going to attack mainland Spain. The Spanish king has apoplexy, rounds on his ministers yelling “I told you I did not want war!” and quickly backs down, apologises for the faux pas and agrees to restore Port Egmont and recognise West Falkland as British. Britain says “Thank you, but it's all British, remember? You got conned.”Choiseul's plan is in tatters, and Britain and Spain coexist in the Falklands, each pretending the other doesn't exist, but realising how close they had come to a French plot. Both sides agree to retrench and talk about it another day. Britain leaves in 1775 after leaving a flag flying and a plaque claiming the Falklands with a promise to return at a better time. Spain reneges on the deal and promptly removes the plaque, staying on East Falkland. The British still utilise the Falklands for fishing and shelter and administer them through the Admiralty and in 1802 at the Treaty of Amiens, Napoleon and Talleyrand even ask Lord Cornwallis if they could be a bartering point, although he refused.Eventually, by 1811 the Spanish, having turned Port Louis into a penal colony, decide to pull out too. Spain is under attack by Napoleon and Britain is now its greatest ally. The Falklands are now empty.Then, in 1820 an American pirate in the service of Buenos Aires, Daniel Jewett, crash lands there after a storm and a mutiny on his ship. He finds British ships in port and starts waving guns about, claiming the islands for Buenos Aires Province, but he leaves soon after, bound for Buenos Aires. He issues a highly detailed 13 page report in which he doesn't even mention going to the Falklands (despite mentioning everything else) and leaves Buenos Aires shortly after, in an argument about pay. Only 13 months later does an article appear in the Salem Gazette in America, claiming Jewett had been there. The incident goes unnoticed.By 1825 the now independent United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata begin to form Argentina and put together a detailed list of all territories, islands, longitudes and latitudes claimed by the new state, in order to get international recognition. This list did not include the Falklands and Britain accepted Argentina as such, signing the Treaty of Friendship and Trade.In 1826 a German businessman, Luis Vernet, asks for permission to start a ranching business on the Falklands and Britain, under pressure from the Dutch to do something with these islands, or else they'd like a go, decide that Vernet could fit the bill nicely. They know he is dodgy. He claims to be French and has a vague past, but despite concerns: “He had more of the diplomat about him than rancher” and even considering how we might use him in some diplomatic role, the British give their permission. What wasn't known was that Vernet had also asked Buenos Aires for permission and had already tried one venture there and failed. This new venture fails also, but Vernet asks British permission to return and try again, and is accepted. He continues to send back regular reports to the British on his progress in building what they rightfully assume is their settlement.By 1828 Vernet has failed for a third time and is now bankrupt. He dare not ask Britain for help in case he is told to get out, so he turns to the government of Buenos Aires, especially as they owe him money. They have no money, so send a ship with weapons and their own flag, and Vernet claims the Falklands.Britain protests and Buenos Aires ignores it as Vernet turns to piracy and attacks three American ships. The USA sends the USS Lexington to bombard the settlement and arrest the leading men (although Vernet had by now left, never to return) and the remaining people there, a mixture of British, German, African, West Indian and gaucho, are abandoned. Some still try piracy to supplement themselves. The USA readies another mission but asks Britain if it would like to step in, and with a second diplomatic protest having been ignored, the British agree to go. On January 3rd 1833 HMS Clio arrives to find a small garrison of Buenos Aires soldiers and the warship Sarandi.The British advise the Sarandi's Captain Pinedo that he's on British land and tell him to go. Pinedo blusters and considers making a fight of it, but leaves under protest. The good news is, his men were packed and ready to go anyway, as their own orders were to abandon the place before January 5th. The people on the islands are fed, paid and encouraged to stay on as British subjects and only four people; two Uruguayans and two Brazilians, decide to leave. The rest stay on. Meanwhile, Buenos Aires protests to Britain (suddenly remembering how protests work) and Britain now returns the favour and ignores them.Vernet is put up for charges of piracy and is only saved when Buenos Aires legitimizes him, but then seeks compensation from Britain, claiming that he was always in favour of British sovereignty and should have been protected. In the end, Britain pays him to go away.In 1848 there is a great convention in Lima, Peru, where Spain, realising it's a bit silly to pretend it owns South America still, presides over the partition and cession of its former lands under a new principle called “Uti Possidetis Juris" a signed and agreed act of cession. Everyone turns up to the Lima Convention except for Argentina, who refuse to sign up to it.In 1849 Britain and Argentina agree to end their differences with the Convention of Settlement which settles all outstanding issues and restores perfect friendship. This treaty was governed by the overarching clause that “All disputed territory, unless specifically mentioned in the treaty, is to remain with the conqueror and his title cannot afterwards be called into question.”Argentine President Rosas enquired after Lord Palmerston if he (Rosas) had signed away the claim to the Falklands and was told yes. Rosas had already written twice to Palmerston offering to do just that, first in return for a cancellation of loans from Barings Bank (which was refused) and then as a sweetener for other Argentine conditions. Palmerston replied “I understand the matter to be exactly as described by you in your letters” after which, Argentina ratified the treaty in 1850.From 1849–1946 Argentina issued not one formal diplomatic protest to the UK, nor was the word “Malvinas” mentioned once in Congress from 1850–1941. It is evident that Argentina had given up any loose or spurious pretensions to claiming the Falklands.In 1863 Spain finally recognised Argentina as a country, but without the Falklands, as evidenced by the fact that in that same year, Spain finally recognised British sovereignty over them and, as a final nail in the coffin to any Argentine claims, in 1882, the Argentine government pronounced all formative acts of the original government of Buenos Aires to be null and void. In short, anything Jewett or Vernet did was now illegitimate in Argentine eyes.The Falklands grew, the new capital of Stanley was built and people migrated there. In 1914 they watched British warships pummel the German fleet on their doorsteps as Falklands men went off to war. From 1939–1945 the Falklands sent more men, started a war fund and financed ten spitfires for the battle of Britain… and then at the war's end, in 1946, Argentina, after 97 years of accepting British sovereignty, suddenly raised it's hand and said, “Malvinas?”So why can't the Falklands just be given to Argentina, the question asked… because they're British, that's why. Because Argentina has no claim to our islands or our people, and because in 2013 those same people, whose ancestors were there before 1833, voted 99'8% for British sovereignty and achieved self determination.The matter is settled.

I have been investigating for years the way Buffett is doing businessWhat I found is that the basis of Buffett’s system is to have a cheap source of funds, to lend money at a high price to enterprises ( he is doing strictly B2B business ) and to design deals in a way that he will never loose moneyAlternatively he can give administator status ( I mean to have an access to huge amount of funds ) to people he trusts, witness Ajit Jain in the Re business - National Indemnity and Gen Re-, Tom Nicely at Geico, Peter J. Eastwood at Specialty Insurance, the two deputies Combs and Weschler, Matthew K. Rose at BNSF, Mark Donegan at Precision Castparts, Gregory E. Abel at BH Energy, the Pritzker’s Marmon, Wertheimer’s Iscar…The magic of Buffett is to make routinely 20% yearly. 20% for 50 years means a multiplicative factor of 1.2^50 so nearly 10,000, now Buffett is having his 6th decade into the business, and 1.2^60 means a factor of 60000His basic principles is to have a low cost source of funds, to provide funds for financing of others activities at a high cost and to defer as much as possible taxesIn the Owner�s Manual Warren summarize as follows “Besides, Berkshire has access to two low-cost, non-perilous sources of leverage that allow us to safely own far more assets than our equity capital alone would permit: deferred taxes and float”.As a low cost fund, Buffett uses the float created by P&C insurance industryThe real cost of Buffett’s float is actually negative, as he puts it “ we are paid to handle other people’s money ” in 2016 letter to shareholders Buffett outlined that “Berkshire has now operated at an underwriting profit for 14 consecutive years, our pre-tax gain for the period having totaled $28 billion” for a float now reaching 100b$.Reinsurance and Quota Share boast his free capitalIAG and Berkshire Hathaway have entered into a 10-year whole of account quota share arrangement effective 1 July 2015. Berkshire Hathaway will receive 20% of IAG’s consolidated GWP and pay 20% of claims. Berkshire Hathaway will also reimburse IAG for its share of operating costs and pay a percentage-based fee. Berkshire Hathaway takes approximately 3.7% stake in IAG via $500 million placement, 89,766,607 new fully paid IAG ordinary shares at $5.57 per share.IAG forms strategic relationship with Berkshire HathawaySo IAG business is heavily concentrated in Australia & New Zealand, with the quota share agreement, a part of the business is transfered to Berkshire in exchange of a stake in the company, with risk and volatility reduced IAG is able to develop business elsewhere.Berkshire has been providing some reinsurance policies to AIG ( $3.5bn asbestos risk in 2011, $20b deal in 2017 which provide reinsurance to U.S. commercial long-tail exposures for accident years 2015 and prior certainly because 2016 and later turned into a soft market-, which includes the largest part of AIG’s U.S. casualty exposures during that period ) and has hired 4 top AIG executives ( Peter Eastwood, David Bresnahan, David Fields, Sanjay Godhwani ) to start BH Specialty Insurance that is a concurrent of AIG’s LexingtonBuffett did the same, ie to build an operation from scratch, when he proposed an insurance to the monoliners Ambac, MBIA and FGIC Buffett's $800bn monoline lifeline boosts global stockmarketsOn the other side when Buffett provides funds, in my view, he aims a return of 15%, why 15%? it shows up in the following dealHarley-Davidson ; $303 million which pays out 15% interest rateI went to analyze a lot of Buffet’s dealsUSG Corporation : $300 million loan with an interest rate of 10 percent a year, with an early termination fee and convertible into USG common stock at the price of $11.40Assuming an affirmative vote of USG's shareholders, the notes will become convertible into shares of USG common stock at a conversion price of USD 11.40 per share. If shareholder approval is not obtained before the 135th day after closing of the sale of the notes, the notes will bear interest at 20% per annum until after shareholder approval is obtained.Goldman Sachs : $5 billion in preferred with a dividend of 10 percent. It will also get warrants to buy another $5 billion in common stock over five years at the price of $115General Electric: $3 billion of preferred stock, which pays out 10 percent interest and warrants to buy $3 billion worth of stock at a price of $22.25 a share.Bank of America : $5 billion of preferred shares which pays out 6 percent interest, with 5 percent termination fee and warrants exercible over the next 10 years that allow to purchase $5 billion worth of BofA common stock at $7.14 per share.Home Capital : 40% stake at 10C$ -33% discount over the market- and a credit facility of 2b$, secured against a portfolio of mortgages originated by Home Trust, yielding 9% if used and 1,5% if idlehttp://business.financialpost.co...Mars-Wringley : The deal has been financed by creating a new company, which will keep the Wrigley name, in which Mars will receive an 81 per cent stake. Berkshire Hathaway will own the remainder of the company, a stake worth just over $2bn. Berkshire received preferred shares worth about $2.1 billion, which paid a 5 percent annual dividend, and $4.4 billion worth of bonds that carried a hefty 11.45 percent interest rate.Burger King - Tim Hortons deal : Berkshire Hathaway agreed to invest $3 billion for a preferred stake in the new company paying an annual dividend of 9%.Dow Chemicals - Rohm & Haas: $3 billion in April 2009, annual dividend of 8.5 percent, conversion into common equity is contingent on Dow's shares trading above $53.72 per share for any 20 trading days in a 30-day window after 2014 ( see a special analysis later )Swiss Re : In January 2008, it would receive 3 billion Swiss francs, or about $2.6 billion, from Berkshire Hathaway. It entered a quota share arrangement with Swiss Re through which it acquired 20 percent of its new and renewed property and casualty business in exchange and acquired 3 percent of its shares at the same time.The pattern is that Berkshire is acting as an alternative to federal intervention ( GE, Goldman Sachs… ) and as an alernative to banking financement ( mainly a competitor of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs ) for business deals, Berkshire is willing to transfer huge amount of money overnight for 5 years but at the hefty price of 15% ( bonds ), lower price are negociable as soon as people offer common stock ( prefered shares ) with favorable caracteristics ( the prefered dividend is much higher than the one received by normal shares and the exercice price is at a discount ). All the previously enounced deals show a combination of these two tools.The Berkshire-Dow Chemical deal shows how Buffett structures deals in order to never loose moneyIn 2009 Dow needed capital to finance the acquisition of Rohm & Haas and entered into an agreement with Berkshire. WB provided a loan of $3 billion apparently without any time limit yielding annually 8.5%, the only "exit" possible is the conversion into shares around $42.5 per unit provided the share has been greater than $53,72 for 20 days over a period of 30 days.Such a setup is a “special Buffett”, it is only he who can obtain such a loan structure, a normal investor sometimes has access to such tools, such as in european market the ORA (bond repayable in shares), OCEANES (convertible bonds or exchangeable into new or existing shares) or ABSAs (shares with detachable BSAs, warrants ) but in all cases the bonds have a fixed amortization date and the warrants lose any value exceeded on a certain date. This peremption date can kill a good idea.With such terms, Buffett has the security of a bondholder which is that in case of bankruptcy bondholders passes before the shareholders, and a guaranteed income of 8.5% until the action recovers some colors.It is worth noting that converting to $42 provided that the share exceeds $53.7 for awhile secures a 30% margin.“Income taxes, principally deferred” are north of 82b$ as the last quaterly report showsAn example is the Duracell deal Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway buys P&G's DuracellThis is why Warren buys thinks about pre tax earning.In the sequence from 7:00 to 12:00 there are some numbers, he says that he bought shares of IBM at 180$/share and that five or six years ago he thought IBM would earn more than 20b$ pre tax, that means a pre tax earning/cap of 11,1%To summarize, Buffett is able to enjoy huge resource which cost is actually negative and he lends it at the cost of 15%, the spread and the taxation optimization explains the 20% returnThis split the Buffett Magic into smaller magicsto provide as much as possible float at the lowest cost, this is the magic operated by a bunch of professionals that Buffett assembled ( Ajit Jain in the Re business - National Indemnity and Gen Re-, Tom Nicely at Geico and now Peter J. Eastwood at Specialty Insurance )to deploy capital at the best cost and this is the main work of Warren, his partner Charlie and the two deputies Combs and Weschlerto develop enterprises in industrial sectors where capital can be reinvested wisely, this is what does Matthew K. Rose at BNSF, Mark Donegan at Precision Castparts, Gregory E. Abel at BH Energyto rely on external competences to do the dirty work of restructuring, he once praised Sandy Weill as “ creating huge value for his shareholders “ and now he invests big on Georges Lehman cost cutting skillsBut Warren started as an individual investor and it is quite tricky to participate to deals at favorable terms and with limitated risksSo the idea is to make deals where you are able to enforce your point of view but if you can’t, rely on external competences.Buffett once relied heavily on Sandy Weill who was running the show in the financial industry, he relied also on the management of Coca Cola, Gillette, Wells FargoNow he is partnering with Lemann’s 3GIf you have been smart enough to understand the genius of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, you can understand the genius of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and you can understand why Google became Alphabet. All these give opportunities to sit on giant’s shoulders.This is what Buffett does as well.