[patriciacolling]

I originally posted this to General Discussion but, perhaps, this would be a better forum…I could be really ignorant in asking this question but how is it, with all the war time controls on civil life, there could be lending to one’s country’s enemy going on?…

[gutzmank]

Could you please tell me specifically what you’re talking about?

[patriciacolling]

I think I remember something about American debt to Englishmen in England for the financing of the Revolutionary War. Why would England allow people to lend to America to fight against England? Especially, when it has been suggested that it was, indeed, England’s Parliament–not so much the King–with what America was in conflict. It just seems like, if you follow the money, even today, wars are ridiculous beyond the fact that they are so destructive. Do soldiers think they are fighting for their country? or fighting for the ability to borrow from their enemy and have to pay them back after the war is done? I could be looking at this all wrong but it’s something that has nagged me for some time. Were people imprisoned for lending to the enemy–aiding and abetting? I suppose it all could have remained secret so not to harm the brokers but it just doesn’t sound right to me. What am I missing or not understanding?

[gutzmank]

The debt to Englishmen was PRE-WAR debt to Englishmen. The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the war, stipulated that American courts must be open to British creditors desirous of recouping their pre-war debts; this provision was only haltingly fulfilled after the treaty’s ratification.

[patriciacolling]

Well then. Thanks for the clarification.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome, of course!

[Author]

Posts