I believe that obtaining the Proclamation Line of 1763 was the right thing to do because, first, it was designed to work out the Indian problem fairly (Kennedy). Second, it was used to calm the fears of the Indians (Proclamation of 1763). Third, it asserted that all of the Indians peoples were thereafter under the protection of the King (Proclamation of 1763). The line was, asserted in order to make sure that no one went to war and caused major damage. The Proclamation Line of 1763 is, therefore, justified by these three points. However, there are opposing thoughts on the Proclamation Line of 1763. The opposing argument others believe is that the Americans should not have had to abide by the Proclamation Line at all (Kennedy). Questions asked about this proclamation line argument, by the Americans, at the time are: “Was not the land beyond the mountains their birthright (Kennedy)?” As well as, “had they not, in addition, purchased it with their blood in the recent war (Kennedy)?” Both sides could be argued, however, I believe the Proclamation Line was necessary.
The first point made is that the Proclamation Line of 1763 was not designed to oppress the colonists at all, but to work out the Indians problems fairly and prevent another bloody eruption like Pontiac’s Rebellion (Kennedy). In Pontiac’s Rebellion, some two thousand settlers and soldiers were killed (Kennedy). This was just one of the main reasons of why the proclamation line was put into place. The government didn’t want two thousand more people to die in another war. However, countless Americans were upset and angered by this decision (Kennedy). They felt that they owned the land because of the bloodshed in the previous battle (Kennedy). They were in complete defiance ...
... middle of paper ...
...3 was the right thing to do because, first, it was not designed to oppress the colonists at all, but to work out the Indian problems fairly and prevent another bloody eruption, such as Pontiac’s Rebellion (Kennedy). Second, it was used to calm the fears of the Indians, who felt the colonists would drive them from their land as they expanded westward (Proclamation of 1763). Third, it asserted that all of the Indians peoples were thereafter under the protection of the King (Proclamation of 1763). These are all valid arguments of why the proclamation line was put into place and of why the line was needed in order to make sure that the Indians were protected. The Indians really needed the proclamation line to fight for what they had in order to prevent another war where several others would be killed. The government’s goal with this was to keep the Indians protected.
The beginning of 1763 marked one of the major events that would contribute to the end of British colonial relations. On February 3, 1763 the French and Indian War finally ended in British victory, but while the British celebrated the French’s defeat, colonists feared the oncoming reverberations the war would have on them. The main motive behind the war was for possession over the French fur trade territory in North America. To the colonists, the war was being fought by and for Britain not the colonies. The benefits of the victory only pertained to Britain. The after effect of the war for the colonies was the trampling on their need for expansion. During the war, Native Americans had fought with the French because of how well they treated them. Britain was notorious for abusing the Native Americans, therefore once the French were defeated; they began attacking western settlements of colonists. To avoid confrontation, the Proclamation of 1763 was passed by Parliament. The Proclamation established a limit to the greatly needed colonial expansion. Specifically, the Proclamation forbid settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The passing of the Proclamation of 1763 infuriated colonists ...
...no loyalty to the Crown now, in future conflicts, the colonists may turn against us and become our enemy. Radical action must be taken in order to regulate their behavior. They must recognize the royal authority.
The colonists were in every right, aspect and mind, not only justified but also it was about time that they stood of and actually take action against the British. The choice of going to war with them, was the only choice that they had. All diplimatical options that they had ceased to stand a chance against the tyrant Britain. From the very beginning when the colonists felt upset against their mother country and the way that they went about the law making, up until the beginning of the war, they tried all diplimatical options that they had, by sending letters, you name it. When they didn’t work then they had no other means but to declare war.
Between the settlement at Jamestown in 1607 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the most important change that occurred in the colonies was the emergence of a society quite different from that in England. Changes in religion, economics, politics and social structure illustrate this Americanization of the transplanted Europeans.
Between the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the most important change that occurred in the colonies was the emergence of a society quite different from that in England. Changes in religion, economics, politics, and social structure illustrate this Americanization of the transplanted Europeans.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...
...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.
Between the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the most important change that occurred in the colonies was the emergence of society quite different from that in England. Changes in religion, economics, politics and social structure illustrate this Americanization of the transplanted Europeans.
“Give me liberty or give me death!” This statement from Patrick Henry’s “Speech to the Virginia Convention,” delivered to the House of Burgesses, has been quoted by many, becoming almost cliché. However, the declaration is truly understood by a select few. The unjust Stamp Act passed by the British crown in 1765, brought fame and notoriety to Henry as he spoke out against the unjust taxation without representation. Ten years later on the eve of revolution, Henry calls upon the Colonial government of which he is part, to act for the betterment of the people. Patrick Henry attempts to persuade the House of Burgesses to revolt and declare war against Britain by logically convincing them that it is their natural right to be free and calling on their patriotism and pride as leaders of colonial America.
A Declaration in 1622 is a piece of history that will forever be debated. It was written by Edward Waterhouse who was a prominent Virginia official. In a Declaration in 1622, he describes his first-hand accounts of English genocide and the relationship between the Powhatan and settlers. The point of this paper is to claim that Waterhouse’s portrayal is realistic due to his factual perspective of the time period on the contrasting aspects of the Powhatan and settlers. Diving into Edwards historical accounts can show the hardships of the settlers, the varying characteristics of both groups, the importance of tobacco, and the demonization of Native Americans. The characteristics will conclude the factually sound delineation of Edward Waterhouse.
They were aware of the growing unease between the settlers and Native Americans, especially through Pontiac 's War. The rebellion caused great loss of life, time, and money for the British government. To prevent any further conflict, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation stated that no colonist could cross or settle any west of the Appalachian Mountains, the territory which was inhabited by many Native Americans. In theory, the idea was simple and would have worked, but complications prevented its fulfillment. The proclamation angered American colonists. Already they were functioning almost independently of England, and were disturbed by the new act. Many of them felt like they did not have a proper involvement in its production. The colonists had great plans to move westward, and the new proclamation prohibited them from doing so. After their victory in the French and Indian War, they did not feel like they should have been restricted from moving into territory that they fought for. It added to the strife and hostility between the early-Americans and their British authorities. Later acts then added to the existing conflict and led to the beginning of the American Revolution. Although Pontiac 's War did not directly cause this, it started the pathway by forcing the enactment of the
When the Virginia Co., chartered by King James I, arrived in Virginia in 1607, the Virginia Co. gave land freely to men who payed their own voyage to Virginia. For every servant or family member who accompanied whose voyage was also payed for, 50 acres of land was given. In Massachusetts, land was allocated to wealthy individuals who were well connected with higher-ups or royal officials. Both settlements seeing that they have a right to just take and claim their land proved to be a big issue. The colonists figured that since the Native Americans did not have visible claims on land, that said land was free for the taking. Also, from the Native American point of view, they assumed that they would be sharing land with the colonists, not being robbed of it. Moreover, the Puritans even punished the Native Americans for not using the land to its maximum potential. The disagreements and different religious outlooks between the settlements and the Native Americans resulted in wars such as the Pequot War (1636) and the King Philips War (1675). This is significant because over the next hundreds of years, Native Americans would continue to get pushed out from their own homeland, and, set a precedent that we, Americans, can take virtually anything we
As the West of the Appalachian Mountains became known as the “Indian Land” proclaimed by the King of England in 1763, as properly known as the Proclamation Line of 1763, the U. S. government believed it to be part of their land after their gain of independence from Britain. The reason for this happening was due to the fact that the Indians lost to the French in the French and Indian war which was also known as the brutal Seven Years’ War from 1754-1763. As a result, The U.S. took advantage of the situation and insisted on acquiring the land of the Indians in the West through three different policies (Chris ...
Prior to the 1830’s, the United States government did not make it’s aspirations of attaining Indian lands, but rather Indians were given rights to be treated as nations, and protected their rights according to the Constitution. According to the letter to President George Washington from Henry Knox, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Doc B). To add on, the United States believed that “intrusions upon the lands of the friendly Indian tribes, is not only a violation of law, but in direct opposition to the policy for the government towards its savage neighbor” (Doc G) was considerate of the Indians’ territories. Therefore, this indicates that the government of the United States did not want to take any risk and was rather cautious against having the desire to obtain the Natives’ land.