1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
saul85 [17]
3 years ago
5

25 POINTS. How did he and other colonist feel about the proclamation? What evidence do you have to support that?

History
1 answer:
Vladimir [108]3 years ago
7 0

Great Britain’s victory over France in the Seven Years’ War, also known as the French and Indian War, gave it control over all of eastern North America. Most native tribes had allied with the French during the conflict, and they soon found themselves dissatisfied by British rule. In May 1763, just a few months after the formal conclusion of the Seven Years’ War, a pan-tribal confederacy led by Ottawa chief Pontiac rose up in rebellion. His warriors attacked a dozen British forts, capturing eight of them, and raided numerous frontier settlements. Hundreds died in the process. In response, the British handed out smallpox-infected blankets to Pontiac’s followers. Moreover, a gang of whites known as the Paxton Boys massacred 20 defenseless Native Americans who had nothing to do with the fighting.


In an attempt to prevent similar incidents from occurring, King George III issued a royal proclamation on October 7, 1763, which established three new mainland colonies (Quebec, West Florida and East Florida), extended Georgia’s southern border and gave land to soldiers who had fought in the Seven Years’ War. More notably, it banned colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, at least “for the present, and until our further pleasure be known.” Those colonists already there were ordered to relocate. Acknowledging that “great frauds and abuses have been committed,” the proclamation furthermore prohibited individuals from buying tribal territory. Instead, only the crown could now make such purchases. “We shall avoid many future quarrels with the savages by this salutary measure,” said General Thomas Gage, who commanded all British forces in North America.



The British made a perfunctory effort to enforce the proclamation, periodically stopping settlers as they headed west and forcibly removing others. On one occasion, redcoats from Fort Pitt in present-day Pittsburgh even burned the huts of some nearby pioneers and escorted them back across the boundary. For the most part, though, colonists disregarded the proclamation without fear of punishment. Some wanted only enough land for themselves and their families, whereas others were speculators looking to make a hefty profit down the road. George Washington, for one, wrote to his agent in 1767 in support of illegally buying as much Native American land as possible. The Proclamation of 1763 will soon be revoked, Washington explained, because—“this I say between ourselves”—it was only meant “as a temporary expedient to quiet the minds of the Indians.” Other famous speculators included Patrick Henry, best known for his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, and Henry Laurens, who later served as president of the Continental Congress.


Washington’s prediction proved prescient the following year, when the British moved the boundary line westward as part of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix. Under the deal, the Iroquois agreed to give up parts of present-day New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia in exchange for cash, gifts and the (soon-to-be-broken) promise of a permanent border. But although the Iroquois claimed those lands, they did not live there. The tribes that did, such as the Shawnee, were infuriated, and ended up going to war with the British in 1774. Meanwhile, further south, the Cherokee surrendered tens of thousands of square miles in a series of treaties. Also losing territory were the Creeks, who purportedly referred to the colonists as Ecunnaunuxulgee, or “People greedily grasping after the lands of the red people.”



Ultimately, the new acquisitions failed to quiet colonial discontent with the Proclamation of 1763. And though it would be later overshadowed by other complaints against the British, such as the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the so-called Intolerable Acts and the Boston Massacre, it remained enough of a concern that the Declaration of Independence criticized King George III for “raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.” By winning their freedom from the British in 1783, the Americans rendered the proclamation moot. But it has lived on to this day in Canada, where it forms the legal basis for native land rights. “We must recall the intent that brought all our ancestors together so many years ago,” Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, national chief of Canada’s Assembly of First Nations, said earlier today at a 250th anniversary event, “and ensure that [we live up] to the promises in the treaties and other agreements that stem from the foundation of the royal proclamation.”

You might be interested in
British colonists objected to the Proclamation of 1763 because they-
alina1380 [7]

Answer:

The correct option is;

C) Resented the limits it imposed on westward expansion

Explanation:

The Proclamation intended to protect the colonist from rampages by the Indians and also to protect Native Americans from attacks with measures including the ban on purchase of land from the natives by private individuals and restrict travel and trade into the west to only licensed traders and prevented westward colonial expansion past Appalachia

The proclamation was put to effect on the 7th of October 1763.

7 0
3 years ago
This type of scale is common in the relief sculpture of ancient Egypt, where it was used to indicate social importance.
nlexa [21]
I think the answer is pyramid... Let me know if that's it :3
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did the selective service act mean for American men
ch4aika [34]
<span>Men could be drafted into the army.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why does Rosie the Riveter still inspires women today
zaharov [31]

Rosie the Riveter is a cultural icon of World War II, representing the women who worked in factories and shipyards during World War II, many of whom produced munitions and war supplies. Rosie the Riveter is used as a symbol of American feminism and women's economic advantage.
7 0
3 years ago
The expansion of democracy in the Age of Jackson encouraged reform. Most states dropped property requirements for _____. voting
nordsb [41]

Answer:

voting

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How was christianity rooted in the teachings of judaism?
    15·1 answer
  • Based on these two documents, how did Americans feel about expanding westward
    11·2 answers
  • What Steps from 1575-1600 brought England Closer to colonizing the New World?
    7·1 answer
  • What Jewish belief does Christianity reject ? 1) Isaac is the father if the Jewish people 2) The Hebrew Bible is a sacred text.
    12·1 answer
  • In the eyes of the British the colonies existed for what purpose
    10·1 answer
  • Why did the federalist favor ratification​
    14·2 answers
  • Under the leadership of William Penn, Native Americans in colonial Pennsylvania A) fled westward to avoid being placed on reserv
    9·1 answer
  • Plz hurry plz
    11·2 answers
  • Many americans were fearful of japanese _living in the united states
    8·1 answer
  • What is the present form of government in Suriname? O democracy dictatorship monarchy O republic​
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!