In the long history of European colonialism, some colonialists did better by their colonies than others, and the legacy is mostly one of still-enduring pain. For example, virtually no one save Newt Gingrich<span> thinks the Belgians did much of a job in Central Africa, where their mistakes included artificially dividing the population into Hutus and Tutsis, precipitating one of the continent's worst humanitarian disasters. But many historians generally consider the British presence in India, while </span>at times<span> horrifically </span>violent, to be one of the most benevolent and productive in colonial history. Was it a net gain for India? Or did it cause more harm than good? <span>India's democracy is truly extraordinary. ... India's political system owes much to the institutions put in place by the British over two hundred years ago. In many other parts of Asia and in Africa, the British were a relatively temporary presence. They were in India for centuries. They saw it as the jewel in their imperial crown and built lasting institutions of government throughout the country--courts, universities, administrative agencies. But perhaps even more importantly, India got very lucky with the vehicle of its independence, the Congress Party, and its first generations of post-independence leaders, who nurtured the best traditions of the British and drew on older Indian customs to reinforce them.
Both sides committed atrocities against the other. Powhatan was finally forced into a truce of sorts. Colonists captured Powhatan's favorite daughter, Pocahontas, who soon married John Rolfe. Their marriage did help relations between Indians and colonists.
<span>In July 1836, Andrew Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required that public lands be purchased using "gold or silver," since it was thought that this would be better for the US economy. </span>
