The American colonists were justified in doing this simply because their colonies had become too big and too important to be treated as a colony by the British. The British should have given the colonies some autonomy, but they did not. The analogy I like to use is that of teens and their parents. Parents have to give teens more independence as they grow up. If they do not, the teens may justifiably rebel.
The British were not, on the whole, brutal or oppressive towards the colonists. However, they would not let the colonists have much in the way of self-rule. This had been fine when the colonies were still small and economically weak. By the 1760s and 1770s, however, the colonies were "teenagers." They were big and strong enough to expect some autonomy. When Britain reacted to requests for autonomy by being more strict, the colonists were justified in rebelling.
<span>York was Clark’s childhood companion. He was a slave. We know he was big. We know he was very athletic. He was a great dancer. He was devoted to William Clark. He was a great help to the expedition because he was such a curiosity. Indians who had seen white men had never seen a black man before and there’s the famous – is it Catlin or Charley Russell – and there’s the famous Charley Russell painting in the Mandan lodges of the Mandan chief trying to rub the black off of York’s skin. York had a great time on the expedition. He had, had his own rifle. He got to vote. He was a full member of the expedition. He had a, the Indians loved him, and the Indian women especially loved York and he took full advantage of that so that on many occasions York would be missing that night and he would be in the lodge with one of the Indians. Sometimes with the Indian husband standing guard while the business was completed.
</span>
Answer: Their journey became known as<u> the "Trail of Tears."</u>
Explanation/context:
In the court case, <em>Worcester v. Georgia</em> (1832), Samuel Worcester was a Christian minister working among the Cherokee and was supportive of the Cherokee cause. To block the activity of a man like Rev. Worcester, the state of Georgia passed a law prohibiting white persons to live within the Cherokee Nation territory without permission from the Georgia state government. Worcester and other missionaries challenged this law, and the case rose to the level of a Supreme Court decision. The decision by the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Marshall, struck down the Georgia law and reprimanded Georgia for interfering in the affairs of the Cherokee Nation. Marshall wrote that Indian nations are "distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights."
President Andrew Jackson chose not to enforce the court's decision. He said at the time: "The decision of the Supreme Court has fell stillborn, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." He told the Cherokee that they would need to operate under the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia or else relocate. This was a step in the direction of what became known as the "Trail of Tears," when the Cherokee were removed from Georgia and moved to territory in Oklahoma.
This is indeed the answer
Not really. There were Jim Crow Laws still in place and rights were not given to African Americans during this time period.
