"But what warrant have we to take that land, which is and has been of long time possessed of others, the sons of Adam?

Social Studies

1 answer:

timama [110]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

a) Justifying the takeover of American Indian lands

Explanation:

In the text, the author is asked the question of what warrant they have to take the land who has been possessed of other for so long?

He then, proceeds to answer calling the people who owned the land "savage people" who rule over them without title or property, who have no means to maintain it in a regular basis. So he conclude that they, as a Christians could dwell amongst them in those "waste lands" and he also mentions that there is enough land for them both (Christians and non christians). He also mentions the plague the natives of the land have suffered and therefore it has left a vaste part of the land void of inhabitants.

Therefore, he is giving all his reasons to justify the takeover of American land but not any of it but the one that belonged to the natives.

You might be interested in

What rules of inference are used in the given below argument? "no man is an island. manhattan is an island. therefore, manhattan

iren2701 [21]

There are three rules of inference are used in the sentence.

1) Universal Instantiation, if x is a man, then x is not an island” and “If Manhattan is a man, then Manhattan is not an island.”

2) Contrapositive, If Manhattan is an island, then Manhattan is not a man.”

3) Applying modus ponens or modus tollens. We derive the result that Manhattan is not a man.

3 0

3 years ago

1. using wide-spread universal terms that do not deal with the specific issues at hand name calling 2. using broad accusations a

Nutka1998 [239]