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
Feliz [49]
4 years ago
7

why do you think that many otherwise contented colonists might have been ready after 1763 to resist Britain’s efforts “to enclos

e its American colonists more snugly in its grip”?
History
2 answers:
Olin [163]4 years ago
7 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Great Britain took some actions that angered the settlers in the American Colonies at the end of the French and Indian War,

England won the war and on October 7, 1763, it was King George III who signed the proclamation that annexed new territories to the English monarchy in America: Florida and Quebec. It was known as the Proclamation of 1763, and the negative part of this document was that prohibited American colonists to settle the territories west the Appalachians mountains. The proclamation prohibited to buy and settle Indian territory. It was just the British crown the only one that could purchase land. That made the colonists very angry at the British government and did not obey the order.

The English monarchy had many doubts about the loyalty of the colonists in America. So the King and the Parliament felt that the colonists had not shown enough support to the British during the French and Indian War, and the Proclamation of 1763 would serve as a punishment to let the Americans know that the King of England controlled the colonies.

mestny [16]4 years ago
6 0

The signature of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 brought the end to the French and Indian War. This resulted in Great Britain earning an important amount of land in North America. These territories were known as the "Ohio Valley".  

The British tried to discourage Americans to go settle in these lands. These would mean that they would have to incur in major administrative costs and have to due bigger efforts in order to maintain control of all territories within North America. The British proclamation of October 7, 1763, which declared boundaries of the settlement was a formal attempt to restrict the expansion of colonists.  

As a result, colonists where highly discontent due to the fact that they considered being worthy of the lands they have fought over with the French and Indians. This was one of the first in a series of events that would lead to the American Revolutionary War.

You might be interested in
Which power does the federal government share with state governments?
Rufina [12.5K]
<span>
states and a central government share power</span>
4 0
4 years ago
How did the Supreme Court's actions in United States v. Cruikshank impact Reconstruction efforts?
Anit [1.1K]
<span>1876 Supreme Court case ruled against any individual right to bear armsSecond Amendment guaranteed only states' rights to maintain militiasState governments could regulate guns however they saw fit<span>Presser v. Illinois affirmed Cruikshank ruling, further clarified that Second Amendment rights had not been "incorporated"—that is, they were not binding on the states</span></span>
Until quite recently, the answer to that question was pretty simple—the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in just a few cases. The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be "well regulated," and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.
4 0
3 years ago
Ancient Egypt was a polytheistic society. What does this mean?
Zepler [3.9K]
It means their society believes in not just one, but many gods. If you look into Ancient Egypt's history, a lot of their actions and thoughts were based off of the many gods they worshiped.
7 0
3 years ago
Which of the following is a characteristic of early civilizations?
Hoochie [10]
B is correct.

please vote my answer brainliest. thanks!
4 0
3 years ago
What went wrong in the 2016 election polls
Alecsey [184]

Answer:

many things.

the answer depends on what youre looking for

7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How to do the problems of the nineteenth century shape the first war of the 20th century
    7·1 answer
  • What does Jefferson state directly as the reason this declaration has to be written?
    7·1 answer
  • Why did the United States decide to enter world war 1
    5·1 answer
  • Did President Andrew Jackson's tariff benefit the North or the South? ​
    12·1 answer
  • Who did many see as the main aggressor during World War I?
    10·1 answer
  • How many colonists joined the british army in protest against the rebellion?
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements regarding immigration in the 1920s is true
    14·1 answer
  • What is an "Run on a Bank"?​
    11·1 answer
  • Which answer choice BEST explains Twain's view of American expansionism?
    15·1 answer
  • Refer to the map.
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!