Category: American Colonies

The American Revolution against the English Colonization as well as other European colonizers has multiple perspectives despite sharing common goals. In general, the colonies were tired of impositions and control from the European masters that kept changing and were sometimes unreasonable in executing the goals of the colonialists. One notable example is England’s persistent mixing of religion and government business against the wishes of majority of colonialists. The Church of England had become an instrument to enforce punitive laws and was used to stop religious liberty because such freedom had the potential to trigger growth of other forms of leadership (Norton, Kamensky, Sheriff, Blight, Chudacoff, Logevall, & Michals, 2014). In the meantime, the colonial administrators on the ground continually felt like slaves to the European masters that controlled the productivity of the colonies. This essay explores two primary sources in providing an understanding the triggers of conflict between American colonies and the Great Britain.

Patrick John and Gerald Peters in their account titled, “Constitutional Debates on Freedom of Religion: Documentary History” published in 1999 focuses on colonial events in Virginia, Northern America. This was during the early 1600s when politics and religion were entwined, a common practice for all European powerhouses such as France, Spain and England (Patrick & Gerald, 1999). The church directly received the support of the then government and reciprocated in equal measures. The object of inversion was to influence the natives of America or other overseas colonies into Christianity and thus implant the foreign government in administrative roles. As a result, the colonial proprietors had to follow policies and guidelines dictated by the government. It was difficult enough to convert the natives into Christianity as a religion and from different European States. Shifting from one form of Christianity to another was a daunting task and a cause of confusion because it also meant to transition from one form of government to another. An example is the imposition of the Anglican Church for its purpose and at the same time resisting the spread of the Roman Catholic Church (Patrick & Gerald, 1999). This was a direct form of conflict between England and either Spain or France.

Peter Brock through his version of the Revolution titled, “Liberty and Conscience: A Documentary History of the Experiences of Conscientious Objectors in America through the Civil War”, echoes Patrick John’s and Gerald Peters’ sentiments. However, he draws a connection between religious alliances and the armies. Brock directly and indirectly portrays the inevitable struggle between religion and politics/ government. In highlighting the beliefs and plight of peace sects such as the New England Quakers, the author explores a form of religious independence that probably transversed across the European Powers’ governments. Religious independence was threatening the definition of governments through phrases such as, soldiers under the Prince of Peace (Brock, 2002).

The two works by the authors discussed agree on the fact religion and civil government were intertwined and expected to work together as a system of administration. The implied dependence on one another was expected to stand under all areas of governance because the relationship guaranteed predictability of outcomes. Stability, expansion of colonies and protection of boundaries relied on constant administration over colonies. Furthermore, both publications also highlight a form of dissenting behavior. Patrick John and Gerald Peters express the resistance by colonialists based on the intertwining nature of civil government and religion. Peter Brock on the other hand, provides an interesting angle that portrays religious disagreement with the beliefs of the civil government, through a resistance to fight by peace sects, despite affiliation to particular warring European countries.

In conclusion, the road to revolution stems from an increasing imbalance of interests for parties within the English colonization. The colonialists felt they had a better chance of understanding and satisfying the needs of the entire stakeholders to their pursuits. However, the European Masters such as the Great Britain and France enforced their interests mingled with religion, as a priority to the existence of colonies. As a result, general implementation of rules and activities demanded by the European Masters gradually generated a disgruntled group of colonialists.

Colonialism and its aftermath in twentieth-century British literature constructs a genre of literary analysis that is important in interpreting its impact. Literary theorists, Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and others respond with observations and analysis, focusing on relations between the colonizers and the colonized. In reading for colonialism and its aftermath in twentieth-century British literature, evidence of a hierarchy appears that establishes a usurper-usurped relationship in which the usurper becomes the governing culture. As the authoritative culture, the usurper secures a chosen geographical territory for the purpose of extracting natural resources as its own for economic advantage, resulting in activities that create irreversible changing realities. The purpose of this discussion will be to examine the evolution of colonialism and its aftermath from its defining historical moments to the contemporary viewpoints of Salman Rushdie who cites in The Empire Writes Back “those whom [the English] once colonized are carving out large territories within the language for themselves,” and reflects the world’s current cultural construction.

Because these changes-of-reality are crucial to the theme of colonialism and its aftermath, it is appropriate to look into narratives whose central theme is about changes-of-reality such as, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1902), and E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India (1924) both of whom are historical studies of colonialism and its aftermath in its immediacy. V. S. Naipaul’s A Bend in the River (1979), and Zadie Smith’s White Teeth (2001), on the other hand, explore alternative views of “hybridity” in colonialism’s extended aftermath that gives rise to Naipaul’s cultural exclusion and Smith’s cultural inclusion, an inclusion as Salman Rushdie suggests, and is an expansiveness unheard of in the heady days of colonialism’s beginnings as Joseph Conrad portrays in his early twentieth-century novel.

Heart of Darkness is the emblematic novel of colonialism and its aftermath that portrays a dual journey: an outer-journey of the African landscape and its external events, as a metaphor paralleling the inner journey of the narrator, Charles Marlow, and Kurtz the once-revered ivory idol. Textually, the narrative absorbs itself with the changes of reality in the form that Tom Nairn labels,“Imperial Delirium.” Marlow finds himself and Kurtz adversely affected by mental changes-of-reality beyond their grasp. Theorists indicate this “delirium”appears as a gap in an [European’s] mind between ingrained Victorian ideals and indigenous reality, making everything learned or known valueless. In the immediacy of what appears to be extreme culture shock, the powerful usurpers—Marlow and Kurtz—ironically lose their ability to function, and they become mentally usurped—by the effects of the delirium. Fredric Jameson simplifies it as “a kind of schizophrenia,” and a twenty-first-century NIH may note, Marlow and Kurtz suffer “from poor, or [no] executive function” that bars them from processing any new information.

Unfortunately, Marlow’s only pre-trip preparation is the grating pre-Congo medical exam in which the doctor inquires if there is any known insanity in his family, alluding to others returning in distress. In spite of the doctor’s cautionary words, Marlow experiences “delirium,” causing a rupture in his psyche, as he confronts the African’s diametrically opposed culture. David Spurr points out “this is the site or [moment] of [Marlow’s] terrifying encounter of his own nothingness.” Marlow loses his Western arrogance that was the foundation of his previous sense-of-self. Rereading Heart of Darkness in light of Marlow’s new sense-of -self, is the overriding factor that drives him, and forces him to face his own “heart of darkness.” Marlow’s alienation, therefore, becomes the signifier for the broader agenda of colonialism, and its aftermath that leaves him mentally displaced. Therefore, the title of Conrad’s novel is not necessarily a referent to Africa, but metaphoric for Marlow’s psychic emptiness.

And finally meeting Kurtz is an encounter with an enterprising rogue in a state of futility who has gone native, and has given way to extreme mental disintegration, becoming incomprehensible to himself and others. Fifty miles before Marlow finally meets Kurtz, at the Congo’s Inner Station, he finds a coping method, allowing him to hold onto some of his Victorian ethos, in the precision of Towson’s book (mechanic’s manual cum pseudo-Bible) that he reads repeatedly. Bhabha suggests Marlow’s rereading of Towson’s book allows for his “resolution between the madness of prehistoric Africa and the unconscious desire to repeat the intervention of colonialism.” Clearly, Marlow’s use of an otherwise mundane text to hold onto his sanity indicates the tenuousness of his grasp on reality and supports the immediacy of colonialism’s aftermath.

Conrad’s textual placement of the “book” according to Bhabha is, “the triumph of the colonialist moment in early English Evangelism,” and points to creationism. Supporting this idea, David Spurr recalls a correspondent who sees the African plain as the Book of Genesis for the colonizers, rewriting the ancient myth of origin. This further validates the colonizers’ power, a power that evaporates for both Marlow and Kurtz, leaving a psychical blank sheet for rewriting just as the colonizers are rewriting the African landscape. Kurtz’s final commentary demonstrates his own consumption by imperialism as he exclaims: “The Horror, The Horror.!

Another emblematic twentieth-century British text is E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India that foregrounds colonialism and the immediacy of its aftermath. And like Heart of Darkness is immersed in changes-of-reality, concerning two Englishwomen visiting India: Adela Quested and Mrs. Moore both of whom experience “Imperial Delirium.” In their quest to see the “real” India, Dr. Aziz, hosts a day trip to the Marabar Caves. Sara Surlei points out, “the essence of India is represented in [the caves] inner spaces, which can be described but not interpreted, implying a nothingness that metaphorically, India—like Africa in Heart of Darkness— is a historical zero available for the colonizers to construct. Because A Passage to India, can also be read as a parodic interpretation of the 1857 Indian rebellion with its lingering memory of murder and rape of Englishwomen and children, the novel’s pivotal moment surrounds the alleged rape of Adela by Dr. Aziz in one of the caves.

Unable to process what did occur in the cave, Adela transfers her trauma from a psychical to physical anguish, allowing time to deal with the indeterminacy of her terrifying experience—she later recants. But by placing the thrust of her story in a state of corporeality, Adela becomes signified as a rapist—symbolizing her imperialist status—and a victim in a “base” act that circumvents spirituality. Adela’s act of recanting; therefore, is easily read as a betrayal of the colonial’s way of life, which places her both physically and psychically in limbo. What surfaces in assessing the reactions to the rape by the colonizers, is the belief that crossing the invisible cultural divide is fraught with dangers for the colonials who are already wary of the “delirium.” Sara Surlei concludes, “this is not about rape, but the emotional fragility of intimacy, an intimacy that affects the sensibilities.” Adela’s companion, Mrs. Moore’s [moments of deli-rum] is in some ways more extreme, but “closer to the point” writes Alan Wilde in Horizons of Assent. Alone in a cave when something vile strikes her face, a breathless-madness are followed by the nothingness of the echo, Mrs. Moore describes as “boum,” irrevocably altering her spiritual world.

Like Marlow’s serendipitous book find, Mrs. Moore has unsought for thoughts of Christianity as she emerges from the cave, realizing that all its divine words from “Let there be light” to “It is finished” only amount to “boum.” Mrs. Moore involuntarily replaces her strong Christian beliefs with “Everything exists, nothing has value,” evoking secular philosophical precepts, more like the African Igbo and Yorùbà who believe everything is equal or of no value. Mrs. Moore’s new thoughts; nonetheless, suggests she crosses the cultural dividing line, placing herself close in thought to “Other,” and validates the notion the caves and the echo are symbolic of an unexplainable emptiness. Thus, Forster’s catastrophic concept of the consequences of crossing the cultural dividing line in A Passage to India’s creates changes-of-reality in ambiguity for Mrs. Moore, and Adela Quested. The delirium of colonialism’s aftermath is immediate in both Conrad’s and Forster’s novels, but fifty years after A Passage to India, V. S. Naipaul writes about the extended aftermath from a colonized viewpoint.

On one level, the 1974 post-colonialist novel, A Bend in the River reads as a retelling of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Where Marlow’s journey—knowing little in advance—is on a steamboat heading up the Congo in search of Kurtz, the ivory idol. Salim’s, journey in A Bend in the River—on a cousin’s word and little else—drives hopefully from coastal Africa in search of mercantile fortune in a kleptocratic Central African country that ends in illegal ivory trading. At the outset of Naipaul’s nihilistic postcolonial novel Salim is seemingly in Bhabha’s third space of “hybridity,” due to classification as Afro-Arab of Indian descent with a British Passport, which assumes that reality changes for Salim are in the past. Applying Bhabba’s displacement theory presumably fills the blanks of Salim’s backstory: liminality (transitory threshold of change), ambivalence (signifier between colonial authority and colonial desire), and mimicry (signifier of a double articulation). In Salim’s spurious designation of “hybridity” his wandering indicates lingering elements of liminality, ambivalence, and mimicry, supporting Salim’s inability to find a space of hybridity. Salim’s dis-ease is further clouded by his powerlessness to make solid connections with others, because everyone in his world is suffering the same post-colonialist effects symptomatic of the aimlessness of liminality and ambivalence.

Clearly, Naipaul sees colonization as an overwhelming cultural experience that leaves the colonized permanently disabled. Naipaul’s message about the powerlessness of colonialism’s aftermath is clear when Salim severely beats his girlfriend, Yvette. His beating of Yvette not only reveals a psychopathic level of misogyny, but is also symbolic of a brutal homeless man in an act that is an allegorical eruption of his exposure to social genocide. A social genocide Neil Lazarus describes, as “the destabilizing and in many cases the liquidation of indigenous societies, resulting in the colonized recreating themselves.” Salim’s disorientation is emblematic of colonialism’s aftermath, requiring him to write his history anew. Franz Fanon embodies Salim’s struggles to find solace in Black Skin, White Masks, “In a world in which I travel, I am endlessly creating myself, [eventually],” nonetheless, Fanon’s thoughts on recreating oneself proves that Salim is not completely without hope for the future. Salim’s hybridity-of-culture also signifies Rushdie’s referent, as he argues in The Empire Writes Back that in the post-colonialism world “no one can or should try to retain a singular identity.” Bhabha validates Rushdie’s global-ness, and points to cultural “hybridity” as a world without “imperial rulers” and with equality.

What Rushdie theorizes, Smith practical-izes in her 2001 novel, White Teeth through a focused societal group of Bengalese, Jamaican, and British cultures, set in 1980s-1990s England. Like A Bend in the River, the characters strain in recreating themselves to fit into the British lifestyle. Unlike A Bend in the River there is a strong sense of solidarity among the three cultures, which they, for the most part, seem oblivious to as they conduct their day-to-day lives, but consistently struggle against like salmon swimming upstream. It stands to reason that Bengalese Samad Iqbal, like Salim, in A Bend in the River has passed through liminality, ambivalence, and mimicry before merging into Bhabba’s third space of hybridity in London.

Unfortunately, Samad suffers from nationalistic nostalgia. And like many parents decide to live through his identical twin sons: Magid (“the precious intellectual”), and Millat (“the-good-for-nothing”). Samad deviously plots sand discusses with his World War Two British army buddy, Archie Jones, enlisting his aid to kidnap one of the twins in the middle of the night, drive him to Heathrow, and fly him to Bangladesh on a one way ticket to become a honorable-Muslim man..Samad’s less than well thought out plan can best be explained metaphorically using the concept of smashing protons that results in a shower of particles where “anything” can and will happen. What happens in Samad’s recreating of his personal Big Bang is, Magid returns from Bangladesh after eight years a well-educated Englishman, more English than an Englishman, dressed in the Englishman’s ubiquitous white linen suit, and aligns himself with a geneticist researcher, precluding any answer to any God. The first irony of this saga; however, is Millat who remains in England living a life of sex, rock, and roll until one day he turns that inevitable corner. Millat’s re-creation goes beyond Islāmic basic precepts by placing himself in the inner circle of the fundamentalist group, KEVIN, wearing their ubiquitous green bow tie.

The greatest irony; however is Irie Jones—daughter of British Archie Jones and his Jamaican wife—has sex with Millat early on a day, and sex with Magid later on the same day. The “anything” that can happen, happens, hybridity without recourse, since the twins have identical DNA, of course, there is no way to prove paternity. According to Said in support of Bhabha “no-one, today has only one nationality; no one originates from only one source or one nation,” or perhaps like Irie from only one union.

In reiterating the evolution of colonialism and its aftermath–from its defining moments to contemporary viewpoints–is clear in the four novels. For example, in Heart of Darkness Marlow, patently loses his grasp on his learned reality. Needless to say, Kurtz is just lost! Mrs. Moore in A Passage to India is at-sea psychically and physically, and no longer has anything to live for. Adela is unable to come to terms with the changes in her life breaks her engagement to Ronnie Heaslop and returns to England. Salim in A Bend in the River portrays cultural exclusion in his African wanderings, albeit with a glimmer of hope as noted by Fanon. Smith, on the other hand, writes in White Teeth, a story of the cultural inclusion Rushdie proposes, showing it as irreversible, as life becomes for the unborn child of British-Jamaican, Irie Jones, and Bengalese Magid or Millat Iqab. It is not the perfect world envisioned by Bhabha without hierarchy or prejudice, but an ongoing saga that continues to evolve.

After America’s discovery, most of Europe has started settling towards the coast, claiming anything that they could find. With insufficient discoveries of wealth, slavery and land grants became more prominent. During the 17th century, the transport and use of white indentured servants, natives, and African slaves have begun becoming consequential at that time. What makes slaves so favorable is not just the assistance they provide but the economic increases they supply for their master’s and society as a whole. Although land was free through headrights in the New World, profiting was fairly difficult without the use of slaves or servants, especially in a joint-stock state. The use of slaves from the past have not only affected the economy but the standard of society as well. Discrimination and the belief of racial superiority that was very common in the 17th century still exist as of the 21st century.

At the beginning of the 17th century, the majority of forced labor were poor white immigrants who exchanged their freedom by abiding by an indenture just to get to the New World. Indentured servants will work for a particular individual at a certain given time. When that time is up, the servants become free and who they worked for owes them dues. Slaves, on the other hand, are just like indentured servants except they are priced higher and most never attain freedom. With this many servants or slaves in a given area, it is only a matter of time before they become uncontrollable.

In the 1600s, laws were passed to settle disputes, some of them benefitting the master economically. For example, according to the Virginia Laws Governing Servants and Slaves, this law passed in 1662 states, “that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond [slave] or free only according to the condition of the mother” (Virginia Servant and Slave Laws,” in Handout Set p. 2). This law provides profit to the master because if a female slave becomes pregnant, consensual or not, the child will become a slave to the holder as well, adding more heads to the labor force. Another example would be the law passed in 1661 punishing runaway servants where it explains that due to missed labor, indentured will be serving twice their servitude towards their holder. Moreover, lost servants or slaves, in turn, leads to lost profits.

It’s no doubt forced labor contributes to profit according to this quote, “The slaveholding gentry dominated the politics and economy of the southern colonies”. What can be said about this, in general, is that the economic boom and profiting could have never been possible without slavery. However, those who did not enjoy being enslaved revolted, thus leading to more laws being passed.

In Colonial America, masters had a specific goal which was to make a profit. Slaves, on the other hand, wanted to obtain freedom. With both of these together, rebellions against masters sparked, resulting in additional laws to be passed. In 1669, a law enacted states, “if any slave resist his master (or other by his master order correcting him)… that his death shall not be accompted a ffelony”. This, in general, exclaims that it is legal to kill slaves. What could be said from this is it portrays signs of slaves resisting their holders. This resist is what lead to another law passed three years later which discloses that many slaves, Indians, or servants have begun rebelling throughout the country posing threats in parts of the area. To suppress this, it is lawful for any person to challenge and pursue the resistance by either wounding or killing them. Both of these laws don’t only correspond with each other but they also reveal the contentions between servants or slaves and their masters at the time. They all are also a way to prevent any uprisings from happening as much as possible.

An example of this in effect would be the Stono Rebellion in 1739 that happened in South Carolina. It occurred when around twenty slaves attacked a country store, taking weapons and ammunition. Other slaves joined resulting in the killing of twenty people. This rebellion was able to be restrained according to this sentence, “The Stono Rebellion illustrated that eighteenth-century slaves had no chance of overturning slavery and very little chance of defending themselves in any bold strike for freedom”. No revolts ever happened again through that period. Overall, this demonstrates that although the Stono Rebellion was unsuccessful, servants and slaves did not want to be forced to do labor any longer causing them to run away or rebel. It also shows the dominance portrayed by holders in suppressing resisters.

What’s significant about all of this is that, as stated before, due to slavery discrimination and the belief that a race dominates the other still persists throughout the 21st century. According to a recent report that happened in July 2018 titled Protests continue in Pittsburgh over police killing of unarmed black teen, it explains of a police killing an unarmed 17-year-old student, Antwon Rose Jr. This resulted in supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement to protest in front of the East Pittsburgh police station demanding retribution. This is but one of the examples that persist to this date. Unfortunately, there is still a long path ahead in having these issues resolved.

In conclusion, the discovery of Colonial America gave more land to Europeans. In hopes of gaining profits, settlers turned to slavery as a viable option. The use of servants and slaves became the very essence of profiting among investors. However, slaves and servants who no longer did not want to work tried to rebel but it usually does not work out in the end giving off this notion that holders were quite dominant. Not only did slaves affect the economy during the 17th century but also how we view others in a way that’s discriminatory and racist, still persisting today in the 21st century.

During the 1600’s, there were many similarities and differences between the Northern and the Southern colonies. For example, two differences that they had were the climate and growing, also their economy. A similarity was their relationship with the Native American. Throughout the struggles that the Northern and Southern colonies faced, they were able to overcome those challenges

Each colony has its own way on how they built their own society. For example, for the Southern Colonies was from the production of tobacco. Each colony had its own unique way of making a living. To being with, the climate in both places was very different from each other. In the Northern during the summer, it was warm and humid, in the winter it was very cold. They only had a thin layer of soil and only be able to farm with that. Due to the poor soil and climate in New England, they could not grow cash crops. How they overcome this problem, of not being able to farm, was to fish, whaling and also shipbuilding. They would fish cod, mackerel, bass and halibut. On the other hand, in the Southern, summers were warm and sunny, but in the winter it was cool. They had rich soil and are able to farm and produce cash crops. One of the biggest productions that they had was Tobacco.

Thus, the Northern colonies economy was based on manufacturing and trade. Some of the products that the Northern colonies would trade were fish, whales and ships. Since their soil was too thin, they were not able to grow any crops. While Southern Colonies economy was based on agriculture. Jamestown was a swampy area. In the Southern, the people would fertilize soil, forest, and long rivers. These types of sources they were able to trade were the nature sources which included fish, wood, land, and farming. Some of the things they would use for trade were Tobacco, cotton, rice, wood, and farm products. Farming for the Southern people was very important because that is where they would get trade and products from. Since tobacco was the most important crop, colonies started to become part of the Southern Colonies such as Virginia, Georgia, and Maryland.

A similar thing that the Northern and Southern Colonies share is the relationship between the Native Americans. The relationship between the New England and the Native Americans was not so great. They did not get along that well. The Northern Colonies thought that the Native Americans were inferior on how they lived. Although they took the Native Americans skills on farming, Southern Colonies and the Natives did not get along as well.

In the year 1622, the Native Americans and the Southern Colonies were having dinner, they thought that everything was going to go great, but the Native Americans turn on the Southern colonies which were in Jamestown. They killed many of the people who live in the colony. This was called the Massacre of 1622. In conclusion, In the Southern Colonies, they was good fertile soil, along rivers and swampy areas, they were able to make products of from their land. They were able to grow and produce stuff to trade and be able to get money or items back in return. Farming was very important to the Southern Colonies. In the Northern Colonies, although they did not have as much resources as the Southern Colonies, they still managed to find a way to be able to trade with others. They would trade fish, ships and many other things that would help them get thing done. Their struggles compared because they both did not get along with the Native Americans which made them alike.

Under British rule, America underwent many changes which not only impacted its economy but also brought on a shift in culture and politics. Before the 1660s, the policies adopted by the British in ruling their American colonies were influenced by the politics of England. England’s domestic politics was characterized by instability in the 17th and 18th centuries and thus the policies adopted in the American colonies failed. In addition to this, the colonies were disoriented, and this prevented the establishment of more effective policies. However, by the 1660s, England took significant measures to reorganize her leadership of the colonies and establish a more effective rule. This shaped British America through developments in politics, economy, society, and culture. In this essay, the developments of British America from 1688 to 1755 will be evaluated and the major forces behind this will be identified and discussed.

In 1688, the Glorious Revolution took place in England which saw the overthrowing of King James II, and the throne was taken over by his daughter and her husband. The revolution was driven by religious and political forces. The revolution led to a change in the political practices of England and gave Parliament more control. Additionally, it marked the establishment of political democracy. Following their rise to the throne, King William and Queen Mary came to an agreement with Parliament to establish a joint monarchy. They also assented to Parliament having more power which differed from the mode of rule undertaken by their predecessors. The Bill of Rights was signed by the King which marked the establishment of a constitutional monarchy (Hodgson, 81). The revolution placed restrictions on the monarchy of England and this impacted the influence of Parliament in the subsequent years.

The revolution not only influenced England, but its 13 North American colonies as well. Once the Americans got wind of the news, there were uprisings from the colonies. Boston’s revolt took place in 1689 which saw the overthrowing of Sir Edmund Andros. He was overthrown due to his oppressive directives on Boston such as the Navigation Acts, banning town meetings, declaring land titles invalid, and appointing officers in disfavor of the people of Boston (Black, 37). The dominion officials were arrested by the citizens of Boston as well as the militia and those who favored the administration were apprehended as well. Following this revolt, an uprising took part in New York in the same year. Jacob Leisler, an American captain, took over the colony and became its ruler. Leisler ruled over the colony from 1689 to 1691and was eventually arrested. A similar uprising took place in Maryland when John Coode took over from Catholic rulers but he, like Leisler, was eventually arrested and the colony was taken over by the British (Black, 38). The uprisings were an expression of the Americans’ resentment of British governmental policies.

While the rebellions failed in doing away with British rule over the colonies, they changed the political environment of British America. King William’s war was declared following the interest of France’s monarchy to take land from Germany. The war was conducted in the form of Guerilla warfare which was considered to be the most effective form of war in the wilderness. Guerilla warfare was commonly used among the Indians but was adopted by the people of England following the War of King Philip. A cultural change in the way of war took place among the colonists when they adopted Indian ways such as the use of scalping knives and hatches. War continued in North America and French militia were murdered by English troops in Montreal in 1690 (Geloso, 24). The French, in return, murdered the people of New York. England invaded Quebec in the same year and this led to the death of many England soldiers. The wars did not only affect England but also the North American colonies who were the collateral damage.

Other wars followed such as Queen Anne’s war of 1702, the war of Jenkins’ Ear of 1739, and King George’s war of 1744. The wars also impacted the economy of the North American colonies. For instance, the 1690 war between the French and England saw the use of paper money in the Massachusetts Bay colony. More economic activities were adopted in the colonies such as the growing of rice that was introduced in Carolina in 1693 (Cook, 16). There were also advancements in doing away with the slave trade. In 1732, South Carolina made efforts to abolish the importing of slaves and this led to the founding of Georgia. Within Georgia, slavery was banned in 1735.

In 1740, the Plantation Act was passed, and it was aimed at encouraging more people to move into the colonies. It provided a relatively cheaper means through which imperial naturalization could be accomplished. Georgia’s accomplishments towards slavery were short-lived as it was permitted again in 1750. The British experienced another military loss in 1755 in the Braddock Expedition where their war efforts against France led to the death of Braddock and marked one of the worst defeats for the British (Geloso, 24). The events of 1688 to 1755 therefore impacted British America’s economy, politics, and culture and ultimately shaped the colonies for the American revolution.

Works Cited

1. Black, Jeremy. Geographies of an Imperial Power: The British World, 1688-1815. Indiana University Press, 2017.
2. Cook, Chris, and John Stevenson. British historical facts: 1688-1760. Springer, 2016.
3. Geloso, Vincent. “Trade or Raid: Acadian Settlers and Native Indians Before 1755.” Available at SSRN 3028206 (2017).
4. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. “1688 and all that: property rights, the Glorious Revolution and the rise of British capitalism.” Journal of Institutional Economics 13. 1 (2017): 79-107.

In his controversial pamphlet, The True Interest of America, Irish clergyman Charles Inglis forewarned death and despair if the American colonies separated from Great Britain—no matter the victor. If Mother England squashed the colonists, Inglis feared to “receive terms from her in the haughty tone of a conqueror.” If she lost to the ragtag rebels, Inglis could not imagine “what extremities her sense of resentment and self-preservation will drive Great Britain to?” Regardless of the outcome, Britain would “risk everything [sic]” to keep its thirteen colonies. They were simply too important to lose. Almost as if he was replicating the script for a dystopian movie teaser, Inglis predicts that American independence “would, in the end, deprive [Britain] of the West Indies, shake her empire to the foundation, and reduce her to a state of the most mortifying insignificance.” Quite reasonably, most twenty-first-century armchair historians would agree with Inglis. By losing the United Colonies, the Empire lost control of approximately 2.5 million people, 290,000 square miles of New World land, and $635 million in exports (adjusted for inflation). American independence, it seems, was a British disaster. But not quite. Great Britain surely lost the war but it expertly managed—and won—the peace. This paper argues that all things considered, the American Revolution was the best thing that could have happened to the British Empire because it hastily addressed and ended an inevitable conflict while gaining invaluable lessons on ruling and administering an empire. Such revolutionary lessons allowed the British to reach the zenith of their power during the century-long Pax Britannica and delay observations of its “mortifying insignificance” for a century-and-a-half.

By refusing to comply with demands from American colonists, Britain expedited and resolved an inevitable conflict that bore a lenient peace and salvaged most of Britain’s New World assets. Military historians from both sides of the Atlantic have long argued that the War of American Independence could have been won by the British if London had supplied its armed forces with more manpower and resources and the field commanders had done more to starve, outmaneuver, and vanquish the colonists. In that case, as Niall Ferguson aptly writes, “there might never have been the United States.” In actuality, the British had lost the war from the start. No matter, when, where, or how the British responded to the American uprising, the conflict between Mother England and its colonial children was inevitable. As Ferguson explains, “For more than a century there had been a tacit tug of war between centre and periphery—between royal authority in London, as represented by the centrally-appointed colonial governors, and the power of the colonists’ elected assemblies.” While Britain had spent the late-seventeenth century trying to establish “European-style hereditary aristocracies” in the form of a “crown colony,” by the mid-eighteenth century the British proclivity for independence prevailed in the colonies. One royal official noted that British American colonies were “effectively ‘Independent Common Wealths,’ with legislatures that were effectively ‘absolute within their respective Dominions’ and barely ‘accountable for the Laws or Actions’ to the crown.” Heavily detached from London both geographically and politically, American colonists largely handled their own affairs since “British authority…rested on ties of loyalty, affection, and tradition.” Imagine the colonists’ surprise when Britain began using force to levy taxes and impose rules on them. Conflict ensued, primarily because a regime will encounter far more resistance by providing its subjects with political autonomy for decades and then stripping it all away, instead of just forcefully ruling over them from the start. Thus, no matter how many times the British “asserted its sovereignty and was compelled by American resistance to back down,” the two sides would disagree. The Parliament declared it had the “‘full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonists and people of America,’” and the colonists demanded “the same liberty enjoyed by their fellow subjects on the other side of the Atlantic.” Instead of spending another decade “running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition” and waiting for a reply as the dispute boiled over, the British refusal to grant representative authority to the American colonies made war inescapable—it also made defeat necessary. As British statesman Edmund Burke proclaimed, ‘“The use of force alone…may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.’” Not only would the conflict persist, London “lacked the stomach to impose British rule on white colonists who were determined to resist it.” The British quickly went to war, and quickly realized that they could never fully subdue the thirteen colonies. After five years of fighting, Britain sued for peace and signed the merciful Treaty of Versailles with the US in 1783. Despite losing the war, the British Empire largely benefitted, on balance, from the peace. Not only did Britain stop incurring the “costs of reimposing” its authority on the rebels and protecting the colonies, it gained control over new subjects, land, and exports. Besides keeping its “northwest frontier forts of Oswego, Niagara, [and] Detroit” until 1798, many American Loyalists fled north and helped colonize and populate Canada. More importantly, as Britain prioritized its commercial prowess, the US became a valuable trading partner. From 1780-1790, Britain exported “over £25 million of goods” to the US, which secured the empire’s “economic prosperity.” A seventeenth-century cost-benefit analysis would likely highlight the direct merits of defeat for the British.

The British Empire also indirectly gained when its defeat ignited “a whole new phase of British colonial expansion” and instituted a whole new rulebook for improving their colonial administration over white settlers and indigenous populations. With the loss of America, the British government sought new places for its citizens (criminals or otherwise) to emigrate while countering any strategic land grabs from their European rivals. While some historians argue that “gaining Canada in the Seven Years War” forced the British to lose America, the loss of America also “secur[ed] Canada for the Empire, thanks to the flood of English-speaking Loyalist immigrants” from America who overwhelmed the French population. But since the “American experiment” had proven sustainable, how would the British Empire prevent “other white colonies” from “break[ing] away as republics the way the US had?” The lessons of the American Revolution prevented any “fresh colonial revolt.” Three British officials, Durham, Buller, and Wakefield spent six months in Canada before returning to London to prepare their report of the new colony. This Durham Report, according to Ferguson, “had a good claim to be the book that saved the Empire.” It acknowledged that the American colonists were correct. Their demands that those governing the colonies should be “accountable to representative assemblies of the colonists” was justified. Durham’s recommendation to create a system of “responsible government” in Canada that “would give the people a real control over its own destinies” likely precluded a War of Canadian Independence. This judicious approach was replicated in Australia and New Zealand, which only strengthened British rule in the Pacific vis-à-vis imperial Dutch, French, and Spanish maneuvering. More importantly, it demonstrated that the lessons of authority from the American Revolution helped Britain command far more territory, people, and resources while improving their method of control.

Losing the American Revolution also made Great Britain stronger because it forced a re-evaluation of its strategic interests and regional methods of authority. In the Western Hemisphere, the American colonies had always been far less commercially important than the Caribbean islands. The former had been “heavily dependent on trade with Britain” and “regardless of political arrangements they would remain so for the foreseeable future.” On the flip side, the Caribbean’s economic importance was demonstrated durin the war when the island’s exported goods “provided the funding to continue the war and King George III was willing to risk French invasion of the British homeland to protect these vital territories.” Capitalizing on its desire to become the global economic hegemon, Britain refocused its naval power on the Caribbean area, where Admiral George Rodney “thoroughly defeated the French Caribbean fleet” and the “balance of power” and profits went to the British. Along this similar economically-motivated vein, the British “protected and expanded trade in India and Asia” while gaining “valuable trade rights in the Dutch East Indies.” And as the American Revolution encouraged the British Empire to grant autonomy and representation to settler colonies, this same Revolution encouraged the Empire to re-focus on commercially-profitable ventures while maintaining a strict degree of control from the very beginning—never letting thousands of miles or different cultures stand in the way of making money.

In October 1781, a member of the British House of Lords declared General Cornwallis’ defeat in Yorktown a “calamity” and “disaster.” The nation had not only lost the war but the “crown jewel” of the seventeenth-century British Empire. Some Britons predicted internal rebellion and dissolution. Quite the contrary. Great Britain surely suffered in the short term by losing the American colonies, but it ultimately became a far more extensive and resilient empire because of this loss. Not only did it preempt the inevitable—a war against colonial rebels—it was able to get rid of America, a “Burden,” “a Millstone hanging around the Neck” of Britain while retaining many postwar assets—loyalists, forts, trade, and Canada. Better yet, Thomas Paine’s incredulity that “a continent” was “perpetually governed by an island” seemed far less “absurd” when British colonial administrators and legislators learned to appease, not fight, white settlement colonists and prioritize its economic strength via harsh, exploitative colonialism in India, Asia, and the Caribbean islands. Such lessons engendered the “Second British Empire”—far more powerful than the first.

This whole debate over Taxation and Representation had become an important discussion topic for the colonists of British and the Parliament during the years 1763 to 1775. There had been an enormous difference in the perspectives of Great Britain and the American colonies. It has also been concluded that somehow the colonies did not represent themselves individually in the Parliament and therefore, correspondingly, the British taxes had also been interpreted as “taxation without representation”.

First, from the American perspective, in various ways, taxes did affect the people. However, it was precise that the Britain Empire would have been a vital element in the founding of the American colonies. The given assigned readings which are trying to support the viewpoint of the American perspective suggest that colonists had several rights. In the Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved by James Otis. He speaks regarding the major benefits of knowing the colonist’s interests thoroughly until those in the parliament. He claims that “ the colonists, black and white, born here, are free-born British subjects, and entitled to all the essential civil rights of such, is a truth not only manifest from the provincial charters, from the principles of the common law, and acts of parliament; but from the British constitution, which was reestablished at the revolution, with a professed design to lecture the liberties of all the subjects to all generations.”(Otis 2) By this, he is basically trying to portray that the parliament should consider themselves fair or equal. His assumptions are based on the legal British concepts and the freedom of Britain. Yet he also expects Great Britain to not to appear towards the contradict of the constitution, to continue to receive either the colonist’s approval or to also allow all of them to be represented. Moving forward, it was also claimed by Samuel Johnson and Soame Jenyns that sometimes colonies were already being fairly represented by their interests. The whole concept that the colonists are not representatives due to their absolute lack of votes, was rejected by Johnson in his paper which is called Taxation No Tyranny. On the other side, Saome Jenyns further tries to argue in his paper, The objections to the taxation of our American Colonies By The Legislature Of Great Britain, Briefly considered, that somehow the government seemed to have the power to tax the colonies and promoted in his favor regarding the notion of fully interactive illustration.

While reading The Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress by John Cruger or John Dickenson. The document was intended to make claims which embraced the colonist’s freedoms and rights and to convey their disagreements. The colonists also demanded a jury trial which was said to be an optional advantage or a benefit. They wanted more payment arrangements; in his paper, he states that “the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great-Britain mutually affectionate and advantageous”.(Cruger/Dickenson 2)By reading all the documents and all the acts which support the American position and how exactly do they feel about the partnership between the Colonies and Great Britain. It was believed that the US wanted to have a good friendship/relationship with Great Britain because of the words they used throughout the documents and acts the colonist’ rights are being abused. Altogether, the subject matter is just regarding equal opportunities.

Second, from the British perspective, the existence of Great Britain was strengthened by two important documents which were the objections to the taxation by Soame Jenyns and Samuel Johnson and The Declaratory Act. Both documentation states that Great Britain had many privileges, and it perhaps had a lot of control over colonies. While reading the paper, The Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies by the Legislature of Great Britain, by Soame Jenyns. He stated that “The liberty of an Englishman . . . cannot mean; that is, an exemption from taxes imposed by the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain…” Whereas S. Jenyns’ viewpoints on the other side were discriminatory mostly because of her involvement in the British parliament. Furthermore, Jenyns does addresses the equilibrium between right and wrong in a society in Soame Jenyns and Samuel Johnson, which determines the government’s role. It had also been assumed that it was a common opinion of the narrator of this document, that an Englishman would have to be taxed and had little perception as to whether he should be taxed or not. Throughout the paper, the author did overlook that because Englishmen had not yet been required to pay tax than anywhere around the world and the colonist had similar terms with the taxes with the average Englishmen. Furthermore, this argument made by Soame Jenyns could be strengthened by another article which was written by Samuel Johnson which is Taxation, No Tyranny, if the reader looks at the quote which had been stated in the paper written by Johnson which stated that, “A tax is a payment, exacted by authority, from part of the community, for the benefit ….appropriated by the states assembled in parliament” and later on, in the end, he also states that”, “Of every empire all the subordinate… their proportion of the expense”. To conclude, by looking at these two quotes, it is indeed fair and on the other side, it is rational too.

In the Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved by James Otis, the narrator has a strong fascination about to stay as somewhat of a province under Britain’s rule. He provides A common threat that the settlers would be harmful to taxation without representation. To support his argument for supporting the colonists. He argued that it would lead to a stronger system and links amongst both the colonies and Great Britain in having colonies to serve themselves. Moreover, Otis also writes in his conclusion that “the colonies are subordinate dominions, and are now …. greatest peace and prosperity and render it invulnerable and perpetual”. Moving forward, The Continental Congress managed to remain the perception as authored in The Resolution of the Stamp Act, 1765, where there was a lack of acknowledgment which perhaps the colonist also seems to criticize the taxes imposed by Great Britain’s government. Most of the colonists may not have been pleased towards His Emperor and Great Britain’s Government, and it also figured out a way to incorporate the colonies into the governing body of Parliament.

If we talk about another document that plays a major role in this debate is the Declaratory act, which is basically an act that was created in response to only the proposal for the stamp act by the Parliament of Great Britain. Also, it does indicate throughout this above-mentioned act that somehow the colonist seems to be their focus. Great Britain’s Declaratory Act would have been basically a strategy that ensured that the nation claimed perceived safety of reliance within the territories of the sovereignty. By reading all the documents and all the Acts which support the British position it is evident from Britain’s point of view that they keep Great Britain in devotion. Also, Britain does believe that it may be stronger than that of the colonist as well as the colonist has no single reason to rant about it.

My above whole argument shows how and why the British and the US parties were trying to rationalize their viewpoint on the British legislature’s, “right to impose its colonies.” Even though the American citizens had no right to vote and have not been represented in the parliament, they argued that the parliament was not allowed to tax them AT ALL. They did claim that it violates the Constitution to tax them. Overall, this controversy had been one of the factors for the American Revolution and how the US gained its independence.

John Dickenson, “letter from a farmer in Pennsylvania” (1767)

John Dickinson who wrote Letters from a Farmer lived from 1732-1808. He was also known as a moderate before signing The Declaration of Independence in 1776. John Dickenson was opposed to breaking away from England and believed in the rights of Englishmen. He viewed the attempts of taxation on the colonists as violations of the rights he believed he was afforded as an English man and opposed them. However, he did not advocate violence or separation from England. After the passage of the Townshend Acts in 1767, Dickinson wrote a series of twelve weekly Letters from a Farmer from Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies. The first of the twelve letters appeared in the Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser for November 30-December 3, 1767. These letters discussed the attitude the British Parliament assumed toward the American colonies and became so popular and well-liked/supported that many colonial newspapers reprinted them.

I picked the primary document Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania because it showcases the mindset of Americans at the time, visible by the overall enthusiasm the letters were met by. In a time where so much change is happening and has already happened in America, it’s interesting to see the growing independence and overall feeling of separation from England. In direct opposition, you also see how England abused the colonies through over-taxation and the lack of representation in parliament. All of this culminates in America declaring its independence from England and establishing itself as a country.

The Wonders of the Invisible World

Cotton Mather who wrote The wonders of the Invisible World was born in Boston and educated at Harvard College which is now better known as now Harvard University. He served with his father in the ministry of Boston’s North Church from 1685 until his father Increase Mather died in 1723 where after his death Cotton Mather served as the sole pastor until his death. The Wonders of the Invisible World used to justify the Salem trials, was followed in by a work entitled More Wonders of the Invisible World. Compiled by Robert Calef, a man skeptical and very disturbed by the accusations of witchcraft. It contained his account, written in 1693, Mather’s investigations of a girl he believed bewitched. In the book, The Wonders of the Invisible World Cotton Mather includes excerpts from the trial of Bridget Bishop, who was from Salem Village in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. She kept a wayside tavern and held property in the town which more than likely made her a target. In that time period, any woman who was seen as independent and without the need of a man was already ostracized and looked at differently. She would end up being the first witch to be tried and executed.

I chose The Wonders of the Invisible World because just like Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania shows a distinct view that someone held. Those views lead/contributed to the influence of many people to think and respond in a similar manner. The power of suggestion and the supernatural explanations for scientific phenomena are other reasons I chose this work of literature. The suggestions like religious figures such as Cotton Mather made, during the Salem witch trials, to explain what at the time hadn’t yet been explained through science show the effect suggestion can have on a collective group and influence a town and community as a whole. The paranormal aspect of witchcraft contributes to my own interest in this topic as well because even though science explains a large portion of today’s mysteries, I would still like to imagine that there is more magic in the world.

The Declaration of Independence

On June 7, 1776, after years of escalating tensions between England and America, the colonies she claimed, Richard Henry Lee submitted to the Second Continental Congress a resolution to declare the American colonies as independent from their parent country England on June 7, 1776. Even before 1776, the American colonies had rejected the oppressive and abusive rule of Brittan’s parliament. One example of this is seen through England’s attempts to tax the colonies without having any representation in parliament. However, even with the years of turmoil there still seemed to be no conclusion. So, with no consensus, Congress delayed the vote and instead appointed a committee to write The Declaration of Independence. This committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston although it was largely in part written by Jefferson. The committee’s draft would be submitted on June 28, 1776. On July 2 after much debate, secret meetings, New York abstaining, and in addition to some late arrivals, there were enough delegates in attendance for a vote towards independence. The declaration would later be officially be printed and copies would be made on the 4th thus the date stayed the 4th of July and would become America’s day of independence.

I chose the declaration of independence because I don’t think I truly know enough about it and what all went into declaring America’s independence. Being an American citizen, it should be important to not only me but every American because, without it, the world itself would be a vastly different place. I wouldn’t have the freedoms and liberties I have today if The Declaration of Independence hadn’t been willed into existence by the American people. In addition, the overall political climate has shifted so much recently, that I felt it more advantageous to spend time thinking about what the core views of an American should be based off of the content of The Declaration of Independence and what many people are willing to give up while forgetting about what we sacrificed to attain those freedoms.

Bibliography

1. Dickinson, John. ‘Letters from a Farmer from Pennsylvania.’ In The American Revolution. American Journey. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 12, 2019). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ2153000221/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=fa49da32
2. ‘Dickinson, John.’ In Primary Sources, edited by Barbara Bigelow, Stacy A. McConnell, and Linda Schmittroth, 63-70. Vol. 4 of American Revolution Reference Library. Detroit, MI: UXL, 2000. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 12, 2019). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3411900113/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=0bc4bfa.
3. “Mather, Cotton.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase. https://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahencyarticle.aspx?ID=14350 (accessed September 12, 2019).
4. ‘Mather, Cotton, Cheever, Ezekiel, and Sewall, Samuel.’ In Primary Sources, edited by Peggy Saari and Julie L. Carnegie, 145-158. Vol. 5 of Colonial America Reference Library. Detroit, MI: UXL, 2000. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 12, 2019). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3425300134/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=f772401.
5. “Mather, Cotton.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase. https://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahencyarticle.aspx?ID=14350 (accessed September 12, 2019).
6. ‘Cotton Mather.’ In Encyclopedia of World Biography Online. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1998. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 13, 2019). https://link-gale-com.proxy042.nclive.org/apps/doc/K1631004353/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=5bd7b3c8.
7. Jefferson, Thomas. ‘Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.’ In The American Revolution. American Journey. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 12, 2019). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ2153000045/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=9bd89eff.
8. ‘Signers of the Declaration of Independence.’ In Historic World Leaders, edited by Anne Commire. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1994. Gale In Context: U.S. History (accessed September 13, 2019). https://link-gale-com.proxy042.nclive.org/apps/doc/K1616000009/UHIC?u=nclivecoacc&sid=UHIC&xid=8f7a65a5.
9. Shi, David E. America: the Essential Learning Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2018.

Was Christopher Columbus really the first person to step on the ground we know today as America? Well, the expansive territory we know today was first inhabited by the Native Americans and others such as Columbus explored the land throughout the 16th and 17th century, Native Americans started to respond. Their were many stages, but it grew from cooperation, to indigation, and eventually to revolt. They sided with the French during the French and Indian War (also known as the 7 Years War) due to their dislike of the British and were removed from their homes by Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act many years later. Andrew Jackson, the president of the United States at the time, signed the Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830. The Indians strongly resisted the Americans every time and the relationship between them was very peculiar and changed over the course of time.In this essay, I will be explaining the major events and relationships that occured between the Native Americans and outsiders from the 16th century to the 19th century.

Ever since the first English colonists arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, the relationship between them and the Indians was already unstable. Before these Englishmen showed up, the Native Americans had thrived on the land for decades and the main conflict between these two parties was the control over the lands. Multiple series of battles took place between the two in the 1600s, but one of the most devastating attacks took place on March 22, 1622. The Powhatan Indians initiated an attack on Virginia where the bloodbath was so large it ended up being known as the Jamestown massacre. The English used this as a reason to strike back against the Native Americans and take their lands. Around 340 American settlers died that day. The Native Americans attacked because English colonists who settled in Jamestown first wanted to take care of the need of native corn to keep peace with Native Americans who had hundreds of surrounding villages. A second major war in the 1600s was the Pequot Massacre where English Captain John Mason with the help of allies (Puritan and Mohegan forces) attacked Pequot village. Up to 500 women, men and children were either burned alive or massacred by the English force. This event occurred when 13 english colonists and traders were killed by the Pequot Tribe. The war came to an end when a third attack ending in a massacre on the Pequot occurred and the remaining Indians were either sold into slavery or escaped to New England to join other tribes. The hatred and conflict between the Englishmen and Native Americans spiraled out of control and the relationship was nowhere near stable in the 1600th century.

One of the last major battles fought between the United States and the Native Americans was the Battle of Timbers. This battle was the key to opening Northwestern territory in 1794. It was the final battle between the United States and the Western Confederacy which included the Indians and their alliance with the British. The main reason for this battle was that the Western Confederacy was beating the United States alarming the one and only George Washington. Washington ended up asking a fellow war veteran Anthony Wade to prepare a new army that they would take to battle. Having more than plenty of time to prepare his army the Americans than wanted to possess the lands that laid North of the Ohio River which they won from the British. In the Battle of Timbers, the war was short since the Indians were drastically outnumbered. The British of course who in the beginning supplied the Indians with what they needed ended up closing the gates and provided no shelter for the fleeing Indians. The British were not authorized to start a war with the Americans. The relationship between the Indians and the Americans has not improved since the 16 century as they continue to kill each other at the price of more control over more land. With the British, the Indians did receive aid from them but eventually got shut out by them when things went south.

On May 28, 1830 former president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, signed the Indian Removal Act. This act would allow the government to divide the lands west of the Mississippi to be given to Indian tribes to make up for their missing land. This act removed the Native Americans away from their lands since America needed more for themselves due to expansion. America thought of these Native Americans as an uncivilized group and wanted to clear them out. It is clear at this point that the Americans do not see the Indians as equal and would not let them have the equal rights they deserve. Only a couple years later the Trail of Tears occurred. Many Americans who lived out on the near Indian territory greatly resented them. They saw Indians as a non human species who only occupied the lands that they wanted for themselves and what they believed they earned the right for. The Cherokee were driven west and forced to sign treaties which drove them away. This event shows how extremely cruel the U.S. Government was to the Native Americans since unfair rights was handed out to the Indians while America got their land to exploit the natural resources. Indians were forced to walk over 1,200 miles away from their home, and throughout this journey, many died from harsh conditions and weather. Several thousand Cherokees also died as a result of the laws put up by the federal authorities. After this suffering and the horrible journey that the Indians called “The Trail of Tears”, the Americans promised that their new lands would forever be untouched. Although as time went on this ceased to be false while the line of territory decreased. In 1907, Oklahoma became a state on the Indian land causing it to cease to exist.

Another conflict between the Indians and Americans rose called the Wounded Knee Massacre. A large massacre occurred in 1890s leaving 150 Native Americans dead in what was the last major conflict between Americans and Indians. It consisted of the federal troops and the Sioux. The U.S. committed this act due to the government being worried about the influence rising around ghost dancing. This Ghost dancing consisted of spiritual movement and it “taught that Indians had been defeated and confined to reservations because they had angered the gods by abandoning their traditional customs”. They thought by practicing this and rejecting the whites way, a new world would be created by god and all non believers including Indians would vanish out of existence. On December 29th, the American cavalry surrounded a bunch of ghost dancers at a lake demanding that they drop their weapons and surrender. After a mishap, a big fight broke out at that lake. Around 150 Indians died, many including women and children as well as 25 men of Americans cavalry. This conflict was referred to as a battle but if you think about it, it is considered a tragedy and massacre more than a battle. This event however, did stop the Indians from influencing ghost dance movement and it was the last battle between the Plain Indians and Americans. Although no one knows who fired the first shot in this battle it is clear the Americans and Indians relationship does not improve in the late 18th century.

Around 1924, the first great step towards a better relationship between Native Americans and Americans occurred. The Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law allowing all Indians to become citizens. Although it was limited to Native Americans who were war veterans or women who received citizenship, America eventually did take a step in the right direction by giving it to all of them. Even though their citizenship was strongly governed by the state law it was better than the battles and bloodshed that occurred before. This paper has only concluded the horrible relationship Americans had with Indians throughout the centuries. No real improvements were made between the two until after the 1920s. Indians always sided against them and never really helped in either way, as did the Americans. Major improvements were made once the two started working together and this is how it should be.

The road to the confederation of Canada was not just one event; it was a battle between many ups and downs to get Canada to where it is right now. It consisted of many different conferences and negotiations. The union of the British North American colonies such as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland was involved. Confederation was a slow process of learning how to nation bond and eventually coming to terms to unite as one. Understanding the process of confederation allows for individuals to question how different the events could have gone with just a simple alteration.

Confederation was a movement in history that made Canada the country it is today. The ideas of confederation started as early as the 1790s; however, it was not brought into action until the early 1860s. Confederation all started due to the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865. The war was a battle between northern and southern states which took the lives of many and destroyed many homes and families. The war was considered to be an “internal affair, the interference of Britain and its North American colonies created hostility to the point of military conflict”. The fact it got so out of control resulted in the start of the confederation.

The Charlottetown conference of 1864 is where individuals such as John A. Macdonald and George-Etienne Cartier gave their input on why confederation would be beneficial to the nation. There were three main reasons the individuals spoke for pro-confederation. Holding loyalty to the British Crown, a stable government where people can control their affairs, and lower households based on population.

After all the proposals everyone had come to the conclusion they would meet back in Quebec, for the Quebec conference. The conference occurred in the year of 1864, where the British North American colonies joined together in Quebec to discuss creating a country. “The Quebec Conference was a success, and the delegates reached a compromise…they included the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada”. Here it is evident the impact the Quebec conference had on the confederation, and what we have now.

The final push to strive for confederation was all the negotiations between the colonies. Which consisted of Canada West and East, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland; where each colony had its say. West Canada had come up with the confederation proposal allowing them to be on board, whereas East Canada was not on board at the start. Cartier; however, had changed the minds of the French Canadians, informing them it would allow for the protection of their affairs. New Brunswick was anti-confederation, due to A.J. Smith, resulting in a hold on the talk of confederation. Nova Scotia, quite similar to New Brunswick, was faced with Joseph Howe who, “ saw confederation as restricting the colony’s potential”. Prince Edward Island was a mix, a majority of its people did not want confederation, while premier John Hamilton Gray had supported it. Lastly, Newfoundland, had the least amount of ties to the confederation, as they had not even taken part in the Charlottetown conference. Each colony had said what they thought would be best for their them as a whole; however, eventually, once each colony was able to negotiate some sort of deal that was best for them, the confederation of July 1st, 1867, took place.

All of these events which occurred is what led Canada to what it is today; however, the question of what if confederation did not occur. Or the question of how easy everything would have gone if all the colonies quickly got on board. If the American Civil war did not break out, would the idea of confederation come into action? A big reason the confederation occurred was due to all the negotiations between the colonies fighting for what they wanted. If this had not happened today, there would have been unstable colonies. The change of belief of each colony would profoundly impact the confederation. If confederation did not occur, there would have been a constant battle between Canada West and Canada East. It was already known that these two colonies were at war; to this day, there would have been more fighting as well as a political gridlock between the two. Trying to pass laws for the people of the colonies would be very difficult as both colonies are stubbornly wanting to do what is best for themselves. The colony of New Brunswick had no opposition to confederation, and there were many benefits for New Brunswick. The trade pattern confrontation ended up being correct by going East to West which ended up allowing for successful trading for the colony. Canada was also not in debt which allowed for no issues of high tariffs. All the individuals were pro confederation as all their needs were met. Joseph Howe, of Nova Scotia, is all for confederation, he concluded that joining would allow for the growth and development of the province in the North American nation. Prince Edward Island was the easiest colony to convince to take part in the confederation during the debate. The premier of Prince Edward Island had promised the sale and purchase of land for many individuals would take part, convincing many the economic standpoint would be very beneficial. The colony, as a whole, had seen the helpful acts of confederation and declared for it. Lastly, Newfoundland was quite enthusiastic about confederation, as they were significant contributors to the Quebec Conference. The people of Newfoundland realized how joining the confederation would profoundly impact their economical standpoint, as joining with Britain was doing nothing for them. In conclusion, the confederation was one of the easiest takes of history. It was quite a unanimous decision, and by July 1st of 1867, everyone had become one, and the birth of Canada had risen. Luckily for what is known as Canada today, there were no bloody battles between any of the colonies. The weakness which would have arisen if confederation did not happen would most likely ruin what is here today. Confederation was fortunate enough to not face severe difficulties over the years, and the birth of what is known as Canada is here today. As Canada keeps on ageing the country as a whole grows and develops into something bigger and better.