Fathers
November 1753 – May 1754
Question 1
Read the passage
You are to go out as soon as possible to the Westward of the great Mountains, and carry with you such a Number of men as You think necessary, in Order to Search out and discover the Lands upon the river Ohio, & other adjoining Branches of the Mississippi down as low as the great Falls thereof.
— Committee of the Ohio Company, instructions to Christopher Gist, September 11, 1750
The instructions most directly reflect which mid-18th-century development?
- A royal ban on settlement west of the Appalachians, meant to avoid war with Native nations
- Colonial population growth and land speculation pushing settlement into the interior
- A French project to fill the Ohio Valley with farming settlements
- A Native sale of the Ohio Valley to Virginia at the Albany Congress
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (B) Colonial population growth and land speculation pushing settlement into the interior
- The ban on western settlement is the Proclamation of 1763, thirteen years later, issued to limit further frontier wars rather than to send surveyors looking for farmland.
- The British colonies held about 1.2 million people, mostly farmers pressing toward the mountains, and the Ohio Company, Virginia investors including the governor, held a 1749 Crown grant of 200,000 acres to settle the Ohio Country.
- France held the Ohio Country with forts and the fur trade, the route between Canada and the Mississippi, and Native nations generally preferred those traders to British farmers.
- At Albany in 1754, Pennsylvania's agents bought a tract from Six Nations leaders and read it as reaching toward the Ohio. That was not a sale to Virginia, and the Lenape who lived on the land did not sign.
Skill: Explain a historical development
Question 2
Read the source
Reported speech · interpreted and published in English · Verbatim
Fathers, both you and the English are white; we live in a country between; therefore the land belongs to neither one nor t'other.
— Tanaghrisson, through an interpreter and Washington, “The land belongs to neither” (1753)
Tanaghrisson's position is best understood in the context of
- the Iroquois Confederacy's formal alliance with France against the British colonies
- Native support for a royal boundary barring colonists from the West
- Ohio nations' balancing of rival empires to protect their land and trade
- a Native wish for direct rule by the Crown rather than by colonial governors
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (C) Ohio nations' balancing of rival empires to protect their land and trade
- Britain courted the Six Nations as allies, and Hendrick came to Albany demanding British forts, not as a partner of France. In the Ohio Country, Tanaghrisson himself led Washington's men against the French.
- The royal boundary is the Proclamation line of 1763. In 1753 Tanaghrisson was drawing the Virginians into a fight in the West, not backing a ban on colonial movement.
- The Six Nations played Britain and France against each other, and Tanaghrisson, speaking for them at the trading town of Logstown, denied that either empire owned the Ohio Country even as he chose a side in the war.
- Tanaghrisson denied ownership to both empires. He was not asking the Crown to govern Native communities in place of the colonial governors.
Skill: Explain how a source fits a broader historical context
The Word
May–November 1754
Question 3
Read the source
Joint public account of the surrender · Verbatim
The Number of the Killed on our Side was thirty, and seventy wounded
— George Washington and James Mackay, The commanders report their losses (July 19, 1754)
Which of the following was the most direct result of defeats like the one described?
- Britain barred settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains
- The colonies adopted the Albany Plan and raised a joint army
- France pulled its garrisons out of the Ohio Valley to avoid a wider war
- Britain sent Braddock's regulars against Fort Duquesne
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (D) Britain sent Braddock's regulars against Fort Duquesne
- The Appalachian ban is the Proclamation of 1763, a response to later frontier war and postwar debt, not the immediate result of the July 1754 surrender.
- Delegates at Albany drafted a plan of union in the same summer, and every colonial assembly rejected it. No joint colonial army came out of that plan.
- France stayed in the Ohio Valley, built Fort Duquesne at the Forks after the Virginians' unfinished post surrendered, and held it until 1758.
- In the spring of 1755 London sent General Edward Braddock with two regiments of regulars to take Fort Duquesne, the British army's answer to the 1754 defeats.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 4
Read the source
Letter rejecting rank without authority · Verbatim
If you think me capable of holding a commission that has neither rank or emolument annexed to it, you must entertain a very contemptible opinion of my weakness, and believe me to be more empty than the commission itself.
— George Washington, An empty commission (November 15, 1754)
The situation described best illustrates
- A British rule that ranked colonial officers below regulars
- colonial assemblies' control of promotions inside the British army
- colonial demands for elected seats in the British Parliament
- Washington's early turn toward independence from Britain
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) A British rule that ranked colonial officers below regulars
- London ranked any officer with the king's commission above any officer with only a colonial commission. Captain James Mackay therefore refused Washington's orders, and Washington resigned in November 1754 rather than drop from colonel to captain.
- The rank rule ran the other way. A royal captain outranked a colonial colonel, so the Virginia assembly did not control promotions in the British army.
- A demand for colonial members of Parliament belongs to the tax disputes of the 1760s. The 1754 quarrel was over military rank inside the empire.
- Washington wanted a royal commission like Mackay's, and in 1757 he still demanded the benefits of a British subject. He was trying to rise inside the British army, not to leave the empire.
Skill: Explain the historical situation of a source
The Deed
June–July 1754
Question 5
Read the source
Proposed plan of union · Verbatim
a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies.
— Commissioners at the Albany Congress, The Albany Plan of Union (July 10, 1754)
The Albany Congress mattered most to later developments because it
- created a permanent government uniting the thirteen colonies
- set a precedent for congresses that later coordinated resistance
- traded colonial seats in Parliament for new taxes to pay for defense
- gave the Six Nations voting seats on the proposed colonial council
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (B) set a precedent for congresses that later coordinated resistance
- Delegates came from seven colonies, not thirteen, and every assembly rejected the plan. No permanent joint government was created.
- The plan failed, but the meeting set a precedent. The colonies gathered again in 1765 and in 1774, this time to resist Britain. Franklin's 1754 cartoon Join, or Die had urged union against France.
- The plan never passed, and it did not exchange seats in Parliament for taxes. The fight over colonial representation in Parliament came with the tax laws of the 1760s.
- The Grand Council was to be chosen by the colonial assemblies. The Six Nations were at Albany for alliance talks and a land deed, not as voters in the proposed government.
Skill: Explain continuity and change over time
Question 6
Read the source
Autobiography · retrospective judgment · Verbatim
the assemblies did not adopt it, as they all thought there was too much prerogative in it, and in England it was judg'd to have too much of the democratic.
— Benjamin Franklin, Too royal; too democratic (c. 1788, recalling 1754)
What broader tension does Franklin's explanation of the plan's rejection reveal?
- Assemblies guarded their power to tax, and London feared colonial unity
- Assemblies wanted independence, and London wanted a closer union
- The colonies agreed that Britain should pay the cost of their defense
- The assemblies objected chiefly because the plan left out the Six Nations
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) Assemblies guarded their power to tax, and London feared colonial unity
- Each assembly refused to give up its own power to tax, which is what Franklin remembered as too much royal prerogative, while officials in Britain judged a joint colonial government too democratic and a threat to imperial control.
- Independence was not the assemblies' aim in 1754. They rejected the plan from inside the empire, and London's objection was that the plan gave colonists too much power, not that it failed to unite them.
- The assemblies did not accept a British-funded defense as the price of rejecting the plan. The dispute was over who would hold the power to tax, and after 1763 Parliament tried to tax the colonies directly.
- The Six Nations' absence from the Grand Council was real, and the Lenape did not sign Pennsylvania's Albany deed, but Franklin's recalled objections were about royal power and colonial democracy, not about Native representation.
Skill: Explain how a source fits a broader historical context
Inherit the Land
1755–1756 · coda: 1758
Question 7
Read the source
Indirect reported reply · Verbatim
If they might not have liberty to live on the land they would not fight for it.
— Shingas and fellow delegates, as reported by Charles Stuart, No land, no military support (1755)
The exchange Shingas described helps explain
- why the Iroquois Confederacy declared war on Britain in 1755
- why Britain issued the Proclamation of 1763 to keep French settlers out of the West
- why the Ohio nations broke off the fur trade with both empires after 1755
- why many Ohio Valley nations fought beside France early in the war
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (D) why many Ohio Valley nations fought beside France early in the war
- The Six Nations did not declare war on Britain. Britain courted them as allies, and Hendrick came to Albany asking for British forts, not to break with them.
- The Proclamation came in October 1763, and its aim was to halt colonial settlement and private land purchases west of the Appalachians so as to limit wars with Native nations. France was already gone from the mainland, and the order was not aimed at French farmers.
- Trade did not stop. In 1758 the Ohio nations said they wanted British traders, not a British fort, and the fur trade remained the basis of Native diplomacy with both empires.
- Braddock told the delegates the English would inherit the land and that he did not need their help. That autumn Shingas went to war against the English, and Lenape war parties burned farms from Pennsylvania to Virginia, so Britain lost the Native support it needed against France.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 8
Read the source
Adapted letter-book comparison · Adapted
The Virginians behaved like men, and died like soldiers. The regulars broke, and ran as sheep before hounds.
— George Washington, Virginians and regulars after the defeat (July 18, 1755)
Washington's account best reflects which wartime development?
- Doubt of British leadership, and pride in provincial troops
- A colonial movement for independence from Britain during the war
- British officers' new respect for colonial militia after the defeat
- An Ohio Valley alliance with Britain in the months after the battle
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) Doubt of British leadership, and pride in provincial troops
- After the Monongahela, Washington praised the Virginians and blamed the regulars who broke. Many colonists came to see the regulars as arrogant and poorly suited to the woods, while remaining proud of their own troops.
- No colonial independence movement existed in 1755. Washington was still an unpaid volunteer hoping for a royal commission, and in 1757 he demanded the benefits of a British subject.
- The defeat did not humble British opinion of provincials. Braddock had already dismissed American militia, and in 1758 James Wolfe called American troops contemptible and unreliable in action.
- The Ohio nations did not join Britain after the battle. Shingas went to war against the English that autumn. Their turn away from France came in 1758, with the Treaty of Easton.
Skill: Explain the point of view of a source
Four Continents
1756–1758 · world map through 1759
Question 9
Read the source
Circular to colonial governors · Verbatim
The Whole, therefore, that His Majesty expects and requires from the several Provinces, is, the Levying, Cloathing, and Pay of the Men
— William Pitt, Pitt’s promise to seek compensation (December 30, 1757)
The Whole, therefore, that His Majesty expects and requires from the several Provinces, is, the Levying, Cloathing, and Pay of the Men… strong Recommendations will be made to Parliament in their Session next Year, to grant a proper Compensation for such Expences as above, according as the active Vigour and strenuous Efforts of the respective Provinces shall justly appear to merit.
— William Pitt, circular to the colonial governors, December 30, 1757 (two passages)
The developments described contributed most directly to which of the following after 1763?
- Britain's return of Canada to France in order to cut defense costs
- The withdrawal of British troops from North America to save money
- New colonial taxes and stricter enforcement of the trade laws
- The assemblies' adoption of the Albany Plan to share defense costs
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (C) New colonial taxes and stricter enforcement of the trade laws
- In the Treaty of Paris, France ceded Canada to Britain, along with nearly all French land east of the Mississippi, and gave Louisiana to Spain. Britain did not return Canada.
- Britain kept about 10,000 regulars in North America after 1763, in forts such as Fort Pitt. The army stayed, and Parliament looked to the colonies to help pay for it.
- Pitt's ships, regiments, and promise to repay the colonies helped nearly double the national debt, from about £75 million in 1756 to about £133 million in 1763. Parliament then taxed the colonies and ended salutary neglect, as customs officers began collecting duties in 1764.
- The assemblies had already rejected the Albany Plan in 1754 because they would not give up the power to tax. They did not revive it after the peace to share costs.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 10
Read the passage
We can't conceive, that being Americans should deprive us of the benefits of British Subjects; nor lessen our claim to preferment. … The Americans are in general the dirtiest most contemptible cowardly dogs that you can conceive. There is no depending on them in action.
— George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, March 10, 1757; James Wolfe to Lord George Sackville, August 7, 1758
Taken together, the two excerpts best illustrate
- A shared plan for the colonies to fund imperial defense after the war
- Growing distrust between British officers and colonial soldiers
- Colonists' rejection of a British identity during the war
- British officers' support for giving the colonies seats in Parliament
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (B) Growing distrust between British officers and colonial soldiers
- These letters are about rank and respect during the fighting. The postwar argument over who would pay for defense came from the debt and from Parliament's taxes, and the colonies resisted those taxes.
- Washington demanded a British subject's right to promotion and had already condemned regulars who ran at the Monongahela. Wolfe wrote that Americans could not be depended on in action. The war bred distrust on both sides even while they fought France together.
- Washington's protest claims the benefits of British subjects and denies that being American should lessen them. Like most colonists, he still thought of himself as a loyal British subject.
- Neither letter proposes seats in Parliament. That demand grew later, against the taxes of the 1760s, and British officers were not its sponsors.
Skill: Explain how sources fit a broader historical context
Not One Foot of Land
1758–1759
Question 11
Read the source
Collective council words · staged through Shingas · Verbatim
Why do not you and the French fight in the old country, and on the sea? Why do you come to fight on our land?
— Council speakers recorded by Christian Frederick Post, “Why fight on our land?” (September 1, 1758)
What assumption do the council speakers challenge?
- Native communities could pursue diplomacy with more than one European empire at the same time.
- European rivals could wage their struggle on Native land without Native consent.
- The French and British could fight each other in Europe or at sea.
- Native communities had a claim to the country in which they lived.
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (B) European rivals could wage their struggle on Native land without Native consent.
- Ohio nations did deal with both empires. Tanaghrisson carried words to the French and then sided with Virginia, and in 1758 these same towns were hearing Pennsylvania's peace offer while French troops still held Fort Duquesne.
- Britain and France were fighting the Seven Years' War on Native ground. At Kuskusky the council rejected the assumption that the empires could wage that war in the Ohio Country without the consent of the people who lived there.
- The council named Europe and the sea as the places the two empires might fight. The objection was to a war fought in their country, not to the empires fighting each other elsewhere.
- The speakers were asserting that claim, in a country Virginia, France, and the Six Nations were all trying to control. The assumption they attacked was imperial use of the land, not the Native claim to it.
Skill: Explain the purpose of a source
Question 12
Read the source
Military proclamation invoking an earlier treaty · Verbatim
by a Treaty held at Easton in the year 1758 … the Country to the west of the Alegeheny Mountains is allowed to the Indians for their hunting Ground
— Henry Bouquet, Easton and western settlement (Easton 1758 · invoked by Bouquet in 1761)
How does Native peacemaking complicate an explanation based only on British battlefield victories?
- British victory in the Ohio Valley came mainly from colonial militias fighting without regulars
- Ohio nations withdrew support because France had already surrendered Canada
- Native diplomacy and a shift of alliances changed control of the Ohio Valley
- Ohio nations sided with Britain because Pennsylvania offered them assembly seats
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (C) Native diplomacy and a shift of alliances changed control of the Ohio Valley
- Forbes's 1758 advance was a British army campaign, and Braddock's 1755 force had been two regiments of regulars. Provincial troops served in both, but the Ohio campaign was not a militia war fought without the regular army.
- Montreal surrendered in September 1760, and Quebec fell in September 1759. The Ohio nations accepted the Easton peace in November 1758, while France still held Canada.
- At Easton in October 1758, Pennsylvania gave back its Albany purchase west of the mountains and promised no settlement there. The Ohio nations then left the French alliance, and the French destroyed Fort Duquesne and left before Forbes arrived.
- Pennsylvania's offer was the return of western land and a promise against settlement, not seats in the assembly. The nations wanted traders, and Tamaqua told the soldiers to go back over the mountain.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
If Not Interrupted
1760–1763
Question 13
Read the source
Translated speech remembered 48 years later · Verbatim
Englishman, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves. These lakes, these woods and mountains, were left to us by our ancestors. They are our inheritance; and we will part with them to none.
— Minweweh, as remembered by Alexander Henry, “You have not yet conquered us” (1761)
Sentiments like Minweweh's contributed most directly to
- Native support for the Albany Plan of Union
- the Treaty of Paris opening western land to colonial settlement
- a joint rising of Native nations and colonial militias against British regulars
- the 1763 attacks on British forts around the Great Lakes and the Ohio Valley
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (D) the 1763 attacks on British forts around the Great Lakes and the Ohio Valley
- The Albany Plan was a 1754 proposal for a colonial government. The assemblies rejected it, and it offered Native nations no part in that government.
- The 1763 treaty transferred imperial claims: Canada and French land east of the Mississippi to Britain, Florida from Spain to Britain, and Louisiana from France to Spain. It did not open the West to settlers. The Proclamation that same year tried to close it.
- Britain sent regular troops, not colonial militia, against the uprising, and colonial settlers were among the people attacked. Native nations were not allied with colonial militias against the regulars.
- In 1763 the Odawa leader Pontiac attacked Detroit, and warriors from many nations, angry about settlers and the end of diplomatic gifts and many of them followers of the Lenape prophet Neolin, took eight British forts and besieged Detroit and Fort Pitt.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 14
Read the source
Royal Proclamation · Verbatim
And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.
— George III and the British Crown, The Crown restricts western settlement (October 7, 1763)
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.
— George III, Royal Proclamation, October 7, 1763
The policy in the excerpt was intended primarily to
- stop western settlement and limit further costly frontier wars
- mark the border with lands that France still held after the peace
- raise revenue by selling western land to colonial land companies
- move Native nations east of the mountains to clear farms for settlers
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) stop western settlement and limit further costly frontier wars
- In October 1763, after Pontiac's War had begun, the Crown drew a line along the Appalachians, reserved the west for Native nations, and barred settlers and private land purchases, in order to prevent more frontier wars.
- By the Treaty of Paris that February, France had ceded Canada and nearly all its claims east of the Mississippi and had given Louisiana to Spain. The line was not a border with a remaining French colony.
- The Proclamation forbade private purchases and settlement on the reserved land. It did not raise money by selling that land to companies, and Washington's June petition for 2.5 million acres fell on the wrong side of the line.
- The order left Native nations in possession of western hunting grounds and told squatters to get off. It did not move Native nations east to make room for farms.
Skill: Explain the purpose of a source
Question 15
Read the source
Historical estimates · debt and annual interest · Adapted
Approximate debt: £75 million to £133 million. Approximate annual interest: £2.7 million to £4.6 million. The totals owed and the yearly payments are different measures.
— OpenStax; D. Morgan Pierce, Britain’s war debt and its continuing cost (1756 → 1763)
Which of the following best describes a change in British–colonial relations after 1763?
- Colonists stopped claiming the rights and identity of British subjects
- Britain withdrew the army from North America in order to cut costs
- Britain ended salutary neglect and enforced taxes and trade laws
- The colonies set up one intercolonial government in place of royal rule
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (C) Britain ended salutary neglect and enforced taxes and trade laws
- In 1757 Washington still demanded the benefits of British subjects, and most colonists still thought of themselves as loyal subjects. A separate national identity was not an accomplished fact in 1763.
- Britain kept about 10,000 regulars in North America after the peace, in posts such as Fort Pitt. The army stayed, and the colonies were asked to help pay for it.
- Before 1763 London loosely enforced its trade laws and let the assemblies run local affairs, later called salutary neglect. After the debt nearly doubled, customs officers collected duties and the first new colonial taxes came in 1764.
- The Albany Plan had failed in 1754, and the colonies did not form one government after the peace. The meetings of 1765 and 1774 coordinated resistance. They did not replace royal government.
Skill: Explain continuity and change over time
Final Review
1753–1763
Question 16
Read the source
Historical estimates · debt and annual interest · Adapted
Approximate debt: £75 million to £133 million. Approximate annual interest: £2.7 million to £4.6 million. The totals owed and the yearly payments are different measures.
— OpenStax; D. Morgan Pierce, Britain’s war debt and its continuing cost (1756 → 1763)
The change in these figures contributed most directly to which postwar decision?
- Handing defense of the frontier back to each colonial assembly
- Raising a colonial revenue to support troops kept in North America
- Relaxing the trade laws to compensate colonists for wartime service
- Allowing land companies to govern the West without royal officials
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (B) Raising a colonial revenue to support troops kept in North America
- Britain did not return continental defense to the assemblies. It kept about 10,000 regulars in North America and expected the empire, not each colony on its own, to hold the new territory.
- Parliament decided that the colonists, who had gained most from the victory, should help pay for the troops guarding them. The nearly doubled debt, and the interest on it, drove that demand for colonial revenue.
- London did the reverse of a reward. Salutary neglect, the loose enforcement of the trade laws, ended, and customs officers began collecting duties.
- The Crown did not hand the West to land companies. The Proclamation of 1763 reserved that land for Native nations and barred private purchases and settlement.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 17
Read the source
Letter requesting recognition and promotion · Verbatim
We can't conceive, that being Americans should deprive us of the benefits of British Subjects; nor lessen our claim to preferment.
— George Washington, Americans and British subjects (March 10, 1757)
Washington's protest best supports which statement about colonists during the Seven Years' War?
- Joint campaigns were replacing British identity, while colonists still served the Crown
- Complaints about regular officers were a bid for colonial seats in Parliament
- The Albany Plan operated as the colonies' government for the rest of the war
- Rank disputes fed resentment among colonists who still felt British
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (D) Rank disputes fed resentment among colonists who still felt British
- Shared service did not produce a separate nationality during the war. Washington's own letter insists on the benefits of British subjects, and our account is that most colonists still thought of themselves as British.
- Seats in Parliament became a colonial argument against taxation in the 1760s. In 1757 Washington was asking for rank and promotion inside the British service.
- Every assembly rejected the Albany Plan in 1754. It never became a wartime government.
- The king's commission outranked a colonial one, Washington resigned rather than drop to captain, and he still demanded a British subject's right to preferment. Resentment of regulars grew inside a British identity, years before independence.
Skill: Explain continuity and change over time
Question 18
Read the source
Letter defending his conduct · Verbatim
I have heard since they went away that they should say they called to us not to fire. But that I know to be false, for I was the first man that approached them, and the first whom they saw; and immediately upon it, ran to their arms, and fired briskly till they were defeated.
— George Washington, “I was the first man” (May 29, 1754)
The encounter Washington describes contributed most directly to which development?
- War between Britain and France, begun in North America in 1754
- Britain's decision, at the peace, to hand Canada back to France
- The colonies' adoption of the Albany Plan as their joint government
- A 1763 boundary meant to separate French settlers from British ones
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) War between Britain and France, begun in North America in 1754
- Whoever fired first at Jumonville Glen on May 28, 1754, the skirmish began the war between Britain and France in North America. Formal declarations came in 1756, and the fighting spread to Europe, Africa, and India.
- France ceded Canada to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Britain did not give Canada back.
- The Albany Plan was written in July 1754 and rejected by the assemblies. The glen did not produce a joint colonial government.
- The Proclamation line of 1763 reserved land west of the Appalachians for Native nations, to limit further frontier wars. France no longer held the mainland, so the line was not a border between French and British settlers.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 19
Read the source
Company articles signed by Washington · Verbatim
if not interrupted by the Savages
— Mississippi Land Company subscribers, including George Washington, The Mississippi Company’s condition (June 3, 1763)
The Lands to be obtained if possible clear of all Composition Money, Expences and Quit Rents for the space of Twelve Years or longer upon Condition that we settle the same in that time if not interrupted by the Savages
— Articles of the Mississippi Land Company, signed by George Washington and others, June 3, 1763
The company's terms best illustrate which development of 1763?
- A royal plan to move Native nations east of the Appalachian Mountains
- A French project to plant farming settlements in the Ohio Valley after the peace
- Speculators' western claims, which the Proclamation of 1763 then blocked
- Parliament's transfer of western land to the elected colonial assemblies
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (C) Speculators' western claims, which the Proclamation of 1763 then blocked
- The Proclamation kept Native nations on western hunting grounds and ordered squatters off that land. It did not move Native people east of the mountains.
- France left the mainland in the peace, ceding Canada and the east bank of the Mississippi to Britain and Louisiana to Spain. Its Ohio presence had been forts and trade, not a plan to fill the valley with French farmers.
- On June 3, 1763, Washington joined a company asking the Crown for 2.5 million acres west of the mountains. In October the Proclamation reserved that country for Native nations and barred private settlement and purchases, and speculators were furious.
- The restriction was a royal proclamation, not a grant of the West to the assemblies. Private land companies could not buy or settle the reserved land without the Crown's license.
Skill: Explain how a source fits a broader historical context
Question 20
Read the source
Letter about Native diplomacy · Verbatim
but as to purchasing the good behavior either of Indians, or any Others, is what I do not understand;
— Jeffery Amherst, Amherst refuses to “purchase” good behavior (February 22, 1761)
Amherst's stance contributed most directly to which development?
- An increase in the diplomatic gifts Britain used to hold Native alliances
- Native acceptance of British forts in place of the old French gift alliance
- The Ohio nations' entry into the Albany Plan of Union
- Resentment that fed the Native attack on British forts in 1763
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (D) Resentment that fed the Native attack on British forts in 1763
- Amherst cut the gifts back sharply. The French had kept their alliances with yearly presents of powder, cloth, and food, and he treated that practice as a bribe rather than expanding it.
- Native leaders did not accept the forts. Tamaqua told the British to go back over the mountain, the Ohio nations wanted traders rather than a garrison, and Minweweh said Britain had not conquered his people.
- The Albany Plan was a 1754 colonial proposal, already rejected by the assemblies, and it gave Native nations no seats. Amherst's gift policy has nothing to do with it.
- The end of the gifts, together with settlers on Native land and the preaching of the Lenape prophet Neolin, fed the 1763 rising in which Pontiac attacked Detroit and allied warriors took eight British forts.
Skill: Explain a causal relationship
Question 21
Read the source
Interpreted speech in official minutes · Verbatim
The Governor of Virginia, and the Governor of Canada are both quarrelling about lands which belong to us. Look at the French: they are men, they are fortifying everywhere. But, we are ashamed to say it, you are all like women, bare and open, without any fortifications.
— Hendrick Theyanoguin, through an interpreter in the Albany minutes, “Lands which belong to us” (July 2, 1754)
Hendrick's protest best supports which interpretation of Native actions in this war?
- Native leaders defended their land and alliances against both empires
- Native diplomacy showed a fixed preference for French rule over British rule
- Native war decisions followed the land deals signed by European governments
- Native leaders accepted the claims of the empire that offered them troops
Answer and reasoning
Answer: (A) Native leaders defended their land and alliances against both empires
- Hendrick told Albany that Virginia and Canada were quarreling over Six Nations land. Tanaghrisson denied that either empire owned the Ohio Country and still chose a side, Shingas refused to fight for land his people could not live on, and Minweweh later said the defeat of France was not the defeat of his people.
- The choices ran in more than one direction. Tanaghrisson sided with the Virginians against the French in 1754, and the Ohio nations left the French alliance after Easton in 1758. That is not a fixed preference for French rule.
- No Native nation signed the Treaty of Paris, and the Lenape who lived on Pennsylvania's Albany purchase did not sign that deed. European agreements did not decide Native policy.
- An alliance was not acceptance of an empire's title. Tanaghrisson fought beside Virginia while denying both crowns the land, and Shingas's delegation walked away when Braddock said the English would inherit it.
Skill: Support an argument using specific evidence