English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

and how do feel about that?

In 1763, George III drew a line on a map stretching from modern-day Maine to modern-day Georgia, along the crest of the Appalachians. He declared it illegal to claim or settle land west of the line, all of which he reserved for Native Americans.

George Washington, a young colonel in the Virginia militia, instructed his land-buying agents in the many ways of getting around the law. Although Washington was not alone in acquiring forbidden tracts, few were as energetic in the illegal acquisition of western land.

2006-12-27 06:56:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

Source: today's op-ed section of the New York Times (nytimes.com)

2006-12-27 07:37:58 · update #1

15 answers

In the Proclamation of 1763, King George III of England declared a British system of governing in the areas that had been surrendered by France, and pronounced that the Indians and their lands would be treated with respect. In practice, the British Crown negotiated with the Indians and arrived at mutually agreeable treaties.

In a Royal Proclamation issued on October 7, 1763 the new territories were organized into four areas: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and the island of Grenada.
It appeared that the Proclamation of 1763 had nothing but the most noble intentions. In fact there were some flaws in it at the time, and other ones that have developed recently. For example, it declared that the Crown was best suited to alienate Indian lands. " This meant that all leases and sales of Indian lands would be forever conducted through the Crown as an intermediary." Responsibility and control thus lay with the governing officials and the Indians, conveying a hierarchical relationship rather than an equal partnership.

Another weakness in the Proclamation of 1763 lies in the nature of the document. Unlike other pronouncements of its stature, it does not have Constitutional status. The Constitutional Act of 1982 contains a schedule of all our constitutional documents, and no materials prior to Confederation in 1867 are included.

2006-12-27 07:48:03 · answer #1 · answered by Akkita 6 · 3 0

Try reading the US Constitution and you will find out that he was not. Don't try to use half truths,not with people who actually know the whole truth.

I always wonder why it is that the pro illegals cant seem to come up with anything that pertains to now,in this century.Something currant to justify your position.Its always the Indians or the civil rights for black Americans.Its never facts and figures that prove that illegal aliens are an asset to this nation.Its always some ancient history that has no relevance to the here and now.

2006-12-27 07:23:17 · answer #2 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 1 1

All of the first people of America were illegal. The Native Americans tried to stop them but they came,saw, and conquered.

2006-12-28 13:21:34 · answer #3 · answered by cynical 6 · 0 0

Your story may have merit, but your statement doesn't. George Washington was not an illegal immigrant. He was born Feb. 22,1732 in Wakefield on Pope's Creek. Westmoreland Co. Va.

2006-12-27 07:27:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

And? What is your point. Hmm, let me see...could it be,

Since the first president broke an immigration law, then it is OK to break immigration laws, so we should all ignore immigration laws?

Is that what you are trying to say, because if so, that is mindless.

2006-12-27 08:20:28 · answer #5 · answered by grdnoviz 4 · 1 1

I know there is more then one George Washington.
I guestion your statement Immensely!

2006-12-27 07:30:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

He wasn't illegal because there was no law then. No one is saying any history is exempt of less than perfect behaviors or less than perfect people.

There seems to be alot of people telling someone how to get around laws.........

2006-12-27 07:06:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

Yep . And if people found out about that cherry tree incident , he would have been deported by the people on this board.

2006-12-27 07:18:28 · answer #8 · answered by prole1984 5 · 1 2

I am indifferent. It doesn't change my views on illegal immigration today.

2006-12-27 07:04:32 · answer #9 · answered by Niecy 6 · 3 0

Didn't know that one about him. I can't say I'm surprised though. He had a lot of other faults.

2006-12-27 07:00:43 · answer #10 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers