The REASON Colonies Were Forced To Quarter Soldiers MAY SURPRISE YOU



Historian Ellen Eslinger explained how, before the Revolutionary War, hunters,
trappers, traders, and land company surveyors discovered immense, very fertile tracts of
land west of the Appalachians within the extended boundary of the royal colony of
Virginia. These lands were not occupied by native peoples but used, rather, as hunting
grounds for food and fur.38 The men who explored this area quickly concluded that they
should stake out as much land as they could for homesteads and speculation before
anyone else did. Consequently, according to Eslinger, ―the rush to claim a personal piece
of North America‘s best real estate had begun.




We all know it as the Third Amendment to the Bill of Rights, the desecration of which, having  not yet been accomplished, has been no doubt set aside for a special occasion:


No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


According to Wikipedia, it


echoed the English Bill of Rights 1689 which stated the late King James the Second ... did endeavour to subvert and extirpate ... the laws and liberties of this kingdom ... by raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.


Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is there mention of American Indians, or the French, or a Treaty, or the Appalachians.


And yet:


This Amendment was in response to the Crown stationing troops over here to protect the land -- against us.  It was an effort to uphold the British side of a treaty (Royal Proclamation of 1763), made with the Indians, that gave them all the land west of the Appalachians.  In return for having defeated the French.  A treaty which, needless to say, the nascent liebensraum of the Colonies could hardly abide.  A treaty which, if it stood a chance, needed to be enforced -- for without soldiers, Americans were sure to settle that land.


Blew my mind.  


Don't believe me?



The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:

1.The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.

[snip]



The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation. 


Although the Native Americans were 'the real losers' in the war for their continent, they offered formidable resistance to a developing European hegemony. But the English colonials' discomfiture overshadowed Native Americans', as the settlers were expected to help finance the war but were denied its fruits by being forbidden to claim land west of the Appalachians. Britain's victory in the French and Indian War thus lit the kindling for the American Revolution."

from Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) of The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America by Walter R. Borneman


The Quebec Act of 1774 dealt with the old French Canadian empire and its original owners the Aboriginals. Most of the latter lived in the huge pocket of land lying below the Great Lakes. All were members of proud tribes and were determined to resist further white encroachments on their traditional hunting grounds. The British were anxious to respect their strength and to prevent any recurrence of the bloody wars on the American frontier that had been enflamed by the eloquence of Pontiac raging against white entrenchment. They wanted to head off continued Indian wars caused by American frontiersmen flooding into the wide open western spaces of the Ohio country. In order to do so the British used the Quebec Act of 1774 to broaden the boundaries of Quebec as indicated by the shaded areas in the maps below by extending the boundaries set out in the Proclamation of 1763 to the line of the Ohio River.

The preamble of the Quebec Act fixed new territorial boundaries for the province. Under it Quebec would comprise not only the country mentioned in the Proclamation of 1763, but also all the eastern territory previously annexed to Newfoundland. In the west and south-west the province was extended to the Ohio and the Mississippi including all the land beyond the Alleghanies that was so eagerly coveted and claimed by the old English colonies which were now hemmed in between the Atlantic and the Appalachian range.

from 
An act for making more effectual provision for the government of the Province of Quebec in North America







Thanks as usual to Mr. Corporanon -- who found it in a Canadian history of the United States.








Be seeing you.



No comments:

Post a Comment