Proclamation of 1763

Why did King George do this? It effectively meant that American Indians were given a right to their own homes, which is what the colonists don't want. In the next decade, some squatters were actually forced back east or successfully sued by Indians in crown courts (and many got away with it because the British couldn't afford a giant boarder guard to enforce it). Didn't he realize just how much the colonists wanted Indian land?
 
The reason why (or at least so I've been told and remember) was that the land east of the Appalachians were dangerous and many settlers would die if they went across it, so they figured it would be better for the colonials just to stick to the Atlantic coast and not tread into the dangerous Ohio River Valley.
 

ben0628

Banned
Why did King George do this? It effectively meant that American Indians were given a right to their own homes, which is what the colonists don't want. In the next decade, some squatters were actually forced back east or successfully sued by Indians in crown courts (and many got away with it because the British couldn't afford a giant boarder guard to enforce it). Didn't he realize just how much the colonists wanted Indian land?

1) From what I understand, the British government wanted its colonists to settle underpopulated areas of Georgia, Florida, and Canada first before allowing them to settle west.

2) The British government was in mass debt and was demobilizing a large portion of military by 1763, so they were trying to avoid war with the Native Americans (ironic because Pontiac's Rebellion still occured regardless of the Proclamation).
 
2) The British government was in mass debt and was demobilizing a large portion of military by 1763, so they were trying to avoid war with the Native Americans (ironic because Pontiac's Rebellion still occured regardless of the Proclamation).
Not ironic, at all. It was BECAUSE of Pontiac's Rebellion/War (starting in May) that the Brits decided they needed to put a pause on expansion west (leading to the Proclamation in October).

Everything I've read suggests that it was a fairly hasty reaction, and MEANT more as a 'let's take some time out and figure out what to do properly for the long term', rather than 'keep the colonists permanently penned east of the Appalachians'.

For various reasons, that nuanced view was reflected neither in the actual text, nor in how the Colonists understood it. Some of those reasons likely include the haste mentioned above, political factions in England (some of whom DID want to keep the colonists under control), hubris and short-sighted ness in London, etc.

An interesting PoD for avoiding (or winning) the ARW could be as simple as fixing the wording on the Proclamation and spending a bit more effort selling it in the colonies.
 
An interesting PoD for avoiding (or winning) the ARW could be as simple as fixing the wording on the Proclamation and spending a bit more effort selling it in the colonies.

Three things

One, what do you meaning winning the ARW as fixing the wording? ARW either happens, or it doesn't. A 1763 POD can butterfly things, but if it doesn't stop the rebellion I don't see why it makes it easier for either the loyalists or the patriots, a changed wording that doesn't stop the rebellion would be like a hurricane: unpredictable and on no-one's side.

Two, the Indians have won cases in his Majesty's courts against squatters.

Three, while the British didn't plan to pen the colonists forever, they actually tried to keep their side of the bargain in treaties (while of the 600 odd ones the Americans signed with Indians, the unbroken ones can be counted on a single finger). Assuming the crown continues with the "you keep your end of the bargain and we will stick to the letter of our agreement" that likely means driving the Indians out of the Ohio River Valley won't be allowed by the crown, something colonists will... object to.
 
Replying to your first point.
If the 13 colonies see the Proclamation Line as not a permanent fixture, but a temporary expedient, with the understanding that negotiations with natives will end up opening up large chunks of land 'soon' (OK, 'soon' by British standards, 'too soon' by native ones, and 'not nearly soon enough' by colonial standards) then the pressure for the colonists to rebel against Britain will be reduced. Certainly, not eliminated, but reduced.

This means that an ARW could be avoided, perhaps, as neither side really wanted actual war. And even if it does happen, the number of rebels will be smaller and the number of loyalists larger, which means the Brits and loyalists can do better.
 

ben0628

Banned
Not ironic, at all. It was BECAUSE of Pontiac's Rebellion/War (starting in May) that the Brits decided they needed to put a pause on expansion west (leading to the Proclamation in October).

This is incorrect. Although officially issued in October, the proclamation was in the making well before. It was not a result of Pontiac's Rebellion (which didn't end until 1764 so a 1763 proclamation couldn't have been the result of something that didn't end until a year later). The British we're planning the Proclamation and protecting Indian Land from westward expansion well before Pontiac's Rebellion. Keep in mind that news traveled across oceans slower back then so the British government in London really weren't even aware of the full extent of Pontiac's Rebellion until after the Proclamation was issued.
 
Top