etence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. As described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them. (Royal parliament, 1763)A line drawn down from the great lakes through and the Appalachian Mountains, A line that strictly forbade any white man to pass, by penalty of punishment. Is this unfair? This law was unfair to white settlers everywhere but for the natives it secured their native lands and brought back some sort of pride on glory. But did it secure lands or just make the spoiled colonist angry to the point of a temper tantrum. As said before settlers had either no choice, or they cared so little about this law that they would just pass bye the border anyways. This was the initial step in the breaking of bonds.First you are limited to an area which has nothing for you but poverty, then in order to pay for their war the British tax you (the stamp act), the tea tax, and the stationing of troops in your town and your house. What is the most rational response? The problem is it is so hard to see a clear-cut definition of who is right in this situation. On one end you have Britain these people are your subjects and they have a responsibility to obey you, you have the colonist with their strong economy and brilliant leaders such as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, who needs Britain, and you have the Indians forced off their land all they want is their home back and the right to be free...
