Cause And Effect Of The Royal Proclamation (RP)

In 1763, under King Georges III reign, the Royal Proclamation (RP) was instilled overseas to North America. The RP were used as guidelines for European Settlement of Aboriginal land after they had won a war between France and Britain which spanned over the course of seven years, this war would later be deemed the Seven Years War. The RP stated that all land was Aboriginal land until it was given up by treaty, this resulted in European settlers not being able to claim the land from the Aboriginal occupants, unless it was first purchased by the Crown to be later sold to the settlers. Two articles further went into detail about the cause and effect of the RP, each with their own stories about what happened due to the process of 1763. One article focuses on the effects around the Treaty of Niagara from the Indigenous people’s point of view, whereas the other focuses on the effects of Virginia Land Companies and the effects it had on the English settlers.
The Treaty of Niagara

John Borrows, the author of “Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal history, And Self Government” stated that the Crown made the aboriginals active in the formulation of the RP because they saw that the aboriginals had maintained their power and control even during the seven years’ war.

This saw that the RP would be part of a treaty, an agreement made between two powers that would be acted under international law, between the Crown and Aboriginals in Niagara. But having all the paperwork written up by the Crown, the Aboriginals had little understanding of this, and so the crown was able to ignore First Nation participation since the First Nation community had used other methods such as speeches, physical symbols, and other conduct to interpret the RP. (Borrows,

1997)
Having signed the Treaty of Niagara (TON), both parties made promises that were made sacred by the sharing of Wampum, a traditional belt made of shell beads, as well as oral statements. (Borrows, 1997) This sharing of Wampum belts allowed trust to be given to the First Nations that they were free to open trade with anyone living on their land, as long as there was a mutual trust that the settlers would be welcomed into the country without any offensive or defensive efforts. (Borrows, 1997)
Having the RP and the TON together, native consent would be required to change land ownership to the settlers. This was up kept by making it so that the crown had the sole access to purchase land, where they would then distribute it to settlers. The only problem with this is that the TON only secured these promises of specific land, and so it was found that all land west of the Appalachian Mountains would be Aboriginal Reserve land. (Borrows, 1997)
The Occupation of Virginia Land Companies
Having the English settlers invade their land illegally, the Indian tribes of North America were not pleased. This is when King George had the RP created which disallowed his subject’s access to any land west of the Appalachian Mountains. Having this created, his subjects were pleased with the proclamation, but they had only seen it as a temporary fix, and assumed that they would later take the land with force.
Years later in 1768, the King had is superintendent for Indian Affairs organize a meeting with the Indian tribes. A Treaty was signed during this meeting which resulted in surveying and establishment of a new Indian Boundary line. (Del Papa, 1975) The result of this new line was more westward than originally set during the signing of the RP. This allowed for more land to be settled by the Europeans. This land would be owned by the Crown and then distributed to the settlers as needed.
Before the signing of the RP, there were major land companies in Virginia, the Ohio, and Loyal Land Companies. These companies were majorly impacted by the RP and furthermore with the signing of the new Indian Boundary Line in 1786.
The Ohio Company was formed in 1747 for the use of trade and land. This company was given 200,000 acres of land on the Ohio River from the British because they were fearful that they would only be stuck with the land East of the Appalachian Mountains, a result with was less than preferred. Having now taken over these 200,000 acres, the Indians were vocally angred by this, but the company still proceeded with their plans of settling the land. Settlers started taking over this land, when in 1754 a war between Indian and French took place, resulting in the land being deemed unsafe for all Englishmen, and so the English abandoned their land. (Del Papa, 1975)
The Indians having regained the Ohio River land through a treaty signed by King George II in 1758, the Ohio Company attempted to get military protection since they were based out of Virginia, and so they did not reside within the treaty land. Although they were denied the assistance, the Ohio Company made moves to resettle anyway until it was stopped abruptly by a new proclamation which banned any and all settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. Having been upset by this the Ohio Company sent a representative to London to petition the new head of Crown, King George III. While the representative was there, the RP was signed which resulted in nothing being changed and the Ohio Company being without their land, which they believed to be rightfully theirs. (Del Papa, 1975)
Another company in 1749, the Loyal Land Company, having heard the Ohio Company being given 200,000 acres of land, petitioned for land and they received a title for 800,000 acres of land in southwest Virginia (currently Kentucky). They, just as the Ohio Company had, suffered due to the French and Indian war and were forced out of their settlements. (Del Papa, 1975)
The Loyal Land Company ended up having to give up 200,000 acres of this land directly after the signing of the RP, but all of this land was to the east of the Appalachian Mountains, whereas the other 600,000 had been west(Del Papa, 1975) They had to wait until the signing of the new Indian Boundary Line before resettling.
Comparison
These two articles clearly point out their arguments, the First being on the Indigenous issues and the second with the English settler’s issues. The largest underlying similarly between these articles is that the promise of the land ownership being in Aboriginal hands were always kept. In the eyes of the Aboriginals they were keeping what was rightfully theirs, but in the eyes of the English settlers companies, the Aboriginals took what was rightfully theirs.
The reasoning behind this was that all the land ownership confusions were caused by the Crown. The crown prior to the RP signing was giving out land that they did not have access to legally. So with the signing of the RP, the companies that were given the land felt ripped off because their land was now gone. The Crown, having given the land to the Aboriginals again built trust with them, which in the end bettered all peoples. It was just under the circumstances of timing that the Settlers were on the low end of the stick.
What was different about the articles was actually hidden at first. But in the paper written by John Borrows, the English settlers and Crown appear to be 100 percent on board with all the negotiations to give the land back. Whereas in Eugene M. Del Papa’s article about the Land companies the English appear to be the bad guys trying to take advantage of the Aboriginals and being angered by the Crown.
It is apparent that depending on who writes the history of the Royal Proclamation, you will get different perspectives on what was right and wrong with the whole ordeal. But in logistical reality, the land originally, and always did belong to the First Nations even if they did not have documentation. The Crown took advantage of this, by making it seem like they were partnering with the Aboriginals which resulted in sharing of land, but by doing this the Crown had secured land that was not originally theirs. The second article also points out that they further took from the Aboriginals by renegotiating the Indian Boundary Line.