Part 1.

Short Answer Questions

1. First Emanicipation Proclamation

In 1775, Lord Dunmore established the Dunmore’s Proclamation, also known as the First

Emancipation Proclamation. This proclamation declared that all indentured servants and

enslaved African Americans would become free if they enlisted in the British army. This fueled

the rivalry between Britain and the colonists because southern colonists saw this proclamation as

general British policy. They believed that this proclamation painted the southern colonists as

backward. The proclamation is further significant because this proclamation turned the revolt

against Britain into a revolt against African Americans.

2. Three-Fifths Appeasement

The Three-Fifths Appeasement was implemented in 1787 to appease the slave states. The

appeasement made it so that 3/5ths of the slave population counted towards representation in the

House. This appeasement was historically significant as it granted Southern states

disproportionate political power in Congress while institutionalizing slavery in the new

Constitution. By embedding slavery into the political system, it deepened sectional tensions

between North and South, laying the groundwork for future conflict and debates over slavery's

morality and role in American society.

5. Aboveground Railroad

In the 1840s, abolitionists were moving from reform to resistance. One such way of resistance

was escaping slavery. The Underground Railroads, or “Aboveground Railroads,” were black-led

organizations that helped individual people escape. These organizations can be found throughout
the Upper South, Northeast, and Midwest. The Aboveground Railroads was not a railroad but a

metaphorical path to liberation. Its historical significance lies in resisting slavery and

empowering fugitives to seek freedom.

Part 2. Primary source essays

Prompt 2

Introduction

Indigenous dispossession was less the result of individuals but more the result of larger structural

forces. From the Conestoga Massacre in 1763 to the destruction of Haudenosaunee villages

during the American Revolution and the Cherokee Removal in the 1830s, the dispossession of

Indigenous peoples in early America shifted from being driven primarily by settler fear and

vigilante violence to becoming a systematic, state-sanctioned process justified by economic

interests and the ideology of westward expansion.

Conestoga Massacre

The Conestoga Massacre, also known as the Paxton Boys Massacre, was heavily influenced by

the Seven Years’ War and the Proclamation of 1763. These events amplified the colonists'

irrational fear of Native American tribes and justified violence.

The Seven Years’ War deepened the tensions between western farmers and Natives and led to an

indiscriminate assault on Indigenous communities, both allies and enemies. This widespread

hostility laid the foundation for growing resentment and fear among settlers. In the same year,

the Proclamation of 1763 was established to limit settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains

and to limit contact between Natives and colonists. However, the restrictions were difficult to

enforce, and settlers continued to encroach on Indigenous lands, which led to many violent

encounters. Frontier settlers, feeling unsupported by the colonial government, believed that

Indigenous peoples were being unjustly protected.

This frustration created an environment where Indigenous communities, even peaceful ones like

the Conestoga, became scapegoats for settler grievances. This false perception fueled hatred and

led vigilante groups, like the Paxton Boys, to justify violent actions against them. Motivated by a

mix of fear, anger, and frustration, the Paxton Boys believed that eliminating all Native

Americans, including peaceful ones, was the only way to secure safety for settlers.

Benjamin Franklin, in A Narrative of the Late Massacres (1764), writes that “The Murderers

having given out such Threatenings against those that disapprove their Proceedings, that the

whole County seems to be in Terror, and no one durst speak what he knows.”1 This illustrates

how fear not only fueled the massacre but also suppressed dissent, allowing vigilante violence to

go unchecked.

Destruction of Haudenosaunee Villages

As history nears the American Revolution, the structural forces that led to Native American

dispossession became more and more a state-sanctioned process justified by economic interests

and the ideology of westward expansion. Colonists framed Natives as enemies of the Revolution

and sought to justify violent campaigns against them with fear and westward expansion.

In a letter between George Washington and Major General John Sullivan, Washington orders,

"After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians

should show a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it… However, you will not

by any means listen to ⟨any⟩ overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is

effected".2 Like Washington, many Patriots believed that safety depended on the destruction of

1
Franklin, Benjamin, A Narrative of the Massacres, 1764
2
George Washington, Letters to Major General John Sullivan, May 31,1779
native land. By advocating for the destruction of Native settlements, Washington was not just

defending the colonies from an external threat but also paving the way for unimpeded westward

expansion.

Although the Patriots claimed that the destruction of the Haudenosaunee was out of safety, the

Haudenosaunee had no violent intentions. In a letter from Joseph Brant to George Germaine,

Brant writes, “Indeed it is tough when we have let the King’s subjects have so much land for so

little value, they should want to cheat us in this manner of the small spots we have left for our

women and children to live on.” 3 The Haudenosaunee had already ceded significant portions of

their land peacefully, yet settlers continued encroaching on what little they had left. This reveals

that dispossession was not about fear of Native resistance but about greed and a desire to exploit

every possible piece of Indigenous territory.

Cherokee Removal

As the United States progressed into the Jacksonian Democracy, Native dispossession was fueled

entirely by economic means and westward expansion. As Edward Everet speaks to Congress, “It

is to be screwed down to the last farthing, to eight dollars per head.”4 his stark reduction of

Native removal to a mere financial calculation underscores how the government dehumanized

Indigenous populations, viewing them not as individuals with lives and communities but as

obstacles to economic progress. By framing the process in terms of the lowest possible cost, this

policy reveals the broader prioritization of land acquisition and financial gain over justice or

ethical considerations, reflecting the systemic greed of the era.

Conclusion

3
Brant, Joseph, Letter to Lord George Germaine, 1776
4
Everett, Edward, Speech, 1830
In conclusion, Native American dispossession evolved from fear-driven violence to a process

influenced by economic interests. From the Conestoga Massacre to the destruction of

Haudenosaunee villages and the Cherokee Removal, colonists and Americans became more and

more driven by economic growth. These events reveal how Indigenous lands were increasingly

viewed as commodities to be exploited, with little regard for Native peoples.

 Prompt 3

Introduction

Marginalized people have always been proactive in the United State’s history. Movements led by

marginalized peoples like the Impressment Riots, women factory workers in the Reform

movement, and black abolitionists during the Antebellum era are great examples. These

movements demonstrate that ordinary people can challenge the status quo and advocate for a

more equitable society through collective action and persistence.

Impressment Riots

During the colonial period, ordinary people resisted the impressment of sailors into the British

navy, a practice that intensified during the War of Austrian Succession. Impressment involved

the forced kidnapping of sailors, including American colonists of British origin, to serve in the

British Navy without consent. These riots reflected the frustration of laborers and seafarers who

refused to accept their bodies as property of the state. In a letter between William Shirley and the

Lords of Trade about the Knowles Riot, Shirley writes, “The mob consisted of about three

hundred seamen, all strangers, (the greatest part Scotch) with cutlasses and clubs.”5 This

illustrates how ordinary individuals—primarily seamen—armed themselves and united in a

collective effort to resist the oppressive practice of impressment. The riots were a demand for

autonomy over their labor and freedom from exploitation by imperial powers.

Although the riots did not end impressment entirely, they were an essential example of how

collective action could disrupt unjust practices. While they did not achieve their ultimate goal,

5
Shirlet, Willian, Letter to Lord of Trade about Knowles Riot, December 1, 1747
they undermined British authority in the colonies and demonstrated the power of ordinary people

to resist oppressive policies. These protests also contributed to the growing discontent with

British rule, which would later fuel the revolutionary movement.

Women Factory Workers

In the Antebellum era, women factory workers like Sarah Bagley and the Lowell Female Labor

Reform Association (LFLRA) challenged exploitative labor conditions. They protested the

grueling twelve-hour workdays in oppressive environments, calling these conditions immoral

and advocating for shorter hours and better working conditions. Their vision for a just society

included valuing workers' dignity and balancing economic productivity with humane treatment.

A working woman writes in a paper, “The whip which brings us to Lowell is NECESSITY. We

must have money; a father’s debts are to be paid, an aged mother to be supported, a brother’s

ambition to be aided, and the factories are supplied. Is this to act from free will?”6 This statement

critiques the false narrative of voluntary labor and highlights the economic coercion that forces

women into factory work. By exposing this harsh truth, these women challenge the status quo

and shine a light on the systemic inequalities of industrial capitalism.

The LFLRA helped advance the labor rights movement by raising awareness and organizing

workers. While their demands for systemic reform met with limited immediate success, their

efforts laid the groundwork for future labor movements by emphasizing the importance of

workers' rights and collective action in securing fair treatment.

Black Abolitionists

6
Dana, Charles. Review of The Voices of Industry. Voluntary?, September 18, 1845.
Your paragraph is well-written, but I have made a few edits for flow, coherence, and clarity while

preserving your style:

Black abolitionists like David Walker and Frederick Douglass rejected the United States' claim

of being a "land of liberty," exposing the hypocrisy of a nation built on slavery. Walker’s Appeal

called on Black Americans to take pride in their heritage and claim their rights as Americans,

while Frederick Douglass' speeches and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin humanized

enslaved individuals as sympathetic, moral, and familial beings, challenging the dehumanizing

narratives of slavery. In his Appeal, Walker states, “Are we MEN!! -- I ask you, O my brethren!

Are we MEN? Did our Creator make us to be slaves to dust and ashes like ourselves?"7 This

quote directly challenges the dehumanizing view of Black people as property, questioning

whether enslaved people are not "men" just like their oppressors. Walker empowers ordinary

people to see themselves as equals to their oppressors and asserts their inherent humanity,

inspiring them to demand their rights and advocate for a more just and equitable society.

While abolitionists like Walker and Douglass laid the ideological groundwork for the end of

slavery, the fight for racial equality was far from over. Their efforts, however, pushed the nation

to confront its contradictions and inspired subsequent generations to continue the struggle for

justice.

Conclusion

7
Walker, David. David Walker’s Appeal in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble to the Colored Citizens of the
World. 1829.
In conclusion, the movements led by marginalized people throughout U.S. history, such as the

Impressment Riots, the factory workers' reform efforts, and the abolitionist movement, highlight

the power of collective action in challenging the status quo. Although these efforts did not

always succeed, they disrupted unjust systems and laid the foundation for future progress.

Through their persistence and courage, ordinary people demonstrated that collective action and

the demand for justice can spark significant social change even in the face of systemic

oppression.