Like many events of the time dealing with interactions between the New World and the Empire across the sea, it must have had some effect abeit probably not a large one.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763 by King George III following Great Britain’s acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War. The purpose of the proclamation was to organize Britain’s vast new North American empire, and to stabilize relations with Native Americans through regulation of trade, settlement, and land purchases on the western frontier. The Proclamation in essence forbade colonists of the thirteen colonies from settling or buying land west of the Appalachians.The colonists were angry because many already had land in that area. Additionally, the Proclamation gave the Crown a monopoly in land bought from Native Americans.

The influence of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 on the coming of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) has been variously interpreted. Many historians argue that the proclamation ceased to be a major source of tension after 1768, since the aforementioned treaties opened up extensive lands for settlement. Others have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the Mother Country.

However it should be noted that to state that tension resulting for the Royal Proclamation ceased in 1768 is highly disputable given the Proclamation’s scope. At the time of the Proclamation much of the western frontier of Canada was still unknown to European explorers and invaders. Consequently, when the Proclamation was issued it was meant to apply to “all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.” The “Sources of the Rivers which” fell into the seas that were chartered by Europeans had their bases in the Rocky Mountains, which meant that the Royal Proclamation did not affect Indians to the east of the Rocky Mountains. This meant that Indians in present day British Columbia were not presented with the same treaty making process as the Indians to the west of the Rockies and except for Treaty 8 and the Douglas Treaties many Indian bands went without treaties for almost the entire 20th century if they ever got treaties at all. This has been a significant source of tension between the British government and the Indians, arguably even to the present day.

In the United States, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 ended with the American Revolutionary War, because Great Britain ceded the land in question to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1783). Afterwards, the U.S. government also faced difficulties in preventing frontier violence, and eventually adopted policies similar to those of the Royal Proclamation. The first in a series of Indian Intercourse Acts was passed in 1790, prohibiting unregulated trade and travel in Native American lands. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) established that only the U.S. government, and not private individuals, could purchase land from Native Americans.

There is an apparent conflict of interests between the fetus’ right to life and the mother’s right to liberty/pursuit of happiness. The questions, then, are: Is the fetus a human being with the right to life? If so, does that right trump the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body? Personally, I think the answer to both questions is yes except in certain cases (rape, mother’s health), but to say that people who are pro-choice don’t care about the Declaration of Independence is a gross oversimplification of the issue. This is coming from someone who is generally pretty liberal, by the way. Not all liberals agree with every single liberal position.