<p>how many wrong for a score in the 700s</p>
<p>vietnam = gulf of tonkin resolution</p>
<p>come on guys keep em coming while their still fresh in our minds</p>
<p>and for the new york one.....why is (parliamentary) wrong.</p>
<p>New York was based off of claims by Duke of York through his brother King James. Later it developed conflict regarding a representative assembly. Conflict was further raised with the onset of the Dominion of New England under Sir Edmond Andros. Eventually, the representative assembly was granted to the colonists. However, Indian attacks were minimal (right?). If not, give me an example to prove me wrong. And how did the French influence New York ? </p>
<p>I think it was parliamentary, but my rational could be skewed beyond imagination</p>
<p>yeah i put parliamentary too</p>
<p>how bout the columbian exchange? i put diseases</p>
<p>CONFIRMATION: Its definately diseases, plants, etc. It was a cultural exchange between the Native Americans. 100% SURE</p>
<p>yeah good one, i had the same answer</p>
<p>The western part of New York had been settled by the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy for at least 500 years before Europeans came. The Iroquois had maintained the area between Seneca and Cayuga Lakes by annual burning as a grassland prairie, abounding in wild game including grazing American Bison herds. In colonial times, the Iroquois were prosperous, growing corn, vegetables and orchards, and keeping cows and hogs; fish and game were abundant.</p>
<p>from wikipedia's history of NY on westward expansion</p>
<p>it also says the colonial charter called for unlimited expansion</p>
<p>remember anymore? how about the political cartoon with like the army and everything! come on lets keep discussing lol i cant wait till scores come out</p>
<p>I understand that, however don't you see the rational behind my reasoning in my earlier post. Your reasoning is definately plausible, howerver its unclear as to what the effects of the burning had on the colonists. They do burn the grassland to maintain there territory, however this could be applied to ward off other Natives. ALSO, the French were largely unimportant to New York. However, the DUTCH, under Peter Stuyvasent (spelling) were very important. </p>
<p>Why would parliamentary procedure be wrong...based on my earlier post?</p>
<p>MED, the colonists had to kick the indians out to even get any establishment in NY, in the beginning they werent strong enough to kick the indians completely off NY, the Iroquis were also one of the more bellegerant and strong nations, trust me the colonists couldnt expand because of them.</p>
<p>And for your answer- I dont know exactly what the answer you chose said, but the colonial charter said the colonists could expand anywhere they wanted, so that wouldnt hinder them whatsoever</p>
<p>and the woodrow wilson cartoon i believe</p>
<p>hmm... I don't disagree with you at all. However, I still don't understand how the French played a role in the conflict. </p>
<p>ALSO, Why would my reasoning be wrong in my first post?</p>
<p>French were nearby in Maine/Canada/Western NY b/c they traded with Indians, remember we got all that Land after the French and Indian War? As for your answer - see my post above I edited it</p>
<p>WAIT, WHAT WAS THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE ny Question?</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure it was early colonial period, like right after the NY colony was established, b/c the colonists soon had control of NY and the French left after the F&I War</p>
<p>OK, I acknowledge your posts....but this question is leading me to a quandry. I hope we both got it right :) Going to my textbook...lets see what it says</p>
<p>Yea, you might be right, I just chose what made the most sense to me</p>
<p>TEXTBOOK: American and its people</p>
<p>HEADING: Seizing Dutch New Netherland</p>
<p>As far as the French trading with the indians, that was largely not the case after the direct establishment of the colony The textbook states that the (((Dutch))) West India Company trading with the Iriqous. </p>
<p>HEADING: Proprietary difficulties in New York and New Jersey</p>
<p>James was an inflexible person. He hated Parliament for having executed his father and was intolerant of representative government. James's proprietary charter had no clause mandating a popular assembly for his colony....The Long island Puritans kept pressing for a popular elected assembly. They refused to pay loca teaxes, arguing that they were "enslaved under an arbitary power". Finally, James conceded to the point, and an assembly met for the first time in 1683. </p>
<p>Hence it was parliamentary conflict..not French and Indian raids.</p>