There is absolutely no mention of the previous French/Mi'kma'ki names for the settlements. This demonstrates the desire to erase all presence of non-British inhabitants. Truro was previously known as Cobequid.

Halifax, along with several other "townships", is described as having bad land for agriculture. This demonstrates Morris's emphasis on the importance of clearing land and getting it ready for settlement as quickly as possible.

Highlights a struggle of the British crown to establish complete control of the land. Many people were concerned about rights to territories and how this would effect their settlements there.

Those who resisted the oath of allegiance, including the Indigenous population, were seen as enemies and a threat to the British Crown.

Claiming a right to the possessions and land of the Acadian inhabitants by referencing the treaty of Utrecht.

Restating British sovereignty of the land, ignoring and repressing ideas that it truly belongs to the Mi'kma'ki people and previously inhabited by the French. This language shows they are trying to establish Nova Scotia as a right to the British Crown and reshaping the way it is seen.

This explains the French's expressed surprise at British attacks when they first brought out a flag of truce on June 9th.

This is the second flag of truce produced by the French, with the first being on June 9th. This time, they seem more prepared with proposals concerning capitulation. The first was due to the surprise of the French concerning British attacks.

Resistance of the French and how they, alongside the allied Mi'kmaq, fought back against British attempts of removal. It wasnt just passive acceptance. Men were killed and it was aggressive.

Highlights Cheignecto as a place of refuge for the French and Mi’kmaw as it is always heavily armed.

Concerning the matter of getting rid of the Indigenous settlements and people. Morris states that if they get the French out, the Mi’kmaw will have no one to depend on for provisions or security, thus allowing the British to get rid of them, as they are killing and taking people captive.

Analysing Indigenous routes to cut them off from British settlements. Removal of Acadians would also cut them off from French support- a reason for the expulsion.

the Wabanaki confederacy will have protection and peace shown to them by the British Crown. As Dyllan said, this reiterates the importance of peace within these negotiations. I also find it interesting that the last document merely states that they cannot ally themselves with anyone but the British, and here they specifically state that they will also offer them protection.

This could be a sort of control or assurance by the British government under the agreed alliance, indicating a shared interest in the provisions each has to offer when taking into account the opening of trade regulations.

In the other document, it stated that trade between the Indigenous and the British would be regulated under the Massachusetts government. In this document, it states that they now have full permission to hunt and fish as they please. This could be an indication of the British recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, while also benefitting from Indigenous trade.

Trade and commerce are allowed between Indigenous and British, under the regulation and management of govt of Massachusetts.- restricting free trade, also puts Wabanaki at a disadvantage as the British are controlling the situation.

British are ensuring Wabanaki neutrality in the event of military action taken against the Crown. This language reflects a restrictive alliance, as they do not directly ally themselves with them, they are being restricted to allying themselves with anyone against the British.

garrisons and houses were set up by the British which the Penobscot wanted to be removed, which would show them the true nature of peace boasted by the British. In 1736 St George would later be taken over by the British against the Penobscot's wishes. In the article the British state they do not want to give up the houses, and that they will remain trading hubs, under the promise of peace and amity. They are using this as a way to retain what they want most while framing it as an act of assurance, which we know later to not be true.

Trade and commerce: regulated under the Massachusetts government as seen previously in the 1725 Boston Treaty. Territory and land is a huge motivator, from the British perspective they want a monopoly over trade, and the Indigenous want to retain their homelands.

The Penobscot tribe sent wampum belts to the tribes and vice versa, agreeing to the terms being discussed. Indigenous groups would solidify official matters and treaties with belts, different than written treaties done by the British. Indication of how matters of treaties were conducted within Indigenous communities.

All the tribes met at Sagnntacook to discuss what the governor had told the Penobscot tribe, the governor would discuss matters with them upon cessation of arms, which they agreed to, something that was agreed upon the year previous. Indication of how they rectified getting together to discuss matters when they could not all attend.

The British expansion and establishment of Halifax (Kjipuktuk) in 1749 resulted in 2 years of conflict and hostility between them and the Mi’kma’ki people. This later culminated in the signing of a treaty in 1752. Feelings of hostility however did not conclude.

Could this be referring to Canso Island? It was a site of Mi’kma’ki settlements long prior to the Utrecht treaty of 1713. This was a site of great dispute as the French sought to claim ownership as the British began to make settlements here, claiming it as part of Nova Scotia. The Mi’kma’ki saw this as an infringement on their territory, which, along with the sites along the rivers mentioned in the document along with the forts established by the British, would have culminated into a greater threat. It would also be the site of Mi’kma’ki resistance to British expansion.

This demonstrates Mi’kma’ki autonomy from the French crown. They are establishing themselves as their own council, able to make their own decisions in the face of their land being stolen at the hands of the British.

This also speaks to the allyship between the Abenaki and the French. They would often send their allies to fight on their behalf. Also highlights the hostilities between the Abenaki and the British.

M. Vaudreuil- governor of New France- who in this period was in the midst of attempting to reconcile disputes between Indigenous groups, while also using France’s Indigenous allies to fight against the British. In the 1690s, as the author describes as 23 years prior, this would have been the period of great dispute and warfare between Indigenous groups in other parts of the Great Lakes. This demonstrates the allyship of the Abenaki to the French Crown in the face of British expansion and their faith and reliance on the French to secure territorial disputes in a period of general unsettlement.

Points to the fact the slave owners did not want a slave who showed any personality other than to serve them, an act of dehumanization. This man is saying he is giving the money he is sold for to the recipient of the message, inferring his acts as deeply rebellious and not worthy of any regard by the previous owner. This also shows how easily slave owners would “discard” their slaves, insinuating a lack of regard for these human’s lives, rebellious or not.

This quote completely demeans this boy as a human being, referring to him as merchandise. Acknowledging that the slave trade was awful not just in North America; Despite who he was or where he came from, this language insinuates the mercilessness of the slave trade and how Jean would be treated as a slave in Acadie.

She mentions this fact twice in her account. Because her captors were making her cross rivers and bodies of water often, and it seemed to be causing her grief, we see her focusing on her faith to guide her through this experience, relying on the most prominent unnerving events to solidify her trust in god and not her captors.

We see the tonal shift again in Gyles’s use of “Indian Companion”. Compared to Mary Rowlandson's account, where she speaks of her captors as filthy, Gyles seems to already have a much better relationship, or at least seems to be settling in much differently despite some maltreatment he may receive.