Another restriction of territory for the british in this case where no settlements can go beyond particular points, and stating the Indigenous understand this as well as any settlements beyond these points would result in a violation of the treaty and possibly more hostility.

Within this particular portion, we see again that the discussion of land being a major talking point, with the Comrs stating that they will remain within their lands and boundaries as a part of the treaty, seeing that pushing forward could have consequences and a renewal of hostility if not taken seriously.

The second portion of the treaty further reinforces the idea of ending hostilities and making non aggression a focus of their relations, with friendship with the English being required.

Seeing as this is positioned first in this article, we can see at least in this instance the highest priority is for the Indigenous to accept the Sovereignty of the Crown of Great Britain, recognizing the authority they have in these lands.

Again we see a focus on returning hostages and captives to their rightful home, as these hostages are most definitely a talking point in these sort of treaties where an outstanding hostage can mean the difference between peace and war.

In another instance, we do see some confusion on the matter. As information travels much slower than in the modern day, we can see that allegations of the killing of in this instance English, being something that if brought forward with the kidnapping of the English Lad, that it would further sour relations, and that information regardless of it's true or not could potential be used as a cause for war, a "False Flag" sort of situation as I think it's called.

The use of captives in situations like this are of a major issue as we know in history. Even now with the most recent Israeli and Pakistani conflict, the desire for nations not directly involved in the conflict to have captives returned is a major talking point. As everyone knows that the death of even just a few of the hostages could spark hostility and bring further into war, and with an English Captive we know that there is a risk no matter how small of the English getting involved if the captive is not returned.

As part of these treaties we also have to understand the conflicts that make up the hostilities. Here we see that Mischief was done that sparked hostility and could be used as a grounds for war if things are not resolved.

Again we see another instance of the focus of peace between all the peoples. War is not preferable to an all out conflict and these treaties are made to ensure the peace.

In another interesting point of positivity. The British are also encouraging the Indigenous to help people shipwrecked, not only to save the lives but also the goods, of which they will be rewarded adequate to the Salvage.

Again the focus is not on fighting and killing, but working together in peace and harmony to encourage better relations between the people.

Again trade and commerce is still a focus of the people, as good trade can help maintain positive relations, and make it more profitable for both sides to remain at peace than go to war. Saying the Indians have free liberty to bring sale to halifax and other provinces furthers this point by using positive language to indicate the Indians can trade much more freely, further bolstering relations.

Not only were the British here attempting to bring peace between the Colonist and Indigenous, but to also end Hostilities between the Indigenous themselves, as possible alliances and treaties between different tribes and colonists could spark future conflicts.

Like with the previous Article, the emphasis on trying to prevent conflict and maintain Peace and Friendship is a main focus on this Treaty. Here that the British will brilliantly showcase friendship and protection for the Indians is a main point, in hopes of "burying hostilities in Oblivion with the Hatchet" and trying to maintain a standing truce.

This is an important step to take within the treaty. Basically it is stated that no private revenge shall be taken if a wrong or injury is done, and that the Government and Course of Justice will deal with the issue. As the treaty is meant to maintain peace between the British and the Indigenous, it makes sense that the clause is worded this way to try and deescalate any conflict that does happen so the actions of a few disgruntled individual doesn't spark yet another war.

This is restrictive in a few ways, as with the Management and Regulation of trade between English and Indians having to go through the Government of the Massachusetts Province, this means that any trades and commerce must go through the Government before it can be allowed, restricting the ability to trade freely.

As a further point of non aggression, setting boundaries is a part of this treaty, as the British are again hoping that within these lands and area's, that no one is to be brought to harm or interrupted in their lives. Notably, we also see the words "Quietly enter upon, improve and forever enjoy all" which appears to reaffirm at least in the British Mindset that the land within their holdings are in ways improved under their control which reaffirms the British Stance of ownership of these lands.

With the language used here, the Delegates seek to form a treaty of non aggression between each other, as ending the violence is necessary for peace. As mentioned this is a treaty to protect the British people and colonists, so making a treaty where both sides recognize that violence will not be tolerated is a necessary step.

What I see here is a level of Positive Language that focuses around the return of all captives and prisoners to be returned without ransom or payment. Now it is important for any government to recognize that the return of civilians and prisoners of war back to their homes, and as a negotiation stance it makes perfect sense as likely both sides of the conflict have captives, and the returning of them to the homes they belong to is something both sides would respectively want.

One way to interpret this as the Indigenous not being given the chance to explain themselves or their side of the issue. This sort of one-sided decision making is evident in texts where the Indigenous are often treated worse in one way or another.

Especially seeing as in these times having to travel for a few days only to not be heard would definitely be frustrating.

I believe this showcases the idea that the Indigenous didn't mind the European settlement, and as a solid number of sources state cooperation between them was paramount to success. But when the Europeans started overstepping their boundaries and tried to take advantage of the Indigenous, that is when relations got much worse between them. And as we know the majority of treaties were made to benefit the Europeans and not the Indigenous.

Again as brought on by my earlier point. Alcohol is an issue that the Natives have to deal with, and seems to be used to try and loosen lips and get the Indigenous into situations they as a community would desire not to.

One of the biggest problems we have with trade is the trade of Alcohol to the Native People. Alcohol is not only a dangerous substance, but it also used to inhibit the natives thinking and try to get them into bad situations.

Alcohol has always been a problem for people, and the introduction of such alcohol to the Indigenous has caused consequences for their people.

In this instance the Indigenous people, in this case the Mi'kmak who are rightfully writing a complaint about the English intrusion into the Native Territory. Specifically, how the English seem intent on taking away the Natives from these places running them out of places that the English claim are English Lands.

In this instance the Indigenous lived on these lands for a long time, much longer than the English and other Europeans, yet they are now being forced out by what can be perceived as invaders. In this instance, it does provide a motive for why the Indigenous would have issues with the English and capture the English Citizens/

As we know Catholicism was brought to the Natives from Europe, and it would seem that the Christian Faith has become more important to the Abenaki, and for the Abenaki the alliance with the French is as much a Religious one as it is a political one.

In regards to the English. It appears that the natives fear destruction at the hands of the English without support from their French allies. Which as we know is a significant issue that both the French and the Natives would have to unite on. With the French-Indian War happening a few decades later, I definitely see this as a precursor to that event as the Natives feared destruction at the hands of the British without French support. Which unfortunately still came to pass.

One of the things we must remember when it comes to Native and European influence is that the Europeans often traded goods and weapons in exchange for valuable goods the Natives can apply. As Firearms and Imported War Horses become more common, the Natives who recognized their value would want to ensure they had them, as it not only gave them an advantage when conflict occurs with other Tribes, but also meant that the tribes who did engage with trade with the Europeans stood a better chance if other europeans sought to push them out.