Sita Ram was a sepoy who remained loyal to the British. Yet even he had his "doubts" about them. The following is an excerpt from memoirs he wrote sometime in the 1860s about the rebellion.
It is by chance that about this time the English Government sent parties of men from each regiment to different garrisons for instruction in the use of the new rifle. These men performed the new drill for some time until a report got about, by some means or other, that the cartridges used for these new rifles were greased with the fat of cows and pigs. The men from our regiment wrote to others in the regiment telling them of this, and there was soon excitement in every regiment.
Some men pointed out that in forty years of service nothing had ever been done by the English Government to insult their religion, but as I have already mentioned the sepoys' minds had been inflamed by the seizure of Oudh​. Interested parties were quick to point out that the great aim of the English was to turn us all into Christians and they had therefore introduced the cartridge in order to bring this about, since both Muslims and Hindus would be defiled by using it. . ..
[The Proclamation of the King of Delhi] stated that the English Government intended to make all Brahmins into Christians, which had in fact been proved correct, and in proof of it one hundred ministers were about to be stationed in Oudh. Caste was going to be broken by forcing everyone to eat beef or pork. . ..
I had never known the English to interfere with our religion or our caste in all the years since I had been a soldier, but I was nevertheless filled with doubt. . .. I had also remarked the increase in Missionaries during recent years, who stood up in the streets of our cities and told the people that their cherished religion was all false, and who exhorted them to become Christians.
Source: Sita Ram, From Sepoy to Subedar: Being the Life Adventures of Subedar Sita Ram, A Native Officer in the Bengal Army, Written and Related by Himself.

Source C: Sita Ram
1) Who is Sita Ram? When was the document written? ​

2) What are Sita Ram’s main claims about what caused the Sepoy Rebellion? ​

3) Do you think this is a reliable source? Why or why not?

hftuhtgkutuh

explanation:

especially research the treaty of greenville and the treaty of colerain in washington's administration.   also research at least one significant treaty from the administrations of adams, jefferson, and madison. tell the outcome of each treaty and how it did or did not in the further development of the west.

treaty of greenville (1814) the treaty of greenville (1814) was called a treaty of peace and friendship between the united states of america and the tribes of native americans called the wyandots, delawares, shawanoese, senacas and miamies.

the treaty of colerain was signed at st. marys, georgia in camden county, georgia, by benjamin hawkins, george clymer, and andrew pickens for the united states and representatives of the creek nation, for whom indian trader langley bryant served as an interpreter, on june 29, 1796, proclaimed on march 18, 1797, and codified as 7 stat. 56. colerain was a small community and the site of a u.s. indian factory founded by james seagrove.  

this treaty affirmed the binding of the treaty of new york (1790). the treaties of hopewell and the treaty of holston (1791) established boundary lines between the choctaws, chickasaws, cherokee, and the u.s. the treaty of colerain bound the creek nation to acknowledge the boundaries established in those treaties.  

it also established the boundary line between the creek nation and the united states. at the time of this treaty, the boundaries between spanish florida and the u.s. had not yet been established. this treaty formally allowed the creek chiefs to acknowledge the negotiation for delineating the georgia-florida boundary with spain.  

the treaty contained a provision that the president of the u.s. may establish a trading or military outpost.  

the united states demanded that the creeks give up their american prisoners and also return all "citizens, white inhabitants, negroes and property" taken by the creeks.  

the treaty describes when it would take effect. after the treaty had been signed but not yet promulgated, the u.s. senate requested modification of two articles of the treaty. the first modification stipulated that the military or trading posts would be under the control of the united states. the second modification stipulated that if the u.s. no longer required the use of those posts, the locations would revert to the creek people.  

6 units. ab and lo are congruent sides, and if ab= 6 units, then lo would be the same.

i do not believe this was true indefiantly the native americans would have lsot aganist america one they didndt have the resources and allies that america had and 2   indians werent as advanced at the time as they were not 3 americans had the expreince because some of the soliders from other wars fought in that war and were attecked etc