SCHOOLEEDOM 104B

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)

As colonization of North American continued during the sustained westward movement of European migrants, competing claims arose as a result of different countries asserting they had rights to and ownership of the same area of land. Britain and France, specifically, had strong disagreement over whose territorial claims were valid. After the resolution of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748, a commission was formed to expedite the resolution of this controversy.



Both countries appointed staunch expansionists to the commission, hoping to assert their position well and retain claim to the land. The group of men met in Paris in the summer of 1750; no productive result emerged, largely due to the stubborn unwillingness to compromise on each side.



Two years passed before armed conflict erupted. A new Governor-General of New France arrived in 1752, and made good on threats one of his predecessors had made five years previous. At that time, the French had led a military expedition over 200 strong throughout the territory they claimed to own, telling British merchants to leave and warning the Native Americans in the area to not trade with the British. "Dire consequences" would result from ignoring this mandate, the Governor-General at the time had claimed. The Native Americans continued to trade as they had before.



The new Governor-General sought to punish a tribe of the Miami for refusing to obey these dictates. On June 21, 1752, an armed force of over 300 (comprised of French-Canadians and Native Americans from the Ottawa tribe) attacked a trading center, killing 14 Miami--including the tribe's chief to whom the orders had been directly given five years previous.



As other French expansion progressed, including the building of forts and expulsion of British traders and Native Americans, another tribe, the Iriquois, did not take kindly to these actions. As the lriquois pressed some of the colonial leaders to abide by their previous treaty obligations and check the French's expansion, their demands were not executed, and in anger, the Iriquois severed the "Covenant Chain"--an alliance between their group of tribes and the British government. The British thus quickly turned a friend into foe.



As skirmishes ensued, George Washington became involved as a Major in the Virginia militia assigned to various campaigns to both warn the French to leave and employ force at times in response to French expansion and aggression. On one such campaign, Washington and his men intercepted French scouts, resulting in several deaths. A retaliatory strike by the French on Washington's forces a few weeks later forced the latter to surrender and withdraw. Contentious though these battles may have been, the news of their occurrence reached the respective governments of each group. Quickly thereafter, both the British and the French accelerated their deployment of stronger military forces from the mainland to their colonies in North America.



The following five years of conflict yielded a back-and-forth set of victories for both sides. The French dominated the battles during the early part of the war, and the tide later turned in favor of the British. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763 between Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, reshaped imperially-claimed colonies throughout the world in favor of the dominating force, the British, thus marking the beginning of their dominance outside of Europe.



While much can be said about the details of the war itself, more interesting and pertinent to the study of American history and political economy is the effect this war had on the events that followed soon thereafter. For example, the participants in this war incurred a substantial amount of debt to fund their military expenditures. Britain's national debt was roughly doubled because of this war. The need to generate revenue to pay off this debt led to the creation and enforcement of a variety of new taxes, many of which were seen by American colonists as oppressive and helped spark the revolutionary war. Ironically, Britain's war effort to maintain and expand their land in North American ultimately helped spark a rebellion that resulted in the loss of all claims to that land.



The irony does not stop there. At the start of the war, the Crown called for a colonial congress to meet in New York in 1754. To promote this "Albany Congress", one Benjamin Franklin--among many other professions and talents a printer--created his famous political cartoon of a sectioned snake with the caption "Join or Die". Franklin hoped to encourage unity amongst the American colonies, yet only seven of the thirteen colonies sent delegates to the Congress. Still, this meeting was the first time the colonies had joined together in conference to discuss mutual interests and explore common solutions. Franklin's heavily debated proposal for union included a unified colonial entity, headed by a president whom the Crown would appoint, which would be comprised of a few delegates from each colony, empowered with legislative authority. This plan was rejected by the colonies who were jealous guardians of their own powers. "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority," wrote Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography. Britain disliked the augmentation of power in the colonists' hands, and preferred their focus be on the military campaigns. Interestingly, Franklin speculated that had Britain supported the plan for a centralized political force, the revolution would not have happened--at least when it did. "On Reflection it now seems probable, that if the foregoing Plan or some thing like it, had been adopted and carried into Execution, the subsequent Separation of the Colonies from the Mother Country might not so soon have happened, nor the mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps during another Century," he wrote. Despite the failure of this congress, the seeds of self-government and the desire from some sort of "more perfect union" were planted. Britain's call for a multi-colonial congress helped spark a hungry appetite of self-government in the colonies who ultimately realized, like Franklin had earlier drawn, that they must "Join or Die".


The French and Indian war should not be viewed in isolation. The results from this war--in terms of money, change in land ownership, alliances both broken and created, and political developments--had a substantial impact on events which soon followed. Indeed, the circumstances which existed to cause the colonists to seek separation from their mother government were fomented, if not directly caused, by some of the consequences of this war. As such, the French and Indian war can and should be considered a direct precursor to the American Revolution itself.

Connor Boyack is a web developer, political economist, and budding philanthropist trying to change the world one byte at a time. He serves as State Coordinator for the Tenth Amendment Center in Utah, and Communications Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty in Utah County. Read his blog or send him an email.


(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
The George Washington School of Freedom
2975 W. Executive Pkwy, Suite 183
Lehi, UT 84043
www.gwschool.net

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)