- This topic has 7 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Is this one of the great forgotten wars in history, fought for seven years (surprisingly) between 1756?1763. It was the tru first world war, fought in Europe, N. America and India by all of the major powers of the day. It shaped the colonial world but now seems to have been compleatly forgotten.
Winston Churchill called it the first world war, and it effectivly ended french power in the americas. It certainly is one that I think is overlooked. But it is very intresting. I was thinking of the parralells with it and the Revolutionary war , and the war with mexico and the civil war. How many men fought for one side and then switched sides in the following conflict.
The most important thing about this war is the fact that England came to the defense of the American colonies which heightened their pride in being a part of the British Empire, but it also made Prime Minister Grenville and George III broke. When they decided to begin minding the empire's books again to recoup the expenditures the war for empire cost, the colonists came to resent it because they had gotten a free ride via Salutory Neglect for decades. So the Seven Years War contributed heavily toward the sower mood the colonists came to feel toward London. American Historians usually view the war through these filters and use it as a springboard to the Revolution.
American Historians usually view the war through these filters and use it as a springboard to the Revolution.
How do you think the Revolution would have played out if this war had not taken place. Would it have happened? If so, Would it have just taken a little longer to come about?
American Historians usually view the war through these filters and use it as a springboard to the Revolution.
How do you think the Revolution would have played out if this war had not taken place. Would it have happened? If so, Would it have just taken a little longer to come about?
New England would still be New France.
American Historians usually view the war through these filters and use it as a springboard to the Revolution.
How do you think the Revolution would have played out if this war had not taken place. Would it have happened? If so, Would it have just taken a little longer to come about?
New England would still be New France.
Doubtful. France didn't have the naval presence to maintain a North American empire, and by the time of the Seven Years War, the British colonists in New England far outnumbered their French counterparts in Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territory (i.e. Ohio). If anything, it would have forced the colonists to go independent even earlier as they would not have assimilated into French dominion. IMHO
I remind you of King George's War before that:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/king_george.htm
I revived this thread because we just finished this era in American History in my college class, so I hope no one is offended. As far as King George's War, wasn't it a source of social tension within the colonies due the economic burden suffered by New Englanders, especially, in relation to their economic losses suffered in Carribean battles? Granted, New England – especially Boston – was a major shipbuilding center, and merchants profited from contracts to build these ships but eventually the losses outweighed the profits. In addition, the large numbers of Massachusetts farmers who had been sent to fight the war that eventually died proved an additional economical hardship because they left an unprecedented number of widows & children on the relief rolls. And wasn't another turning point before the Revolutionary War that caused social tensions to increase in the colonies against England the Proclamation of 1763? England believed this boundary would sufficiently keep colonists from venturing into Indian lands but in fact, squatters and land speculation companies had already made claims to lands.The House of Burgesses eventually recognized these claims but England never did due in part to the expense involved in supporting these claims?
... a source of social tension within the colonies due the economic burden suffered by New Englanders, especially, in relation to their economic losses ... eventually the losses outweighed the profits. ... mical hardship because they left an unprecedented number of widows & children on the relief rolls. ... tensions to increase in the colonies against England the Proclamation of 1763? England believed this boundary would sufficiently keep colonists from venturing into Indian lands but in fact, squatters and land speculation companies had already made claims to lands.The House of Burgesses eventually recognized these claims but England never did due in part to the expense involved in supporting these claims?
All have an impact. My favorites though, are the 10K troops left to protect the colonies from the Indians (enforce the boundary line... too little, too late as you point out) and the effort to lay the cost on the colonies (and the ham-handed methods that wrangled the sensibilities of the good Englishmen that we were at the time).
Oh definitely, Wally. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out in his Q&A session before Commons (ref: The New Prometheus II in his Autobiography) colonists felt connected to England and even looked to England for protection and guidance until the incidents we're discussing occurred. As my history professor pointed out and I don't want to offend anyone here, England tended to view the colonies as a “cash cow”. Not only were the colonies providing natural resources & manpower but with the imposed internal taxes to payback war debts, colonists were being squeezed dry without any recourse in Parliament.
... colonies providing natural resources & manpower but with the imposed internal taxes to payback war debts, colonists were being squeezed dry without any recourse in Parliament.
Indeed. Herein lies the rub; by the English train of though this wasn't an issue. The idea we had, that we needed to be represented in Parliament, was completely beyond their understanding. We had virtual representation in that every MP was representing all of the Empire. Worked every bit as well in Ireland too, eh? 😉
Oh definitely, Wally. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out in his Q&A session before Commons (ref: The New Prometheus II in his Autobiography) colonists felt connected to England and even looked to England for protection and guidance until the incidents we're discussing occurred. As my history professor pointed out and I don't want to offend anyone here, England tended to view the colonies as a "cash cow". Not only were the colonies providing natural resources & manpower but with the imposed internal taxes to payback war debts, colonists were being squeezed dry without any recourse in Parliament.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the colonists were "being squeezed dry," but the colonists weren't afraid to complain every chance they got. They were spoiled having enjoyed so much autonomy for so long, and when the bills came due, they couldn't accept the price of empire for their benefit anymore. I try to give the colonists a free pass on all of this, but I can't. Britain expended a huge amount of money defending the Empire in North America and abroad, and for the colonists to boast they were Englishmen while London is protecting them one day, and then crying to the King to revoke Parliament's tax duties the next is really hard to defend from an objective point of view. But to be fair, George III and his ministers didn't budge any either so something had to give.
It is probably well to remember that the Seven Years War was not strictly a colonial affair, quite a bit of fighting also occurred in Europe. Most notably the battles between Frederick's Prussia and virtually the rest of Europe. It was not strictly a British-French colonial war although that aspect certainly had the most affect on the future development of North America.
