Seven Years War – U.S. to 1877

September 25, 2013

Frontier Disputes Between French Indians and British

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

At the beginning of Chapter 18 of American Colonies, Taylor describes the Seven Years War. As a background, Taylor explains how the fight for Indian alliances tore the North American settlements apart—especially the British and the French. After the conquer of Louisburg by British colonists, the French immediately proceeded to build “tow new forts at the head of the bay of Fundy to hem in Nova Scotia to the west” (428). Britain then saw this movement as well as French movement in the frontier in Ohio as an encroachment upon their territory, which ultimately led to small skirmishes in the Ohio territory (429). Retaliation by both sides led to what is now known as the Seven Years War. After a few British defeats (Washington, and Braddock) Britain launched a full scale attack on the French (under the leadership of Montcalm) with “45,000 troops” and eventually captured Quebec from the French causing them to surrender.
Now, both Jennifer and Sylvia both thought that Taylor’s account of the economic and geographical disputes between France and Britian, as a pre cursor to the war were “overwhelmingly negative [in the] view of the British.” I tend to disagree with this statement, although I understand why it may seem this way. Taylor provides several primary sources to account for this dispute between countries, some of which are Indians (somewhat neutral POV)(426-427). I think that Taylor may simply be embodying the tone of British colonists—one of disrespect and distrust of foreigners. As Taylor explains the British so vastly out numbered the French, it became hard to have an incentive to be amiable to the Indians or the French. Thus, Taylor rightly accuses the British. Overall, though Taylor would benefit from having a more neutral stance, by further explaining the French side, to prove his point about the instigations and negative points of the British.

September 25, 2013

Leading up to the Revolution

In Chapter 18, Taylor describes the wars and subsequent effects leading up to the American Revolution. The two separate periods of conflicts before the Revolution primarily involved the British and French. The British far outnumbered the French in North America, but at the beginning the French did have one key advantage. The French developed many Indian allies that aided them in their wars against the British. Compared to the British, the French were friendlier and treated the natives with respect and as business partners. Throughout the chapter, Taylor portrays the British treatment of the natives as brutal compared to the French. I agree with Sylvia in her response to the overwhelmingly negative view of the British in Taylor. As she stated, Taylor should not have simply given a negative view of the British, but make the “reader consider the English reasoning behind their actions.” The natives repaid the kind French with fighting tactics suitable for North American warfare. This gave the French an advantage, but the British soon caught on. The “unprecedented numbers of British troops” eventually grew too much for the French and Spanish to handle (p. 429). British victories against the Spanish and French increased the expansion west pushing farther into Indian land. In response to the increase of colonists, the natives rebelled. The Indian rebellions in the late 1750s and early 1760s specifically in the Carolinas and Ohio Valley, increased the racial tensions already present between the colonists and the natives.

Underneath the subheading of “Imperial Crisis” Taylor describes an increased sense of pride in the colonies for being a part of the British empire. Then, he goes on to say all of the reasons the colonies began to dislike the crown. This confuses the reader. The victory in the war did increase allegiance to the crown, but Taylor explains the reasons for the Revolution as “strains initiated by winning the Seven Years War (p.438).” I think he should have made the transition from pride to a revolution clearer. Taylor is very clear in describing the strains brought on by the victory. He lists reasons ranging from no common enemy to the prosperity in the colonies causing an increase in taxes (p. 438-439). Many of the reasons for the Revolution came as a result of the British army seeing the prosperity and disregard for British laws (Molasses Act) in the colonies during the Seven Years War. Without the Seven Years War, the colonies would have most likely continued to prosper while the oblivious Parliament continued to ignore them. Taylor points out that the colonies had a “good deal– and they knew it (p. 442).” Many of the strains that eventually caused the Revolution were created because Parliament and the Crown finally realized how good of a deal the colonies had.

September 24, 2013

The beginning of the end of English control in North America

In this chapter, Taylor outlines some causes that brought on the Revolution and also compares the English attitude to colonization versus that of the French and the English colonists living in North America.

Taylor again paints the English as a larger enemy to Indians as compared to the French. In the description of the Seven Years War, Taylor emphasizes a kinder relationship in Indian-French affairs and more of a conqueror-conquered relationship between the Indians and the English. As he did in his descriptions of the first imperial takeovers in the Americas, Taylor makes the French look like the ideal colonizers and the English as greedy land-takers. Taylor does this to emphasize why the colonists would want to break away from the overpowering and cruel English nation. This, however, can generalize the French as the “good guys” and the English as the “bad guys” which is not entirely true. As was mentioned in a classmate’s previous blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/history-trumps-childhood-chapters-3-5/), Taylor often commended the French for their kinder tactics when dealing with the Indians, but they were not completely harmless to the Indians. The French still took advantage of the Indian fur trade, and mainly did not fight the Indians so they would not lose any profit.

Taylor also notes the split between the colonists that lived in North America, and the English government, still trying to keep control of the distant colonies. During the imperial wars in North America, the colonists had minor victories that they took pride in, but when the empires drew the treaties, the English allowed the other nations to strip the colonists of their conquests, causing a rift between the colonists and the crown. While explaining the reasons for colonial dissatisfaction with the homeland, Taylor again makes the English look imposing and the colonists look helpless. The constant taxing, the increase in troops, and the British feeling of superiority, drove the colonists to revolt against the larger, more powerful, and malicious English. While the English were still an overbearing imperial power, they did have some reasoning for taxing the colonists – repayment for a costly colonial war – and sending over British troops – to enforce these taxes to restore their economy. The crown’s intentions were warranted, but the execution of these actions was not as fair, a point I agree with Taylor on.

I understand Taylor’s reasoning for making the British appear like the enemies to all other groups in North America, but a more nuanced description of the good and bad aspects of the British crown’s role would force a reader to consider the English reasoning behind their actions, and not just the a negative view.