Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2011, 06:41 AM   #1

Liberty528's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Louisiana
Posts: 57
French and Indian War


Perhaps I maybe a bit crazy, but it seems as if the French and Indian war was a real cause to the American Revolutionary War. Without the seven years of war, would the British still be in dept? It seems the anger really stirred up when taxes were imposed on the 13 colonies due to the French and Indian War expense. It's amazing all these dramatic event led to a nation.
Liberty528 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2011, 07:13 AM   #2

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 323

I believe this is true !! Without the French-Indian War there would not have been the repercussions which led to the the Revolution. During this war many of the diffrences between the British goverment and their colonies started to come to the fore. Men like Washington had been very involved in the war from the start and I think many such as he felt the way that the Colonies were ran needed political reform. I think the British goverment was slow to react to the changing mood in the Colonies in the aftermath. What the Goverment was asking in the years leading up to to 1776 was not much! A paltry tax to help defend the country against future French incursions but they were out of step with the clamour for political rights of the Colonists in the form of better more inclusive representation at Westminister. The great tragedy is that William Pitt was not in power as he was a visionary and understood the Colonists feelings. I dont really think at the time most Colonists wanted to cede from the British Empire.

I find it quite informative that after the war of 1776 Americans would term it "The War of Independence" or "The Revolutinary War" Whilst the British would later often call it "The Great Misunderstanding" What we have to remember is that it was as much a Civil War and not purely a war of Independance in the Classical sense. Most Americans of the time classed themselves as British, some maybe as British Americans but the link was always there. The British were not oppressors and King George III was no tyrant he had little say in what happened in Britain never mind the Colonies! The strange irony of the war is that the revolutionaries allied themselves with France and Louis XVI who was an actual despot and the former enemy. This was enough for many neutrals and former pro-revoulutinaries to change their stance.

I personally think the war was tragic for both sides, but in a way it was a war that changed the world and had repercussions that truly did ring around the world. The French revolution being the most spectacular. America would not truly consider themselves to be American until the aftermath of 1812.
Corbulo is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 07:58 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,536

The main real reasons for the Revolution were probably desire for representation of Parliment or self rule and unhappiness with the British banning settlement west of the Appalachians. These issues would be really bad sells to more absolutist France and Spain which had territories to the west in North America. Also, France and Spain probably wouldn't understand about problems with an oppressive parliment, so the Declaration of Independence pinned everything on George III, which was sort of a fiction.

The Loyalist tended to be Anglican, whereas the patriot side tended to be puritan, Baptist, or Presperterian. This also made it harder to sell the cause to Catholic France and Spain. The French alliance did not go over real well in puritan New England.

Last edited by betgo; December 11th, 2011 at 08:05 AM.
betgo is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 08:03 AM   #4

Patton's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Ohio
Posts: 1,092

It was the culmination of many events, perhaps hastened by the French Indian War, but that certainty shouldn't be considered the soul factor. You can find the bonds starting to crack in the 1680's under the iron fisted rule of Edmund Andros. By the French Indian War Americans had already begun to form their own identity, abhorring the rigid structure of the British Military and refusing quarter to the British Troops. Still they were a people loyal to the English crown, but as a people, they had diverged.
Patton is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 08:10 AM   #5

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

The French & Indian War was indeed in the bag of events, some
already listed above, that culminated with the Revolution, but remember the colonist wanted
to expand Westward and being told they could not was a real deal
breaker.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 08:18 AM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,648

TJ, can we agree that the westward movement was going to take place regardless of what Whitehall wanted?

It is debateble whether Britain wished not to antagonize the Indians, or wished not to ruffle the interests of France or Spain elsewhere for that particular moment. Whatever the case, the colonials were not going to refrain from moving into the Ohio territory.

Not only were there no authorities on the frontier that could have prevented the westward movement, but the settlers most likely didn't know about any prohibition against it...few could read broadsheets (even if they had access to them), and there was no nightly news.

When anyone who was anyone in Virginia was part of the Ohio Company, there certainly was no incentive to discourage them.

Last edited by pikeshot1600; December 11th, 2011 at 08:31 AM.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 08:27 AM   #7

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Yes, the westward movement was going to happen and men like Washington
had money invested in that direction. The colonist complicated the matter by
ignoring the dictate and causing war with the Indians. The Proclamation of 1763
was going to be hard to enforce.
Click the image to open in full size.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 10:03 AM   #8

Corbulo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Belfast
Posts: 323

Yes I forgot to mention the role of men of influence in the Colonies! It was mostly in the financial interests of many founding Fathers to garner more influence in Westminister or even cede to further their own ambitions !..........damn the Indians etc.................Not saying that Britain would not have eventually pushed West that was inevtiable! But I think it would have been a slower more agree-able assimliated process. As would have the eventual emancipation of slaves, which due to Enlightment thinking and not the French Revolution would have become the British policy. Thus no potential Civil war....... just heavily compensated Southern Cotton plantation owners like the Sugar magnates in the Caribbean. .................happy daze one and all!
Corbulo is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 10:04 AM   #9

Liberty528's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Louisiana
Posts: 57

Oh wow! Where did you find that map. I have been looking for good colonial maps to have my own record.
Liberty528 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2011, 10:46 AM   #10

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 6,316
Blog Entries: 32

Nice thread Liberty528, and welcome to the forum! For me, I'm not sure I would see the war as a cause per se for the revolution but the financial aspects you mention were at least tangentially involved. As mentioned, The westward expansion was going to happen, and it surely did. Even in the trappers' westward movement in the early 19th century American laws prohibiting it were simply ignored by everyone.
unclefred is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
french, indian, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
French & Indian War: British Victories against the French Thessalonian War and Military History 20 February 4th, 2014 08:05 AM
Could the French have won the French and Indian War? red4tribe War and Military History 52 August 31st, 2013 12:11 AM
Views on the French Indian War Patton American History 96 December 12th, 2011 09:09 AM
Could the Indians have won the French and Indian War? DesertPilot War and Military History 12 August 16th, 2009 03:28 PM
French and Indian War RSamida1 American History 2 October 13th, 2008 05:33 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.