Introduction
The French and Indian War, named after the main rivals of the British, (Andersen, 2000) is one of the wars in history that had a tremendous impact not only among the countries who were directly involved, but also to their colonies, and even the other nations that were physically far from them and had no involvement in the conflict, whether directly or indirectly.
This paper looks into the war, by re-tracing some of the main events and looking at the countries and nationalities involved. It focuses on the French involvement especially since so little is written about it.
Specific areas that this paper would look into include: why the Indian tribes fought with the French, what the French did differently to befriend so many Indian tribes as compared with the British, reasons behind the eventual failing of the French and the Indians, why the Indians went to the British side at the end of the conflict, the aftermath of war on the native tribes, and the British treatment of the natives after the war.
Prelude to the War
Long before the start of the French and Indian war, the French and the British were already main rivals. Before the start of the eighteenth century, the British had established colonial settlements in New England, along the Atlantic Coast, and in the Chesapeake Bay region. During this time, the French had founded small communities along the St. Lawrence River. They had also laid claim of the entire Mississippi River Valley (Henretta, 2007).
These North American colonies were a part of the intense rivalry between the two countries, as each tried to equal or surpass the other’s economic, political, and military power (Henretta, 2007). For, although the two nations settled in North America independently, their respective settlements were not very far from each other. Moreover, there were no barriers such as mountains between their territories (Copeland, 1997; Bourne, 1990, 215).
British settlers captured Eastern Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia in 1654, but the region was returned to France in 1667. However, ownership of the region would remain disputed for another century.
Since 1669, the British and the French, as well as France’s ally, Spain, had fought a century-long series of wars. They competed to control the lucrative fur trade on the North American mainland, as well as the valuable rich sugar production on the islands of the West Indies.
The first of these battles was The King William’s War (1689–1697), known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg. It was followed by Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713), known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, then by King George’s War (1744–1748). These wars were named after the raining British monarch at the time of the war. The last war —French and Indian War — happened during the reign of King William, but since there was already a war named after him, it was named after the British’ main opponents in the war (Henretta, 2007).
The King William’s War was a series of skirmishes that produced no changes in territory, whereas the Queen Anne’s allowed Britain to secure additional territory. It was through this war that Britain obtained Newfoundland, Acadia, the Hudson Bay region of northern Canada, and greater access to the Native American fur trade from the French, and the Mediterranean fortress of Gibraltar and trading privileges in Spanish America from the Spanish, France’s ally (Andersen, 2000, 114; Henretta, 2007).
The French and Indian War: An Overview
The French and Indian War — so called because the Indians sided with the French — is the last of the four North American wars between the British and the French from 1689 to 1763. Lasting from 1754 to 1763, it is the one war between the two superpowers that had the biggest impact in history (Henretta, 2007).
Starting in America then eventually expanded into Europe as the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and into Asia as the Third Carnatic War, the French and Indian war is the war that enabled the British to extend its power in North America, the West Indies, and the subcontinent of India. Its aftermath was enormous — it stripped France of its North American empire, and it caused Britain to change its relationship to its colonies, a change that eventually led to the American Revolution (Henretta, 2007).
The French and Indian War was precipitated by series of altercations over Upper Ohio Valley (Carnegie Library of Pittsburg, 2003). Both France and Britain claimed Ohio Country, the land west of the Appalachian Mountains. Since the 1940s, both sides had merchants in Ohio, trading fur with the Native Americans. But by the 1750s, the British colonists desired to convert the wilderness into viable farms (Ohio History Central, 1982).
The two superpowers tried to deny the other access to the Ohio Country. French soldiers captured several English trading posts and, in anticipation to territorial threats from the British, they built Fort Duquesne (modern-day Pittsburgh) in the early 1950s, (Ohio History Central, 1982).
Before the war, the main issue that the two countries were fighting over was division of the continent. The British controlled the eastern seaboard, in Georgia, the Carolinas, and what is now the Northeastern United States whereas the French owned Louisiana, Acadia (Nova Scotia) and Northeast Canada. The Indian tribes — Cherokee, Catawabas, Creeks, Choctaws and Chickasaws — inhabited the mountainous region, somewhere between the territories of the two superpowers. The Indian tribes did not want to participate in the war, preferring to maintain their autonomy, and to trade with both countries (Mott, 52; Sparks, n.d.).
History would tell us, however, that based primarily on the travels of the French explorer Rene-Robert Cavelier de Salle in 1682, the French believed they owned all disputed lands in the west, including the Ohio Valley — a claim that the British vehemently disputed (Sparks, n.d).
In the early 1700s, the British slowly expanded their territory. In 1727, they started construction of a trading fort — Fort Oswego — on the banks of Lake Ontario, and then, in 1749, they constructed a permanent settlement in the Ohio region.
Greatly displeased, the French diplomats were dispatched to the British, demanding that they abandon Fort Oswego and to recognize boundaries of French territories. Both countries tried to settle their dispute by calling a conference. However, none came out of this attempt to sort things out. In 1752, when the Marquis Duquesne assumed the office of governor of New France, he was given specific instructions to secure Ohio Valley (Sparks, n.d).
In April 1754, French and Indians traveling down the Allegheny River, whose mission was to claim this prized territory for France, found a small garrison at the forks of the Ohio. The garrison in question was the Fort Prince George, which was established by the British Colonel George Washington while scouting for Virginia’s Ohio Land Company. The area was considered strategic as it was “extremely well-situated for a fort, having command of both rivers.” This would later develop to become the city of Pittsburg (Wood, 243).
The strategic location of the garrison made both the French and the British desire it, as the French were seeking unregulated access between their North American settlements at the Mississippi River and on the Great Lakes, whereas the British wanted a new territory for their colonies’ expansion (Carnegie Library of Pittsburg, n.d.). Moreover, both the French and the British coveted the fur trade with the Indians beyond the Allegheny Mountains because the trade was very lucrative.
The French, the Indians and the British During the War
The French and the British: Comparison and Contrast
To analyze the French and Indian war requires a deep look into the similarities and differences of the two major players in the war — the French and the British. This is because these similarities and differences would later define how they would treat the tribes, and consequently, how the French and Indian war would be fought, and which side the Indian tribes would fight with. Finally, these differences would also define the outcome of the war.
Their Purpose in Going to North America
The French and the British had come to North America with different purpose. The French’s missions were three-fold: to build a great New France, to establish a trading network with the North Americans to reap the fur trade and possibly precious metals, and to convert the natives into their own religion. The British, on the other hand, were concerned about establishing farms, towns, and cities where they can export British goods, looking for a place where their growing population back home could settle outside of Britain, and getting the tribes to embrace Christianity (Elson, 1908).
The French initially settled along the Mississippi river and the St. Lawrence river, two most extensive river systems of the continent. These river systems gave them access to the riches of the continent. The British, on the other hand, claimed the coastal plains east of the Appalachians, where the coastal rivers gave them access to the entire east coast and allowed them sea commerce with the British Isles (Hall, 2003).
The British and the French on Marriage
There were some notable differences between the two nationalities on what they brought or did not bring with them when they went to North America, as well as how they tried to acquire what they did not bring with them.
The British found New England by influx migration; whereas, the Frenchman did the same by attempting to turn the Indians into Frenchmen. When the British went to New England, they brought with them their families; whereas, most Frenchmen who went were mostly unmarried.
Among the relatively fewer British who went there without a wife, it was customary for them to choose a wife from among their countrymen, or, if not, they would turn their eyes to the women back home. The Frenchmen, on the other hand, preferred to find a wife from the natives. They would wed the natives, learn their ways, and in the process, try to teach them to become French. The natives, however, were not as interested in learning the French ways as the French were of their ways (Steele, n.d).
Relationship with their government at home
Another difference between the French and the British in North America is their relationship with their respective governments back home. The English colonies were allowed to develop on their own. They were strong and self-reliant. In fact, two of them — Rhode Island and Connecticut — had their own governors of their own choosing, and practically made all their laws on their own. Democratic and almost independent, they could have been one nation, if only they were united.
The French colonies, on the other hand, were never made to develop on their own. They were wholly dependent on their home government; they never learned to stand alone. They were like a branch of a centralized government. And although as men, they had individual freedom, they lacked political or religious freedom, nor did they want to have them (Elson, 1904).
Type of government
The French were a unit whereas the British were separate colonies-republics. At their king’s command, all of Canada was ready to do their kings biddings. The British, on the other hand, had to attempt to unite their colonies-republics, which proved to be difficult, since the colonies-republics had so much liberty and were completely politically separate from the other colonies-republics, even if they were loosely joined together by their mother country. The British government had to appeal to and coerce, and even subsidize the colonies-republics just so they would move to action against France — but no appeal nor coercion made them want to actively join in the fight against the French. It took the British three years to awaken them to their sense of duty. Unfortunately for them, in those three years, the French have won almost every single skirmish against the British (Elson, 1904).
Treatment of the Indians
The Indian involvement in the French Indian war is crucial. However, it should be pointed out that had the Indians were united in whom to support, the side with whom they allied themselves would have doubtless won. But as it happened, they were divided: some staying neutral, some siding with the British, while others with the French.
It is interesting to find out, though, that the majority of the Indians were with the French. This seems natural, because the Frenchmen took every effort to get the Indians to their side, long before the war precipitated. They flattered them, they treated them as brethren, they adopted their customs, and they married into their tribes.
The British, on the other hand, never considered the Natives to be their equal. They never cared for the natives’ confidence, never befriended them, and never even wanted them as neighbors. Though the British and the Native Americans were often friendly with each other, there was always mutual suspicion between them. Moreover, the English wanted land, which of course, the Indian never dreamed of giving over; whereas the French only furs, which the Indians were more than willing to trade (Elson, 1904).
Why the Indian tribes fought with the French
While the French and Indian war is often seen as a battle between two superpowers —England and France — the war is really a fight of three nations, of which the third major party were the Indian nations that lived in these regions.
The Indians, especially the five nations of the Iroquois, played the French and the English against each other in a calculating attempt to maximize the benefits they could get from the two countries. Since the French and the English were both unfamiliar with the terrain, the involvement of the Indian nations as allies in the battle made an enormous difference (Sparks, n.d).
The tribes were mostly neutral believing that the war would eventually lead to an end of the intrusion of the British of the Allgheny Mountains. But for various reasons, most of the Algonquians sided with the French, whereas the Iroquoins fought with the British (u-s-history, n.d.).
During the French and Indian War, the British had tried to win over from the French the tribes in Delaware, Shawnees, and Iroquois but most of the tribes remained neutral.
Although most of the natives in Ohio Country enjoyed trading with both the English and the French, most of them did not like the large number of British colonists in the area. They feared that the number of British colonists would continue to grow and would eventually seek their fortunes in the west, driving them out of lands in the process (Ohio History Central).
Another reason that most of the Indians sided with the French was because the French married into the tribes. Moreover, they treated the Indians nicely, and they only interested with their furs, unlike the British who were interested in their lands as well (Henretta, 2007).
In view of these facts is does not come as a surprise that most of the Natives favored and fought with the French. Nearly all the Algonquin tribes were French allies. The only exceptions were the Iroquois of northern New York who joined the British in the fight.
The Iroquois still had not forgiven the French over the skirmish they had in 1609 where a few Iroquion chiefs were slain. Moreover, there was one British gentleman — William Johnson, British Superintendent of Indian Affairs — who had been a long standing of the Iroquois, having behaved toward them in French manner rather than British. He knew the Iroquois’ language, spent his time there, and married a Native. It was he, above all else, who secured the Iroquois to the British side during the French and Indian war.
Reasons for the French and the Indians’ Initial Winning of the War
There are several reasons why the French won the earlier parts of the French and Indian war.
First, the British were not like the French who were a unit. Whereas all the French king had to do was call its sovereign to arms and they would readily do his bidding, the British government had to go through a lot of process before the British people would support the war.
In the French and Indian war, the British government had to appeal to its colonists before to join in the war, which the colonists — who were already prosperous and almost autonomous — did not like the idea of joining the war. Moreover, the government had to offer subsidies to the colonies just so they would take arms and defend their territory. Despite the subsidies, however, the colonists were still not interested to join in the war. As this was ongoing, the French were already winning the war. This went on for two years (Steele, n.d).
The second reason is differences in military tactic. When Major General Edward Braddock led the advance of a column of 1,450, they were attacked and defeated by Indians and Canadian French whose number was a little more than one half of Braddock’s army. Braddock’s defeat happened because the attackers used guerilla tactic: they hid under cover of the surrounding woods, and flanked the redcoats and fired on them for more than three hours. The defeat was humiliating for the British, mainly because two-thirds of the column were killed or wounded (Steele, n.d.).
The French managed to stop or sabotage some of the other British missions. When Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts led a British army to Fort Niagara, he and his men were stalled about 150 miles from their target. All they accomplished was strengthen the dilapidated Fort Oswego on Lake Ontario.
When British Colonel William Johnson led 1,500 colonials and 300 Iroquois to march to Fort St. Frédéric on Lake Champlain, they too failed to complete their mission. However, unlike Shirley, Johnson won a hard-fought, defensive battle at the Lake George. As Johnson and his men were attempting to cut a sixteen-mile woodland road and haul siege guns north from Fort Edward, they were attacked by a vanguard of 700 Indians, 600 Canadians, and 220 French grenadiers (Wood, 240).
The attackers were led by the newly arrived Major General Jean-Armand, baron de Dieskau. In this battle, Dieskau’s intention was to capture Fort Edward and consequently cut Johnson’s line of supply. However, his Indian allies would not attack the fort.
Dieskau then trapped part of Johnson’s army in a major ambush known as the Bloody Morning Scout. But while he and his men were chasing the survivors back into Johnson’s camp at Lake George, the Indians again stalled him, refusing to face cannons, even though the cannons were still being set up behind overturned boats and wagons. Hence Dieskau was eventually defeated, even if he had displayed tactical brilliance and adaptability. Having been wounded in the battle, he became Johnson’s prisoner-guest (Wood, 242).
Surprise attack was the French and the Indians’ name of the game that ensured French victory over the British during the first part of the war. Braddock’s defeat had made the initially-neutral Indians to ally with the French and not with the British. In fact, even the Iroquois hostility to the French abated after losses in the Bloody Morning Scout.
Having allied with the French, the Indians conducted independent raids. This made the British become wholly preoccupied with defending vast woodland frontiers against surprise attack — but to no avail.
This distraction by the British was beneficial to the French, but far more valuable were the Indian’s help. The Indians helped a lot in the Canadian-French offensive operations of 1756 and 1757. French and Indians were able to isolate Camp Oswego. Then, in March 1757, Indians from mission settlements in Canada helped the French in a surprise attack operation on a major supply depot at Fort Bull, New York. In this attack, they destroyed gunpowder, ammunition, and provisions intended for Fort Oswego. They also burned wagons, boats, and Fort Bull itself (Stelle, n.d.).
The highlight of the French offensive was the operation at the Fort William Henry at Lake George’s south end. In this operation, the fort was captured. About 1,800 Indians from as far away as Acadia and the Mississippi valley joined more than 6,000 Canadian and French regulars in Montcalm in the siege. Hundreds of Indian scouts led preliminary raids where they cut the fort’s communications; and killed and captured the British who were spying on French information, strength, and movements (Mott, 1962).
The French and Indians likewise trapped and destroyed some British fleet of twenty-two whaleboats then formed a van of the French army. They isolated the fort as well as the adjoining entrenched camp. They brought with them four mortars and 36 cannon. Without reinforcement from Fort Edward, British Lieutenant Colonel George Monro eventually surrendered.
Why the French and the Indians failed
Although during the first part of the French and Indian war, the French seemed to win the war, the tide soon turned. Eventually, the British overpowered the French, and some of the Indian French allies turned their back on the French and joined the British army.
In the following part of the paper, we will see how the differences between the British and the French with regard to how they dealt with people of different religion, in addition to their differences already mentioned in the first part of the paper, made a lot of difference in the result of the French and Indian war.
Although the British Protestants were intolerant of Catholics — and even of one another — their religious dissension was mainly intellectual and theological. They continued to coexist on the same land.
The French, on the other hand, tended to exclude all non-Catholics from their new domains. So when the French Huguenots, who weren’t comfortable living with the English in Carolina, petitioned their king to allow them to settle in Louisiana where they might remain Frenchmen, and hence, his subjects, the King adamantly refused the request, saying that he did not shoo away heretics from his kingdom only to let them stay in and populate his colonies. And hence, the French Huguenots remained with the English and became a part of them (Elson, 1904).
This decision of the King would soon be revealed to be the nail into the French domination’s coffin. Because the non-Catholic French whom he refused to settle in Louisiana became a part of the British in America, the number of British eventually soared to at least 1.2 million by the time the French and Indian War became imminent, while the French population barely reached 60,000. The French king could have about 250,000 industrious French people dwelling in the Mississippi Valley, but because of his unwise decision, the vast fertile region was only peopled by roving Indian hordes (Elson, 1904).
Hence, although the French controlled a territory that was 20 times bigger than that of the British, the British had a population that was 20 times as great as the French (Elson, 1904). The French territory was marked only by simple forts manned by very few men, whereas the British territory was populated, and the population was fast increasing. (Spark Notes, n.d.).
Another reason that the French eventually lost was the Indians’ decision to turn their back on them, and join the British. In fact, some historians have hypothesized that that particular event was the turning point of the war. Without the advantage of having their Indian allies on their side, just when the British found a way to have greater resources, the French eventually lost the continent and, along with that loss, most of its colonies. (Spark Notes, n.d.)
The shift of Indian support from the French to the British started when William Pitt (the Elder), Britain’s new prime minister, made it his policy to drastically increase aid to the American colonies. This, he was able to do so because the Royal Navy kept the sea lanes open for the British, while the French were finding it hard to send large-scale support to its colonies. As a result, by 1758 the tides were turning against the French and the French started winning in some wars (Leach, 2004).
When in 1758, a British expedition forced Louisbourg to surrender, and then another expedition caused the French to abandon the Forks of the Ohio, the Indian started becoming convinced Indians that Britain would prevail after all. With this realization, the natives started shifting loyalties from the French to the British (Leach, 2004).
Aftermath of the War
The French and American war had great repercussions not just on those who were directly involved, but even the nations who were physically far from the war zone, especially those that were colonies of the two major players of the war.
In the discussion below, we focus on the effect of the war on the major as well as the secondary players.
On the French
The French and Indian war which officially ended in 1763 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris had an enormous impact in world history. The terms in the peace pact reflected the successes of the British military. Great Britain became the most powerful country, having gained control over half of the North American continent, including French Canada, and all French territorial claims in Spanish Florida as well as east of the Mississippi River. In the peace pact, Britain, in turn, gave Cuba and the Philippines back to Spain. Moreover, and France ceded its territorial claim over Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain, its ally, as compensation for the loss of Florida.
With the signing of the treaty, France was humbled, having been stripped of its empire. All it had left were two rocky islands off the coast of Newfoundland and relatively small sugar plantations in the West Indies.
On the British
Despite their win, the effects of the war on the British were mostly negative. First, the war caused them to reevaluate their relationship with their colonial subjects. The British had been hugely disappointed with the colonies’ lack of cooperation during the war.
Before the war, Britain did not closely control its colonies, allowing them to have their own governments, and giving them some degree of autonomy. Britain regarded its colonies and their governments as subordinate bodies who were subject to the authority of the king and the parliament. It even allowed the implementation of instructions from home to be overseen by the colonies’ own governments. Moreover, it did not always enforce its laws upon them (Hall, 2003).
However, when the rich colonies showed no cooperation during the French and Indian war, the British were deeply annoyed, especially when the former refused to support Britain even after generous subsidies were offered to those who would help the British win the war.
For their part, the colonial assemblies refused to send their militiamen to Canada, claiming that their militias were needed to defend home territory. The British, however, suspected that the assemblies took advantage of the war to heighten their own political power. One proof is that the colonists would often demand greater authority over finances, as well as in military appointments in return for their approval of measures related to war. In such instances, the royal governors were often left with no choice but to give in to these demands (Elson, 1904).
Another negative effect of the war on the British was that their government faced huge financial problems after the war. Their national debt, which was about 75 million pounds before the war, soared to 133 million by the time the war was over. Military expenses ate up most of the expenditures. Because money was still needed after the war to maintain the British troops that were occupying their newly acquired territories, Britain was reluctant to offer additional subsidies for the defense of the colonies.
The colonists, on the other hand, feared the permanent presence of a British army. They believed that the presence of the army threatened their liberty and the representative government. When the British demanded imperial reform (as a result of their disappointment over the colonists’ lack of cooperation during the war), imposed direct taxes, and stationed army units in the colonial port cities, the colonists’ fear heightened. This eventually led to the colonists’ active resistance against Britain, which paved the way for the American Revolution that created the United States of America (Elson, 1904; Henretta, 2007).
On the Indian Tribes
The effect of the French and Indian war on the Native Americans — whichever side they fought with — was lasting and even devastating. The British revenged on the Native American nations who fought with the French. This they did by first, cutting off their supplies, and then forcing upon them British rules and laws (Spark Notes, n.d.).
The Native Americans who had fought with the British with the understanding that doing so would lead to an end to European encroachment on their land were also not pleased with the turn of events after the war was won. They were greatly disappointed when many new settlers began to move in. More so when the British started forcing upon them their stifling attention on everything the Native American tribes did.
On the whole, the British victory was bad for the Indian tribes, especially those who had allied themselves with the French for they had earned the wrath of the victorious British. However, the same could be said even to the tribes who had allied themselves with the British — the Iroquois. In terms of treatment from the winning race, they fared only slightly better than those who fought with the French. For another 50 years, the Iroquois continued to contest the British’ control of the Ohio Valley. Unfortunately for them, they were never again in a position to deal with the British in terms of military or political equality (Mooy, 2003).
Conclusion
The French and Indian War is often regarded as merely a prologue to the great revolution of British colonists that created the United States of America. But in this paper, we have seen that the war had a big impact in history, as it changed the history and course of many nations (Fowler, 2005, 241). If that war had not happened, its consequences would not have happened, and the world as we know it today would have been totally different.
In this paper, we have also realized how culture could define our dealings with other people. We have seen how the cultural differences between the French and the British had spelled victory on one and defeat on the other.
We have also seen how failure to understand other culture can have a devastating effect. This is clearly illustrated when the French, who, in their attempt to befriend the Native Americans, had tried to adapt to the latter’s customs and traditions. It seems ironic now that the race that tried hard to learn the ways and habits of the Native Americans would fail to diagnose the latter’s character. Indeed, in the French’s attempt to make French out of the Native Americans, it can be said that it was the French who had, in some ways, learned to be Native Americans while the latter never completely became French.
It is also interesting to note how a simple ambition to dominate the world had led to many conflicts, big or small, between what were once great empires and their allies. For it was ambition that made each want what the other wanted, and deny the other of the chance to rival and outperform him.
It is also interesting to realize how two powerful nations were played against each other by a cunning group of tribes who tried to capitalize on the two powers’ hostilities against each other. It seems ironic that the supposed “barbaric” tribes could play two great powers at their whims. For, as some historians have hypothesized, it was the Native Americans participation that is the crucial part of the war.
It must be pointed out, however, how much the tricks played by the tribes had caused them. They played dirty, and in the end, they reaped the bitter fruit of the seed of treachery that they had sown. According to William Fowler (2005, 332), the impact of the war was greatest on the Indian nations. For, in the end, the victory of the British turned out to be bad for them, whichever side they fought with, and even if they remained neutral. We have learned that the tribes who fought with the French had earned the wrath of the British. But even for those who fought with the British, nothing good came out of the war. They were not treated well by the British and, in fact, they had to contest possession of the Ohio Valley with the British for another five decades.
Another thing that is worth looking into is how the colonists and the Indian tribes behaved during the war. The two groups have but one similarity: they both tried to take advantage of the war to maximize the benefits they could get from it. When the war was just starting, the Indians tried to play the French and the British against each other, while trading with both of them.
The British colonists, on the other hand, not really interested to go into war, had tried to make demands from their home government — many of which were simply to enrich themselves further — just so they would approve of the war. This tactic went on for years, during which one cold imagine how much the colonists might have fleeced from their government back home. We now know how much this tactic caused the British government — they lost most wars during the early part of the war because of this. And then, as we have found out, the colonists did not really completely cooperated in the war, reasoning out that they needed their own militia to defend home territories.
There are many other interesting events in the war, and there are still a lot of lessons that we could learn from it. But not, in the writers’ opinion, could rival the lesson that most often, war can bring nothing good. This lesson is true to all parties involved — the Indian Americans, the French, and the British. It could be said all of them lost in the war. The French were humbled, having been stripped of their might; and the Indian Americans suffered the wrath of the British.
Having become the supreme nation, it would be easy to think that the British gained a lot from the war. But this isn’t so. For, though the British won, and as a consequence, they gained so much territory, we have learned that their financial debt ballooned as a direct consequence of the war.
Moreover, we have also learned that because of their annoyance with how their colonists behaved during the war, adopted stifling policies upon their colonists. This action of the British, we have already learned to have caused restlessness among the colonists, which eventually led to a revolution. And this revolution, we now know to have created the United States of America, and hence, causing Britain to lose its North American colonies.
Indeed, nothing good came out of the French and Indian war for all parties involved, especially the main rivals. The wars’ ultimate consequence had stripped both of their power, humbling them, humiliating them.
May this significant lesson of the war remain with us forever, so that the next time we or our own nation would choose to have war, we would be forewarned that the gain we hope to achieve from winning a war might be insignificant when all the things we would lose is taken into account.
Bibliography
Andersen, Fred. 2000. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Knopf.
Beck, Sanderson. 2006. English, French, and Indian War. Web.
Bourne, Russell. 1990. The Red King’s Rebellion: Racial Politics in New England 1675–1678 New York: Atheneum. p. 215.
Carnegie Library of Pittsburg. 2003. The French and Indian War 1755–1763. Web.
Copeland, David A. Fighting for a Continent: Newspaper Coverage of the English and French War For Control of North America, 1754-1760. Early American Review. Web.
Eccles, W. J. n.d. Seven Years’ War. 2008. Web.
Elson, Henry William. 1904. History of the United States of America. Transcribed by Kathy Leigh. Web.
Fowler, Jr., William M. 2005. Empires at War: The Seven Years’ War and the Struggle for North America, 1754–1763. Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre. p. 332.
Hall, Charles C. 2003. Prelude to the French and Indian War. Web.
Henretta, James A. “French and Indian War,” Microsoft® Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007. Web.
History of the USA. A View of the Bellingerents. 2008. Web.
Jennings, Francis. 1988. Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America. New York: Norton, Kronoskaf. Seven Years’ War. Web.
Leach, Douglas Edward. 2004. The French and Indian War. Web.
Library and Archives of Canada. 2007. Timeline of the Seven Years’ War. Web.
Mariano Polis College. 2005. The Seven Years’ War in Canada. Web.
Mooy, Age. 2003. From Revolution to Reconstruction. Web.
Mott, Frank Luther. 1962. American Journalism, A History: 1690–1960, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. p. 52.
Napoleonic French Cavalry. The French Army 1600-1900. Web.
Ohio History Central. N.d. The French and Indian War. Web.
Spark Notes. The French and Indian War (1754–1763). Web.
Steele, Ian K. n.d. French and Indian War Battles and Diplomacy. Web.
The Philadelpia French Shop, Ltd. Maps. (n.d.) The French and Indian War 1754-63. Web.
The U-S History. Wars and Battles: Indian Wars Time Table. Web.
War Museum Canada. Clash of Empires and The Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Web.
War Museum Canada. Consequences: The Seven Years’ War. Web.
Ward, Matthew C. 2003. Breaking the Backcountry: The Seven Years’ War in Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1754-1765. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wilkauki Public Museum. Fur Trade. n.d. Web.
Wood, William. 1914. “The Fight for Oversea Empire: Hostilities before the War” in Adam Shortt and Arthur G. DOUGHTY, eds., Canada and Its Provinces. Vol. I. Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company, pp. 238–246.