French Indian War
|Discussion History Questions →|
Buy custom French Indian War essay
The Great Britain was among the participants in the seven years’ war and more especially in the North America. The British attitudes were basically towards France, a power that was seen as an impediment to the development of trade for England. Britain surfaced from the war and based on the fact that it was the leading power of colony, there was no way in which it could relent its power to France. With such an attitude, Great Britain was ready to conquer the Ohio country and displace the French and win the consent of the natives of the land. The main cause of the war was based on dispute over the British and French colonial treaty. The British were yearning for a westward expansion based on the boom on their population. England was pre-occupied with the perception that Ohio Valley was their land in future with the main aim of having it as a colony.
The Great Britain considered itself as the legitimate owners of the land. However, some of these attitudes of the colonists have changed during the past century. Elements in trading procedures, taxation policies have been found effectual and useful in the past century. Well, the concept of change and loyalist position has changed when it comes to leadership and governance (Nester, 2000). People have embraced change when it has been advocated and have refrained from being loyal for the same of peaceful existence at the expense of their rights and freedoms. Developments as made by the patriots have found a lot of application in the past century.
The French-Indian war obviously was crowned with a number of effects. Consequently, British emerged as winners in the war. However, the effects on British control and Britain were both negative and positive. The success of Britain acquired Ohio land rights for the British together with Canada giving them the privilege to trade as they pleased. However, there was damage to the relationship between the Native Americans and the British. It therefore became difficult for the British to manage the lands due to the fact that the Natives were indeed defending it. The Britain accrued a high debt as they send their support to the America North. The intentions thereafter were to tax the colonists as a measure of decreasing the debt (Middlekauff, 2005). This was however not received well by the colonists as they did not need the assistance of the military of the British.
Well, there was benefit that the British were supplying their support to the Natives of North America where the colonists were also trading and also benefiting from. It was with this perception that the British made plans to tax the colonists as a way of dealing with the high debt incurred in the process (Previdi, 1999). Consequently, this would be the start of the path to the revolution of America and ultimately the American Independence from the control exercised by the Britain. In fact, England asserted that it offered protection to the whole of the Colonies’ east from the French control. Therefore, the idea of making the colonies to help in clearing the debt was based on the fact that it was a way of repaying back the money used in protecting the colonies through a tax initiative system. Therefore, the Stamp Act was enacted which was despised by all the colonies (Nester, 2000).
The social and political climate was characterized with a network of states and countries and the rivalry of owning societies for future colony. On the eve of the Revolution, London was basically the metropolitan center of a big empire. This empire included India, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Ireland, Belize, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the thirteen mainland colonies of America, Quebec, a number of the Islands of Caribbean and Hudson Bay. The Britain had formed a society of colonies which were very crucial to the economy of Britain. These colonies were a source of foodstuffs, semi-manufactured goods and raw materials (Middlekauff, 2005). Therefore, Britain used to import goods each year from the West Indian and North America colonies which ultimately ended up being markets for the manufactured goods which were expected by Britain. Such an arrangement where colonies provided resources imperial powers together with markets for the imperial power formed a part of the mercantilism system. The assumption made was that people did not have a sufficient wealth supply (Nester, 2000). This is what majorly characterized the social and political matters preceding the American Revolution.
All the same, there were distinct differences between British and American political philosophy. The American political philosophy was based on Republicanism. Leadership and governance based on the American political philosophy followed a system of making appointments to leadership. The British philosophy was founded on a constitutional monarchy taking the form of hereditary structure. This made the North American colonists began to feel themselves as Americans rather than as British subjects. They defied the British Stamp act which required them to stamp their goods before they traded. The taxation systems as incorporated in the Stamp Act and the lack of representation in the parliament of Britain made the colonies detach themselves from the British Crown. This was defined and expressed through the slogan, “no taxation without representation” (Previdi, 1999). The lack of representation meant that there was no representation of their values and cultures. Apparently, the representation was entirely for the citizens of Britain and its empire and thus alienated the rest.
With all these developments, not everyone favored a break with the British government. There were still some groups who remained loyal to the English Crown merchants and ex-slaves groups (Raphael, 2002). The big merchants chose to remain loyal to the British crown because they feared to lose trade from the Britain. Therefore, they clung fast to the Crown of the British control which ensured their survival in the trading filed. On the other hand, the slaves’ loyalty to the British crown was the only way they could earn freedom. Therefore, this was the main reason why these groups remained committed to the English Crown was. Their needs could only be addressed by the British crown. The British Crown exercised control over power and the wealth of the country. Therefore, the position of the merchants in the trade and the freedom of the slaves were entirely depended on the wish and the grant of the British Crown (Middlekauff, 2005).
Now, the declaration of Independence is usually described as a Revolutionary document. However, some of the developments were greatly challenged. The declaration of independence did not sufficiently convince some groups the need for it and therefore was in some way derailed. Therefore, the declaration of independence was in a way revolutionary although lacked to show forth this revolution in some instances. All the same, it was a major boost to the efforts made to free people and empowers them in matters of gaining wealth and property. Thomas Jefferson drew its phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from John Locke’s "life, liberty, and property. Patriots like Thomas Jefferson reiterated that they were loyal to the king they did not show full support to the empire (Nester, 2000). Their belief was that the assemblies were expected to tackle matters which were pertinent to the colonies alone and not the natives (Raphael, 2002).
The loyalty was the consent made amongst the patriots to allow them to run themselves. Declaration of independence was thus a revolutionary process which in most cases is a multifaceted concept. The implementation of the revolutionary document is what really mattered and the general commitment of all parties involved. I suppose he made that change because many more radical patriots feathered and tarred custom officers and tax collectors which made such positions really dangerous. This revolution came to effect and more especially in New England, a region which was a home of many patriots (Previdi, 1999). The patriots chose to be exposed to any form of inconveniences attending a lot of liberty instead of attending to small degrees of liberty as provided by the regime. It indeed worked out well because this is what actually led to the American Revolution.