the french and indian war essay

Home — Essay Samples — History — French and Indian War — The French and Indian War

The French and Indian War

Categories: French and Indian War India

About this sample

Words: 459 |

Updated: 22 November, 2023

Words: 459 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Works Cited

Elderfield, J. (1976). The "Wild Beasts": Fauvism and Its Affinities. Museum of Modern Art.
Flam, J. (1990). Matisse on art. Phaidon Press.
Freeman, J. (2015). The Fauve Landscape. Yale University Press.
Gowing, L. (1957). Matisse. Penguin Books.
Harrison, C., & Wood, P. (Eds.). (2003). Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Blackwell Publishing.
Hofmann, W. (1988). Fauvism. Benedikt Taschen Verlag.
Klein, M. (1991). Fauvism. Harry N. Abrams.
Nerdinger, S. (Ed.). (2016). Matisse-Bonnard: Long Live Painting! Hatje Cantz Verlag.
Rewald, J. (1978). Post-Impressionism: From Van Gogh to Gauguin. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Shanes, E. (2001). Henri Matisse: The Oasis of Matisse. Harry N. Abrams.

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: History Geography & Travel

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 821 words

3 pages / 1308 words

2 pages / 961 words

2 pages / 779 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on French and Indian War

Throughout history there have been many feuds between various nations and tribes. When it comes to studying historical events, you will notice that some of these disputes turned into wars, several of which triggered other [...]

Following the defeat of the French and their Indian allies in the French & Indian War in 1763, very few people would have guessed a massive and destructive civil war would erupt between the colonies and the mother [...]

We always wonder why bad things happen, maybe the answer is right in front of us but we’re just too blind or na?ve to see it. Most would like to think that all people know the difference between right and wrong. The problem is [...]

One of the more impactful means by which the experience of war is recreated for a civilian audience is through the illustration of the human body, with lived experience and relevant literature illustrating war as an entity so [...]

The trials took place in colonial massachusetts. A few young girls were claiming to be possessed by the devil and suspicions began to grow. This caused many people to grow frantic and in order to settle this franticness, a [...]

Cotton was often considered the foundation of the Confederacy. The question this essay will examine is ‘To what extent did cotton affect the outbreak of the Civil War.’In order to properly address the demands of this questions, [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

A Clash of Empires: The French and Indian War

Written by: Timothy J. Shannon, Gettysburg College

By the end of this section, you will:.

Explain the causes and effects of the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War)

Suggested Sequencing

Prior to reading this Narrative, students should read the Albany Plan of Union Narrative. This Narrative should be followed by the Wolfe at Quebec and the Peace of 1763 Narrative.

The French and Indian War was the climactic struggle between Great Britain and France for imperial control of North America. The war began in 1754, when a young Virginia militia officer named George Washington engaged in a skirmish with a party of French soldiers, and it ended six years later when the governor-general of New France surrendered to a British army at Montreal. The conflict was part of a much larger global struggle known as the Seven Years’ War that began in 1756 and ended in 1763 among Britain, France, and several other European nations. Although the French and Indian War was only one of several Anglo-French conflicts in North America, it was exceptional for its scale and its influence on the lives of American Indians and colonists.

Unlike many earlier Anglo-French wars, the French and Indian War originated in North America, in a remote region known as the Ohio country. In the early 1750s, this land became the center of a three-way contest among American Indians, the French, and the British. A loose confederacy of Indian nations dominated by the Delawares, Shawnees, and Senecas populated the Ohio country after migrating from other regions taken over by colonists. There they found a new homeland rich with natural resources, especially the animals that supplied the fur trade. British and French traders competed with each other for this business. The Indians generally preferred British trade goods, which were cheaper and more plentiful, but they had better relations with the French because of New France’s effective missionary work and diplomacy among Indian nations living along the Great Lakes. Regardless of their preference for the French or British, the Ohio Indians shared a common desire to keep European soldiers and settlers out of their territory.

Tensions in the Ohio country heated up in 1753, when the French sent troops to fortify the passage from Lake Erie to the Ohio River. This move was intended to cement the French claim to the region and to open a route through the interior of the continent that would connect the French colonies in Canada and Louisiana. Virginia and Pennsylvania had their own designs on the Ohio country. Fur traders from both colonies were active there, and both claimed the Ohio country by right of their original royal charters. Pennsylvania, which lacked a militia because of its Quaker origins, was slow to mobilize against the French, but Virginia acted more forcefully. Its governor, Robert Dinwiddie, was an investor in the Ohio Company, a group of entrepreneurs who hoped to profit by opening western lands to settlers. When he learned that the French were occupying the Ohio country, he sent twenty-one-year-old militia officer George Washington to drive them out.

In his first mission to the Ohio country in 1753, Washington delivered a diplomatic warning to the French, telling them they were encroaching on British territory. The French officers he met politely rebuffed him, and he was disturbed by the efforts he witnessed among the French to win over the Ohio Indians, including his own guide, an influential Seneca named Tanaghrisson. In spring 1754, Governor Dinwiddie sent Washington back to the Ohio country, this time with an army of two hundred militiamen and orders to defend Virginia’s claim to the Forks of the Ohio (modern Pittsburgh). For a guide, Washington again relied on Tanaghrisson, who led him to a party of French soldiers near the British encampment.

In an ill-advised surprise dawn attack, Washington and his men killed several French soldiers and wounded their commander, Ensign Joseph Coulon de Jumonville. Washington believed he had prevented a French attack on his own men, but Jumonville insisted he had only been on a diplomatic mission, carrying a message from his commander at the French post Fort Duquesne. His protests were cut short when Tanaghrisson stepped forward and killed him with a tomahawk blow to his skull, a move likely intended to force the British into a more aggressive stance against the French.

After Jumonville’s death, a shaken Washington had his men build a stockade that he named Fort Necessity, in anticipation of a counterattack from Fort Duquesne. A superior force of French soldiers and Indian warriors soon surrounded the outnumbered and inexperienced Americans. The French and Indians fired on the garrison from covered positions, demoralizing Washington’s men and exhausting his supplies. Washington decided his only option was to surrender, and he claimed he unwittingly signed articles of capitulation, written in French, that described him as responsible for the “assassination” of Jumonville. This inadvertent admission became the basis for the French declaration of war against Britain.

This engraving by an unknown artist depicts an evening council of George Washington at Fort Necessity. Take a closer look at the details the artist includes. Who is attending the council? What resources are available to Washington and his men?

In 1755, the British returned to the Ohio country, this time with an army of regulars and colonists commanded by General Edward Braddock, whom Washington served as an aide-de-camp. Braddock intended to lay siege to Fort Duquesne and then move north to attack the French at Fort Niagara, which guarded the passage from Canada to the Ohio country. Encumbered by artillery and a supply train, Braddock’s troops slowly cut a road through dense wilderness from Fort Cumberland on the Potomac River toward Fort Duquesne. After crossing the Monongahela River on the morning of July 9, Braddock’s army collided with a French and Indian force that took advantage of high ground and cover provided by the surrounding forest to rain their fire on the British. Braddock suffered a fatal wound and Washington narrowly escaped death himself. The destruction of Braddock’s army left the Ohio country firmly in control of the French. Indians allied with the French launched a devastating war against settlements along the Appalachian frontier from Pennsylvania to Virginia.

This map depicts the events of the French and Indian War. How much did the war affect the relative strength of Great Britain and France in North America? (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

For the next three years, the British struggled to regain their position in the Ohio country. Promoted to colonel of a regiment of Virginia soldiers, Washington worked feverishly to build fortifications and restore security along the frontier. Like many other colonial Americans, he disliked the British policy that gave seniority to British army officers over American officers, regardless of their respective ranks. In 1758, he worked closely with British General John Forbes as Forbes planned a new expedition into the Ohio country. Washington wanted Forbes to follow Braddock’s route west, but Forbes decided instead to cut a new road west from the Susquehanna River. This route favored Pennsylvania’s claim to the Ohio country, and Washington resented Forbes for it.

In November 1758, Forbes’s army forced the French to abandon Fort Duquesne, but Washington took little pleasure in the victory and soon returned to his home at Mount Vernon to resume his civilian life. Over the course of five years, he had learned much about military leadership and frontier warfare, but his ambitions to become a commissioned officer in the British regular army had been thwarted more often than helped by his British superiors. He had also lost several battles in the early part of the war, but nonetheless, he emerged as a war hero with a growing continental reputation.

Shortly after Forbes’s victory, the British built Fort Pitt on the ruins of Fort Duquesne. This act, along with the British occupation of other French posts in the Great Lakes region, angered the Ohio Indians because they had been promised in 1758 that the British would evacuate their homelands after the war was won. The Indians were now entirely dependent on the British for their trade goods, and the roads built by Braddock and Forbes became routes for settlers to move into the region.

Violence erupted in 1763 when Indians throughout the Great Lakes attacked western British posts and settlements. This conflict, named Pontiac’s War after the Ottawa chief who led the siege of Detroit, caused the British to issue the Proclamation of 1763, which prohibited land sales and settlement west of the Appalachians and kept soldiers stationed on the frontier to restore peace between Indians and colonists. That policy compounded the frustrations of colonists such as George Washington, who believed the Crown was denying them access to the lands they had helped conquer and had been promised as a bounty for their war service. Britain had won the French and Indian War and driven the French out of North America, but as a result, its empire suffered internal tensions that were to lead to revolution. Great Britain also amassed a massive war debt during the conflict and expected the colonies to begin paying more taxes as a share of their defense.

Review Questions

1. To provide defense against a French counterattack, George Washington built a fort called

Fort Necessity
Fort Ticonderoga
Fort Duquesne
Valley Forge

2. Despite its name, the French and Indian War was fought between

the French and Indians
the French and the Spanish
the French and the Dutch along with their respective American Indian allies
the French and the British along with their respective American Indian allies

3. George Washington had his first experience of military authority when leading a group of soldiers from

Pennsylvania
Massachusetts

4. Another name for the French and Indian War is

King George’s War
the Glorious Revolution
the War of Spanish Succession
the Seven Years’ War

5. What natural resource was so abundant in the Ohio River Valley that the American Indians, the French, and the British all desired it?

Fur-bearing animals

6. Why did the French send troops to secure the Ohio country in 1753?

To connect their imperial strongholds in Canada and Louisiana
To negotiate a treaty with the Indians
To build forts to protect French settlers
To clear the land for farming

Free Response Questions

Explain the extent to which the French and Indian War was an imperial conflict, as well as a frontier conflict.
Explain how the French and Indian War changed the relationship between the British and the American colonists.

AP Practice Questions

“[30 September 1759] Cold weather is coming on apace, which will make us look round about us and put [on] our winter clothing, and we shall stand in need of good liquors [in order] to keep our spirits on cold winter’s days. And we, being here within stone walls, are not likely to get liquors or clothes at this time of the year; and although we be Englishmen born, we are debarred [denied] Englishmen’s liberty. Therefore we now see what it is to be under martial law and to be with the [British] regulars who are but little better than slaves to their officers. And when I get out of their [power] I shall take care of how I get in again. . . . 31 [October]. And so now our time has come to an end according to enlistment, but we are not yet [allowed to go] home. . . November 1. The regiments was ordered out . . . to hear what the colonel had to say to them as our time was out and we all swore that we would do no more duty here. So it was a day of much confusion with the regiment.”

Massachusetts soldier’s diary, 1759

1. Which of the following best describes the point of view of the soldier based on the excerpt provided?

He is dedicated to the cause of the British in the war.
He resents that he has not received the benefits of Englishmen’s liberty.
He will re-enlist at the first opportunity.
He is comfortable that he has all the supplies he needs in the face of oncoming cold weather.

2. Which of the following most accurately describes the impact on the colonies of the conflict described?

The colonies won their economic independence from England.
The French gained permanent possession of the Ohio River Valley, ending English claims on the region.
The English needed the colonies to help pay the cost of their defense and so increased taxation.
The Great Awakening began to spread into the interior of North America.

Primary Sources

George Washington’s Letter to Governor Robert Dinwiddie: http://www.wvculture.org/history/frenchandindian/17560804washington.html

Virginia Gazette Advertisement: http://www.wvculture.org/history/frenchandindian/17550523virginiagazette.html

Suggested Resources

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 . New York: Vintage, 2001.

Clary, David A. George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011.

Preston, David L. Braddock’s Defeat: The Battle of the Monongahela and the Road to Revolution . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Shannon, Timothy J. The Seven Years’ War in North America: A Brief History with Documents . Boston: Bedford, 2013.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

History Classics
Your Profile
Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
This Day In History
History Podcasts
History Vault

French and Indian War

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 29, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

Marquis de Montcalm Dying in French and Indian War(Original Caption) Montcalm, too was killed at Quebec. Earlier he had written that he would "save this unhappy colony or die in the attempt."

Also known as the Seven Years’ War, the French and Indian war marked another chapter in the long imperial struggle between Britain and France. When France’s expansion into the Ohio River valley brought repeated conflict with the claims of the British colonies, a series of battles led to the official British declaration of war in 1756. Boosted by the financing of future Prime Minister William Pitt, the British turned the tide with victories at Louisbourg, Fort Frontenac and the French-Canadian stronghold of Quebec. At the 1763 peace conference, the British received the territories of Canada from France and Florida from Spain, opening the Mississippi Valley to westward expansion.

Why Did the French and Indian War Start?

The Seven Years’ War (called the French and Indian War in the colonies) lasted from 1756 to 1763, forming a chapter in the imperial struggle between Britain and France called the Second Hundred Years’ War.

In the early 1750s, France’s expansion into the Ohio River valley repeatedly brought it into conflict with the claims of the British colonies, especially Virginia. In 1754, the French built Fort Duquesne where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers joined to form the Ohio River (in today’s Pittsburgh), making it a strategically important stronghold that the British repeatedly attacked.

During 1754 and 1755, the French won a string of victories, defeating in quick succession the young George Washington , Gen. Edward Braddock and Braddock’s successor, Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts.

In 1755, Governor Shirley, fearing that the French settlers in Nova Scotia (Acadia) would side with France in any military confrontation, expelled hundreds of them to other British colonies; many of the exiles suffered cruelly. Throughout this period, the British military effort was hampered by lack of interest at home, rivalries among the American colonies and France’s greater success in winning the support of the Indians.

In 1756 the British formally declared war (marking the official beginning of the Seven Years’ War), but their new commander in America, Lord Loudoun, faced the same problems as his predecessors and met with little success against the French and their Indian allies.

The tide turned in 1757 because William Pitt, the new British leader, saw the colonial conflicts as the key to building a vast British empire. Borrowing heavily to finance the war, he paid Prussia to fight in Europe and reimbursed the colonies for raising troops in North America.

British Victory in Canada

In July 1758, the British won their first great victory at Louisbourg, near the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. A month later, they took Fort Frontenac at the western end of the river.

In November 1758, General John Forbes captured Fort Duquesne for the British after the French destroyed and abandoned it, and Fort Pitt—named after William Pitt—was built on the site, giving the British a key stronghold.

The British then closed in on Quebec, where Gen. James Wolfe won a spectacular victory in the Battle of Quebec on the Plains of Abraham in September of 1759 (though both he and the French commander, the Marquis de Montcalm, were fatally wounded).

With the fall of Montreal in September 1760, the French lost their last foothold in Canada. Soon, Spain joined France against England, and for the rest of the war Britain concentrated on seizing French and Spanish territories in other parts of the world.

The Treaty of Paris Ends the War

The French and Indian War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in February 1763. The British received Canada from France and Florida from Spain, but permitted France to keep its West Indian sugar islands and gave Louisiana to Spain. The arrangement strengthened the American colonies significantly by removing their European rivals to the north and south and opening the Mississippi Valley to westward expansion.

Impact of the Seven Years’ War on the American Revolution

The British crown borrowed heavily from British and Dutch bankers to bankroll the war, doubling British national debt. King George II argued that since the French and Indian War benefited the colonists by securing their borders, they should contribute to paying down the war debt.

To defend his newly won territory from future attacks, King George II also decided to install permanent British army units in the Americas, which required additional sources of revenue.

In 1765, parliament passed the Stamp Act to help pay down the war debt and finance the British army’s presence in the Americas. It was the first internal tax directly levied on American colonists by parliament and was met with strong resistance.

It was followed by the unpopular Townshend Acts and Tea Act , which further incensed colonists who believed there should be no taxation without representation. Britain’s increasingly militaristic response to colonial unrest would ultimately lead to the American Revolution .

Fifteen years after the Treaty of Paris, French bitterness over the loss of most of their colonial empire contributed to their intervention on the side of the colonists in the Revolutionary War.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Its Consequences

The surrender of Montreal on September 8, 1760, signaled an end to all major military operations between Britain in France in North America during the French and Indian War. Although the guns had fallen silent in Canada and the British colonies, it was still yet to be determined just how or when the Seven Years’ War, still raging throughout the world, would end. What resulted from this global conflict and the French and Indian War shaped the future of North America.

By 1762, the Seven Years’ War, fought in Europe, the Americas, West Africa, India, and the Philippines, had worn the opposing sides in the conflict down. The combatants (Britain, Prussia, and Hanover against France, Spain, Austria, Saxony, Sweden, and Russia) were ready for peace and a return to the status quo . Imperialist members of the British Parliament did not want to yield the territories gained during the war, but the other faction believed that it was necessary to return a number of France’s antebellum holdings in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. This latter measure would not, however, include France’s North American territories and Spanish Florida.

On February 10, 1763, over two years after the fighting had ended in North America, hostilities officially ceased with the signing of the Treaty of Paris between Britain, France, and Spain. The fate of America’s future had been placed on a new trajectory, and as famously asserted by 19 th century historian, Francis Parkman, “half the continent had changed hands at the scratch of a pen.” France’s North American empire had vanished.

Map of North America after the Treaty of Paris (1763)

The treaty granted Britain Canada and all of France’s claims east of the Mississippi River. This did not, however, include New Orleans, which France was allowed to retain. British subjects were guaranteed free rights of navigation on the Mississippi as well. In Nova Scotia, Fortress Louisbourg remained in Britain’s hands. A colonial provincial expeditionary force had captured the stronghold in 1745 during King George’s War, and much to their chagrin, it was returned to the French as a provision of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle (1748). That would not be the case this time around. In the Caribbean, the islands of Saint Vincent, Dominica, Tobago, Grenada, and the Grenadines would remain in British hands. Another bug acquisition for His Majesty’s North American empire came from Spain in the form of Florida. In return, Havana was given back to the Spanish. This gave Britain total control of the Atlantic Seaboard from Newfoundland all the way down to the Mississippi Delta.

The loss of Canada, economically, did not greatly harm France. It had proved to be a money hole that cost the country more to maintain than it actually returned in profit. The sugar islands in the West Indies were much more lucrative, and to France’s pleasure, Britain returned Martinique and Guadeloupe. Although His Most Christian Majesty’s influence in North America had receded, France did retain a tiny foothold in Newfoundland for fishing. Britain allowed the French to keep its rights to cod in the Grand Banks, as well as the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon off the southern coast.

The inhabitants of the British colonies in North America were jubilant upon hearing the results of the Treaty of Paris. For nearly a century they had lived in fear of the French colonists and their Native American allies to the north and west. Now France’s influence on the continent had been expelled and they could hope to live out their lives in peace and autonomously without relying on Britain’s protection.

The consequences of the French and Indian War would do more to drive a wedge in between Britain and her colonists more so than any other event up to that point in history. During the Seven Years’ War, Britain’s national debt nearly doubled, and the colonies would shoulder a good portion of the burden of paying it off. In the years that followed, taxes were imposed on necessities that the colonists considered part of everyday life—tea, molasses, paper products, etc.... Though proud Englishmen, the colonists viewed themselves as partners in the British Empire, not subjects . King George III did not see it this way. These measures were met with various degrees of opposition and served as the kindling that would eventually contribute to igniting the fires of revolution.

That tinder that would eventually be lit the following decade also came in the form of the land west of the Appalachian Mountains, which had been heavily fought over during the war. As British traders moved westward over the mountains, disputes erupted between them and the Native Americans (previously allied with French) who inhabited the region. Overpriced goods did not appeal to the Native Americans, and almost immediately tensions arose. For many in the British military and the colonies, this land had been conquered and rested within His Majesty’s dominion. Therefore, the territory west of the Appalachians was not viewed as shared or Native land—it was rightfully open for British trade and settlement. The Native Americans did not respond accordingly.

What transpired next has gone down in history as Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763-1764) and involved members of the Seneca, Ottawa, Huron, Delaware, and Miami tribes. The various uprisings and uncoordinated attacks against British forts, outposts, and settlements in the Ohio River Valley and

along the Great Lakes that occurred, ravaged the frontier. Although a handful of forts fell, two key strongholds, Forts Detroit and Pitt, did not capitulate. In an attempt to quell the rebellion against British authority, the Proclamation of 1763 was issued. The French settlements north of New York and New England were consolidated into the colony of Quebec, and Florida was divided into two separate colonies. Any land that did not fall within the boundaries of these colonies, which would be governed by English Law, was granted to the Native Americans. Pontiac’s Rebellion eventually came to an end.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 further alienated the British colonists. Many sought to settle the west, and even Pennsylvania and Virginia had already claimed lands in the region. The proclamation prohibited the colonies from further issuing any grants. Only representatives of the Crown could negotiate land purchases with the Native Americans. Just as France had boxed the colonies into a stretch along the east coast, now George III was doing the same.

The French and Indian War had initially been a major success for the thirteen colonies, but its consequences soured the victory. Taxes imposed to pay for a massive national debt, a constant struggle with Native Americans over borders and territories, and the prohibition of expansion to the west fueled an ever-increasing “American” identity. As the years following the French and Indian War drug on, the colonists—already 3,000 miles away from Britain—grew further and further apart from the mother country.

On the Precipice

Who Were the Sons and Daughters of Liberty?

A general and his soldiers discussing plans.

Jumonville Glen

The French and Indian War: The conflict that set the stage for the American Revolution

The French and Indian War, spanning from 1754 to 1763, was a momentous conflict that forever altered the landscape of North America.

Not merely a territorial battle between the British and the French, this war was a complex clash involving a diverse cast of Native American tribes, each allying with one side or the other based on their own strategic interests.

As part of the larger global conflict known as the Seven Years' War, the French and Indian War has been aptly dubbed the "true first world war".

It began as a local dispute over land ownership in the Ohio River Valley, but quickly escalated into a fierce and bloody struggle.

At stake was not only the vast, resource-rich wilderness, but also the balance of power in North America and, to a larger extent, the world.

The colonisation of North America by Europeans

In the centuries leading up to the French and Indian War, the vast expanse of North America had been a stage for the struggle of empires.

While various Native American tribes had lived there for thousands of years, the 15th and 16th centuries saw an influx of European explorers and settlers, drawn to the New World by tales of abundant resources and potential wealth.

Two of the most powerful colonizers were Britain and France, each establishing a series of colonies along the eastern seaboard.

While the British colonies thrived mainly on agriculture and trade, the French developed a robust fur trade in the north, especially in the region known as New France, which encompassed parts of what is now Canada and the midwestern United States.

The different economic, political, and religious objectives of these colonies created a volatile mixture of competition and suspicion.

Native American tribes, diverse in culture and language, were inevitably drawn into these colonial struggles. Some tribes allied with the French, like the Huron and the Algonquin, who were integral to their fur trade.

Others, like the Iroquois Confederacy, maintained a more complicated relationship with the British, marked by both trade partnerships and territorial disputes.

By the mid-18th century, the tension between these European powers had begun to strain under the weight of expanding colonial ambitions, particularly in the resource-rich Ohio River Valley.

As British and French settlers encroached on lands that Native Americans considered theirs, tribal alliances shifted, and rivalries intensified.

What caused the French and Indian War?

The French and Indian War was ignited by a combination of economic, political, and territorial disputes between the British and French colonial powers, further complicated by their alliances with various Native American tribes.

One of the main catalysts was the struggle over the Ohio River Valley, a vast territory teeming with fur-bearing animals and fertile land that promised wealth and growth.

Both the French, who had established a network of forts in the region, and the British, who had issued land grants to companies like the Ohio Company of Virginia, claimed the region.

As both sides began to enforce their claims, the area became a tinderbox ready to ignite.

Meanwhile, the fur trade, a significant part of the colonial economy, exacerbated these territorial disputes.

Both the British and French sought control over the fur trade routes and alliances with the Native American tribes who were integral to the fur trade industry.

Tribes were often drawn into the disputes, as their alliances with the European powers often depended on the tribes' own strategic and economic interests.

Religious and political differences also played a part. The largely Protestant British colonies and the predominantly Catholic New France had long-standing tensions rooted in the religious conflicts of Europe.

These religious differences were further inflamed by political rivalries, as both the British and French monarchies sought to expand their global influence.

Finally, the war was a product of escalating tensions in the larger global context. The French and Indian War was, in fact, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War, a worldwide conflict involving several European powers.

The disputes in North America were a reflection of the broader rivalries and power struggles playing out on the global stage.

The key players in the war

The course of the French and Indian War was significantly influenced by a host of major figures from both European powers as well as Native American tribes.

Their decisions and actions would shape the conflict and its aftermath, leaving a lasting imprint on North American history.

A young George Washington emerged as one of the war's key figures, serving in the Virginia militia and taking part in several pivotal engagements.

His experiences during the war, especially his leadership and diplomacy with Native American tribes, would later prove vital during the American Revolution and his presidency.

For the British, General Edward Braddock was another significant figure. Although he died in the disastrous Battle of the Monongahela in 1755, his defeat highlighted the difficulties of European-style warfare in the wilderness of North America, which would influence future British military strategies.

On the French side, Louis-Joseph de Montcalm stands out as a major figure. As commander of the French forces in North America, Montcalm fought a series of battles against the British, including the crucial Battle of Quebec, where he lost his life but left a lasting legacy.

François Gaston de Lévis , Montcalm's second in command, also played a significant role.

After Montcalm's death, Lévis took over command and continued to resist British forces until the fall of Montreal in 1760.

Among the Native American leaders, Tanaghrisson , a leader of the Seneca tribe, was a notable figure.

Known as the "Half-King," he played a crucial role in the beginning of the war, including participating in the initial skirmishes with George Washington.

What happened during the war?

The French and Indian War, a conflict marked by fierce combat, diplomatic maneuvering, and shifting alliances, featured several key battles and events that shaped the course of the war.

The spark that ignited the war was the Battle of Fort Necessity in 1754. After a young George Washington and his forces skirmished with a French patrol in the region, the French counterattacked, leading to the construction and subsequent surrender of Fort Necessity by Washington's forces.

This encounter marked the beginning of hostilities and set the stage for larger conflicts.

The war turned in favor of the British with the Battle of Louisbourg in 1758. The British, led by General Jeffery Amherst, laid siege to the fortress of Louisbourg, a key French stronghold guarding the entrance to the St. Lawrence River.

The fall of Louisbourg marked a turning point in the war, giving the British control over the key waterways, cutting off French supply routes, and paving the way for an assault on Quebec.

The pivotal Battle of Quebec in 1759, known as the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, was perhaps the most significant battle of the war.

The British, led by General James Wolfe, launched a daring assault on Quebec, the capital of New France. Wolfe's forces defeated the French army commanded by Louis-Joseph de Montcalm, despite both commanders dying in the battle.

The British capture of Quebec signaled the beginning of the end for French rule in North America.

How the war ended: Treaty of Paris (1763)

The Treaty of Paris, signed on February 10, 1763, marked the official end of the French and Indian War.

The agreement had profound consequences for the geopolitical landscape of North America, cementing Britain's status as the dominant colonial power and leading to significant territorial changes.

Negotiations for the treaty involved several European powers, including Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, and stretched on for months.

As part of the treaty, France ceded nearly all its territories in North America to Britain, marking the end of French colonial rule in the region.

The vast territories that France surrendered included Canada and the lands east of the Mississippi River, with the exception of New Orleans, which France gave to Spain as compensation for Spain's loss of Florida to Britain.

The French retained control of a few small islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and were granted fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland.

In addition, France managed to keep its Caribbean sugar islands, which were more profitable than its vast North American territories.

While Britain emerged as the clear victor, the Treaty of Paris was met with mixed reactions.

In the American colonies, the removal of the French threat led to increased colonial expansion and friction with Native American tribes.

In Britain, the costs of maintaining the newly acquired territories and military outposts led to increased taxation in the colonies, sowing the seeds of discontent that would eventually erupt into the American Revolution.

Why the French and Indian War was so significant

The French and Indian War had profound and wide-ranging impacts on the British colonies in North America.

It reshaped the political landscape, strained economic resources, and altered relationships both within the colonies and with Native American tribes.

Politically, the war marked a major shift in the balance of power in North America. With the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the French ceded most of their territories to the British, leaving Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America.

This newfound power, however, also brought increased responsibilities and challenges, including managing the vast western territories and maintaining peace with Native American tribes.

Economically, the war left the British empire with enormous war debts. To recover some of these costs, the British parliament passed a series of new taxes and tariffs on the American colonies, such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act.

These policies were met with fierce resistance from the colonists, who protested with slogans like "no taxation without representation."

These protests marked the beginning of a rift between the colonies and the British government, planting seeds of discontent that would eventually lead to the American Revolution.

The war also had a significant impact on relations between the colonies and Native American tribes.

Despite Britain's victory, Native American tribes, particularly those allied with the French, continued to resist British expansion into the western territories.

This resistance culminated in Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, a widespread Native American uprising against British military presence in the Great Lakes region.

The uprising prompted the British government to issue the Proclamation of 1763, forbidding colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, further stoking colonial resentment.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Contact via email

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

AP US History Study Guide
History U: Courses for High School Students
History School: Summer Enrichment
Lesson Plans
Classroom Resources
Spotlights on Primary Sources
Professional Development (Academic Year)
Professional Development (Summer)
Book Breaks
Inside the Vault
Self-Paced Courses
Browse All Resources
Search by Issue
Search by Essay
Become a Member (Free)
Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
Program Information
Scholarships and Financial Aid
Applying and Enrolling
Eligibility (In-Person)
EduHam Online
Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
Official Website
Press Coverage
Veterans Legacy Program
The Declaration at 250
Black Lives in the Founding Era
Celebrating American Historical Holidays
Browse All Programs
Donate Items to the Collection
Search Our Catalog
Research Guides
Rights and Reproductions
See Our Documents on Display
Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
Interactive Exhibitions Online
About the Transcription Program
Civil War Letters
Founding Era Newspapers
College Fellowships in American History
Scholarly Fellowship Program
Richard Gilder History Prize
David McCullough Essay Prize
Affiliate School Scholarships
Nominate a Teacher
Eligibility
State Winners
National Winners
Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
George Washington Prize
Frederick Douglass Book Prize
Our Mission and History
Annual Report
Contact Information
Student Advisory Council
Teacher Advisory Council
Board of Trustees
Remembering Richard Gilder
President's Council
Scholarly Advisory Board
Internships
Our Partners
Press Releases

History Resources

The French and Indian War

By christopher gill, unit objective.

This unit is part of Gilder Lehrman’s series of Common Core State Standards–based teaching resources. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Through a step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material.

In this unit students will develop a thorough knowledge of the French and Indian War through several primary documents. These documents will teach the students about specific aspects of the French and Indian War and the complex nature of this major event in colonial and indigenous history. Students will demonstrate learning by combining prior knowledge and primary sources to dig deeper and discover more relevant information related to the coalitions and contentions that led to the violence of the French and Indian War.

This unit focuses on the conflict that took place in North America from 1754 to 1763 between the French and English and their respective powerful Native American allies. It is sometimes also referred to as the Seven Years’ War, but will be identified as the French and Indian War for this unit. The French and Indian War officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

This activity can be used in most US history classrooms. I would recommend that this lesson/unit in its current form be used in seventh through twelfth grades. The primary document analysis template ( In His Own Words ), reading and analysis template ( Document Analysis & Learning ), and document comparison template ( Making Connections & Detecting Differences ) can be used across many grade levels, from elementary to AP classes, if adapted with different documents or appropriate curriculum-level activities.

This activity should take between three and five class periods depending on the time allotted by the teacher for pre-activity curriculum-based learning, document analysis, and possible follow-up activities. If classroom time is an issue, various aspects of this unit can be used independently.

This lesson could work well in several different units of American history or civics. Themes related to the French and Indian War include: American Indian history, the age of exploration, European and Native American relations, colonial and Native American relations, colonization, the thirteen colonies, imperialism, land ownership, the Seven Years’ War, English and French colonial conflict, the Iroquois Confederacy, early conflicts between the colonies and England, causes of the American Revolution, differences between European and American Indian societies and cultures, and several other related topics. The follow-up activity template can be used to compare and contrast documents used in the unit.

Introduction

The age of exploration and the ensuing colonization of the Western Hemisphere brought long-standing conflicts into new and unfamiliar lands for European imperial nations. Whether peaceful or hostile, European contact directly changed the lives of the indigenous populations in the Americas forever.

Throughout the French and Indian War during the mid-eighteenth century, powerful indigenous nations fought against and allied with European powers for specific military, economic, political, and social purposes. For each faction, there were multiple motivations at play during these conflicts. Some of the major motivations behind the French and Indian War included, but were not limited to, protection of ancestral lands, acquisition of new territory and imperial power, and self-preservation. This unit will use primary documents to help students understand the complicated nature of defeating adversaries and building coalitions on the frontier during the French and Indian War.

The documents and graphic organizers presented in this unit should be used as enrichment pieces to teach students about the French and Indian War. The primary sources will help students understand the viewpoints of some of the major players during the French and Indian War. They will show the historical circumstances that helped shape or destroy native and European alliances as well as the brutal and confusing nature of wilderness warfare during this period. These documents alone cannot fully tell the story of the causes, events, and aftermath of the entire war, but should serve as glimpses into the realities of the time.

Primary Document Analysis: Canassatego – In His Own Words
Graphic Organizer: Document Analysis and Learning
Analyzing a Political Cartoon: Benjamin Franklin – "Join or Die"
Primary Document Analysis: Robert Moses – In His Own Words
Primary Document Analysis: Minavavana – In His Own Words
Graphic Organizer: Making Connections – Document to Document
Graphic Organizer: Detecting Differences – Document to Document
Smartboard, ELMO, or overhead projector

The students will use the Primary Document Analysis activities to locate and cite specific vocabulary words.

Students will be using close-reading strategies to analyze excerpts from two speeches by Canassatego, chief of the Onondaga Nation and a diplomat for the Iroquois Confederacy. Students will demonstrate their understanding by "graffiting"/annotating the text; completing primary document analysis templates; participating in in-depth analysis of rhetoric and discourse, cooperative learning, and document-based questioning; and creating and responding to higher-order questions based on the text.

Sample questions:

How do Chief Canassatego and his people feel about the land? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
According to Chief Canassatego, what happens to the goods they are given for the land they sell? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
How does this document portray the relationship between the Iroquois people and the colonists? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
According to Chief Canassatego, what are the major problems that his people face? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
How does Canassatego feel about the alliance between the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
What advice does Canassatego give to the colonists? Cite specific evidence from the document that helps support your answer.
Did the colonists eventually follow Chief Canassatego’s advice? Give specific evidence from your knowledge of American history.

The teacher will tell students that they will be analyzing a primary source by Canassatego, chief of the Onondaga Nation and a diplomat for the Iroquois Confederacy. Discuss with the students the importance of critically analyzing the specific words and sentiments expressed directly in the document.

The teacher should also tell students that this document is a representation of the relationships between the Iroquois Nation and the colonists, specifically in Pennsylvania. Chief Canassatego’s speeches took place several years before the French and Indian War but show the direct relationships and sometimes turbulent alliances among the Iroquois Confederation, the colonists in Pennsylvania, and the British Crown.

Primary Document Analysis: Canassatego – In His Own Words . Source: Carl Van Doren, Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762 (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938). First three paragraphs from "The Treaty Held with the Indians of the Six Nations, at Philadelphia, in July, 1742," p. 27; the last paragraph from "A Treaty with the Indians of the Six Nations, June 1744," p. 78. This book reprinting several pamphlets published by Benjamin Franklin can be found online at the Internet Archive at http://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand .
Analyzing a Political Cartoon: Benjamin Franklin – "Join or Die" Source: Pennsylvania Gazette , May 9, 1754, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
The teacher will have to be sure the students are appropriately prepared for this unit/lesson. Students should have a good understanding of pre-Columbian indigenous history, the age of exploration, wars of European colonialism around the world, cultural diffusion, imperialism, and other topics relevant to world and US history.
The teacher will hand out Canassatego – In His Own Words . Make certain students understand that the text has been excerpted from two different speeches for this lesson. Explain the purpose and use of ellipses.
Teacher will "share read" the Canassatego document with the class. In a shared read, the teacher will introduce the text to the students by beginning to read the document aloud. After a few sentences, the teacher will ask the students to join in reading the remainder of the document in unison. The teacher will continue reading along with the students and use the proper pronunciation and intonation as a model. The share-reading exercise ensures that students will become more familiar with the articulation and discourse of the document and helps English language learners and struggling readers. Share reading will also help students hear, see, and read aloud the major sentiments and the point of view presented in the document prior to their close-reading exercise.
The teacher will pair students based on ability level for a Think, Pair, Share using Canassatego – In His Own Words. The student pairings can be assigned by the teacher based on the needs of the students and their levels. Each student in the pairing will focus on half of the document, which can be assigned by the teacher or selected by the students.
Students will "close read" their portion of the text and fill in the organizers with relevant ideas, vocabulary, quotations, and meanings. The teacher should stress the importance of critically analyzing the specific words and sentiments expressed directly in the document.
After a set amount of time, students will work with their partner to begin the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share, communicating the information from the two sections of the text.
After a set amount of time, each student will present to the class at least one piece of information their partner shared with them during the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share. This information should be displayed on the Smartboard, ELMO, or overhead projector.
The teacher should pose several higher-order questions (see examples in the Objective section of this lesson) to encourage a classroom discussion based on the text.
The teacher will hand out Graphic Organizer: Document Analysis and Learning and, in pairs, the students will fill in the organizer using specific evidence from the document.

Extension (optional)

Students will use what they learned from Canassatego – In His Own Words to fill in the graphic organizer Document Analysis and Learning for homework, if it was not completed in class. Students will receive a copy of Benjamin Franklin – "Join or Die" to complete as homework. They should be informed they will need to use their homework for the next lesson.

Students will be using Benjamin Franklin’s "Join or Die" political cartoon and the diary of Robert Moses, a member of the New Hampshire militia during the French and Indian War, in this lesson. Students will demonstrate their understanding by "graffiting"/annotating the text; completing primary document analysis templates; participating in in-depth analysis of rhetoric and discourse, cooperative learning, and document-based questioning; and creating and responding to higher-order questions based on the text.

What are some of the major symbols in Benjamin Franklin’s "Join or Die" cartoon and what do you think they mean? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
Is the "Join or Die" political cartoon related to the words of Chief Canassatego? If so, how? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
According to Robert Moses’s diary, what is it like fighting in the French and Indian War? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
According to Robert Moses’s diary, what role are Native Americans playing in the French and Indian War? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
When you read Robert Moses’s diary, what images pop into your head? Why? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
If you compare Benjamin Franklin’ "Join or Die" and the excerpts from Robert Moses’s diary, are there any direct connections? Are there any differences? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
What do you think the most interesting lines in the diary are? What did you find compelling about those lines? Cite specific evidence from the text that supports your answer.

The second lesson will connect Benjamin Franklin’s political cartoon "Join or Die" with excerpts from Robert Moses’s diary. These two documents have the common theme of colonial unity embedded within them. It may take the students time to find this thread because overall there are more differences than similarities between the documents.

There are several other major reasons to use Robert Moses’s diary: it describes the chaos and brutal nature of the French and Indian War as well as the role that Native American allies played for both the English and the French during the war.

The teacher should discuss with the students the importance of critically analyzing the specific words and sentiments expressed directly in the document.

Primary Document Analysis: Robert Moses – In His Own Words . Source: Robert Moses, Diary, July 12–September 15, 1755. . The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, GLC04944 . The full text of the diary is provided as a pdf for the teacher’s reference.

Procedure (Instruction and Assessment)

The teacher and students will review the homework from the first day’s lesson, Analyzing a Political Cartoon: Benjamin Franklin – "Join or Die," or complete the analysis in class if it was not assigned as homework. Students and teacher should present their answers on the Smartboard, ELMO, or overhead projector.
The teacher will hand out Robert Moses – In His Own Words . Make certain that students understand that the original text has been excerpted for this lesson. Explain the purpose and use of ellipses. Punctuation has been added and spelling has been modernized in these excerpts.
Teacher will "share read" the Robert Moses document with the class.
The teacher will pair students based on ability level for a Think, Pair, Share based on Robert Moses Diary – In His Own Words . Each student in the pairing will focus on half of the document, which can be assigned by the teacher or selected by the students.
Students will "close read" and fill in the graphic organizers with relevant ideas, vocabulary, quotations, and meanings from their specifically assigned half of the document on their own. The teacher should stress the importance of critically analyzing the specific words and sentiments expressed directly in the document.
After a set amount of time, students will work with their partner to begin the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share, communicating the information from the two sections of the text .
After a set amount of time, each student will present at least one piece of information their partner shared with them during the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share. Students and teacher should be able to present their answers on the Smartboard, ELMO, or overhead projector.

Students will be using a statement made by Chippewa ( Anishinaabeg or Ojibwe ) chief Minavavana ( Mihnehwehna or Minweweh ), an ally of the French. Students will demonstrate their understanding by "graffiting"/annotating the text; completing primary document analysis templates; participating in in-depth analysis of rhetoric and discourse, cooperative learning, and document-based questioning; and creating and responding to higher order questions based on the text.

How does Minavavana feel about the English defeating the French? What does the English victory mean to Minavavana? Cite specific examples from the text that support your answer.
According to Minavavana, what must his warriors do even though the war may have ended? Cite specific evidence from the text that helps support your answer.
According to Chief Minavavana, what are the two ways the "spirits of the slain" can be satisfied? Cite specific evidence from the text that will help support your answer.
What does Chief Minavavana think of the king of England? The king of France? Cite specific evidence from the text that will help support your answer.
How does Minavavana feel about the English fur trader Alexander Henry? Why do you think he feels this way? Cite specific evidence from the text that will support your answer.

In this lesson, students will explore the changing nature of the relationship between indigenous people and their European allies. In this document, Chippewa/Ojibwe Chief Minavavana reminds a visiting English trader, Alexander Henry, that his people may have defeated the French but will never defeat Minavavana’s people. The document shows the nature of the war, the allegiance that the Chippewa/Ojibwe people had with the French, the military culture of the Chippewa/Ojibwe people, the relationship between indigenous nations and fur traders, and the expansion of the English into French territory as the war came to an end.

Primary Document Analysis: Minavavana – In His Own Words . Source: Alexander Henry, Travels and Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories, between the Years 1760 and 1776 (New York: I. Riley, 1809), 44–45. Complete publication is available on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=WjnGWp-zufAC&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Graphic Organizer: Document Analysis and Learning
The teacher will hand out Minavavana – In His Own Words. Make certain that students understand that the original text has been excerpted for this lesson. Explain the purpose and use of ellipses.
The teacher will "share read" the Minavavana document with the class.
The teacher will pair students based on ability level for a Think, Pair, Share based on Minavavana – In His Own Words. Each student in the pairing will focus on half of the document, which can be assigned by the teacher or selected by the students.
Students will "close read" and fill in the graphic organizers with relevant ideas, vocabulary, quotations, and meanings from their half of the document on their own. The teacher should stress the importance of critically analyzing the specific words and sentiments expressed directly in the document.
After a set amount of time, students will work with their partner to begin the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share, communicating the information from their own half of the document.
After a set amount of time, each student will present at least one piece of information their partner shared with them during the Pair portion of the Think, Pair, Share. Students and teacher should present their answers on the Smartboard, ELMO, or overhead projector.
The teacher should pose several higher-order questions to encourage a classroom discussion based on the text.
The teacher will hand out Graphic Organizer: Document Analysis and Learning and, in pairs, the students will fill in the organizer using specific evidence from the document. This can be done in class or as homework.

Follow-Up Activities

Students will analyze and compare the documents presented in the unit. Students will use Making Connections – Document to Document and Detecting Differences – Document to Document .
Students will research and create a project where they must find and research at least four primary documents that are related to American Indian tribes and the American Revolution.
Students will research and create a project where they must find and research at least four primary documents that show a direct correlation between the end of the French and Indian War and the beginning of turmoil between the colonies and England.
Students will create a thesis statement for a DBQ essay and will use all of the documents from this unit to prove their thesis in a detailed DBQ essay.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Milestones: 1750–1775

French and indian war/seven years’ war, 1754–63.

The French and Indian War was the North American conflict in a larger imperial war between Great Britain and France known as the Seven Years’ War. The French and Indian War began in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The war provided Great Britain enormous territorial gains in North America, but disputes over subsequent frontier policy and paying the war’s expenses led to colonial discontent, and ultimately to the American Revolution.

The French and Indian War resulted from ongoing frontier tensions in North America as both French and British imperial officials and colonists sought to extend each country’s sphere of influence in frontier regions. In North America, the war pitted France, French colonists, and their Native allies against Great Britain, the Anglo-American colonists, and the Iroquois Confederacy, which controlled most of upstate New York and parts of northern Pennsylvania. In 1753, prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Great Britain controlled the 13 colonies up to the Appalachian Mountains, but beyond lay New France, a very large, sparsely settled colony that stretched from Louisiana through the Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes to Canada. (See Incidents Leading up to the French and Indian War and Albany Plan )

The border between French and British possessions was not well defined, and one disputed territory was the upper Ohio River valley. The French had constructed a number of forts in this region in an attempt to strengthen their claim on the territory. British colonial forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel George Washington, attempted to expel the French in 1754, but were outnumbered and defeated by the French. When news of Washington’s failure reached British Prime Minister Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle, he called for a quick undeclared retaliatory strike. However, his adversaries in the Cabinet outmaneuvered him by making the plans public, thus alerting the French Government and escalating a distant frontier skirmish into a full-scale war.

The war did not begin well for the British. The British Government sent General Edward Braddock to the colonies as commander in chief of British North American forces, but he alienated potential Indian allies and colonial leaders failed to cooperate with him. On July 13, 1755, Braddock died after being mortally wounded in an ambush on a failed expedition to capture Fort Duquesne in present-day Pittsburgh. The war in North America settled into a stalemate for the next several years, while in Europe the French scored an important naval victory and captured the British possession of Minorca in the Mediterranean in 1756. However, after 1757 the war began to turn in favor of Great Britain. British forces defeated French forces in India, and in 1759 British armies invaded and conquered Canada.

Facing defeat in North America and a tenuous position in Europe, the French Government attempted to engage the British in peace negotiations, but British Minister William Pitt (the elder), Secretary for Southern Affairs, sought not only the French cession of Canada but also commercial concessions that the French Government found unacceptable. After these negotiations failed, Spanish King Charles III offered to come to the aid of his cousin, French King Louis XV, and their representatives signed an alliance known as the Family Compact on August 15, 1761. The terms of the agreement stated that Spain would declare war on Great Britain if the war did not end before May 1, 1762. Originally intended to pressure the British into a peace agreement, the Family Compact ultimately reinvigorated the French will to continue the war, and caused the British Government to declare war on Spain on January 4, 1762, after bitter infighting among King George III’s ministers.

Despite facing such a formidable alliance, British naval strength and Spanish ineffectiveness led to British success. British forces seized French Caribbean islands, Spanish Cuba, and the Philippines. Fighting in Europe ended after a failed Spanish invasion of British ally Portugal. By 1763, French and Spanish diplomats began to seek peace. In the resulting Treaty of Paris (1763), Great Britain secured significant territorial gains in North America, including all French territory east of the Mississippi river, as well as Spanish Florida, although the treaty returned Cuba to Spain.

Unfortunately for the British, the fruits of victory brought seeds of trouble with Great Britain’s American colonies. The war had been enormously expensive, and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in increasing colonial resentment of British attempts to expand imperial authority in the colonies. British attempts to limit western expansion by colonists and inadvertent provocation of a major Indian war further angered the British subjects living in the American colonies. These disputes ultimately spurred colonial rebellion, which eventually developed into a full-scale war for independence.

Share full article

Supported by

Ross Douthat

The War That Made Our World

By Ross Douthat

Opinion Columnist

Two hundred and sixty-six years ago this month, a column of British regulars commanded by Gen. Edward Braddock was cut to pieces by French soldiers and their Native American allies in the woods just outside today’s Pittsburgh. The defeat turned into a rout when Braddock was shot off his horse, leaving the retreat to be managed by a young colonial officer named George Washington, whose own previous foray into the region had lit the tinder for the war.

This was the beginning of the French and Indian War (also known, much less poetically, as the Seven Years’ War), which I thought as a boy was the most interesting war in all of history.

I had encountered it originally through a public television version of “The Last of the Mohicans,” but I soon found that the real conflict exceeded even James Fenimore Cooper’s romantic imagination: the complexity of forest warfare and the diversity of the combatants on both sides, colonial, European and Native; the majesty of the geographic setting, especially the lakes, mountains and defiles of upstate New York; the ridiculous melodrama of the culminating battle at Quebec, with a wee-hours cliff-scaling that led to a decisive showdown in which both commanders were mortally wounded, James Wolfe in victory and Louis-Joseph de Montcalm in defeat.

In school the war faded into the background of my history classes. In world history it was folded into the larger categories of colonial warfare and endless Anglo-French conflict; in American history it was treated mostly as a prelude to the real business of the American Revolution. (Not only Washington but also Ben Franklin and a long list of future Revolutionary-era officers, from Daniel Morgan to Charles Lee, played roles in Braddock’s doomed campaign.)

But returning to the 1750s as an adult reader of history — and as a columnist trying to offer constructive thoughts about the history wars in K-12 education — I think my childhood self was basically correct. The war that evicted the French from North America was not only incredibly fascinating but also one of history’s most important wars. Indeed, from a certain perspective, it was more important than the American War of Independence: The Revolution merely determined in what form Anglo-America would spread to embrace continental empire and global power, while the French and Indian War determined whether that continent-spanning America would come into being at all.

As a kid, I — a good patriotic American and stalwart New Englander — naturally rooted for the British and the American colonists, from their early string of setbacks at the hands of Montcalm and other canny French commanders through their eventual triumphant invasion of New France. It was particularly easy to identify with the neurasthenic Wolfe, the victor at Quebec, whose self-dramatization and battlefield martyrdom fit with a 9-year-old’s idea of generalship.

For an adult, though, reading books like Fred Anderson’s “Crucible of War,” the best 21st-century history of the conflict, or Alan Taylor’s “American Colonies” for the bigger picture of North American empire, it’s easy enough to end up rooting for the French.

First, because they were obvious underdogs — New France had less than a fifteenth of the population of the 13 colonies, it was constantly being cut off from its motherland by the British Navy, and it’s something of a miracle that it lasted for as long and won as many victories as it did.

But also because the French empire in North America represented an unusual model of European colonization: The combination of the smaller, scattered population, the harsher climate and the distinctive vision of figures like Samuel de Champlain and the French Jesuits all contributed to a friendlier relationship with Native American populations than obtained in the English colonies. (For a Francophilic supplement to Anderson and Taylor, I recommend David Hackett Fischer’s “Champlain’s Dream” and Kevin Starr’s “Continental Ambitions.”)

So a world where the French somehow held on to their territories might have been more Catholic (obviously a good thing) while offering more possibilities for Indigenous influence, power and survival than the world where England simply won the continent.

There’s a terribly poignant moment at the end of Anderson’s “Crucible,” when tribes of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley, under the Ottawa leader Pontiac and others, begin to rise against the British shortly after the French retreated from North America. The British imagine that French agents must still be around stirring up trouble, but the reality is that the Native Americans still understand themselves to be in a relationship with the French king and imagine that their war can help bring France back to their aid. But no: They’re alone now with Anglo-America, and foredoomed.

Imagining an alternative timeline, a history in which New France endures and a more, well, “French and Indian” civilization takes shape in the Great Lakes region, isn’t exactly the stuff of the patriotic American education that I wrote about last weekend.

But it also makes a poor fit with contemporary progressive pieties, in which organized Christianity is a perpetual scapegoat for the mistreatment of Native peoples — since it was arguably the power of the church and the Catholic ancien régime in New France, relative to the greater egalitarianism, democracy and secular ambition in the English colonies, that helped foster a more humane relationship between the French colonizers and the Native American population.

Once you recognize that kind of deep historical complexity, you can go in two directions. Along one path lies a kind of cynicism about almost every aspect of the past, where the reader of history is encouraged to basically root for nobody, and the emphasis is always on the self-interest lying underneath every expression of idealism. The French might have modeled what seemed like a kindlier form of colonization, but they were only following their own self-interest as greedy traders and proselytizing Catholic zealots . The New England colonies might have pioneered what seemed like an impressive form of egalitarian democracy, but they achieved their wide distribution of property by ruthlessly crushing the Pequot and the Wampanoag.

This is the mood that I sense, for instance, in Taylor’s “American Colonies” and its sequels, “American Revolutions” and “American Republics” — the last out just this year, and much praised for its disenchanted view of the early-1800s United States. These books are capacious histories, remarkable works of synthesis, in which you sometimes get the sense that apart from the occasional sympathetic victim, the author finds very little in hundreds of years of history to actually admire.

That mood has its place in historical analysis. But continuing my attempts to propose solutions to our current K-12 history wars, I want to suggest a different path, in which the kind of patriotic spirit that made me root for the British at Fort William Henry as a child and the kind of speculations about a Catholic-Huron imperium that I can entertain as an adult are both appropriate.

The first, the patriotism, is a form of gratitude for the particular goods that the American Republic ended up embodying — the initial goods of greater equality, liberty and prosperity for many ordinary people, and then the gradual extension of those goods to people once subjugated and excluded.

The second, the speculation, is a recognition of contingency and complexity — the reality that although the United States we have is good and great in many ways, along another timeline there might lie other goods, other civilizations, that would have been different from our democratic empire but also admirable, and whose real and imagined histories can be usefully contrasted with our own.

Both attitudes cultivate the appreciation of the past that seems essential to sustaining historical memory. On the one hand, you have an appreciation of what was best in the victors and founders, from Wolfe to Washington, who played crucial roles in establishing a continental civilization that we have inherited through no achievement of our own.

And then on the other, an appreciation of figures like Montcalm and Pontiac, and other embodiments of the two peoples, French and Native, who give one of history’s most decisive wars its name: peoples whose potential American futures were stillborn or defeated, but in a different world might have merited patriotism and gratitude as well.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram .

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author of several books, most recently, “The Decadent Society.” @ DouthatNYT • Facebook

The French and Indian War Essay Example

The French and Indian war was a war between Britain and its colonies against the French and Native Americans. This war revealed differences between Britain and its colonies such as methods of fighting, attitudes towards taxes, and military discipline that would later affect the American-British relationship. The French and Indian war caused a great schism between Britain and its American colonies.

Taxes are proof of the major impact that the French and Indian War had on the American-British relationship. After the costly French and Indian War, Britain needed money, so they placed more taxes on the American colonies such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. The colonists were being taxed in the past due to policy like The Navigation Acts, however; the taxes were not as heavy on them, so they were not irritated by their effect. Additionally these taxes were passed without the representation of Americans in parliament, so they had no say in the matter. These taxes were met with protest like forming organizations against taxes like The Sons of Liberty. Due to the French and Indian war, the taxes were higher, which caused anti-British attitudes in the colonies, showing how major its effect was on Amercian relations with Great Britain.

With taxes as a result of the French and Indian war, colonists became hostile and violent. For instance, the Gaspee affair and the Boston Tea Party; they were both events where colonists decided to destroy British property as a result of the taxes. They both affected the relationship between the British and American colonies, and this is shown due the king of England being angry with those involved in the gaspee affair and the Coercive Acts being passed. Taxes led to irritable colonists, which led to the colonists acting out in violence, which led to the colonies being punished. American colonies began to view the British as oppressors and the British began to view American colonies as disobedient. This relationship is attributed to the taxes that were needed as a result of the French and Indian war.

Britain’s war between the French and Native Americans over the Ohio river valley had a great impact on the American-British relationship. Taxes, being the main factor in this, made the colonists become angry towards the British, so they acted on their anger with violence. Britain responded to the violence with punishments on the colonies. Their rocky relationship was due to the British’s need for money after the war. Although the British and American relationship was rocky after the French and Indian war, the American colonies still served their purpose as sources of wealth for Great Britain. The mercantilist policies like The Navigation Acts were still in effect after the war.

Related Samples

The China-US Economic Relationship
Connection Between Socialism and Communism Essay Example
Admission Essay Example: JET Program
China's Foreign Policy Essay Example
The Problem of Racism in America Essay Example
Essay Sample on Social Security in the U.S.
Admission Essay Example: JET Program
Canada vs. United States: Judicial System Essay Example
Essay on Vichy France
The Role of Pharaoh in Ancient Egypt

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath Thesis

Introduction, the french, the indians and the british during the war.

Bibliography

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 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).

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.

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.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 6). The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-and-indian-war-and-its-aftermath/

"The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath." IvyPanda , 6 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-and-indian-war-and-its-aftermath/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath'. 6 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-and-indian-war-and-its-aftermath/.

1. IvyPanda . "The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-and-indian-war-and-its-aftermath/.

IvyPanda . "The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-and-indian-war-and-its-aftermath/.

Native American Studies: Iroquois Creation Legend
Indigenous Societies in the Pre-Columbian Era: Aztecs & Iroquois
The Treaty of Canandaigua (1794)
Art Before History, the Ancient Near East, Egypt Under the Pharaohs
Social Welfare History: Elizabethan Poor Laws
Robert Sapolsky's Views on Natural History of Peace
Marxist Theories of History: Pros and Cons
A Review of an Ethnography Investigation

IMAGES

French and Indian War Free Essay Example
The French and Indian War, Start of the American Revolution? Essay
French and Indian War Critical Essay
Effects of the French and Indian War Free Essay Example
The French and Indian War Essay Assignment by Curt's Journey
French and Indian War Effects Essay Example

VIDEO

1754
4 2 The French & Indian War
French Indian War Combined Edit With Mohicans
French Indian War🇫🇷⚔️🇬🇧🇮🇳 |🇬🇧
French and Indian War
French & Indian War

COMMENTS

The French and Indian War: [Essay Example], 459 words
The French and Indian War had profound effects for both the British Empire and the American colonists. It is often seen as the source of much of the resentment between the English government and the colonists that eventually led to the American Revolution of 1775. The British victory in the French and Indian War had a great impact on the ...
French and Indian War
French and Indian War, American phase of a worldwide nine-year war (1754-63) fought between France and Great Britain. It determined control of the vast colonial territory of North America. Three earlier phases of the contest for overseas mastery included King William's War, Queen Anne's War, and King George's War.
The French and Indian War: A Review Essay
Three studies that fit into the latter category are the subject of this review essay. Fred Anderson's The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Viking, 2005) is the companion to the PBS presentation of the same name, and aired in 2006. Most readers will know that Anderson's major work on this era was ...
The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Causes and Outbreak
The French and Indian War is one of the most significant, yet widely forgotten, events in American history. It was a conflict that pitted two of history's greatest empires, Great Britain and France, against each other for control of the North American continent. Swept up in the struggle were the inhabitants of New France, the British ...
The French and Indian War
The French and Indian War was a conflict between Britain, France, their colonies in North America, as well as Native American tribes allied to both nations. 2. It was sparked by clashes over territory between British and French settlers in north-eastern America in 1754-55. British declared war on France in 1756, leading to a wider conflict ...
A Clash of Empires: The French and Indian War
The French and Indian War was the climactic struggle between Great Britain and France for imperial control of North America. The war began in 1754, when a young Virginia militia officer named George Washington engaged in a skirmish with a party of French soldiers, and it ended six years later when the governor-general of New France surrendered to a British army at Montreal.
French and Indian War
The French and Indian War (1754-1763) was a theater of the Seven Years' War, which pitted the North American colonies of the British Empire against those of the French, each side being supported by various Native American tribes. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies.
The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Study Questions
Study Questions. Discuss the importance of Indian policy in regards to the French and Indian War. How did alliances with the Indians alter the course of the war? Indians played a crucial war in both battle and the overall course of the war. Their assistance was the main reason why the outnumbered French were able to win so many early battles ...
French and Indian War
The Treaty of Paris Ends the War. The French and Indian War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in February 1763. The British received Canada from France and Florida from Spain, but ...
The French and Indian War Essay
The French and Indian War was a conflict in North America in which Great Britain fought France and their Native American allies. It lasted from 1756 until 1763, so it was also known as the Seven Years War. At the peace conference in 1763, the British received Canada from France and Florida from Spain, but permitted France to keep its West ...
The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Its Consequences
What resulted from this global conflict and the French and Indian War shaped the future of North America. By 1762, the Seven Years' War, fought in Europe, the Americas, West Africa, India, and the Philippines, had worn the opposing sides in the conflict down. The combatants (Britain, Prussia, and Hanover against France, Spain, Austria, Saxony ...
The French and Indian War: The conflict that set the stage for the
The French and Indian War, spanning from 1754 to 1763, was a momentous conflict that forever altered the landscape of North America. Not merely a territorial battle between the British and the French, this war was a complex clash involving a diverse cast of Native American tribes, each allying with one side or the other based on their own strategic interests.As part of the larger global ...
The French and Indian War
The French and Indian War | Unit Objective This unit is part of Gilder Lehrman's series of Common Core State Standards-based teaching resources. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Through a step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material ...
French and Indian War in British Colonies' History Essay
One of the most significant events in the history of the British Empire, the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years' War, was of tremendous importance to Great Britain since it finally gained control over the colonies in North America, which initially belonged to France. Thus, the French and Indian War meant that the colonies in ...
French and Indian War
Across Europe, the war was called The Seven Years' War and was the climax of nearly one-hundred years of fighting that had begun in 1689. The French and Indian War, which was fought from 1754 until 1763, ended in a major victory for Great Britain and its allies. Great Britain took most of North America's French colonies, known as New France.
The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Suggested Essay Topics
Suggested Essay Topics. Discuss the importance of landscape in crafting battle strategy for both the French and the English. What was the significance of the Battle of Quebec, both in terms of securing victory for the British and for demoralizing the French forces? How did the French and Indian War heighten the conflict between Britain and the ...
The French And Indian War
The French and Indian War started in 1754 and lasted until 1763. Wars between France and Britain were first fought in Europe. There were three phrases that led up to the French and Indian War. The first phase was from 1690- 1697 and it better known as the King William's War.
French and Indian War, the American Revolution, and the War of 1812 Essay
The French Indian war was a struggle between the French and the Britons since 1754 to 1763. In the 1750s, the French and Britons rose against each other in Europe although the war extended to North America. The British colonists were pursuing the French's Northern American territory and conger fur trade in the region extending from Virginia ...
French and Indian War/Seven Years' War,
1754-63. The French and Indian War was the North American conflict in a larger imperial war between Great Britain and France known as the Seven Years' War. The French and Indian War began in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The war provided Great Britain enormous territorial gains in North America, but disputes over ...
Opinion
British forces in 1755 outside Fort Duquesne, near present-day Pittsburgh, in a battle that was part of the French and Indian War, a conflict that shaped the political geography of North America.
The French and Indian War Essay Example
The French and Indian War Essay Example. The French and Indian war was a war between Britain and its colonies against the French and Native Americans. This war revealed differences between Britain and its colonies such as methods of fighting, attitudes towards taxes, and military discipline that would later affect the American-British ...
The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath Thesis
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 ...

The French and Indian War

Works Cited

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on French and Indian War

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

A Clash of Empires: The French and Indian War

Written by: Timothy J. Shannon, Gettysburg College

Suggested Sequencing

Review Questions

Free Response Questions

AP Practice Questions

Primary Sources

Suggested Resources

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

French and Indian War

Why Did the French and Indian War Start?

British Victory in Canada

The Treaty of Paris Ends the War

Impact of the Seven Years’ War on the American Revolution

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Sign up for Inside History

The French and Indian War (1754-1763): Its Consequences

On the Precipice

Who Were the Sons and Daughters of Liberty?

Jumonville Glen

The French and Indian War: The conflict that set the stage for the American Revolution

The colonisation of North America by Europeans

What caused the French and Indian War?

The key players in the war

What happened during the war?

How the war ended: Treaty of Paris (1763)

Why the French and Indian War was so significant

What do you need help with?

The French and Indian War

Introduction

Extension (optional)

Procedure (Instruction and Assessment)

Follow-Up Activities

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Milestones: 1750–1775

The War That Made Our World

The French and Indian War Essay Example

Related Samples

The French and Indian War and Its Aftermath Thesis

Prelude to the War

The French and Indian War: An Overview

The French and the British: Comparison and Contrast

Their Purpose in Going to North America

The British and the French on Marriage

Relationship with their government at home

Type of government

Treatment of the Indians

Why the Indian tribes fought with the French

Reasons for the French and the Indians’ Initial Winning of the War

Why the French and the Indians failed

Aftermath of the War

On the French

On the British

On the Indian Tribes

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS