The Seven Years War - Its Significance and Impact on Colonial Policy - Essay Example

The Seven Years’ War: Its Significance and Impact on Colonial Policy The English and the French had been dueling for literally over a century before the Seven Years’ War took place. The intermittent conflicts had seen each side victorious at one time or another, but the long wars were torturing the economy and society of both countries, who also had to contend with famine, plague, and economic trouble. In American history, the Seven Years’ War has special significance. It helped create a set of circumstances and attitudes that boosted the colonists toward independence. It left the British with a new status as lead colonizer in the New World, and also gave them larger geographic area to administer and all the associated costs. The Seven Years’ War forced Britain to change its colonial policies in ways that helped drive the colonists to revolution. For the British, part of the significance of the Seven Years’ War is Britain’s emergence as the uncontested imperial leader in the New World. France and Britain had dueled for years as their empires expanded and collided. Armed conflict had been intermittent for decades. France gave its best effort against the might of the British, winning many battles and adopting successful alliances with Native American fighters, who offered support on the field and tutelage in woodland fighting techniques.1 When William Pitt reignited the British army, he also persuaded the Iroquois to ally with him and reduced the French advantage. The British whittled away at the French, then struck a terrific blow at the Plains of Abraham in Quebec in 1759, surprising the French and winning a short but awful battle. The French army would need years to heal after subsequent beatings on the battlefield left Britain victorious.2 Now, Great Britain had additional duties as a colonizer. As a result of the Treaty of Paris 1763, the French ceded land east of the Mississippi River to Great Britain. With larger land area to administrate, govern, protect, and defend, Britain placed additional strain on an already swollen fiscal budget. It would naturally expect the colonists, as British subjects to pay a proportionately higher amount of taxes to finance the new services.3 Victory in the Seven Years’ War impacted Britain’s attitude about how to treat opponents. It had not started winning the war until William Pitt began to use his bold, energetic, highly confident style to get results. Having sufficiently deposed the French with the heavy hand of its military, it now figured it could do the same to any colonists who were foolish enough to raise arms against the mother country.4 Other significance of the Seven Years’ War lies in the resultant expansion of British debt. Trade was disrupted during the war, so the government collected fewer import taxes than it would during times of peace. Also, American smugglers were denying the government their share whenever possible. The huge government bureaucracy in America took vast sums of cash for government officials and the maintenance of a standing army.5 The standing army was a further cause of contention between colonists and the British government. To the British, the army seemed necessary to defend the vast expanses from Native American, French, and other potential threats. But to the colonists, the standing army was an ever-present threat that could turn on the population with one order from a commanding officer.6 The Seven Years’ War had further significance: it would create a knowledgeable, experienced corps of soldiers and Indian allies for the British and the colonists in the coming American Revolution. The outcome of the earlier war also boosted the chances France would support the colonists in their effort to free themselves from Britain. France would be eager to have a chance at revenge by supporting Britain’s opponent in any war.7 Britain’s colonial dominance also made it a target for other nations. Spain, Holland, and the League of Armed Neutrality were also eager to join against Britain when the opportunity presented itself.8 After the Seven Years’ War, the British government implemented some other serious policy shifts, including the Proclamation of 1763, The Sugar Act, The Stamp Act, The Townshend Acts, and the Intolerable Acts. These laws were designed to raise money for the British treasury, and to reel in colonists who had grown lackadaisical in their willingness to comply with trade laws. While these were necessary and reasonable intentions from the royal viewpoint, they would only serve to further rile the colonists and weaken the bond between America and Great Britain. The Proclamation of 1763 was designed to reduce conflicts between those on the colonial frontier and Native Americans. The law was supposed to establish a boundary across which colonists were not to settle. It was difficult to enforce, and many colonists ignored it. This reaction had two effects: one was to snub the authority of the crown, which would eventually have its fill of being snubbed and retaliate. It also emboldened the colonists, who became more courageous each time the royal authorities failed to respond to an infraction of the law. The colonists resented being regulated in this way, and the resentment would grow into a sense of entitlement about their own autonomy that only revolution could answer.9 Another policy change was the Sugar Act. Although the details of this act contained legitimate enticements to colonists to observe the duties on molasses, more importantly, it strengthened the enforcement of the law by enabling prosecutors to try smuggling cases in a vice-admiralty court. This setting would be more difficult for a colonial defendant than a court in North America. Although a perfectly legitimate protocol, many colonists saw this as dangerous to their civil liberties and an indicator of the general direction of the royal authority.10 In other policy changes designed to subdue the colonists and boost Britain’s bottom line, the Stamp Act required the use of a special stamped paper for legal documents, newspapers, and other printed material. The law had far-reaching impact on the daily lives of colonists, who began to feel the pinch on their pocketbooks and sometimes refused to pay the tax. When colonial protests convinced the crown to repeal the tax, colonists mistakenly interpreted this as a sign that Britain might be pushed around on other issues, as well, Declaratory Acts aside. In the Declaratory Act, Parliament reasserted its right to legislate over the colonies, but their claims of authority were harder and harder to enforce.11 The next year, Charles Townshend introduced a set of revenue laws designed to collect an indirect tax from imported materials such as lead, paint, and glass. This policy helped deepen colonial frustration with royal authority, and further convinced some that agreement on major issues might not be possible. The colonists boycotted British luxury goods and stopped drinking tea, showing strong suggestions of grass-roots organization such as the Sons of Liberty and taking small but steady steps toward the ultimate confrontation. The Sons of Liberty and committees of correspondence served crucial roles on America’s path to independence. They relayed information to each other about what was going on their individual regions, and gave them the momentum and organization they needed to respond in unison. Over time, the colonists came to view their separate colonies as a unified force. By making their individual complaints against royal authority public knowledge, they were giving part ownership of those complaints to a group becoming increasingly agitated and better organized. The best example of colonial unity is illustrated in the Continental Congress, which formally questioned the power of Parliament and called for the withdrawal of British troops from the colonies. 12 The colonists’ unity is in stark contrast to the English cabinet’s disunity. Many Englishmen supported the royal view of colonial actions, but others were sympathetic toward the colonies, even considering some degree of self-autonomy for them. But the chasms of opinion were too great to bridge. Both sides eventually decided armed conflict would be the only resolution.13 British policy may have been a contributor to the sentiments that caused the Boston Massacre. By creating antagonism between colonists and soldiers, British policy after the Seven Years’ War created an atmosphere of distrust and increasingly bold actions and reactions on the part of the colonists. By the time British regulars and Boston townspeople clashed, sentiments were running so high that each side was very willing to hurt the other. Colonists became angrier and more fearless, even burning a grounded British schooner out looking for smugglers.14 Finally, changing British policy is evident in the Intolerable Acts. These laws closed the port of Boston, allowed British commanders to house soldiers in private homes, and appointed a new governor for Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage. These dramatic policy shifts demonstrate that the British-colonist relationship had changed from one of mother country-infant country to one that was more pointed and less loving.15 The new policies were insufferable for the colonists, and guaranteed armed conflict would soon follow. The Seven Years’ War was one of several conflicts pitting England against France, but it has special meaning in the context of American history. The war and its outcome helped create the conditions that would inspire America to become an entity separate from Great Britain. It changed the attitudes of English, French, and colonists about trade, alliances, and imperial relations. It started a chain that led to quick shifts in the ownership of choice land parcels in the New World. Britain’s debt, its desire to reel in its colonies, and a stealthy French enemy combined to change world history forever. Bibliography Schultz, Harold J. British History. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. Read More