The Roots of Revolution: America After the Seven Years' War

         The Seven Years' War began as the French and Indian War, a struggle between France and England for dominance over the North American continent. It soon bled into what could be argued was the first real world war, dragging numerous nations across the globe into the conflict. In the American colonies, it set the framework for the inevitable revolt against the English Crown. However, this begs the question: how exactly did this war change the socioeconomic and political atmospheres? And did the body known as the Continental Congress act as a catalyst to the movement, or was it merely a figurehead?

         The French and Indian War, named so by the English and colonists due to the – at the time – unorthodox and ungentlemanly alliance between the two namesakes, was a war testing the dominance of each parent nation in the New World. It would eventually spread to western Europe, but the end result was the same: a bitter, bloody English victory that vastly expanded their holdings in North America. Yet this triumph was a double-edged sword, in regards to the ends of what it accomplished; on one hand, it belayed colonial unrest and resentment towards the Crown by providing a common enemy, but on the other hand, it laid the groundwork for the coming Revolution. First and foremost, the victory against the French and indigenous American Indians proved that triumph heals all wounds even more than time does. With the British successfully defending her colonies against a common enemy, the pre-war hostility between the Anglo-Americans and the redcoats were all but forgotten. (USHistory.org, 2008) In fact, it sent the British politicians and warriors skyrocketing to a near deified state: William Pitt, the Prime Minister who almost single-handedly turned the outcome of the war around, was honored with hundreds of communities and towns being named after him – the most famous being Pittsburgh, PA. Even future Revolutionary War general Israel Putnam renamed his tavern in Connecticut the "Genl. Wolfe", in honor of James Wolfe, the audacious and bold hero who gave his life at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec. (Purvis, 2006) The war rekindled the colonists' sense of pride at being Englishmen, and made them proud to fly the Union Jack. 

         The same could not be said, however, for the class of elites back on the mother island. Englishmen that comprised the upper class claimed that the colonies had not contributed enough to the war effort, or at the very least, had not contributed equal to their abilities. This was due in part to a lack of information about the manpower the colonial governments volunteered to supplement the British regulars, as noted by Benjamin Franklin: "They say that last Year, at Nova Scotia, 2000 New England Men, and not more than 200 Regulars, were join’d in the Taking [of Fort] Beau Sejour; yet it could not be discover’d by the Account sent by Govr. Lawrence, and publish’d in the London Gazette, that there was a single New England-Man concern’d in the Affair." (1756) The upper crust of London also held the belief that the principal gauge of support was not manpower at all, but rather the tax revenue and incurred debt. England's debt doubled in nine years due to the war, and approximately 40% of that was spent on the colonies, and the taxpayers of Britain felt the colonists should pay more taxes to help with the military expenditures. (Purvis, 2006) News of the cost of maintaining their newly-conquered territories turned English public opinion downright hostile, and instead of reveling in their shared victory, they allowed the cost of the war to make themselves resentful of the Anglo-Americans, driving them further apart.

         As the British populace continued to resent their cousins across the pond, Anglo-American discontent grew as well. Parliament passed new laws and taxes intended to increase revenue for the island kingdom, driving costs in the colonies to rise. Taxation without representation and other issues causing discontent led those people now identifying as "Americans", not Englishmen, to form a representative body, known as the "Continental Congress". Officially established in 1774, the Continental Congress was the governing arm of the American Revolution, attempting to balance the needs and interests of the unified colonies, while being the liaison representing the colonies to Parliament and the Crown. In 1774, after the passage of the Intolerable Acts, the legislatures from each colony were pressured by groups – such as the famous Sons of Liberty – to send delegates a congress. The original intent of this congress was to set terms of a boycott of British goods, sponsored by the aforementioned Sons of Liberty. (Office of the Historian, 2010) What they accomplished was the passage of Articles of Association, which was not only a statement of boycott to the English government, but showed the British that the colonies had banded together against the perceived injustices of the Crown. (History.com, 1996) The Continental Congress would eventually go on to take control of the united colonial government, after the start of the Revolutionary War started, and then took the historic step of issuing a proclamation declaring independence from their mother country.

         The Seven Years' War and the corresponding effects it had on the colonies were indeed bittersweet. It allowed Britain to prove her dominance in the New World and across the globe, and gave the Anglo-Americans a chance to take pride in their heritage as Englishmen. However, it also forced those self-same Englishmen in America to think as Americans for the first time, since the Crown wouldn't treat them like true Englishmen. It was this thinking that led to the formation of the Continental Congress, the unification of the colonies, and eventually, American independence.

References

The Continental Congress — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/the-continental-congress

Franklin, B. (1756). The Papers of Benjamin Franklin; Personal correspondence to Sir Everard Fawkener (VI, 473). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Office of the Historian (2010). Continental Congress, 1774–1781 - 1776–1783 - Milestones. Retrieved from Department of State website: http://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/continental-congress

Purvis, T. L. (2006, March 20). HIS 571W: Colonial and Revolutionary America - Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from http://www.littlejohnexplorers.com/onlinegraduatecolonialcourse/sevenyearswarandpoliticallegacy.pdf

USHistory.org (2008). The Treaty of Paris (1763) and Its Impact. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/8d.asp

The Latin Advance: French and Spanish Colonization of the Americas

        In the Pre-Colonial era, France and Spain were two of the major powers of the day, and were also some of the biggest colonizers at the time. They are oft overlooked, however, being overshadowed by the British Empire, who was the most successful colonizing power, despite getting in the game somewhat late. Why were these two nations, in some respects, not as successful as the English in their colonization attempts? Did these two world powers share something in common besides speaking Romantic languages? What did England have that gave them the advantage, or were Spain and France merely lacking something?

         Spain began her colonization almost immediately after Christopher Columbus' first commissioned expedition in 1492. The Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and his wife Isabella of Castile, began and financed the initial voyages, with the conquistadors at the spearhead. Soon private ventures began, with secular Spaniards going for trade and wealth, and the more religiously inclined departing as missionaries for the Catholic Church to convert the so-called heathen barbarians discovered there. For nearly four centuries this was the norm, with the Spanish Empire enveloping modern day Mexico, Central America, the Southwestern United States and Californian coast, and even extending their claims northwards as far as the Alaskan coast. To the south, they declared much of South America, all the way down the western coast to Tierra Del Fuego, although the eastern portion of the continent was claimed by Portugal. (Chaney, 2012)

          Christopher Columbus, the Italian visionary most people of the time thought insane, has often been portrayed in academia as the benevolent discoverer of America. Due to recent historical finds, however, it has been revealed that he was neither. Leif Eriksson claimed the title of Discoverer nearly 500 years before, and Columbus himself dispelled the illusion of benevolence and kindheartedness, recording in his diary that the Indians there "would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all, and make them do whatever we want." (Zinn, 2003) This sentiment was echoed by the Spanish nobility, and truly set the tone for the following expeditions, not only the ones headed by Columbus, but by the conquistadors as well. As historian Edwin Weatherby said on his blog (2012), "To expand God, gold and glory was the mission statement of the Spanish during the 16^th and 17^th centuries. Every explorer and conquistador became obsessed with either one or the other." And oftentimes, the expansion of all three were backed under threat of force, even by the Catholic missionaries. Conquistadors and their men were most notable for letting their greed drive them, slaughtering entire towns, tribes, and cities merely to strip away the precious metals and resources located there. It is interesting to note that this was the first time that legends about mystical "cities of gold" began circulating, leading some historians to believe that these were merely myths conjured by the natives, using the greed of the Spanish against them, and causing them to move on from sacking one area in particular to search of the fabled treasure. (Weatherby, 2012)

         In short, the Spanish advance into the Americas was swift, and it was brutal. They refused to allow anything to stop or slow their conquest for the glory of the Crown and the Church – and by association, themselves as well. Nonetheless, their war against the native peoples was effective, breaking their spirit and gaining dominance over them, both of which can still be felt today in Latin America. The French, however, took a slightly different approach, despite desiring many of the same results.

         In a way, the French method of conquer was genius: take the Spaniards' gold without having to fight or mine, by way of monopolized trade. While the Spanish were busy making enemies and hoarding precious metals, the French began to establish their own colonial empire surrounding in-demand export products like furs, fish, timber, and sugar. Instead of coming to the New World thinking of themselves as mighty conquerors of God, the French took the approach of the sly businessman, creating a French-Indian policy that encouraged trade, peace, and intermarriage. (Osburn, 2009) In fact, it was not uncommon to have the French and Indian populations live together and teach each other their respective languages, along with various trade skills. This forged a bond that was unseen by any "civilized" country to that time, and the business side of the relationships caused a flourishing economy felt throughout the lower- to middle-class all the way up to the government of France itself. Even the Creek and Seminole Indian tribes would secretly trade with Frenchmen, despite being under the iron boot of the Spaniards, who had alienated nearly all the tribes under the new Spanish empire. (Weatherby, 2012)

         The French king who encouraged the exploration, and resulting Indian policy of diplomacy and friendship, was Francis I. He, like Ferdinand and Isabella, had an Italian head his nation's maiden voyage to the new world, and charged Giovanni da Verrazano with finding a route to the Pacific Ocean. After failing to find an intercontinental passage, the French then attempted to colonize the area explored by da Verrazano. Most of these settlements were short lived, partially due to the lack of French women willing to leave the Old World, but were eventually able to establish their presence in what is today Canada, the Midwestern U.S., and Louisiana, along with a few colonies scattered in the Caribbean. The French also relied on brigantines – small, fast ships capable of carrying a decent load – as opposed to the heavier Spanish galleons to protect their investments from English privateers. This cut the cost of having a fleet in the area, and thus led to more productivity, whereas the Spanish were forced to keep a strong military fleet in the area, resupplied with French timber, of course. (Weatherby, 2012) (Osburn, 2009)

         Eventually, both the French and Spanish were in effect forced out of the New World, either by England, or the native inhabitants rising up against them. Neither left without making their mark, however, as can be seen most clearly in the language groups commonly used in the Americas. The Spanish simply couldn't hold their colonies due to their repressive nature, making any and all under their rule resentful and restless; and the French were either bought out or driven out by the English. There was not any special formula or gift that gave the English an edge over the French, but by creating essentially a hybrid policy of force and diplomacy that varied from colony to colony, for dealing with the Indians and other European settlers, the English were able to survive and dominate where others couldn’t. The Spanish were there to storm beaches and conquer the heathen, the French were there to befriend the locals and subtly take out Spain, but England? The English subjects were there for a new start, a fresh beginning, a chance at freedom, proving once again that an idea in the heart and mind of man is more powerful than all the steel and schemes a government can muster.

References

Chaney, A. J. (2012, November 5). Spanish colonization of the Americas. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas.html

Osburn, K. (2009, August 14). The French in the New World. Retrieved from http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-444/the%20French%20in%20theNew%20World.htm

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Illinois Bottomland Explorer Archives (1999, July 28). FRENCH COLONIZATION. Retrieved from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/ibex/archive/IDOT/idot3.htm

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Illinois Bottomland Explorer Archives (1999, July 28). BRITISH AND SPANISH. Retrieved from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/ibex/archive/IDOT/idot2.htm

Weatherby, E. (2012, October 3). Differences of the French and Spanish colonization | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/differences-of-the-french-and-spanish-colonization/

Zinn, H. (2003). A People's History Of The United States. New York: The New Press. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-56584-724-8.

Spanning Generations: The Hundred Years' War

       Few conflicts in this world's troubled history have lasted as long as the war between England and France known as The Hundred Years' War. A bloody ping pong match between ruling families, the body count would reach epic proportions for just a few extra yards of land, just to be lost again with the same – or higher – loss of life. What started the constant clash? Was it a disagreement over borders, or plain and simple greed? Or was there something more nefarious at work, an underlying power play to unite all the major nations of Europe under one house to begin an empire?

       The Hundred Years' War officially lasted from 1337 until 1453, consisting primarily of on-again, off-again sieges, raids, and sea battles between England and France. But to fully understand why King Philip VI of France instigated the fighting, one must look further back, to the days of William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy. In 1066, when William shook off the title of "Bastard" and donned the mantle of "Conqueror", he united England and northern France for the first time since the Roman Empire. His descendent, Henry II, expanded the lands owned by England to proportions unseen before that time, though his successors found this expansion too great and complicated to control. This lack of control led to a slow erosion, until Edward III's reign, when England's holdings in France consisted of only Gascony and Ponthieu. Technically, these holdings were still under French rule, thus making the King of England a vassal of the King of France, at least in regard to the territories held on mainland Europe. Then, in 1328, just one year after Edward's ascension to the English throne, Charles IV of France died, with no heir, or even a brother to pass the crown to. His sister, however, happened to be the mother of Edward III, and it was by this lineage that Edward made a claim to the French throne as well. (Trueman, 2011) The French people did not share his view, though, and enthroned Phillip – a cousin to the deceased Charles. This move infuriated Edward, but he was virtually powerless to intervene, at least for nearly a decade. In May of 1337, Phillip moved on the English-controlled duchy of Aquitaine, and Edward jumped at the opportunity for war – a politically astute war, where he would not be viewed as the aggressor by neighboring kingdoms. However, merely appearing as the defender was not enough for King Edward, and he responded with a claim to the French throne, saying that he was the next legitimate heir to Charles IV, not Phillip.

        Edward's attempts to raise an army to challenge King Phillip were fruitful, for the most part, as there was no shortage of adventurous men willing to risk life and limb for king and country. Although, Edward shrewdly sweetened the deal by allowing volunteers to bring any French plunder they could carry home to England, which would often make even the poorest man feel as rich as the king himself. There were some, however, who were more concerned about leaving their farms, as the war didn't start heating up until the end of summer and beginning of autumn – right in the middle of the harvest. (Gormley, 2001) The feudal system in place at the time helped alleviate some of this, though, as the king called upon his vassals and feudal lords to draw armies, who would in turn allow individual villages and manors to select their fighting force. Those sent to the king – primarily archers, as most people in England were expected to be proficient with use of the feared English longbow – were paid three pence a day, along with the spoils of war; those left behind were cared for by the community as a whole until their volunteer's return, if he would indeed return.

        Three years into the conflict, Edward began what today would be called a public relations campaign, officially adopting the moniker of 'King of France and the French Royal Arms'. (Keen, 2011) It is still debated to this day if Edward actually thought this was accomplishable, or if it was merely a ruse to garner support, but regardless, it gave him vital leverage and pull in his consequent dealings with King Phillip. He used that title to split France amongst herself, with some French that were more friendly toward the English backing Edward's claim, and pitting those supporters against those of Phillip's. Additionally, the title became a negotiating piece, a bargaining chip as it were, if he were to offer a renunciation of it in return for vast territorial surrenderings, such as the independence of the duchy of  Aquitaine, or even the cession of Anjou and Normandy. (Keen, 2011)

        Edward's army was almost as successful as his political maneuverings for the most part, smashing the French forces all the way south to Castillon and controlling most of the western coast. Battles at Agincourt, Crécy, and Poitiers gave the English a chance to employ a new technique of warfare, combining divisions of longbowmen with units of men-at-arms to devastating effect. But then, in 1429, as the English pushed eastward at the Siege of Orleans, a young peasant girl believed by the French to be divinely blessed rose up against the English. Joan of Arc, leading a relief force, smashed through the English siege and delivered the city from falling, and marked the end of the English advance, having them retreat from all their French holdings, save Calais.

         Depending on the heritage of the historian you ask, Edward III was either the aggressor or defender, with a stark contrast between the two. Ask a Frenchman, and he was a bloodthirsty English king seeking to greedily devour as much land as he could while king; yet to an Englishman, he was a noble defender of English holdings on the mainland, with a perfectly legitimate claim to the French throne. Regardless of thoughts on either king, however, the Hundred Years' War proved to be nothing more than a horrific loss of life, for both sides. Little ground even permanently changed hands, and in the end, it was a poor decision for both parties involved. Yes, greed was a factor, but both Edward and Phillip showed that land they could claim as their own was worth more than the lives of their subjects, and that is nothing to be proud of, regardless of bloodline, pedigree, or perceived divine right.

References

Gormley, L. (2001). eHistory at OSU | Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/hundredyearswar.cfm

Keen, M. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtml

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hundred_years_war.htm