You are on page 1of 3

(EQ1) Why was the French empire ultimately so much less successful than either the Spanish or the

British empires?

The French empire in North America paled in comparison to both the Spanish and English domains in the New World. The differences that caused this to happen are numerous. Compared to the Spanish empire, the vast tracts of land that was owned by the French were relatively poor and had no value in mineral wealth or other easily extractable resource. The closest asset that the French held was beavers, which became over-exploited and saw their numbers dwindle to a point that they became much harder to find and forced trappers farther and farther away. Also, the French never made any significant moves to colonize and create cities and towns as the English did. This causes their economy to never become fully self sufficient and to fully utilize the natural bounties of the land. Though the reason for it can be supported by the fact that there was a very small amount of people in France that were willing to emigrate, as opposed to the luckless English who were without land. The Spanish, who never colonized either, were more successful due to the prevalence of mercantilism at the time and the great sums of cash that poured out of their holdings at superb rates with little cost. Back on the European front, the French were also repeatedly defeated and were forced to give much of their land in concessions. The Treaty of Utrecht caused a war going poorly for the colonists to result in a victory. William Pitt declared that America was conquered in Germany in reference to the fact that the French were too busy tied up in Europe during the Seven Years War to send considerable aid to the New World.

(EQ2) To what extent did the loss of France and Spain set the road to the destruction of Native American culture and the loss of their lands?

Native Americans had used the different aspects of each country to differing potential, and when they became locked onto Britain solely, they began to find that it was more difficult to survive. One of the reasons they were able to stay afloat prior to the English being the main player was through military alliances. Using the feuding countries as cover, the Indians were able to quickly move from side to side to better their own interests and forced the mother countries moving to keep them pleased and allied. In an example, an intercolonial congress in Albany in 1754 presented Iroquois chiefs with 30 wagons of goods and guns in order to keep them loyal during the impending Seven Years War. Another reason for their downfall was that they were never as useful to the British as they were to the Spanish or French. To the Spanish (though more so in the Central and South America territories) the native peoples were used as a labor force. To the French, they provided furs and experience of the land. To the British, they simply proved a boundary to growth beyond the Appalachians.

(EQ3) Should the French and Indian War be considered one of the major causes of the American Revolution? Why or why not?

The French and Indian War was a major cause of the American Revolution because of the effect it had on the colonies unison and moral. Prior to the French and Indian War, the American colonies were disorganized and completely independent of one another. During the

war, the colonies were forced to come together on a personal level through the army and some of the tensions were slackened as they realized their commonalities. Without a shadow of doubt, the French and Indian war also provided invaluable experience for the colonists in the theater of war. Many of the colonists received training and became far more experienced than they could have without the aid of the British. Officers were trained and perhaps the greatest lesson was learned in the area of engagement; the British were fresh to the continent and were poorly versed in the tactics used by Indians and mimicked by the locals. To a lesser extent, the French and Indian War also taxed the British military, though it was more comparable to bruise than a wound.