War and Politics

French and Indian War.mp4

The Seven Years War and the Great Awakening_ Crash Course US History #5.mp4

French & Indian War.mp4

The French & Indian War.mp4

Causes of the American Revolution.mp4

Boston Massacre and Tea Party.mp4

The French and Indian War took place in North America in the 1750s and 1760s. That war was part of a much larger conflict known as the Seven Years' War. The map below highlights the countries and territories that fought in the Seven Years' War.

A war on five continents

The French and Indian War was part of a global war between rival empires. An empire is a group of places ruled by a central power.

At the time, several empires were fighting to become the most powerful in the world. Today, many historians call this global war the Seven Years' War.

The war in North America

The French and Indian War was the part of the Seven Years' War fought in North America. This war led to big changes in the relationship between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain. Historians often consider these changes important causes of the American Revolution, which started less than 20 years later

Before the French and Indian war began, several European countries were competing to control North America. The map below shows the territorial claims of these European countries in the mid-1700s.

Disputed territory is land that more than one country or group claims to own. This map does not show disputes between European countries and Native American groups, but it does show disputes between Great Britain, France, and Spain.

Before the French and Indian War, few British colonists had settled west of the Appalachian Mountains. One colonist from Massachusetts described the area in an almanac, or a reference book. Read his description.

That fertile country to the west of the Appalachian Mountains (a string of [800] or 900 miles in length) between Canada and the Mississippi, is of larger extent than all France, Germany and Poland; and all well provided with rivers, a very fine wholesome air, a rich soil, capable of producing food and physick, and all things necessary for the conveniency and delight of life: in fine, the Garden of the World.

physick: medicine

in fine: in other words

Before the French and Indian War, few French colonists had settled west of the Appalachian Mountains. However, the French had been trading with Native Americans in the region for decades.

What did the French do with the animal furs they got from the Native Americans?

French traders made a lot of money by selling animal furs to Europeans. Animal furs were used to make clothing that was warm and even waterproof. Many Europeans considered fur coats and hats fashionable, so animal furs often sold at high prices.

Many French traders traveled to New France for the chance to get rich from the fur trade. But trade also had another effect: it built connections between the French and the Native Americans. Some French fur traders even married into Native American tribes and started families.

In the 1750s, these connections became the basis for strong alliances between the French and Native American tribes.

Before the French and Indian War, there were about 20 times as many British colonists as French colonists. In the 1740s, both British and French colonists began to expand their claims on land in the Ohio River Valley. Both countries were interested in the valuable fur trade there, but the British were more interested in settling the area.

Both countries wanted access to the valuable fur trade in the Ohio River Valley. But because they had many more colonists, the British were more interested in settling the area than the French were.

Why would settling the land help the British?

British colonists were limited to the area between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian Mountains, but the population was growing rapidly. As the number of colonists grew, land became more expensive. By gaining more land, the British colonists could spread out, which would help lower the price of land over time.

In the 1750s, land speculation companies were claiming land to sell to future settlers. A land speculation company in Virginia hired Christopher Gist to explore the Ohio River Valley in 1750. Part of Gist's job was to make friendly contact with Native Americans in the area. Read Gist's description of a conversation that took place during his expedition.

An Indian, who spoke good English, came to [me], and said that their great man, the Beaver, and Captain Oppamyluah (two chiefs of the Delaware) desired to know where the Indians' land lay, for the French claimed all the land on one side of the Ohio River, and the [British] on the other.

Delaware: a European name for the Lenape Native Americans

How did Christopher Gist answer the chiefs' question?

The Lenape chiefs wanted Christopher Gist to explain where the Native Americans were supposed to live, since the Europeans had claimed all the land.

Gist did not know how to answer. Instead, he explained that both the British settlers and the Native Americans had to obey the same king. He said that native peoples and new settlers had equal rights to the land, as long as they followed the king's laws.

How did the Lenape chiefs react to Gist's answer?

We do not know if the Lenape chiefs ever responded to Gist. But other Native Americans at the time did not think that the British king had any right to rule the land. For example, an Iroquois chief named Gachradodow spoke these words to some Virginia leaders in 1744:

The great king might send you over to conquer the Indians; but it looks to us, that God did not approve it; if he had, he would not have placed the great sea where it is, as the limits between us and you.

As British land speculators started claiming more and more land in the Ohio River Valley, French colonists built forts throughout the valley to protect their own claims.

In 1753, the colonial government of Virginia sent a young officer named George Washington into the Ohio River Valley with a letter. Read the passage from the letter. Then answer the question below.

The lands upon the River Ohio are . . . known to be the property of the Crown of Great Britain. . . . It is a matter of equal concern and surprise to me to hear that . . . French forces are erecting fortresses and making settlements upon that river, within his Majesty's domains. . . . In obedience with my instructions, it becomes my duty to require your peaceable departure.

erecting: building

domains: territory

peaceable: peaceful

Why was George Washington chosen for the mission?

In 1753, George Washington was only 21 years old and had been a military officer for less than a year. But he already had years of experience in the Virginia wilderness. As a teenager, he had worked as a land surveyor, taking measurements and drawing maps of unexplored land. This experience made him a natural choice to lead the mission to the Ohio River Valley.

How did the French respond to Washington?

Washington kept a journal during his mission. In it, he recorded how the French officers responded to his message:

They told me that it was their absolute design to take possession of the Ohio, and by God they would do it.

The list below shows some events that took place in the Ohio River Valley in 1753 and 1754.

Why did George Washington surrender?

Washington had never led troops in battle before, and his army was greatly outnumbered. He launched a surprise attack on a French scouting party, but some French soldiers escaped and alerted troops at a nearby fort.

Washington's soldiers hastily built some defenses and named it Fort Necessity. But the French and their Native American allies easily surrounded the fort and forced Washington to surrender.

Did Washington get in trouble when he got back to Virginia?

The French allowed Washington and his soldiers to return to Virginia in peace.

Afterward, Washington wrote a report about his encounter with the French. It was published as The Journal of Major George Washington. The account made Washington famous and convinced many colonists that the French were a threat. So, even though Washington was defeated, the colonists saw him as a hero who launched a daring attack on the French.

After fighting broke out between French and British colonists in 1754, many Native American groups chose sides.

How did Native Americans choose sides?

Native Americans saw both the French and the British as major threats to their way of life. When groups chose sides, they generally chose the side that felt less threatening at the time. In general, most Native Americans supported the French.

But Native Americans' feelings towards the French and the British often changed:

- As the French and Indian War progressed, several tribes switched sides.
- Sometimes different groups within the same tribe fought for different sides.
- Some groups chose not to support either side and instead fought against both the French and the British.

When fighting broke out between British and French colonists in 1754, political leaders in the Thirteen Colonies called a meeting to decide how to respond. At the meeting, Benjamin Franklin proposed the Albany Plan of Union. He published the cartoon below to promote the plan.

Ben Franklin's new idea

Benjamin Franklin was one of the first colonists to suggest that the Thirteen Colonies should politically unite. His Albany Plan, which suggested a central government for the colonies, later became a model for the United States' first constitution.

Many people in Great Britain and the colonies opposed the Albany Plan of Union, Franklin's plan for a central colonial government.

The Thirteen Colonies rejected the Albany Plan and decided not to unite.

Struggling to cooperate

Because the colonies chose not to unite, they struggled to organize the war effort. They had to rely heavily on the British government to direct the war. In other words, the Thirteen Colonies gave control of the war to the British because they did not want to give up power to a central colonial government.

The timeline below shows some of the major events of the first years of the French and Indian War.

Risking a world war

Sending professional soldiers across the Atlantic Ocean was expensive. In 1755, both France and Great Britain showed they would go to great lengths to control the Ohio River Valley. They would even go to war on multiple continents.

The disastrous Braddock Expedition

In the summer of 1755, British general Edward Braddock led more than 2,000 British and colonial soldiers into the valley. His mission was to seize control of a French fort on the Ohio River. But before they even reached the fort, Braddock's forces were defeated by a much smaller group of French soldiers and Native American warriors.

Nearly 500 British troops were killed, and Braddock died of wounds from the battle. George Washington, who served as an aide to Braddock, led the survivors back to Virginia. His calm leadership during the chaos boosted his reputation as a skilled military leader.

In North America, colonial soldiers fought alongside the British army. In 1758, a British general named James Wolfe wrote about his experience working with colonial soldiers. Read the following passage by Wolfe.

The Americans are in general the dirtiest most contemptible cowardly dogs that you can conceive. There is no depending on them in action. They fall down dead in their own dirt and desert by battalions, officers and all. Such rascals as those are rather an encumbrance than any real strength to an army.

conceive: imagine

desert: run away

battalions: large groups of soldiers

encumbrance: burden

General Wolfe described Americans as "cowardly," undependable, and likely to run away. He considered them more of a burden than a strength. In other words, he was saying that American colonists did not make good soldiers.

Was Wolfe the only leader who felt this way?

Many other British military leaders shared Wolfe's opinion. In general, they considered the colonial soldiers to be cowardly and undisciplined.

The colonists' bad reputation eventually worked to their advantage. During the Revolutionary War, many British veterans of the French and Indian War came back to fight against the colonists. They often underestimated the abilities of the colonists, and sometimes suffered great losses as a result.

Great Britain suffered many defeats during the first years of the French and Indian War. But in 1757, William Pitt came to power in the British government and changed the direction of the war. He remained in power until late 1761. The graph below shows Great Britain's annual defense spending, or the money the country spent on the military, between 1751 and 1764.

Who was William Pitt?

William Pitt held several positions in the British government from the 1740s to the 1760s. Shortly after the French and Indian War began, he was removed from power for criticizing the king. But after General Braddock's defeat in 1756, he came back into power. Pitt proudly claimed that he was fit to manage the war:

I know that I can save this country, and that no one else can.

Pitt believed that controlling North America was the key to building a great empire. Therefore, he was willing to pay any price to defeat the French.

As a result of his war policies, Pitt was popular among both the British people and the colonists. Today, many historians agree that his policies turned the tide of the war in favor of the British.

The map below shows the major British military campaigns of the war from 1757 to 1760.

The arrows on the map represent British forces attacking areas controlled by the French. In 1758, the British recaptured Nova Scotia, which would help them invade New France. The next year, the British attacked Fort Niagara and invaded Quebec. So, the map shows that the British forces focused on invading New France.

The British Empire strikes back

In 1759, British forces also won major victories in places not visible on the map. They captured French islands in the West Indies, defeated the French in India, and destroyed a French fleet on its way to Canada.

Outside of North America, the war continued for a few more years. But the British invasion of New France ended the war in North America. After spending tens of millions of pounds and losing thousands of soldiers, the British were victorious. New France had fallen.

In February 1763, Great Britain, France, and Spain officially ended the war by signing the Treaty of Paris. The treaty changed the countries' claims in North America, as shown in the maps.

A big win for Great Britain

Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, France lost almost all of its territory in North America. The biggest winner by far was Great Britain:

- Great Britain took control of Canada and all the land east of the Mississippi River.
- Spain, which had supported France during the war, gave Florida to the British. In exchange, Great Britain granted Spain control of the territories to the west of the Mississippi River.

France was able to keep some islands in the Caribbean and off the coast of Canada, but the French were no longer a threat to the British Empire in North America.

What about the Native Americans?

Although Britain claimed the land east of the Mississippi, this land was still home to many Native Americans. Many of them lived in the area between the Mississippi River and the Appalachian Mountains.

The table below gives some information about the British economy before and after the French and Indian War. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the value of all the goods and services produced in the country in a year. National debt is all the money the government owes to other people or places.

Fighting a war on borrowed money

William Pitt's strategy for winning the war required a lot of money. Normally, a government has only two options for raising money: borrowing money or collecting it through taxes.

Raising taxes high enough to pay for the whole war would have been very unpopular. So, Great Britain paid for the war with borrowed money. Pitt believed that the British government could force the colonists to help pay for the war later.

The Treaty of Paris ended the conflict between Great Britain and France. But it did not solve many of the issues facing Native Americans. In the spring of 1763, a Native American leader named Pontiac delivered a speech to a council of Native American groups. He said he spoke in the voice of his tribe's god, whom he called "the Master of Life." Read a part of Pontiac's speech.

This land, where you live, I have made for you and not for others. How comes it that you suffer the whites on your lands? Can you not do without them? . . . You might live wholly as you did before you knew them. Before those whom you call your brothers came on your lands, did you not live by bow and arrow? You had no need of gun nor powder, nor the rest of their things, and nevertheless you caught animals to live and clothe yourselves with their skins . . .

suffer: allow or tolerate

whites: European colonists

those who you call your brothers: European colonists

powder: gunpowder

Who was Pontiac?

Pontiac was a leader of the Odawa (or Ottawa) tribe, which lived mostly in the Great Lakes region.

Pontiac's Rebellion

Pontiac did not only want to end trade with the English colonists. He wanted the Native Americans to return to their traditional way of life. He believed the only way to do this was to get rid of the colonists completely. In the speech where Pontiac claimed to speak as the Master of Life, he said:

[D]rive them out, make war on them. I love them not, they know me not, they are my enemies and the enemies of your brothers. Send them back to the country which I made for them. There let them remain.

Many Native Americans agreed with Pontiac, and many tribes answered his call to arms. Though Pontiac did not actually lead the attacks, the violent uprising that followed is remembered as Pontiac's Rebellion.

After Pontiac's speech, Native Americans from different tribes waged war on the British colonists. The Native Americans' uprising is remembered as Pontiac's Rebellion. During the rebellion, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, a British army commander in North America, wrote a letter to one of his officers. Read the following section of Lord Amherst's letter. Then complete the sentence below.

Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every [strategy] in our power to reduce them.

contrived: planned or managed

small pox: smallpox, a deadly disease

disaffected: hostile or unfriendly

Treatment of Native Americans after the French and Indian War

The war dramatically changed the way the British interacted with Native Americans. Before the war, the British and French competed to form alliances with the Native Americans. Both groups often exchanged gifts with native groups in an attempt to build trust and win favor.

But after the war, the British no longer had to compete with the French. Military leaders such as Lord Amherst ended the practice of gift giving.

What is smallpox?

When Europeans first visited North America, they brought diseases with them that had never appeared on the continent before. Europeans had developed some resistance to these diseases over the years, but the diseases spread quickly among Native Americans. Some historians estimate that smallpox, a highly contagious virus, killed up to 95% of the native population of the Americas.

The colonists who brought the disease probably had no idea they even carried it. There is little evidence to suggest that Europeans were spreading the disease on purpose until Lord Jeffrey Amherst suggested doing so in the 1760s.

The British government was alarmed by the continued fighting in North America. It did not expect violence between colonists and Native Americans to continue after the war with France ended. In October 1763, King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation said that the Appalachian Mountains would be the temporary western boundary for the Thirteen Colonies.

The Proclamation of 1763 temporarily outlawed new settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains. The proclamation angered many people in the Thirteen Colonies who had just fought a war to open these western lands for

settlement.

Some of the soldiers had even been promised land in exchange for their service in the French and Indian War. After the Proclamation of 1763, these soldiers felt cheated by the British government.

Did the Proclamation Line end fighting along the frontier?

Not exactly. Fighting continued until 1764, when the British army defeated Pontiac's Rebellion. British leaders then decided to leave about 10,000 troops along the frontier to prevent future violence between the colonists and the Native Americans. Part of the soldiers' job was to prevent settlers from crossing the proclamation line illegally.

Many colonists were unhappy about the army standing between them and the resource-rich lands to the west.

One war leads to another . . .

The French and Indian War changed the relationship between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies in several important ways:

- The British government wanted the colonists to help pay for the war, but the colonists felt they had already contributed enough to the war.
- The colonists no longer needed the British government to protect them from the French, so some colonists were unhappy about the British army in the western frontier.

Today, historians recognize some of these changes as causes of the American Revolution, which started about a decade later.

After the French and Indian War ended in 1763, the relationship between the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain began to change. The timeline below shows some of the events that took place before the Revolutionary War broke out in 1775.

The end of the French and Indian War changed the relationship between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies in several ways. In the passage below, historian Edmund S. Morgan describes the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain before the French and Indian War.

Edmund S. Morgan, American historian

For Americans the great thing about [the British] empire, apart from the sheer pride of belonging to it, was that it let you alone. . . . And though the king could still veto a colonial law . . . , the assemblies generally managed to get their way in the end.

sheer: complete

veto: reject

assemblies: elected law-making groups in each colony

For the most part, the British government was not directly involved in the everyday lives of Americans before the French and Indian War. Colonial assemblies generally made laws about colonists' day-to-day lives.

Salutary neglect

Historians use the term "salutary neglect" to describe British policy toward the Thirteen Colonies before the French and Indian War. "Salutary" means positive, and "neglect" means ignoring something. So, the phrase implies that Britain's lack of involvement was a good thing for both Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.

The French and Indian War created difficult conditions for both Great Britain and the United States. People in both countries responded to those conditions.

Why did British officers criticize American soldiers?

During the war, British officers complained that American soldiers were lazy, cowardly, and undependable. Most American soldiers in the French and Indian War did not have much training and few had fought in a war before. As a result, American soldiers were unprepared for what they saw and experienced during war.

Some even deserted their military groups, or left without permission. In this poem, one American soldier urges others to desert the British military.

And now when times have grown so bad,

And our provisions done,

Let every one take up his pack,

And make a march for home.

provisions: supplies

Great Britain's debt nearly doubled during the French and Indian War. As a result, the country tried to raise more revenue, or income, in order to repay that debt. Great Britain also needed to pay for salaries and other expenses in the colonies. Taxing the colonies was one way that Great Britain raised revenue. In 1764, Parliament passed a law known as the Sugar Act. The steps below show how the law was supposed to help Great Britain pay for expenses in the colonies.

How did colonists respond to the Sugar Act?

Colonial merchants were angry about the new tax and Parliament's goal of raising revenue.

Samuel Adams, a businessman and a Founder of the United States, warned that more taxes might follow.

For if our trade be taxed why not our lands? . . . If taxes are [placed] upon us . . . without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced . . . to the miserable state of . . . slaves?

Many Americans who opposed British taxes spoke of themselves as "slaves." What would people who were really enslaved have thought of Adams's words?

Andrew Burnaby, an English minister, traveled around the Thirteen Colonies during the French and Indian War. Based on his observations, Burnaby argued that America would never be independent of Great Britain. Read Burnaby's argument.

[The] difference of character, of manners, of religion, of interest, of the different colonies [is so great that if they were] left to themselves there would soon be a civil war.

After the French and Indian War, the British Parliament, or legislature, placed new taxes on the colonies. Parliament wanted to raise revenue to pay salaries and war debts. In March 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act placed a tax on many paper materials produced or sold in the colonies.

Why was the tax called the Stamp Act?

The Stamp Act required that paper materials have a special stamp to be official. People paid money to have an ink pattern pressed onto the paper.

What happened to people who refused to pay the tax?

They could be punished harshly. For example, a colonist caught selling a newspaper without a stamp would need to pay a fine of 10 British pounds. At the time, 10 pounds was about two months' pay for a schoolteacher.

Even worse, anyone caught using a fake stamp could be sentenced to death. Virginia's House of Burgesses, the colonial assembly in Virginia, wrote a statement against the Stamp Act. Assemblies in other colonies followed with statements of their own. Read the summary of the Virginia House of Burgesses' statement. T

The House of Burgesses declares:

- - - English colonists in Virginia have always had the same rights as people in Great Britain.
    - Great Britain's constitution recognizes that the people should decide which taxes to put on themselves, either directly or through representatives.

Did other colonists agree with Virginia's statement about the Stamp Act?

Some opponents of the Stamp Act felt that the Virginia House of Burgesses' statement was too strong. They worried that the statement by the House of Burgesses would anger members of Parliament. In response to the Stamp Act, colonial merchants signed nonimportation agreements, or agreements not to import British goods. Other Americans boycotted, or refused to buy, British goods. Read the source about the impact of nonimportation agreements and boycotts.

British merchant, speaking before Parliament, 1766 (summary text)

Q: Do you think that protests of the Stamp Act have resulted in less trade between the colonies and Great Britain?

Merchant: Yes.

Q: Why?

Merchant: Because of the nonimportation agreements and boycott. Last year, my trade decreased by about two-thirds.

In 1765, George Washington, the future president of the United States, described the importance of the Stamp Act boycott:

The eyes of our people already begin to be opened; and they will perceive . . . [that] the necessaries of life are mostly to be had within ourselves.

In other words, the boycott was showing American colonists that they did not need to rely on Great Britain. Instead, they could rely on themselves for the goods they needed.

Many historians agree with Washington's view. They argue that independence and self-reliance would become important values in the independent United States.

Do you think independence and self-reliance are important values in the history of the United States? Were those values important to the boycott?

Many Americans were outraged by the Stamp Act. During the summer and fall of 1765, Americans protested in the streets in port cities.

Crowds or mobs?

Historians have used different words to describe the street protests against Parliamentary acts in the 1760s and 1770s. The term "crowd action" suggests that protesters worked toward a specific goal. The terms "mob" and "riot" suggest violence and chaos.

The image below appeared in a book for young people about the history of the United States. The book was published in the late 1800s. The scene is described as a "riot" in the book. What parts of the picture suggests violence and chaos? How would the picture look different if the artist thought about the protests as a "crowd action"?

In October 1775, representatives from many colonies gathered to write a formal complaint against the Stamp Act. This group was called the Stamp Act Congress. Read a passage from the group's complaint.

It is . . . essential to the freedom of a people . . . that no taxes be imposed on them [without] their own [agreement] given personally or by their own representatives.

imposed: put

How did people in Britain react to the Stamp Act Congress?

Many people in Britain were shocked and angry about the meeting of the Stamp Act Congress. Many British people felt that by sending representatives to the Congress, colonial legislatures were disrespecting Parliament. They worried that colonists would refuse to follow British law.

In 1766, a letter about the Stamp Act Congress appeared in a British newspaper. The letter was from a British man who described himself as a farmer:

I was as much astonished [by the Stamp Act Congress] as if a field I had [planted with barley should instead produce] peas. . . . I hold it neither fair nor honest in the Americans . . . [that] they will not pay any part of the expense even of that army which defends them.

A funeral for the Stamp Act

In the 1700s, many Americans bought prints of political cartoons that supported their views. The print below was especially popular. The image shows a funeral procession for the Stamp Act, which had just been repealed.

The people in the parade were politicians and other supporters of the Stamp Act. They carry a coffin while bundles of unused stamps sit at the right. It's hard for us to make sense of the cartoon today. But Americans in the 18th century would have been familiar with the people shown in the print. They likely would have smiled at the idea of a funeral procession for the Stamp Act.

Parliament passed many acts related to the Thirteen Colonies in the years following the Stamp Act. Sometimes these acts were responses to colonial protests or to conditions within Great Britain. In other cases, acts caused colonial protests.

Coercive or intolerable?

In March 1774, the British Parliament passed a group of acts known as the Coercive Acts. The purpose of the Coercive Acts was to coerce, or force, colonists to behave in an orderly way and follow the law of Parliament.

Colonists were outraged by the Coercive Acts. They quickly began to call them the Intolerable Acts because they saw the acts as cruel and unacceptable.

Benjamin Franklin's joke

In June 1774, Benjamin Franklin, a future Founder of the United States, wrote a fake parliamentary act. In the act, Franklin made fun of British taxes on the colonies and the Coercive Acts that tried to limit colonial government:

On the birth of every male child, the sum of fifteen pounds, and on the birth of every female child, the sum of ten pounds . . . shall be paid to the governor of the colony.

pounds: a unit of British money

The governor of the colony was appointed by the British government. So, Franklin said that the British government was so greedy, it would soon start taxing American babies!

People protesting Parliamentary acts sometimes compared themselves to enslaved people. Many African American people hoped to convince colonists that enslaved people deserved freedom, too.

An enslaved woman's "love of freedom"

An unusual book of poems was published in 1773. The poet was Phillis Wheatley, an enslaved woman born in Africa and forced to come to New England as a young child.

Wheatley rarely wrote about slavery directly. However, she connected the oppression, or unjust treatment, that she faced as an enslaved person with the oppression that the colonies faced under British rule. This passage is from a poem praising the politician who helped to repeal the Townshend Acts:

I, young in life, by seeming cruel fate

Was snatched from [my happy life in Africa] . . .

Such, such my case; And can I then but pray

Others may never feel tyrannic sway?

tyrannic sway: cruel control

Women played an important role in the boycott of British goods. They often decided which goods to buy for their households. In addition, they could sometimes make their own goods to replace British goods. Some women who opposed Parliament's actions considered themselves to be part of the Daughters of Liberty.

"Ladies armed with spinning wheels"

In the 18th century, it was rare for American women to publish their thoughts about politics.

Instead, many women protested Parliamentary action by joining in boycotts of British goods and making their own fabric, called homespun.

Women who considered themselves part of the Daughters of Liberty often had strong views. In 1769, Charity Clarke wrote these words in a letter to a friend in England:

If you English folks won't give us the liberty we ask . . . I will try to gather a number of ladies armed with spinning wheels.

The passages below show two American perspectives on the actions of protesters. The first passage is from John Adams, a future Founder of the United States. The second passage is from Thomas Hutchinson, the governor of Massachusetts, who was appointed by the British king. Read the two sources.

John Adams, letter to his wife, July 7, 1774

I do and will detest [these mobs]. . . . These tarrings and featherings, these breaking open houses by rude [crowds] . . . cannot be even excused.

detest: hate

tarrings and featherings: a brutal form of punishment

Thomas Hutchinson, letter to an acquaintance, March 26, 1770

We are sinking into perfect barbarism. . . . The spirit of anarchy that prevails in Boston is more than I am able to cope with.

perfect barbarism: complete cruelty

anarchy: lawlessness

prevails: is happening

Different views, similar fears

John Adams was a lawyer in Boston who argued that Parliament was illegally taking away Americans' rights. Adams became a Founder of the United States and served as its second president.

Thomas Hutchinson was appointed by the king to be the governor of Massachusetts. He remained loyal to Great Britain. Hutchinson privately believed that some British taxes had gone too far. But Hutchinson publicly supported British policy.

Despite their differences, Adams and Hutchinson were both disturbed by the violence of some of the protests. Both men worried that protesters could not be controlled, either by the government or by groups like the Sons of Liberty.

Tension increased after British troops and colonists clashed in Boston on March 5, 1770. The fighting left five people dead and six people wounded. Paul Revere was a Boston engraver. In other words, he carved pictures into metal, covered the metal with ink, and then made prints on paper. Revere was not present at the fighting, but he published a print of the clash, titled "The Bloody Massacre." The colored version of the print shows British soldiers standing on the right side in red clothes. Colonists are on the left of the print. Revere's print was used to oppose British actions in America.

ome people began to call the violent clash of March 5, 1770, the "Boston Massacre." In October 1770, British soldiers went on trial for murdering colonists during the Boston Massacre.

A fair trial?

The soldiers accused of murder worried that they couldn't receive a fair trial in Boston. Many people in Boston had seen propaganda about the Boston Massacre. The soldiers worried that members of the jury would be influenced by anger.

John Adams, the soldiers' defense lawyer and a future president of the United States, believed that a fair trial was possible. At the trial he said these words:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes . . . [or] our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

alter: change

What was the outcome of the trial?

All of the soldiers were found not guilty of murder. Two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter, or unplanned killing. John Adams and others celebrated the outcome of the trial. They believed that it showed that the legal system in Boston was fair.

The Tea Act of 1773 caused further tension. The act gave an advantage to the British East India Company, a British company that shipped tea to the Thirteen Colonies. The Tea Act hurt local tea merchants in the colonies.

A small group of American colonists responded by dumping tea from the British East India Company into Boston Harbor. Read the account of a man who helped destroy the tea.

We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately [began] to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, . . . to expose them to the effects of the water.

hatches: door leading to the lower level of the ship

tomahawks: axes used by Native Americans

Why does organization matter?

The Boston Tea Party was well-organized, indicating that colonists had planned the protest in advance. The effectiveness of organized protests showed that colonists could put aside their differences to unite against the British.

How much tea did protesters dump in Boston Harbor?

A lot! Altogether, 342 chests of tea were opened and dumped into the water. The tea was worth close to one million dollars in today's money!

In what other ways did Bostonians protest the Tea Act?

- Boston's committee of correspondence asked people to throw their British tea into bonfires.
- Members of the Sons of Liberty forced ships holding tea from the British East India Company away from the shore.

Parliament responded to the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor by passing the Coercive Acts. In response, representatives from twelve of the thirteen colonies met in the Continental Congress in 1774.

Read Patrick Henry's words about the meeting of the Continental Congress.

The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian but an American.

Henry believed that the Continental Congress showed that colonists could unite and work together as a group.

What did the Continental Congress do?

Here are some of the actions taken by the Continental Congress:

ordered Parliament to repeal the Coercive Acts
declared that only direct representatives of the people could create taxes
called for a new nonimportation agreement
threatened no more colonial exports to Britain

With the king unwilling to give into these demands, Britain and the Thirteen Colonies were on a path to war. Fighting in the Revolutionary War had already broken out by the time that the Second Continental Congress met in the spring of 1775.

Page updated

Report abuse