Historical significance of social conditions in The scratch of a pen, 1763

Social Significance of 1763 in America

An Inevitable First American Revolution

In 1763, France and Spain ceded much of eastern North America to the British as part of the peace deal that took place in Paris on February 10 (Galloway 8). This brought to an end the Seven Years War, otherwise known as the French and Indian War. The amount of land that Britain won with its victory was massive, extending east from the Mississippi River, north to the Hudson Bay, and south to Florida. Concessions were also made in an effort to appease France and Spain. The British monarchy returned Havana, Cuba to Spain, a critical way point for ships entering and leaving the Gulf of Mexico and ports south. France retained the northern most sections of Canada around Hudson Bay and several Caribbean Islands, including the sugar-producing economic dynamo Guadalupe.

On the surface, it seemed that all three superpowers had ended what was essentially a world war that ravaged the eastern edge of the North American continent and the Atlantic shipping lanes for years. On a more public level, the people inhabiting North America at the time had their own notions about what their world should look like. The tensions between British colonists and the British rulers began to be felt almost immediately, as the Crown attempted to recover its financial footing after an immensely expensive war (Galloway 4). New taxes and duties were assesses during a post-war economic slump that ruffled the feathers of many (Galloway 13). The end of the French and Indian War thus created the economic conditions that led to the American Revolution a mere 12 years later.

At the end of the war colonialists were proud of their British citizenry and wanted to remain within British rule (Galloway 13-14). These feelings were more superficial than many realized, since during the war the citizens were largely left to fend for themselves and had become used to a form of government similar to self-rule. Add to this mix the post-war economic slump, along with the growing realization that the British Monarchy was going to pay off its debts at their expense, and the first seeds of revolt were planted.

Native American involvement in the French and Indian War was based on self-interest (Galloway 48-56). The different tribes who had a stake in the outcome of the hostilities sided with either the French or British, depending on who they felt would protect their interests the best. These interests included retaining control of their land and self-rule. Unfortunately, the Native populations had been repeatedly decimated by epidemics, along with their ability to defend their territories against settlers and the British Army. Sir William Johnson informed the Lords of Trade in 1763 that the Indian leaders he met with were amused with the stated intentions of both the French and British, because "… they made War for the protection of the Indian rights, but that they plainly found, it was carried on, to see who would become masters of what was the property of neither the one nor the other" (Galloway 48). In other words, Native American leaders were keenly aware that French or British ambassadors were lying and the real purpose of the war was annexing Indian lands.

When the war finally ended and Native American leaders read the words in the Peace of Paris treaty, with the French ceding to Britain Indian land they did not own, they were outraged at the arrogance and impunity of the White rulers (Galloway 66-69). Things changed slowly in 1763, however, and there were considerable advanced warnings that the Native Americans were not happy with the intentions of the British. Rather than work to establish a working relationship with the Native Americans, as the French had done so successfully by relying on ceremonial gifts, British Commander in Chief Jeffrey Amherst established a frugal policy of letting the Indians fend for themselves. From the perspective of Native Americans, the gifts that had recognized their fallen warriors, reinforced good intentions, and portrayed the European rulers as a benevolent power, had suddenly disappeared, along with their access to ammunition they sorely needed to feed their families. By contrast, Amherst saw the Indians as beggars who needed to be weaned. When Amherst garrisoned British troops on Indian land without permission, without gifts, and without trade in ammunition, the only conclusion possible was that the British intended to take the land by force.

In addition to British indifference to the Native peoples, immigration from Europe and the colonies into Indian lands only exacerbated tensions (Galloway 56-59). The sheer number of Europeans moving to the 'backcountry' overwhelmed British attempts to control the tide. Many of these 'front line' settlers tended to be an unruly lot and were used to a lifestyle of self-rule. Some of the more elite colonists, including George Washington, wanted to take advantage of the land rush that was beginning in the war's aftermath (Galloway 60-65). By purchasing land in advance of the settlers' arrival, they hoped to make a fortune. Their reasoning was based on the assumption that all this land now belonged to the English Crown and not to the Native American tribes, but underneath was a desperate need to recover financially from the war.