顶级免费论文

美国革命:法国和印度战争的结果

由Shogunhad. 2013年9月7日 1788个单词
美国革命:
法国和印度战争的结果

在1763年的初期,巴黎的条约已签署,法国和印度战争在殖民地的殖民地接近近来,暂时结束北美的外国冲突,虽然欧洲英国和法国的欧洲权力之间建立之间的和平,这次战争唤起了英格兰和美国殖民地之间的紧张局势。法国和印度战争导致美国革命,因为它的成果如大债务导致议会通过税收,行为和制度,让他们寻求独立的观点。许多这些行为都试图治愈法国和印度战争的伤口,而只是设法创造新的。议会于1765年6月通过季度法案,迫使殖民者为英国军队提供食物和服装,这在战争期间很难完成。殖民者没有向英国发送任何代表,以谈判被迫对他们(法国和印度人)的这一行为进行谈判。许多殖民者被愤怒的行为,特别是纽约人因忽视该法案而被暂停。John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian legislator and lawyer, describes his New Yorker brothers’ blight in Letters from a Pennsylvanian Farmer when he states, “The Crown might have restrained the governor of New York even from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. …It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberty of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the Parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them, till they should comply” (Dickinson). American colonists viewed the Quartering Act as tyrannical and a sign that Parliament can dictate the lives of Americans without any representation. Although the colonies swore an oath to the British Crown, they maintained a self-sufficient government with laws and leadership of its own. That changed however when the British brought their war to the American’s backyard. Dickinson goes on to say, “If the British Parliament has a legal authority to issue an order that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here and compel obedience to that order, they have the same right to issue an order for us supply those troops with arms, clothes, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us” (Dickinson). British politicians, despite the colonists’ outcries, claimed that the Quartering Act was justified because the colonies should be responsible for the economic casualties brought upon England from the war on the frontier. Faith Jaycox, a historian, Ph.D. candidate, and author of Colonial Era, An Eyewitness History relays how the British planned on fixing their economy when she claimed, “In April 1763, a month after the Treaty of Paris was signed; George Grenville became the Crown's chief adviser. He immediately developed plans to reduce England's unprecedented national debt and to balance future budgets. Grenville was determined to require colonists to finance part of their own administration and defense” (Jaycox). American colonists disagreed, believing that they should not be responsible for the results of a foreign war and were greatly aggravated by the Quartering Acts. Following the Quartering Act in 1765 was yet another unpopular act made to reduce the debt from the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act, which placed taxes on paper products in the colonies. The Stamp Act was largely unpopular due to the fact that, once again, none of the colonies sent representatives to negotiate the act and was viewed as negligence to the colonists’ rights. An article titled The American Revolution: Causes of Conflict authored by Kennedy Hickman supports the colonists’ frustration when it states, “On March 22, 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which called for tax stamps to be placed on all paper goods sold in the colonies. This represented the first attempt to levy a direct tax on the colonies and was met by fierce opposition and protests,” (Hickman). No law, tax, or act at the time had been more greatly opposed by the colonies than the Stamp Act. Dickinson once again describes the colonists’ anger in his letters when he says, “With a good deal of surprise I have observed that little notice has been taken of an act of Parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies as the Stamp Act was…” (Dickinson). Parliament offended the colonies to the point that rebellious actions occurred. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy by Glenn Hastedt explains how, although mainly caused by the Tea Act, the Boston Tea Party was a rebellious response to all hated British acts, including the Stamp Act (Hastedt). The latter two acts pushed the colonists’ tempers even further than before. The Tea Act and Sugar Act, even more hated acts conceived in order to repay war debts, also angered colonists and pushed them further towards revolution. This act kicked off open hostilities and opposition between the British and the American colonies. Hastedt explains how the Boston Tea Party, a result of the Tea Act, caused England to punish Massachusetts when he says, “Colonial resistance was met with imperial resistance. The British government of Lord North was determined to reassert its control over the colonies, and in 1774 Great Britain passed the Coercive Acts. It placed the Massachusetts colony under royal control and closed Boston Harbor until restitution was made for the lost tea. Contrary to British hopes this policy did not intimidate the colonists or divide them. Instead, it united them in opposition to Great Britain and led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September 1774,” (Hastedt). The Sugar Act didn’t only offend the colonists due to lack of representation but also because it directly hurt the American economy. In 1764, Parliament passed the Revenue Act of 1764, also known as the infamous Sugar Act, which taxed sugar products imported into the American colonies for the manufacturing of rum. Rum was a vital product to the colonies because it was used in the triangular slave trade occurring between the colonies, the West Indies, Africa, and Europe. Parliament attempted to justify this act, claiming that it had the right to enact any and all taxes on the colonies for the sole purpose of raising revenue (Jaycox). This is no excuse for the lack of representation and damage done to American trade, however. To raise revenue to heal the economic damage done by the French and Indian War, England imposed the mercantile system upon its American colonies. England, the motherland, reaped the benefits of this system through the Navigation Acts while the colonies only suffered from it, losing its free market and trading opportunities with other countries. Alan Axelrod, author of Eyewitness to America's Wars, Vol. 1, explains the mercantile system and how it hurt the colonies. “Toward this end, he [King George III] approved the enforcement of the long-dormant Navigation Acts, the earliest of which had been on the books since the mid-17th century. This legislation had developed from a policy that historians call the mercantile system, which is a form of economic nationalism that incorporated strict government regulation of trade and commerce. Under mercantilism, the chief function of colonies was the enrichment of the mother country by furnishing raw materials that the mother country used to create manufactured goods that it would sell to the colonies. Both production and consumption were monopolistic, dictated by the mother country rather than a free market,” (Axelrod). The Navigation Acts stripped the colonies of their right to trade with whomever they pleased, antagonizing many American tradesmen and consumers. The British forced a monopoly on their irritated colonies, causing England to receive large profits while the colonies lost not only money but some of their freedom. These acts not only disrupted the economy of the colonies, but also the privacy of many Americans. Under King George III, the Navigation Acts allowed British officers to issue “writs of assistance.” These writs gave royal officials authority to search not only warehouses but also private homes without court order (Axelrod). This was a direct violation of the colonists’ rights, further frustrating the Americans with their British overseers and nudging them closer to rebellion. Although England was an ocean away and located on a different continent, they dictated the land that Americans were allowed to settle on. Great Britain gained an expansive territory after the French and Indian War, but angered many colonists by forbidding them to settle on it despite their dire need of it. Faith Jaycox describes this issue in detail, “As the French and Indian War drew to close, imperial officials began considering future policies for trans-Appalachian settlement. The completed plan was included in the Proclamation of 1763, issued by King George III on October 7. It declared land west of the Appalachian Mountains to be Indian Territory and prohibited white settlement there,” (Jaycox). American colonists were outraged by this proclamation and saw it as a betrayal, considering many (including veterans from the French and Indian War) already owned lands west of the Appalachians. Kennedy Hickman further describes the colonists’ reactions in The American Revolution: Causes of Conflict. “On October 7, 1763, King George III issued a royal proclamation which forbade American colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. … In America, the proclamation was met with outrage as many colonists had either purchased land west of the mountains or had received land grants for services rendered during the war,” (Hickman). The British attempted to raise revenue to repay war debts by keeping this land to themselves, but continued to push colonists towards the fight for independence. The British intention on forbidding American settlement was to conserve the profitable fur trade in order to boost the English economy (Hastedt). As American cities became overcrowded with the unemployed thanks to the surplus of British troops taking second jobs in the colonies, many colonists were outraged that they couldn’t merely move west and start anew. The acts and taxes Parliament forced on the colonies tried to fix the damage done by the French and Indian war but ended up angering the colonists to the point of revolution. England imposed tyrannical systems hurting the American economy without consent from a single American representative. The Quartering Acts, Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Navigation Acts, and the Proclamation of 1763 all violated the rights of the colonists, causing high tension between the colonies and England. Fighting and war would continue for the United States for centuries to come, and it all started with the outcomes of the French and Indian War.

引用本文件

相关文档

  • 法国和印度战争如何导致美国革命

    ......好(印度事务的主席威廉约翰逊爵士,这次完全反对定居者在这个时候侵犯了未经许可的领土) - 由于保护他们免受敌对印第安人的理由,它困扰了西方扩张的人。此外,英国从法国和印度战争产生了巨额债务(1 ...

    阅读更多
  • 法国和印度战争dbq

    ...法国和印度战争开始于1754年,结束于1763年。“法印战争”这个名字后来被美国人和英国人采用。英美两国的关系在政治、经济和意识形态上都发生了实质性的变化。afterma……

    阅读更多
  • 美国革命

    ......战争的后果。对于军事行动,见美国革命战争。对于其他用途,见美国革命(消歧)。在本文中,支持美国革命的十三个殖民地的居民主要被称为“美国人”或“爱国者”,有时候是“辉格,”叛乱“或”革命者“。Colonis ......

    阅读更多
  • 法国和印度战争对美国革命权力的影响

    ...法国和印度战争:与美国革命的联系:达维奥丹尼尔斯介绍美国革命是美国人与法国人之间的战争,反对英国的土地和独立。法国和印度战争是英国殖民地与新法国之间的美国土壤的战争。法国和......

    阅读更多
  • 法国和印度战争

    ......在1754-1763的法国和印度战争之后,法国从北美大陆退出,留下大量的土地到英国和西班牙。直到1760年代后期,英国和殖民者们抱着强有力的关系,以及统筹法国和印度盟友的威胁。中...

    阅读更多
  • 法国和印度战争:为美国革命设定舞台

    ...法国和印度战争确保了北美的英语人民的主导地位,并为美国革命战争设定了舞台(1775-83)。在战争结束时,法国在当天加拿大到英国丢失了所有的土地。在北美的法国威胁被淘汰,英国及其殖民地可以在......

    阅读更多
  • 美国革命(独立战争)

    ......对于他们相信的东西,这一切都始于独立的素质。从1754年爆发法印战争,到1774年召开第一届大陆会议,美国缓慢而坚定地占据了其应有的地位,成为从这片海洋到这片灿烂的海洋的正义领袖。它的独立不是来自…

    阅读更多
  • 法国和印度战争

    ...文章一路追溯到法国和印度战争,美国殖民者们厌倦了英国人。英国正试图通过美国茁壮成长,殖民者没有拥有它。大规模税收,限制公民自由,英国军事措施,以及殖民宗教和政治思想的遗产是MA ...

    阅读更多

在STUDMODE上发现最好的免费论文betway中文官网

一劳永逸地克服写作障碍。

高质量的论文

我们的图书馆有成千上万精心挑选的免费研究论文和论文。

热门话题

无论您研究的主题,我们都会涵盖机会。