Chapter 16: The War That Changed Everything. Britain fought the French and Indian War largely on behalf of the American colonies. Ironically, that war ended up being the event that spurred those very same colonies to rebel against Britain. During the French and Indian War, the colonial militia men and the British regulars fought side by side against the French. Yet, each side came out of the war with animosity toward the other. The British viewed the colonists as undisciplined, greedy, and cowardly.
American merchants unscrupulously profited during the war by smuggling goods to the French and Spanish in the West Indies. One historian writes, "This was an enormous help to the Spanish and French, as otherwise they would have been starved into surrender because of the British naval blockade." It enraged the British that these American merchants put sordid financial gain over patriotism and loyalty. At the same time, the colonists came out of that war viewing the British as snobbish, harsh, and incompetent.
Furthermore, as a result of that war, tens of thousands of colonial men received the military training and experience they would eventually use to win their independence from the British. And from witnessing Braddock's disastrous defeat in the French and Indian War, George Washington and others knew that the British army was highly vulnerable to the tactics of guerrilla warfare. No Longer Needing British Protection.
As I've mentioned, a major advantage of possessing British citizenship was that it gave the colonists Britain's military protection. The original colonists were extremely vulnerable to attacks from Spain, France, and the Netherlands. During the 1600s, England removed the Dutch threat to the colonists. As a result of the French and Indian War, England removed the threat from both the French and the Spanish. Now the colonists no longer needed Britain's protection.
Practically overnight, the balance of the scales had dramatically shifted. Dealing Fairly with the Indians. By the time of the French and Indian War, the American colonists had taken over most of the land east of the Appalachian Mountains, to the great dismay of the Indians. The tribes west of the Appalachians realized that their land was next. Many of these Native American tribes had fought alongside the colonists and the British during the French and Indian War.
They expected equitable treatment in return and guarantees that their land would not be taken from them. However, Jeffery Amherst, a British general placed in charge of overseeing the vast lands won by Britain in the French and Indian War, treated the Indians with contempt. He also discontinued the French practice of creating goodwill with the Indians through regular gift-giving.
Incensed at such treatment and at the stream of settlers pouring over the Appalachians, Pontiac and other Indian chiefs made organized attacks on British forts along the western frontier. They also attacked colonial settlements in western Pennsylvania and other colonies. The Indians captured a number of British forts, killed about 400 British soldiers, and killed or captured about 2,000 colonists. The fighting was marked by horrible atrocities on both sides.
Before the Pontiac Uprising, the government in England was already drafting the Royal Proclamation of 1763, designed to protect the rights of the Indians. Through it, Britain hoped to foster a relationship with the Indians similar to the favorable relationship the French and Indians had enjoyed. So when news of Pontiac's war reached Britain, the proclamation was speeded into passage.
Under the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the British government recognized the Indians as British subjects who had rights, just as did other British subjects. To be sure, Britain still didn't view them as equals, nor did it make the Indians British citizens. Nevertheless, under this proclamation, Britain created a vast Indian reserve that stretched from the Appalachian Watershed to the Mississippi River.
No white settlers were allowed to settle on land in that protected area, even if they bought it from the Indians. The reasons for this is that in the past, the Indians had repeatedly been cheated in land deals with white settlers. These dishonest sales had contributed to the ill feelings that had led to Pontiac's war. Now, the proclamation didn't say the colonists could never purchase land inside the protected area for Indians.
Rather, it stated, "If at any time any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall be purchased only for us, in our name, at some public meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that purpose by the governor or commander-in-chief of our colony." In other words, any purchases would have to be negotiated at a governmental level through a treaty with the Indians.
This would ensure that the settlement of white colonists in the Indians' protected area would be done in an orderly manner, with the rights of the Indians protected. The proclamation went on to provide that any colonists wanting to conduct trade with the Indians first had to obtain a license from the government and agree to abide by the government's regulations. The license was free, but it would be revoked if the trader was found guilty of misconduct toward the Indians.
There would be no more plying the Indians with cheap rum and then making dishonest deals with them. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was one of the few shining moments in the history of the white man's relationship with the Indians. Some historians refer to it as the Indians' Bill of Rights. In Canada, it is still in effect. Twisting the Facts.
As I've been demonstrating, our American history books, both secular and Christian, do not even remotely give an honest, objective presentation of the matters relating to the conflict between England and the colonists. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is another example of a piece of legislation that doesn't fit into the commonly accepted picture of an unprincipled, tyrannical English government, so our history books somehow try to put an evil spin on it. For secular textbooks, that's not surprising.
But that Christians would attack a proclamation that was so fair is disappointing. In fact, they not only attack it, they even condone the colonists who ignored it. United States History for Christian Schools, published by Bob Jones University, says this about the proclamation, "In October 1763, Parliament established the Proclamation Line, which forbade the colonists to settle beyond the Appalachian Mountains.
The British government viewed the Proclamation Line as a way to diminish conflicts with the Indians, such as Pontiac's war. American colonists, however, denounced it as an arbitrary interference with their local governments, since it denied westward expansion into lands already granted by the colonial charters.
Despite the protest, expansion continued by those who had little concern for the finer points of a law laid down halfway around the world." So a Christian textbook condones breaking such an important law by calling it one of the finer points of a law laid down halfway around the world. But it wasn't a matter of a fine point of law; it was a serious moral wrongdoing. It not only broke Caesar's law, and therefore God's, but it led to the eventual near-annihilation of the Indians living in this protected land.
Another textbook referred to the proclamation as robbing the colonists of their rights. What rights? The right to continue to take the Indian land and push them to the brink of extinction? Nevertheless, the British were serious about their commitment to the Indians, so they built forts along the western frontier manned with British soldiers.
The forts were intended not only to protect the western frontier from French attempts to regain the land, but also to enforce the Royal Proclamation on behalf of the Indians and to keep the colonists and Indians separated. A person might think that, as Christians, the colonists would be satisfied with the land they had already taken from the Indians. But the attitude of the colonists had not changed one iota. It was still the same worldview they had exhibited from the beginning.
We are entitled to as much of the Indians' land as we want. So they were furious that the British soldiers were not preventing them from grabbing Indian land. Our American history textbooks typically portray the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as placing some kind of hardship on the colonies. These textbooks give the impression that the colonists needed more room. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At the time of the American Revolution, the 13 colonies had a combined population of about 2.5 million, including black slaves. Today, the population of the area occupied by the 13 colonies is more than 93 million people, so there was no shortage of land for the colonists. Actually, at the time of the proclamation, only 8% of the area occupied by the 13 colonies was cultivated. So the colonists had all the land that they, their children, and their grandchildren would ever need.
If they had simply trusted God, they would have been content with the abundance of inexpensive, fertile land they already had. Debt from the French and Indian War. William Pitt was the minister who turned the tide of the French and Indian War and brought about the British victory. In doing so, he changed the course of history. He was one of the greatest prime ministers that England has ever had, and he was brilliant when it came to managing a war.
Unfortunately, to defeat France and Spain in that war, he had spent freely and had bankrupted the British government. King George III was pleased with Pitt's victory, but he wasn't happy about the cost of the war. The war left Britain with a staggering national debt of 140 million British pounds. In today's currency, that debt would be more than $33 billion. Yet, Britain's gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of the war was only 87.5 million British pounds, or $21 billion in today's currency.
In other words, Britain's national debt was over 150% of its GDP. To put that in perspective, at the beginning of 2011, the national debt of the United States was at a staggering level, and it was a major concern to both political parties. Practically everyone agreed that the debt had to be drastically reduced. Yet, the U.S. debt at the beginning of 2011 was 97% of the nation's GDP, not 150%. Pitt was unable to come up with any concrete plans to pay off the staggering debt he had run up.
So King George forced William Pitt out of office. He replaced him with Pitt's brother-in-law, George Grenville. The king had Grenville serve as both prime minister and chancellor of the Exchequer, equivalent to the secretary of the treasury in the United States. Grenville was a scrupulously honest person with the mind of an exacting accountant. He faced a daunting task, but he immediately went to work to develop a plan to save Britain from economic collapse.
For his plan of action, Grenville decided not to ask the American colonists to pay for any of the debt resulting from the French and Indian War, even though the colonists were among the biggest beneficiaries of that war. Instead, to pay for the war, Grenville raised taxes in Britain to punitive levels. He levied taxes on almost everything: sugar, linen, beer, tobacco, liquor, carriages, houses, and even windows.
The people in Britain were paying 3,300% more taxes per person than the people living in the 13 colonies were paying. However, paying off the national debt was not the only problem facing Britain. As I've mentioned, Britain was sending 10,000 soldiers to man the forts along the American frontier and to maintain peace between the Indians and the white settlers. This alone was going to cost Britain another 200,000 to 300,000 British pounds a year.
Grenville even decided to ask the people of Great Britain to pay most of this additional cost. But he, Parliament, and the British people felt it was only fair that the American colonies bear at least a part of what it cost to protect and patrol the newly obtained land, and it was only fair.