The Seven Years' War
A rivalry sharpened by population
- Colonial rivalry intensified between Britain and France in the mid-18th century, as the growing population of the British colonies expanded into the interior of North America, threatening French-Indian trade networks and American Indian autonomy.
- The cause is the growing population, which is 2.2's family migration compounding over a century.
- And the CED names two things threatened: French trade networks and American Indian autonomy.
The CED's cause of the sharpened rivalry is...
2.2's family migration compounding over a century.
Victory, at tremendous expense
- Britain achieved a major expansion of its territorial holdings by defeating the French, but at tremendous expense, setting the stage for imperial efforts to raise revenue and consolidate control over the colonies.
- One sentence contains the whole road to 3.3: victory → debt → revenue-raising → colonial objection.
- Setting the stage is the CED telling you this subtopic is the cause of the next one.
Put the road from victory to colonial objection in order.
'Setting the stage' tells you this causes 3.3.
And victory created a new problem
- After the British victory, imperial officials' attempts to prevent colonists from moving westward generated colonial opposition, while native groups sought to both continue trading with Europeans and resist the encroachments of colonists on tribal lands.
- Removing France removed the reason the colonies needed Britain, and Britain's new territory needed managing.
- Both continue trading... and resist shows native nations pursuing two aims at once, which is not a contradiction but a policy.
A cause, a British consequence, or a colonial/native response?
Sort each element of the Seven Years' War.
Select both things the CED says colonial expansion threatened.
Two things, named together.
Removing France removed the reason the colonies needed Britain. Before the war, imperial authority looked like security; after it, the same authority — now preventing westward movement — looked like interference, without having changed. That is the cleanest explanation of why loyal colonies became resistant ones.
Native groups sought both to continue trading and to resist encroachment.
Not a contradiction but a policy.
Why the war changed the relationship
- Before 1754, Britain's presence protected the colonies from a rival empire; after 1763, it mainly constrained them.
- The same imperial authority therefore looks like security in one decade and interference in the next, without changing.
- That is the cleanest explanation available for why loyal colonies became resistant ones.
The same imperial authority changed meaning because...
Security in one decade, interference in the next.
Causes and effects
- Causes: population expansion into the interior, threatening French networks and native autonomy.
- Effects: territorial expansion, tremendous expense, revenue-raising efforts, a westward-settlement ban, and colonial opposition.
- Every one of those is in the CED's own three sentences — this subtopic needs no outside material.
A garrison that stood between you and an enemy is welcome. The same garrison, once the enemy is gone and its orders concern where you may farm, is an occupation. Nobody moved; the map did.
Colonial rivalry intensified... as the growing population of the British colonies expanded into the interior, threatening French-Indian trade networks and American Indian autonomy. Britain achieved a major expansion of its territorial holdings by defeating the French, but at tremendous expense, setting the stage for imperial efforts to raise revenue and consolidate control. Afterwards, attempts to prevent colonists from moving westward generated colonial opposition, while native groups sought both to continue trading with Europeans and resist the encroachments of colonists.