How little-known European conflicts sucked in Britain’s American colonies

Note: This post covers a number of conflicts in various parts of the world. But all of them are arguably part of a larger pattern of European wars during this period. Thus, many of my other mentions of these conflicts are directed to this post, which tries to discuss these various conflicts (and sub-conflicts) in this broader colonial context.

Dutch colony of New Netherland (America), and the First and Second Anglo-Dutch Wars

It was only seven years after the 1607 founding of the Jamestown Settlement … that Holland created its own colony in North America. It was called “New Netherland,” and it was founded in 1614. Only six years later was the Pilgrim colony created at Plymouth Rock in 1620. French Canada had begun to fight the Beaver Wars back in 1609. These Beaver Wars would then be fought for the next 90 years or so. In 1635, the Acadian Civil War also began in French Canada. But, elsewhere in North America, the Netherlands would soon be fighting a war against the native peoples, known as “Kieft’s War.” It was fought from 1643 to 1645, in what are today the American states of New York and New Jersey. But Holland would soon be at war with a much greater threat: the mighty “English” Empire (not to be confused with its eventual successor, the “British” Empire). Thus, in 1652, the First Anglo-Dutch War began, over disputes about trade. This particular war was fought almost entirely at sea, in various bodies of water – from the English Channel to the Persian Gulf. In 1654, the war ended with the Treaty of Westminster, where the Dutch made some minor concessions to the English. The aforementioned Acadian Civil War also ended in 1654, although the aforementioned Beaver Wars continued. But, in 1665, the Second Anglo-Dutch War began. Like its predecessor, this war was fought mainly at sea. However, there was also some land fighting in West Africa, the East Indies, the Guianas, and the Caribbean. In North America, the war also involved the city of New Amsterdam surrendering to the English. Thus, in 1664, New Amsterdam was then renamed “New York City,” the name by which it is still known today. In 1667, the Second Anglo-Dutch War ended with the Treaty of Breda. Thus, the Dutch colony of New Netherland temporarily ended in 1667. However, England also ceded English Guiana, Fort Amsterdam in Ghana, and Run to the Netherlands. The stage was thus set for a rematch.

The Battle of Scheveningen – part of the First Anglo-Dutch War, 1653

The Four Days’ Battle – part of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, 1666

Why does the Declaration of Independence list so many grievances?

“Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our colonies and plantations in North America … have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation …”

– The “Proclamation of Rebellion” by King George the Third (23 August 1775)

In the eighteenth century, Americans had strong disagreements about colonial grievances

We today remember the Declaration of Independence for its ideas, and it is right that we do so. But, surprisingly, it was most famous in its own time … for the list of colonial grievances. To the people of that time, the list of grievances was the most important part, and certainly the most interesting. The grievances addressed the fiery controversies of the day, about whether the king had broken his end of a social contract with the people. Some American Loyalists actually agreed with the idea that the king had done some terrible things to the American colonies. Many of them even agreed that, if these provocations were indeed bad enough, rebellion would indeed be justified. But they needed to be convinced that the provocations were indeed bad enough to justify this radical course of action.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence

A review of Ken Burns’ “The American Revolution” (PBS)

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.”

– The United States Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

My prior concerns about this series, and how my hopes for this series were restored

When I first saw Ken Burns’ prior series “The Civil War,” I was mesmerized by it. I still consider it to be among the greatest series ever made, of any kind. And, in many ways, I was looking forward to seeing Ken Burns’ coverage of the American Revolution as well. But I confess that I also had some concerns about how he would cover this massive (and important) topic. These concerns were partially stoked by his biographical film about Thomas Jefferson, which could almost be described as a hatchet job. The film had so much coverage of his slaveholding, and his relationship with Sally Hemings (both legitimate topics), that it drowned out his considerable role in drafting the Declaration of Independence. But, thankfully, my confidence in Ken Burns’ coverage was restored somewhat, when I saw his biographical film about Benjamin Franklin. This proved far more sympathetic, and gave me hope that he would cover the American Revolution in a (somewhat) more sympathetic light. Ken Burns definitely covers the slavery issues, and he also covers the comparable issues surrounding Native American involvement. Both of these receive a lot of time in this series. But he also shows that the British were willing to sacrifice Black and Native American interests to their own war aims, even if they still tended to offer a better deal to these two ethnic groups than the Patriot side did. And he shows that there were many Blacks and Native Americans who fought for the Patriot side, even if there were still far more of them who fought for the British and Loyalist side.

What are the Intolerable Acts?

“An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the [East] India Company's sales, and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free …”

– Long title of the “Tea Act 1773,” as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain (incidentally, this act led to the Boston Tea Party, to which the Parliament responded with the “Coercive Acts” – known in America as the “Intolerable Acts”)

Anecdote about the Boston Tea Party, and how Britain responded with the Intolerable Acts

In 1773, the British East India Company got permission from Parliament to sell some of its tea in the British colonies in North America. The trouble was that there were still some Parliamentary taxes on the tea (from the earlier Townshend Acts), and these taxes were somewhat unpopular in America. Thus, a group of Americans calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty” implemented a protest one night. Dressing up as Native Americans, they went into the British ships anchored in Boston harbor, and dumped the tea overboard into the waters of the harbor. At that time, any submission to the British taxes (to which the colonial legislatures had not consented) seemed like tacit approval of Parliamentary tyranny. To quote a popular slogan from the time, “no taxation without representation.” This is why they felt justified in preventing other colonists from buying the tea, rather than simply refusing to buy it for themselves. This protest would go down in history as the “Boston Tea Party.” As many British commentators have noted, the Boston Tea Party was a classic example of gesture politics. And it certainly angered the British Parliament. In 1774, the British responded with what they called the “Coercive Acts.” But these acts would instead become known in America as the “Intolerable Acts.” There were originally four of these acts, although a fifth one (largely unconnected) would later be added. Thus, this might be a good time to talk here about the Intolerable Acts. Many of the grievances from these acts found their way into the United States Declaration of Independence. Some of the concerns from the acts even found their way into the United States Constitution – and, more specifically, into the United States Bill of Rights.

Boston Tea Party, 1773 – which Parliament considered sufficient to warrant the Intolerable Acts

The War of the Austrian Succession was fought on four different continents

Note: The “War of the Austrian Succession” included several different conflicts within it. Thus, many of my blog’s mentions of these related conflicts are instead directed to this post, which helps to put many of these conflicts (and sub-conflicts) into context.

Anecdote about the “War of Jenkins’ Ear,” and how that conflict got its strange name

In 1731, a British ship called the “Rebecca” was stopped by a Spanish ship. As Wikipedia puts it, “Under the 1729 Treaty of Seville, the Spanish were allowed to check British vessels trading with the Americas for contraband.” (see source) Thus, the Spaniards searched the ship thoroughly, and found that it was indeed carrying smuggled sugar. The captain of the “Rebecca” was a man named Robert Jenkins. Captain Jenkins later alleged that, during this incident, the Spaniards had removed part of his ear. The British government was then looking for a pretext for a war against Spain. Thus, they brought Captain Jenkins into Parliament, as evidence that his ear had been cut off by Spanish officials. But Captain Jenkins was wearing a cap, which concealed how many ears he had. Moreover, Captain Jenkins was never forced to remove this cap. Thus, there was a suspicion that, underneath his cap, there were two perfectly normal ears – each of which was firmly attached to his head in the normal way. But the war seemed too desirable to the British to bother with such “trivialities” as verification of the story. Thus, the “War of Jenkins’ Ear” soon began in 1739. This may be among the strangest names ever given to any conflict in history. The majority of the conflict took place in New Granada and the Caribbean Sea. However, it would also involve some fighting in Havana, Cuba – and in Central America, at a city called Cartagena (not to be confused with the city back in Spain). North America would also see some related fighting in Spanish Florida and British Georgia, which was part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear.” This would later become a part (arguably) of the “War of the Austrian Succession.”

Capture of Portobelo (Central America, 1739) – part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Battle of Havana (Cuba, 1748) – another part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

A review of Ric Burns’ “New York: A Documentary History”

“Whereupon the Citty and Fort Amsterdam and Province of the New Netherlands were surrendered under His Most Exct. Mat’s. Obedience, made and concluded the 27th. day of September 1664.”

– “Articles of Capitulation on the Reduction of New Netherland,” better known as the “Articles of Surrender of New Netherland” (signed on the 29th of September 1664) – the document that transformed the Dutch-speaking “New Amsterdam” into the English-speaking “New York City”

A television history of New York City, the largest city in the United States

It is the great paradox of New York City. On the one hand, it is a historic city, where many great historical events have taken place. But, on the other hand, very little of it looks anything like it once did. Most cities have made inroads upon the local environment, turning natural wildernesses into sprawling urban landscapes. But even the more urban landmarks of New York City are often destroyed, to build something else in their place. And, on a different note, the city’s history is, in many ways, a microcosm of the larger history of the United States. In the history of this one city, you see conflict between different groups – between long-standing families and relatively recent immigrants. You see conflict between management and labor, between city and state concerns, and between local and national concerns. And you see national economic trends realized on the local level – from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, to the “Roaring Twenties” and the Great Depression. Most of the greatest conflicts of American history can, to some degree, be seen here in the history of this one city. Thus, PBS gave filmmaker Ric Burns the green light … to produce a television history of the city. In the DVD set that I’ve been watching, I have seen 17 hours of great storytelling. They cover the city’s initial seventeenth-century colonization by the Dutch to the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001 – and beyond! It is an engrossing yarn, and might merit a brief overview in this blog post.

New Amsterdam in 1664 – the predecessor of New York City

A review of “The Salem Witch Trials” (History Channel)

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Second Book of Moses Called Exodus,” Chapter 22, Verse 18 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

They’re among the most infamous trials in American history. In both 1692 and 1693, more than 200 people were prosecuted in the Salem witch trials. Thirty of them were convicted, nineteen of whom were executed by hanging. One other man was tortured to death when he refused to enter a plea. At least five others died by disease in the jails. But how could this horrible event have happened? What does it tell us about human nature? And what parallels, if any, might these witch-hunts have with today? These are the questions (admittedly somewhat loaded questions) that this post shall attempt to answer.

The Seven Years’ War was a massive worldwide conflict

“The free exercise of the roman religion [in Canada] is granted, likewise safe guards to all religious persons, as well as to the Bishop, who shall be at liberty to come and express, freely and with decency, the functions of his office, whenever he shall think proper, until the possession of Canada shall have been decided between their Britannic and most Christian [French] Majesties.”

– Articles of Capitulation of Quebec (18 September 1759), Number 6 – the document that changed Canada from a French colony into a British colony

The Seven Years’ War was a true world war, fought on five different continents

When we think of the eighteenth century, we usually think of the great revolutions in America and France, which were in the latter half of that century. And these revolutions obviously were quite important. But these revolutions were an outgrowth of previous conflicts, including (arguably) the Seven Years’ War. The Seven Years’ War was a true world war, to a degree that the later Napoleonic Wars were not. Specifically, the Seven Years’ War would eventually be fought on five different continents. The conflict would have profound consequences for the fate of empires, and even for the map of the world. There has been at least one major documentary about the “French and Indian War,” a related war that helped to spark the larger “Seven Years’ War.” But no documentary overview of the Seven Years’ War has yet been attempted. Thus, it seems to remain mostly forgotten today. Therefore, I would like to attempt an overview of this conflict, and of the many sub-conflicts that were a part of it. That is, I will try to show how the Seven Years’ War rocked the eighteenth-century world, and how it was fought from one end of this globe to the other.

Naval battle of Quiberon Bay, 1759 – Off the coast of Brittany, France

The English Empire: The predecessor of the British Empire

“In the reign of king Henry the seventh, his ministers (not to say the king himself) were more industrious in hunting out prosecutions upon old and forgotten penal laws, in order to extort money from the subject, than in framing any new beneficial regulations. For the distinguishing character of this reign was that of amassing treasure into the king's coffers, by every means that could be devised: and almost every alteration in the laws, however salutary or otherwise in their future consequences, had this and this only for their great and immediate object.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 33

In 1485, the last Plantagenet king of England fell in battle. His name was Richard the Third, and he was killed on the battleground of Bosworth Field. The winner of the battle was a young man named Henry, who then became “Henry the Seventh.” He was the first of the Tudor rulers of England. Henry had been on the Lancastrian side of the “Wars of the Roses.” But, when he married a Yorkist lady in 1486, the two factions from the civil war were finally united, since he was marrying someone from that faction. Her name was Elizabeth of York, and she would eventually give birth to a son in 1491. The boy was the future “Henry the Eighth,” who would eventually form the new “Church of England.” (More about that here.) But, at that time, the boy’s birth signaled a formal end to the “Wars of the Roses.” The following year was 1492, the year that Christopher Columbus was arriving in the Americas. Spain and Portugal would soon be creating massive overseas empires, in which they spread their longtime Catholic faith to distant shores. Henry the Seventh was still the king of England in 1496, when he commissioned John Cabot to sail to Asia. Cabot sailed in 1497, but instead landed on the coast of Newfoundland – in what is today Canada. They did not yet attempt to found a colony there. Cabot later made another voyage to the Americas, but did not return. To this day, no one knows what happened to Cabot’s ships.

A replica of John Cabot’s ship the Matthew

The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo

The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the British Empire. It saw the birth of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” itself, in the 1707 “Acts of Union.” It saw much-admired advances in philosophy, from the English philosophers to the “Scottish Enlightenment.” And it saw many important political developments for the British Empire, at home and abroad. For example, it saw the continuation of an ongoing struggle between Britain and France. Britain would be affected by the loss of many of its overseas colonies in North America. Much closer to home, it was affected by the French Revolution, and the chaos left in its wake. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, it would eventually fight the Napoleonic Wars, one of the defining conflicts of its history. Therefore, an examination of this general period might be in order here. That is, I plan to go from the 1707 “Acts of Union” … to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This period has a massive legacy for the British Empire, and for many of its former overseas colonies.

Battle of Trafalgar – Spain, 1805

The Continental Congresses: The backstory of the United States Congress

“An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned.”

– Long title of the “Duties in American Colonies Act 1765” (better known as the “Stamp Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

Albany Congress (1754) is formed in the year that the French and Indian War began

In 1754, a war broke out in British North America, a war that Americans know as the “French and Indian War.” This war would eventually lead to a worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War,” which would break out two years later in 1756. But something else happened in 1754 that might not have seemed particularly important at the time. A number of the British colonies in North America sent delegates to the “Albany Congress of 1754.” This is the first of several Congresses that would eventually lead to the creation of the United States Congress. The Albany Congress met for only one month. During this time, representatives met daily at the City Hall to discuss a number of important issues. Among these were better relations with the Native American tribes, and common defensive measures against the French threat from Canada – since the “French and Indian War” meant that British North America was now at war with both France and its overseas colonies in Canada.

The Albany Congress, 1754

Parliament passes the Stamp Act (1765), which leads to the Stamp Act Congress (1765)

The French and Indian War began in 1754, but the worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War” did not begin until 1756 (or so Americans remember it). When it began, the “French and Indian War” (as Americans call it) became the North American theater of this larger worldwide conflict. But when Britain and France later made peace with each other in 1763, both this larger conflict and its North American portion were over. Things might have seemed like they would remain peaceful. But in 1765, Britain passed the Stamp Act (cited earlier), which enacted taxes on stamps in North America. In the thirteen colonies, these stamps would be required for legal documents, playing cards, calendars, newspapers, and dice. The colonies were not happy about these taxes, since they were being passed by a Parliament in which the colonists were not represented. It is true that these taxes were not very large, but the actual amount of the tax was never the issue. The issue was whether the British Parliament had any right to tax the colonies to begin with, when the colonies were not represented in the body that was taxing them. I doubt that the British people of today would put up with being taxed by the United States Congress, since they have no representation in it. In a similar way, colonists were not about to put up with being taxed by Parliament, and thus organized the Stamp Act Congress in 1765.

1d Stamp Act of 1765 proof

A review of Ric Burns’ “The Pilgrims” (PBS)

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; [we] Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid … ”

– The Mayflower Compact, 11 November 1620 by the old calendar (or 21 November 1620 by the new calendar)

I grew up with the story of the Pilgrim Fathers, who settled at Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts (and not in Virginia, as they had originally intended). It is one of the great stories in American history, but it was not the beginning of the English colonies on this continent. Before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, there was a settlement in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. But this Jamestown settlement wasn't anywhere near as successful as the later Pilgrim settlement. Both were racked by starvation and disease that claimed many lives, but the Pilgrim settlement survived, when the Jamestown settlement did not. Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement may thus be warranted here, to give you an appreciation of what the Pilgrims did (although their success was marred somewhat by their relations with the Indians, in the ways that I will note soon).

Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement (and the PBS documentary about it)

Regarding the Jamestown settlement, I actually purchased another documentary called “Secrets of the Dead: Jamestown's Dark Winter” (also by PBS). This voyage did actually land in Virginia, as they had originally intended (unlike the Pilgrim voyage, which landed in Massachusetts). But sadly for me, this Jamestown documentary was more focused on the archaeology involved than on the history. Thus, it is not to be construed as an actual “history” of the Jamestown settlement. The focus here is on the archaeological examination of the human remains found there. For example, they were able to show in this documentary that the grim stories about resorting to cannibalism at Jamestown were actually true. Although this was gross, it was certainly dramatic enough; but it did not satisfy my craving for the human story of what happened there. There was some passing mention of John Smith and Pocahontas, for example, but most of the story centered on the body of a teenage girl whose real name is unknown (although they call her “Jane” to identify her as a Jane Doe.) The definitive documentary about what happened at Jamestown, it would seem, thus has yet to be made at the time that I write this. By contrast, this documentary about “The Pilgrims” was much better; although it was not without some revisionist elements that I will note later on in this post. For now, I will just say that I found it to be entertaining despite its revisionism, and would recommend it to others anyway.

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

The “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” may be the world’s first written constitution

“I pass over the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they were formed prior to the Revolution, and even before the principle under examination had become an object of political attention.”

– James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 47)

Some consider this document to be the world’s first written constitution

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution for an entire nation. But there were actually several state constitutions that came before it, which were mostly found in the thirteen colonies that became the early United States. They already had functioning democracies by the time they declared their independence in 1776, and had more than a century of democratic experience by this time. Although the writers of the Constitution would also draw upon the experiences of Greece and Rome (not to mention Great Britain), they would also be drawing upon their own experience as well, and upon the constitutions of their own states. Some would consider the world’s first “constitution” (in the modern Western sense of that word) to be the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” a document that was written in 1639 – nearly a century and a half before the United States Constitution was written in 1787. Some would dispute the claim that the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were truly the world’s first constitution, I should note here, and I suppose it depends somewhat upon how you define this word. But however you define it, it would nonetheless seem fair to say that the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” were groundbreaking; and that they were a considerable influence on the United States Constitution.

How did the Massachusetts Body of Liberties influence the Bill of Rights?

“No man shall be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses or that which is equivalent thereunto.”

– The Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), Section 47

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties codified many of the basic rights and privileges that we enjoy today. It had an early form of freedom of speech, and a right to petition the government with a “complaint.” It listed several rights of the accused; such as a protection from double jeopardy, a protection from forced confessions, and a protection from excessive bail. It gave them rights to a trial in criminal cases, and the right to an attorney to represent them in these trials. It gave them protections of life and property (as well as the right to challenge jurors), and some potent protections against any “inhumane Barbarous or cruel” bodily punishments. All of these things influenced the United States Bill of Rights, and it is hard to imagine life in this country without them. Our country would be in a much worse shape, if we didn't have these things. Thus, an examination of these rights would seem to be appropriate here. (I have decided to preserve the original spellings of its passages when quoting them, to give the reader something of their style and flavor.)

A review of “The War That Made America”

"Since the English have in their power an officer and two cadets, and, in general all the prisoners whom they took when [they] assassinated Sieur de Jumonville they now promise to send them with an escort to Fort Duquesne, situated on Belle River, and to secure the safe performance of this treaty article, as was as of the treaty ... "

- English translation of the "Articles of Capitulation" after the Battle of Fort Necessity, Article 7 - the French text of which was mistakenly signed by George Washington (who did not speak French) on 3 July 1754, in the belief that the translation given to him had been accurate (which it probably wasn't)

This documentary is about the French and Indian War, not the American Revolutionary War ...

When most people hear the phrase "the war that made America," the event they would think of is the "American War of Independence." (Or as we call it in America, the "American Revolution," or the "American Revolutionary War.") Most people would be surprised to learn, then, that this is about the "French and Indian War" - or the "Seven Years' War," as it's known elsewhere (including in Canada). This war took place over a decade before the creation of the United States, and ended some years before the first shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord. It's also important for the future history of Canada, because it turned Canada from a French colony into a British colony, and thus secured the dominance of English speakers in the region. The year 1759 is thus a controversial year in Canadian history, and it is resented bitterly by French Canadians - not to mention the First Nations Canadians. Nonetheless, it is American history that is the focus here, even if the documentary is narrated by the First Nations Canadian Graham Greene (which it is).

Battle of the Plains of Abraham - Quebec, 1759

The bitter strife of the Revolution actually had its roots in this war

At this time, the British Crown ruled the Eastern Seaboard of this continent, and its colonies were loyal outposts of the British Empire. These colonies all had their own militias that took part in this struggle, but they were not terribly impressive compared to the professional Redcoat soldiers, who arrived from Britain in considerable numbers after the war began. These Redcoat soldiers were the real backbone of the British presence there, and they had reason to view the colonial militias with some contempt. They were tactless enough to express this contempt more than once, and there were signs of friction between the two even during this period. The colonial governments resisted London's attempts to pay for the war by taxing the colonies, and they actually insisted on retaining local control over the colonial militias with regards to staffing and - even more importantly - military strategy. The bitter strife of the Revolution thus had its roots in this war; and the two groups' fighting alongside each other was a temporary situation that would not last.

The Albany Congress - New York, 1754 (one of the precursors to the later Continental Congresses)

A review of Alistair Cooke's “America: A Personal History of the United States”

" ... these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ... "

- The American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

The British writer George Bernard Shaw is supposed to have once told a joke about the relationship between Britain and America. "The United States and Great Britain," he said, "are two countries separated by a common language." We argue about how to spell words and how to pronounce them, I think, and the "common ground" between us can sometimes be a battleground. All kidding aside, though, there is something special about the relationship between our two countries; and our shared English language could just be the most obvious manifestation of this extreme closeness. In ways that we sometimes take for granted, I think, we understand each other's humor and share each other's values. Our love of democracy and liberty, furthermore, is a characteristic that is somewhat rare in the world; and though it is found abundantly in both countries, it is not often found elsewhere to the same degree.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt meets with Winston Churchill aboard the HMS Prince of Wales - Atlantic Charter, 1941

The divide between the Americans and the British

Our culture is much the same, I think, and our view of the world is identical in many ways. But there are some differences between us that cause us both to misunderstand each other at times. It is somewhat unfortunate that my fellow Americans, for example, sometimes see the British as stuffy and unemotional (perhaps even snobbish), while the British sometimes see Americans as unsophisticated rubes who can be impetuous (and even obnoxious). I suspect that these differences have their origins in the fact that our histories diverged somewhat after the American Revolution, when the colonies declared that "all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved" (in the words of our Declaration of Independence). Thus, we have some significant differences between us, it is true; but these differences are not insurmountable. Thus, the BBC made this series about the history of America in 1973. This series was hosted by the famed journalist Alistair Cooke. This series attempted to explain us Americans - and I am an American, as you may have guessed - to our valued brethren in Britain. Thus, it helped to bridge the occasional gap of misunderstanding that sometimes pops up between us. (Although the misunderstandings are still pretty minimal even without this, and we are still a common family that gets along well most of the time.)

Alistair Cooke, the series presenter

Actually, John Locke DID influence the U. S. Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 (first paragraph)

Some have claimed that John Locke didn't have much influence on the Founding Fathers ...

John Locke once wrote an eloquent defense of private property, which liberals enchanted with socialist ideas have long resented. Perhaps because of this, there have been some who have claimed that he did not really have much influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States, who are still quite popular in my American homeland.

John Locke

... so it might be helpful to correct the record

Because of this, it seems like it would be worthwhile now to correct the record; and give the evidence that Mr. Locke - along with others, like Algernon Sidney - did indeed have an influence on the Founding Fathers. Most notably, Locke had a great influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence; and it can be shown that some of the language within it (not to mention the ideas) are a direct borrowing from John Locke.

Thomas Jefferson

Specifically, he influenced the Declaration of Independence, as these quotes will show ...

I will now present the quotes from the Declaration of Independence (which are well-known), followed by the quotes from John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" (which are lesser-known). These will help to show that not only are the ideas the same, but in some cases, the language is as well.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

A review of “Liberty! The American Revolution” and “The Revolution”

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."

"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

It was the most successful revolution in history (and the most underrated), but one in which the winning side lost almost every battle that it fought. It was a war with dramatic battles and military campaigns, but whose greatest revolution was in political thinking and good government. And it was a war with larger-than-life heroes who were immortalized in statues and monuments; but it was won by the tireless efforts of ordinary people, without whose efforts the war would surely have been lost.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The war was a desperate one, and the Americans came pretty close to losing it ...

The American Revolution it created became the most powerful nation in the world, but was one of the weakest nations for most of its early history. Indeed, it would never have won its independence at all without the help of foreign powers (especially France), and the war was a desperate one whose outcome was not the inevitable victory that it is often painted to be. The Americans could very well have lost that war, and the country as we know it would never have existed: the world would have been a very different place.

A review of "Canada: A People's History"

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one Dominion under that name accordingly."

- Canada's "Constitution Act of 1867," also known as the "British North America Act 1867"

I would like to offer my American perspective to this 32-hour Canadian series. I hope that Canadians will not mind. I got this series because I was interested in the history of America's northern neighbor. Canada is one of the United States' biggest trading partners, and being interested in doing trade with Canada, and able to speak both French and English, I thought that it might be helpful to know something about Canadian history and culture.

This documentary did not disappoint. It was dramatic and interesting, and I learned much about Canadian history. Having read from many online comments that even Canadians learned something about their history by watching this series, I am struck by its informative and educational power. It is also very moving in places, with great acting, music, and narration. Those looking to learn something about the country will not be disappointed.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, a major battle in the Seven Years' War - Quebec, 1759

(an important year in Canadian history, because it was the year that Canada became British)