Customer Reviews

The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The French and Indian War is the American name for their part in a conflict that stretched around the globe and was known as the Seven Years War. In `The War That Made America', Anderson sticks to the history of the war as it played out in North America, with only a nod to the war as fought in the West Indies, Europe, Asia, and the Philippines. He bookends his story in preface and epilogue by showing what affect the war had on the life, training, and outlook of George Washington, the most famous American to play a key part in it, which proves an effective shorthand device for showing the importance of the war to American history.

Anderson brings to this short history of the war a perspective which has not always been acknowledged - that it was not a conflict between two imperial powers - Britain and France, but between three - Britain, France, and the Iroquois Confederation. Not only does he restore the essential details of the pivotal role that the Five Nations of the Iroquois played in the war, but he shows how the causes of the war lay as much in the struggle of the western tribes of Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo attempting to gain their independence from the Iroquois as it did in the French and English competition over the lands of the Ohio River Valley. He deftly handles these complex details; sorting them out and making them accessible to the general reader.

Anderson is that rare scholar who possesses a novelist's way with words, and his short history of this war is as entertaining and easy to read as it is informative. He moves the story along briskly, never getting too bogged down in details, but communicating all the important facts necessary for a basic understanding of the war. His book is a painless introduction for anyone who is attempting to gain a basic understanding of this fascinating and important history. I recommend it as a perfect place to begin study of this most crucial of colonial conflicts.

Theo Logos

Mr. Anderson wrote the classic history of the French and Indian Wars in his "Crucible of War" (1999). That rendering of the fourth and final war between France and England for the possesion of the New World was covered in nearly 750 pages of narrative plus 150 pages of index and notes. Now he has abridged his earlier account with "The War that Made America" which is the companion volume to the PBS documentary of the same name that airs later this month.

This rendition of The Seven Years' War, as the conflict was also named, should be considered as "The French and Indian War Lite." With less than 300 pages, this abridgement has a more specific focus upon the exploits of our American ancestors and less of a focus on the previous three wars, the European political scheming and military details of various battles. The reader desiring a fuller account can always turn to the original "Crucible of War." Any reader desiring further information of that era can read the historical novels of Kenneth Roberts,especially "Northwest Passage" (1936) and "Arundel" (1930) or view the 1992 film version of "The Last of the Mohicans."

The French and Indian Wars are generally treated as a subtheme in the wider context of the war between Britain and France that in a single year -- 1759 -- gave Britain its Empre -- Wolfe's capture of Quebec, Clive's victories in India which provided the treasures that funded the Industrial Revolution, the capture of the sugar islands that createdSilicon Valley wealth for the new political class, and Hawke's and Boscawen's naval victories that began the ownership of the oceans that soon was extended by Cochrane and Nelson as the consequent protagonists of an entirely new style of sea battle.

The American colonial part of this triumph is generally seen as at most a sideshow, although one of the well-known and great ironies of history is that the entire war was launched -- after a long build up -- by the blunder of a young British officer, George Washington that gave the French the excuse they needed to start what was indeed the first global war.

This excellent, well-written book with, from my own knowledge, its impeccably researched and balanced scholarship, shifts the focus from Europe to the complex four-sided relationships and intense politics of the Iroquois Six Nations, very sophisticated and key to the British success, the British administrators/military commanders, the Colonial players and their French equivalents. It helps explain better than any other book I have read how it was this period and this war that is at the roots of the American Revolution and perhaps made it inevitable.

It is strong in bringing to life key personalities -- not Washington, who is a constant background presence -- but Amherst, Johnson, Montcalm and Vaudreil and their competition and conflicts, and also the extent to which alliances with the Indians who controlled the territories of the Ohio "West" and the betrayals on both sides were fundamental to the war. It also and undramatically shows how the anti-Indian racism emerged and how the Indians were hardly the "Noble Savages" of romantic myth.

It's a great story if you are not familiar with the era and the War. If you are, I think it offers a thought-provoking new slant on an old subject. It is compact and subtle. It does not push any pet topic or thesis.

I recommend this unreservedly.

I am normally much more interested in cultural history rather than military history. But this book caught my attention with it's title, "The War That Made America," as I wanted to better understand this war's significance in forming the future of our nation. Unfortunately, this explanation is primarily provided in the book's final chapter and epilogue, where it is explained how Britain's truimph over the French left the Native Americans in a dire position. For example, the various tribes had previously been able to play off the British and French against each other and maintain a favorable position for themselves in both trade and the formation of alliances. However, the Indians were now left to largely fend for themselves against both the imperial designs of the powerful British Empire and the American colonists who began to push west of the Appalachian Mountains. The book also explains how the war helped to build the military career of George Washington while adding to the tensions between the British crown, who wished to raise taxes and assert greater control, and the American colonists, who wished to maintain their privileges and freedoms. Of course, this eventually led to the American Revolution, where the former British military officer, George Washington, led the colonists in victory over the redcoats. In this sense, Anderson does a capable job of making the case that the French And Indian War played a substantial role in the shaping of America's future.

Unfortunately, Anderson only provides this context at the end of the book. The vast majority of chapters instead focus on the numerous battles that took place between the British and the French, who were the winning and losing officers and what military tactics were used to achieve victory. Of course, this is all relevant to a book about the French And Indian War and Anderson is an excellent scholar with a clear understanding of his subject. So I have no doubt that readers interested in military history will appreciate this book. But, as I said earlier, I was hoping for a book with more focus on explaining the importance of the war and less attention to the details of the battlefield. So, for me, it was mostly a bore.

I am proof that author and historian Fred Anderson is correct in the first significant point he makes in The War That Made America: he writes that most Americans -- even well read Americans with solid educations -- know little about the French and Indian War. Guilty as charged -- at least until recently.

Mr. Anderson makes a compelling case for the importance of the war, which he says has had an astonishingly large impact on American history.

Most of the world calls the conflict the Seven Years' War, but in the U.S. and Canada it is known as the French and Indian War. It started in 1754 after a miscalculation between a young George Washington and his band of undisciplined Virginia volunteers and their Indian guides. The group stumbled onto a detachment from the French forces that were at that time wrestling control of North America away from the British. Washington lost control of his unruly troops, who routed the French and abused captured prisoners: decapitating one man and scalping several wounded Frenchmen. A series of retaliatory battles followed and the war began.

In his History of English Speaking People, Winston Churchill called the Seven Years' War the "first world war,' and it's easy to see why. Battles were fought not only throughout North America but also in the Caribbean, Brittany in northern France, and in the English Channel. Sensing a weak point in London's resolve, a major revolt broke out in the Philippines and a smaller one in South Africa, then both parts of Britain's massive empire.

The French and their Indian allies controlled the first five years of the war, but soon the might from the British forces in the colonies began to be felt. By 1759, the tide was turned and by 1761 the brief French dominance of North America -- which at one point stretched from Quebec to New Orleans -- was finished for good.

Mr. Anderson goes into plenty of detail about how this happened, but in my mind that's much less interesting than the dominoes that fell in the decades after the war's conclusion. Here's a sample:

* France's Indian allies, deprived of further support from Paris, became disgruntled and revolted. In 1763 they launched Pontiac's Revolution, an uprising that represents the only coordinated battle plan by more than a handful Indian tribes in North American history. The Ottawa Indians took over Detroit for part of the three-year war, which Mr. Anderson said encouraged Americans to openly hate Indians "without reserve or distinction," eventually leading to the destruction of subjugation of every tribe on the continent. Never again would tribes of the most native of Americans ever be protagonists in the continent's history.

* Because of their part in winning the war for Britain, American colonists began to see themselves as what Mr. Anderson calls "partners in empire" -- but London did not see it that way. Less a decade after the end of the war, the British parliament passed a tax on the colonies to help pay for its growing worldwide military expenses without consulting the colonists -- and they balked. Emboldened by the military successes during the war, discontent spread and the seeds for the Revolutionary War were planted.

* And France, reeling from its setbacks against England in North America and elsewhere, began to loose faith in its monarchy, setting the stage for the French Revolution in 1789, which in turn set the stage for a strong non-noble leader to take over in the wake of the felled monarchy: Napoleon. And Napoleon -- realizing that France's North American holdings were a difficult-to-defend drain on the country's treasury and that France would never recapture its domination of the continent -- sold the massive Louisiana Territory to the infant United States in 1802, doubling the size of the young country.

The War That Made America is distilled from a longer and (from what I've read) less accessible book Mr. Anderson wrote called The Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in North America, 1754-1766. This shorter effort is anything but inaccessible, showing a combination of enthusiasm, intelligence, and readability that is rare in books produced by academics.

But after I finished the volume's surprisingly enjoyable 293 pages, what most struck me is the book's unexpected relevance in today's world. Mr. Anderson calls the book "a cautionary tale about the unpredictability of war." Fair enough. But I also see relevance in his lessons about Britain's empire, which failed to understand that while armed forces could conquer a land, only integration and cooperation with those already there (something the British had no taste for) could maintain an influence. That is a lesson that ancient Rome forgot late in its imperial stage, that the French never realized in North America, and that the world's current Super Power (complete with its own version of Mr. Washington's prisoner abuses) ought to remember if it intends to continue to flirt with imperial ambitions.

The author, Fred Anderson, having written a scholarly account of the French and Indian War in his book Crucible of War, in this book writes a shorter account of that war that was the North American component of Europe's Seven Years War. In the Prologue, the text states "....by sheer force of numbers, if nothing else, they would overwhelm the French who claimed that territory....Anglo-American mastery in North America was effectively determined before the first shot was fired." However, defeating the French in North America was no "push-over."

The English were interested in settling land west of the Allegheny Mountains while the French had no plans for the area "apart from keeping it out of British hands." The text gives an excellent discussion of Indian diplomacy that the British did not understand. Basically the Indians needed trade to procure arms and fought a guerilla war while the British fought a conventional European war. The French governor-general allied with several Ohio area Indian tribes and exploited the Indian warfare culture that included scalping, hostages and exploitation. It wasn't until French commander Montcalm challenged the use of Indian guerilla tactics that conventional European warfare was adopted by the French North American forces. Following the English takeover of the Dutch colony of New York, the Iroquois Indian Nation forged an alliance with the English in 1670. This supplied the Iroquois with arms while providing the English with a valuable partner. The text narrates the history of the fighting in North America until the end of the Seven Years War in 1763.

The British North American commander-in-chief, Lord Loudoun, acted as a regal viceroy taking property when desired, forcing colonists to raise militias and finance military operations. While Loudoun was a genius at organization and planning, during this period the British suffered a number of losses. General Abercromby replaced Loudoun and under the more enlightened policies of British Secretary of State William Pitt the colonists responded with a surge of support and patriotic sentiment. "Abercromby, the least competent officer ever to serve as British commander in chief...." was replaced by Jeffery Amherst. The text's account of North American warfare under General Amherst is well written, and includes an account of the brilliant campaign under General Wolfe to capture Quebec. The Royal Navy controlled the seas, so that French could not reinforce their North American subjects. With the capture of Montreal, the French battalions in North America laid down their arms. The Treaty of Paris ratified in 1763 transferred vast territories French and Spanish to British control.

The author notes that after the French and Indian War "Believing that their sacrifices of blood and treasure entitle them to share in the fruits of victory, the colonists of British North America assumed that they had a stake in the empire's future." The colonists considered themselves equal members of Parliament in taxing authority; that they were indeed Britons equal to their English relatives. The British viewed them as no more than subservient colonial subjects. The four concluding chapters briefly narrate the events that led to the American Revolution. George Washington's philosophy, his austere faith and belief in his destiny is briefly noted. The book ends with an epilogue that discusses Washington's philosophy and commitment to his country.

This is great history; well written.

I've read many books about the American Revolution, and they generally concentrate on events after about 1770. This book gives you a good history of what America and Canada were like between 1720 and 1770. I've picked up more history about the role of the American Indian tribes with respect to interaction with the French, British and colonies than any other book I've ever read. The book is very well written, and moves right along. The author takes you through the alliances with various Indian tribes and the French, British and Colonists. Who knew that Pennsylvania basically hired the Iroquois to act as enforcer and protector against other tribes. The author also takes you through the massacre at Fort William Henry, which was the backdrop to Last of the Mohicans. Reading this book makes me want to see the movie again. Lots more to like in this book including the rise and influence of William Pitt and the impact of events in Europe on the conflicts in North America. Enjoy.

Although I did not bring to this book a good knowledge of the French and Indian War (which was the North American version of the 7 Years War in Europe), I never had a problem following the author's descriptions. I wish there had been more maps because the action moves from what is now Nova Scotia to Montreal to Detroit to the Ohio Valley, and all over Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York/New England. Good portrait of George Washington, and interesting anecdotes about a varity of other British loyalists and French noblemen. A good beginning to discover the French and Indian War, which was in a lot of ways the "beginning" of the American Revolution -- established the militias and gave the colonists a sense of unity and purpose. Also interesting to know more about the collapse of New France (Canada), and the "ethnic cleansing" program carried out in Canada by the victorious British, who decided to rid Acadia of French-speaking people.

A few years ago I read Fred Anderson's excellent and detailed history of the French and Indian War (1755-1763). This new book is a much shorter and less detailed account of the war. The Seven Years War was a world war fought in North America, the European continent and the high seas. The war pitted the British against the French in a bloody conflict. Britain emerged the victor winning North America. The war set the stage for the American Revolution as colonials grew sick of being ruled by the haughty British government in London.
Anderson's work is a brief overview of the war in America. It is intended for general readers and is short on detail. The book is copiously illustrated with period art and pictures of the weapons used in the war.
Fascinating people were involved from the young George Washington to the
fatuous Edward Braddock; James Wolfe and the French general Montcalm.
Anderson tells us of the importance of the Iroquois Six Nation confederacy whose expulsion of the Ohio country Indians from their lands added to the complexity of the conflict. The Iroquois generally sided with the British while the Ohio country tribes favored their French trading partner allies.
This is an important and largely neglected chapter in American history.
The Seven Years War was a major eighteenth century war. It's importance to building the foundation for the British Empire is key.
Anderson has done a good job with his limited objective of giving a survey of the war. His bibliography is impressive. I consider him as the leading living scholar on the war.

I thought the author's "Crucible" was too long, and even though this abbreviated treatment is tarnished by its PBS association, it still has to be the best account in print.

One of the book's many eye-openers is the author's concise and original analysis of the French capture of Oswego: Its significance is typically overlooked by most historians. This episode initiated the quarrel between Vaudreuil and Montcalm. The former, a bear-like Canadian-born advocate of wintertime Indian raids and guerrilla tactics, the latter a skilled and principled European professional who fought wars by the book. Problem was, given British naval supremacy and numerical superiority, playing by the rules doomed New France. Vaudreuil favored using irregular forces and Indians to massacre frontier settlements during winter, when his adversary's military assets were negated by ice and snow. The two nursed a mutual, cordial hatred.

Had Vaudreuil prevailed, it is likely that some French presence in North America would have survived the Seven Years War. But, among other flaws, Vaudreuil had notoriously sticky fingers, and even by eighteenth-century standards, was an accomplished spoilsman, smuggler, and graftsman. He even did a stretch in the Bastille.

Quibbles. Mr. Anderson needs to have a conference with his publisher's production and design department. For one thing, the title is bad; sounds more like a History Channel than a PBS moniker. Another reviewer has mentioned that the maps are mediocre, and they're hard to locate. And, please, who designed that jacket cover? That hideous painting looks like it belongs in a re-enactor's storeroom, right next to the authentic-repro canvas underwear.

And please don't forget W.J. Eccles' partisan, revisionist, and brilliant "France in America" (1972). Perusal of chapters relevant to The Seven Years war is (still) rewarding and informative.