The French and Indian War: a fight over the Ohio Valley, and what it led to
Grade 8 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Use this
After the peace, 1763 (cards A to D). Card A, the Royal Proclamation (October 7, 1763; issued by King George III's government for royal governors, colonists and Native nations; spelling and capitals as printed; cuts marked): "And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be … disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them …" and "And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests, and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians …". Card B, a summary in our words from the Office of the Historian: the Proclamation forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains and created the provinces of Quebec, West Florida and East Florida. It was largely ineffective. Settlers and land speculators ignored it, and the British military was unwilling to remove settlers by force. Some western land was claimed by private land companies in which the Virginia elite had invested heavily, and the Proclamation angered both settlers and that elite. Card C, same source: Pontiac, an Ottawa leader, sent messages in wampum belts to communities across the Midwest to plan attacks on British forts. Britain lost all its western forts except Fort Pitt and Detroit. War with Native nations continued from 1764 into 1766. News of the attacks reached London before the Proclamation was issued. Card D, same source: when British forces took over former French forts, they stopped the French practice of giving gifts to Native allies. That weakened pro-British leaders in Native communities and angered other leaders.
Which statement about the Proclamation's own words in card A is best supported, Ari asks?
- Britain wrote the rule just to protect Native nations for their own sake
- Britain framed the rule as serving its own interest and curbing fraud
- Britain admitted it had no right to govern North America
- Britain said the lands in question already belonged to colonists
A student says the Proclamation stopped settlers from crossing the mountains. How strong is that claim, given cards A and B, Bo asks?
- Strong: card A says the lands are reserved to Native nations
- Weak: card B says settlers and speculators ignored it
- Strong: card B says Britain created three new provinces
- Weak: card B says no colonists lived west of the mountains
Cards D, C and A describe three steps. Which chain is best supported, Esme asks?
- Pontiac's attacks ended the gifts, and the Proclamation came before both the gifts and the attacks
- Settlers' success led Britain to stop its gifts, and the attacks followed the end of the gifts
- The Proclamation angered Native leaders, Pontiac then organized attacks, and the gifts ended last
- Britain's end of gifts angered leaders, Pontiac organized attacks, then the Proclamation followed
By 1764, why might Pontiac's allies and colonial land speculators both have been unhappy with British policy, Jun asks?
- Both wanted Britain to leave the Appalachians to France, so French forts could return there
- Native leaders lost gifts and saw British forts; speculators were barred from land they had invested in
- Native leaders wanted the Proclamation repealed; speculators wanted it enforced to protect their claims
- Both lost French gifts and the right to cross the mountains once the Proclamation was issued
Use this
War debt and taxes, 1763 to 1766 (cards E to H, summaries in our words from the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian). Card E, 1763: Britain came out of the Seven Years' War with heavy debts. Prime Minister George Grenville cut the duty on sugar and molasses but began to enforce it strictly. The old duty had rarely been collected, so colonists ended up paying more. New York and Massachusetts sent formal protests to Parliament. Card F, 1764: Parliament passed the Currency Act, which forbade the colonies from printing paper money. That made it harder for colonists to pay their debts and taxes. Card G, 1765: Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which required a government stamp on legal papers and other paper goods. Only one member of Parliament objected to Parliament's right to tax the colonies. After the news arrived, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed resolutions denying that Parliament had the authority to tax the colonies. In October, delegates from nine colonies met and sent petitions saying the same. Card H, 1766: colonists boycotted British goods, and a recession hurt trade. British merchants lobbied for the Stamp Act's repeal. The British government decided it was easier to repeal the act than to enforce it.
Cards E to G describe a chain after the war. Which chain is best supported, Noah asks?
- The Currency Act caused the sugar duty and then the war that left Britain in debt
- War debt led to stricter duties and new taxes, and colonists protested
- Colonial protests created the war debt, so taxes followed to pay for it
- The Stamp Act protests ended the war debt, so Britain stopped taxing the colonies
A student writes: "The French and Indian War caused the Revolution by itself." How strong is that claim, given cards E to H, Pia asks?
- Fully proved: card E says the war led straight to independence, with nothing else involved
- Unsupported: the cards do not mention the war, so they cannot say anything about its effects
- Overstated: the cards show British choices after the war, such as new taxes, driving protests
- Fully proved: Stamp Act protests came right after the war ended, so the war must be the cause
Card G says only one member of Parliament objected to the Stamp Act. How would colonists have seen that vote, Ren asks?
- As proof that the tax was fair, since nearly the whole of Parliament voted for it
- As beside the point, since they said Parliament had no authority to tax them
- As agreeable, since they wanted just lower prices and not a say in the tax
- As a sign that Parliament needed more members to vote again before the tax could stand
Compare Britain's approach in card E (1763) with card H (1766). What changed, Zee asks?
- Britain gave up its claim to tax the colonies for good once it repealed the Stamp Act in 1766
- Britain moved from enforcing a tax strictly to repealing one when enforcing it was too hard
- Colonists changed from backing the debt to opposing it once Britain stopped enforcing the tax
- Britain moved from repealing taxes in 1763 to enforcing them strictly after the 1766 protests
Use this
After the peace, 1763 (cards A to D). Card A, the Royal Proclamation (October 7, 1763; issued by King George III's government for royal governors, colonists and Native nations; spelling and capitals as printed; cuts marked): "And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be … disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them …" and "And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests, and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians …". Card B, a summary in our words from the Office of the Historian: the Proclamation forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains and created the provinces of Quebec, West Florida and East Florida. It was largely ineffective. Settlers and land speculators ignored it, and the British military was unwilling to remove settlers by force. Some western land was claimed by private land companies in which the Virginia elite had invested heavily, and the Proclamation angered both settlers and that elite. Card C, same source: Pontiac, an Ottawa leader, sent messages in wampum belts to communities across the Midwest to plan attacks on British forts. Britain lost all its western forts except Fort Pitt and Detroit. War with Native nations continued from 1764 into 1766. News of the attacks reached London before the Proclamation was issued. Card D, same source: when British forces took over former French forts, they stopped the French practice of giving gifts to Native allies. That weakened pro-British leaders in Native communities and angered other leaders.
Which evidence would best show whether the Proclamation line reduced settlement west of the mountains, Luz asks?
- A textbook chapter that summarizes the Proclamation
- Land grants and settlement records from 1763 to 1775
- A map of the line drawn in 1763
- King George III's own statement that the line was needed
A student writes: "The Proclamation line caused the Revolution." What is the best reply based on these cards, Milo asks?
- It is false: card B says no one was angry
- It is false because the line was drawn in 1763
- It added to colonial anger, but one source cannot show it was the cause
- It is proved: settlers were angry after 1763, so the line caused the Revolution
