Question: Who fought in the French and Indian war?

Answer: colonies of British America and New France

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. <hl> The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France , with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. <hl> At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers, compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the <hl> colonies of British America and New France <hl>, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers, compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

The war was fought between the <hl> colonies of British America and New France <hl> , with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies.


Question: How many people were in French North American Colonies?

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers, compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

Answer: roughly 60,000 European settlers

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. <hl> At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers , compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. <hl> The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of <hl> roughly 60,000 European settlers <hl>, compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of <hl> roughly 60,000 European settlers <hl> , compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies.


Question: How many people were in British North American Colonies?

Answer: 2 million

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. <hl> At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers, compared with 2 million in the British North American colonies. <hl> The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was the North American theater of the worldwide Seven Years' War. The war was fought between the colonies of British America and New France, with both sides supported by military units from their parent countries of Great Britain and France, as well as Native American allies. At the start of the war, the French North American colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 European settlers, compared with <hl> 2 million <hl> in the British North American colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians. Long in conflict, the metropole nations declared war on each other in 1756, escalating the war from a regional affair into an intercontinental conflict.


Question: Where was war fought?

The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.

Answer: primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies

<hl> The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies , from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. <hl> It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.

The war was fought <hl> primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies <hl>, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.

The war was fought <hl> primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies <hl> , from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North.


Question: How did war start?

Answer: dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio

The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. <hl> It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio , and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. <hl> The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.

The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. It began with a <hl> dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio <hl>, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.

It began with a <hl> dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio <hl> , and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


Question: When did violence start in war?

Answer: Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754,

The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. <hl> The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol. <hl>

The war was fought primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from Virginia in the South to Nova Scotia in the North. It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne and present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the <hl> Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, <hl> during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.


Question: When did colonial governors meet with General Edward Braddock about attack on the french?

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

Answer: 1755

<hl> In 1755 , six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. <hl> None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In <hl> 1755 <hl>, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In <hl> 1755 <hl> , six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French.


Question: How successful was initial effort by Braddock?

Answer: disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. <hl> None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. <hl> British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a <hl> disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela <hl> on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.


Question: Why did British operation fail in 1755, 56, 57?

Answer: combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. <hl> British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies . <hl> In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a <hl> combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies <hl>. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a <hl> combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies <hl> .


Question: In 1755 what fort did British capture?

Answer: Fort Beauséjour

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. <hl> In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. <hl> Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured <hl> Fort Beauséjour <hl> on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.


Question: What order did British make of French?

Answer: expulsion of the Acadians

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. <hl> In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians . <hl> Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In 1755, six colonial governors in North America met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded and the main effort by Braddock was a disaster; he was defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755 and died a few days later. British operations in 1755, 1756 and 1757 in the frontier areas of Pennsylvania and New York all failed, due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, and effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Indian warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the <hl> expulsion of the Acadians <hl>. Orders for the deportation were given by William Shirley, Commander-in-Chief, North America, without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to His Britannic Majesty, were expelled. Native Americans were likewise driven off their land to make way for settlers from New England.

In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia; soon afterward they ordered the <hl> expulsion of the Acadians <hl> .


Question: Who increased British military resources in colonies?

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

Answer: William Pitt

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. <hl> William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. <hl> France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. <hl> William Pitt <hl> came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.


Question: How much resources were French placing in North America?

Answer: unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. <hl> William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France . <hl> France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was <hl> unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France <hl>. France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was <hl> unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France <hl> .


Question: Where was France concentraing efforts?

Answer: against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war.

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. <hl> France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. <hl> They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. France concentrated its forces <hl> against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. <hl> Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.


Question: Where were British defeated in Canada?

Answer: Sainte Foy in Quebec

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. <hl> Though the British were later defeated at Sainte Foy in Quebec , the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty. <hl>

After the disastrous 1757 British campaigns (resulting in a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry, which was followed by Indian torture and massacres of British victims), the British government fell. William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces it had in New France. France concentrated its forces against Prussia and its allies in the European theatre of the war. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture the Colony of Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately Quebec. Though the British were later defeated at <hl> Sainte Foy in Quebec <hl>, the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.

Though the British were later defeated at <hl> Sainte Foy in Quebec <hl> , the French ceded Canada in accordance with the 1763 treaty.


Question: What territory was ceded to Britain?

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America.

Answer: territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. <hl> France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain . <hl> It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America.

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its <hl> territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain <hl>. It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America.

France ceded its <hl> territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain <hl> .


Question: What land was ceded to Spain?

Answer: French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. <hl> It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain , in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). <hl> France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America.

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It ceded <hl> French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain <hl>, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America.

It ceded <hl> French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain <hl> , in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba).


Question: What was the significance of British win?

Answer: confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). <hl> France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America . <hl>

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. France ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, <hl> confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America <hl>.

France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, <hl> confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in eastern North America <hl> .


Question: When was King George's war?

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

Answer: 1740s

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. <hl> As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s , British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. <hl> This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the <hl> 1740s <hl>, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

As there had already been a King George's War in the <hl> 1740s <hl> , British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War.


Question: What is the confusion of the French and Indian war?

Answer: Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. <hl> This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War , a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. <hl> American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that <hl> Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War <hl>, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that <hl> Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War <hl> , a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain.


Question: What was the Seven Years War?

Answer: much larger conflict between France and Great Britain

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. <hl> This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain . <hl> American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a <hl> much larger conflict between France and Great Britain <hl>. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.

This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a <hl> much larger conflict between France and Great Britain <hl> .


Question: What are other alternative names for French and Indian War?

Answer: Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. <hl> Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire . <hl>

The conflict is known by multiple names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. As there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name continues as the standard in the United States, but it obscures the fact that Indians fought on both sides of the conflict, and that this was part of the Seven Years' War, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain. American historians generally use the traditional name or sometimes the Seven Years' War. Other, less frequently used names for the war include the <hl> Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire <hl>.

Other, less frequently used names for the war include the <hl> Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire <hl> .


Question: What time framd does the Seven Years War cover?

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.

Answer: declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. <hl> "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763 . <hl> These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official <hl> declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763 <hl>. These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.

"Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official <hl> declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763 <hl> .


Question: How long did the fighting last in Seven Years War?

Answer: six years

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. <hl> These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years , from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760. <hl>

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in <hl> six years <hl>, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.

These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in <hl> six years <hl> , from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.


Question: When was Montreal captured?

Answer: 1760

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. <hl> These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760 . <hl>

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in <hl> 1760 <hl>.

These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in <hl> 1760 <hl> .


Question: What was first battle in 1754?

Answer: Battle of Jumonville Glen

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. <hl> These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760. <hl>

In Europe, the North American theater of the Seven Years' War usually is not given a separate name. The entire international conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. These dates do not correspond with the fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the <hl> Battle of Jumonville Glen <hl> in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.


Question: What was French population in North America?

The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.

Answer: about 75,000

<hl> The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). <hl> Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.

The French population numbered <hl> about 75,000 <hl> and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.


Question: Where were French North Americans settled?

Answer: heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia

<hl> The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). <hl> Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.

The French population numbered about 75,000 and was <hl> heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia <hl> (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.


Question: Where did French fur trappers travel?

Answer: St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women

The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. <hl> French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women . <hl> Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.

The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia, including Île Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island)). Fewer lived in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the <hl> St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women <hl>. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.

French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the <hl> St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local tribes, and often married Indian women <hl> .


Question: What was the ratio of British settler to French?

British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south. Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

Answer: 20 to 1

<hl> British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south. <hl> Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

British settlers outnumbered the French <hl> 20 to 1 <hl> with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south. Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.


Question: Where did British settlers live?

Answer: from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south

<hl> British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south . <hl> Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, <hl> from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south <hl>. Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, <hl> from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south <hl> .


Question: Where were populations centered in colonies?

Answer: along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior

British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south. Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. <hl> While their population centers were along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior . <hl> Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the eastern coast of the continent, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the north, to Georgia in the south. Many of the older colonies had land claims that extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time their provincial charters were granted. While their population centers were <hl> along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior <hl>. Nova Scotia, which had been captured from France in 1713, still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land, where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local tribes.

While their population centers were <hl> along the coast, the settlements were growing into the interior <hl> .


Question: In between French and British, what groups controlled land?

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

Answer: native tribes

<hl> In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes . <hl> To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by <hl> native tribes <hl>. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by <hl> native tribes <hl> .


Question: What tribes were in Father Le Loutre's War?

Answer: Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. <hl> To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. <hl> The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the <hl> Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki <hl> were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.


Question: Where did Iroquois Confederation control?

Answer: present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. <hl> The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country , although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. <hl> These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of <hl> present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country <hl>, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements.

The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of <hl> present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country <hl> , although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo.


Question: What rule did some native live under?

Answer: Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. <hl> These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements . <hl>

In between the French and the British, large areas were dominated by native tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenaki were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of present-day Maine. The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of present-day Upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although the latter also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingo. These tribes were formally under <hl> Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements <hl>.

These tribes were formally under <hl> Iroquois rule, and were limited by them in authority to make agreements <hl> .


Question: What are the Siouan-speaking tribes?

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.

Answer: Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw

<hl> Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw , and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. <hl> When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking <hl> Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw <hl>, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking <hl> Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw <hl> , and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes.


Question: What areas did French recruit natives from?

Answer: western portions of the Great Lakes region

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. <hl> When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. <hl> The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in <hl> western portions of the Great Lakes region <hl> (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.


Question: What tribes supported British?

Answer: Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. <hl> The British were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. <hl> In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.

Further south the Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawba, Muskogee-speaking Creek and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes. When war broke out, the French used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region (an area not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British), including the Huron, Mississauga, Ojibwa, Winnebago, and Potawatomi. The British were supported in the war by the <hl> Iroquois Six Nations, and also by the Cherokee <hl> – until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758 the Pennsylvania government successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton, in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creek and Cherokee were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict. It was not uncommon for small bands to participate on the "other side" of the conflict from formally negotiated agreements, as most tribes were decentralized and bands made their own decisions about warfare.


Question: What was Frensh military presence at start of war?

At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and few British troops. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

Answer: no French regular army troops were stationed in North America

<hl> At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America , and few British troops. <hl> New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

At the start of the war, <hl> no French regular army troops were stationed in North America <hl>, and few British troops. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

At the start of the war, <hl> no French regular army troops were stationed in North America <hl> , and few British troops.


Question: How much British military was in North America at start of War?

Answer: few British troops

<hl> At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and few British troops . <hl> New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and <hl> few British troops <hl>. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and <hl> few British troops <hl> .


Question: What was normal British defense?

Answer: mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces.

At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and few British troops. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. <hl> Most British colonies mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces. <hl>

At the start of the war, no French regular army troops were stationed in North America, and few British troops. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. Most British colonies <hl> mustered local militia companies, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, to deal with native threats, but did not have any standing forces. <hl>


Question: What was extent of Celeron's expedition?

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians. The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.

Answer: about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749.

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians. <hl> The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. <hl> At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians. The expedition covered <hl> about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. <hl> It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.


Question: Who was on Celeron's expedition?

Answer: 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians

<hl> Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians . <hl> The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about <hl> 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians <hl>. The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about <hl> 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians <hl> .


Question: How did Celeron handle business on trip?

Answer: British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave.

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians. The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. <hl> Whenever he encountered British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave. <hl>

Céloron's expedition force consisted of about 200 Troupes de la marine and 30 Indians. The expedition covered about 3,000 miles (4,800 km) between June and November 1749. It went up the St. Lawrence, continued along the northern shore of Lake Ontario, crossed the portage at Niagara, and followed the southern shore of Lake Erie. At the Chautauqua Portage (near present-day Barcelona, New York), the expedition moved inland to the Allegheny River, which it followed to the site of present-day Pittsburgh. There Céloron buried lead plates engraved with the French claim to the Ohio Country. Whenever he encountered <hl> British merchants or fur-traders, Céloron informed them of the French claims on the territory and told them to leave. <hl>


Question: How did Natives in Logstown take Celeron's information?

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

Answer: informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French

<hl> When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French . <hl> Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area <hl> informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French <hl>. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area <hl> informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French <hl> .


Question: Where did Old Briton call home?

Answer: village of Pickawillany

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. <hl> Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany , the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". <hl> Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the <hl> village of Pickawillany <hl>, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the <hl> village of Pickawillany <hl> , the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton".


Question: How did Celeron handle meeting with Old Briton?

Answer: threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". <hl> Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British . <hl> "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron <hl> threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British <hl>. "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.

Céloron <hl> threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British <hl> .


Question: What was Old Briton's response to Celeron?

Answer: ignored the warning.

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. <hl> "Old Briton" ignored the warning. Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749. <hl>

When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of the French. Céloron continued south until his expedition reached the confluence of the Ohio and the Miami rivers, which lay just south of the village of Pickawillany, the home of the Miami chief known as "Old Briton". Céloron threatened "Old Briton" with severe consequences if he continued to trade with the British. "Old Briton" <hl> ignored the warning. <hl> Disappointed, Céloron returned to Montreal in November 1749.


Question: How did Celeron feel about Native relations?

In his extensively detailed report, Céloron wrote, "All I can say is that the Natives of these localities are very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English. I don't know in what way they could be brought back." Even before his return to Montreal, reports on the situation in the Ohio Country were making their way to London and Paris, each side proposing that action be taken. William Shirley, the expansionist governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, was particularly forceful, stating that British colonists would not be safe as long as the French were present. Conflicts between the colonies, accomplished through raiding parties that included Indian allies, had taken place for decades, leading to a brisk trade in European colonial captives from either side.

Answer: very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English

<hl> In his extensively detailed report, Céloron wrote, "All I can say is that the Natives of these localities are very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English . <hl> I don't know in what way they could be brought back." Even before his return to Montreal, reports on the situation in the Ohio Country were making their way to London and Paris, each side proposing that action be taken. William Shirley, the expansionist governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, was particularly forceful, stating that British colonists would not be safe as long as the French were present. Conflicts between the colonies, accomplished through raiding parties that included Indian allies, had taken place for decades, leading to a brisk trade in European colonial captives from either side.

In his extensively detailed report, Céloron wrote, "All I can say is that the Natives of these localities are <hl> very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English <hl>. I don't know in what way they could be brought back." Even before his return to Montreal, reports on the situation in the Ohio Country were making their way to London and Paris, each side proposing that action be taken. William Shirley, the expansionist governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, was particularly forceful, stating that British colonists would not be safe as long as the French were present. Conflicts between the colonies, accomplished through raiding parties that included Indian allies, had taken place for decades, leading to a brisk trade in European colonial captives from either side.

In his extensively detailed report, Céloron wrote, "All I can say is that the Natives of these localities are <hl> very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English <hl> .