in search of better and cheaper land, or by the Assemblyman who wrangled with a royal governor for larger self-government. For the most part the campaigns were fought on European fields (Modern Progress, 229-245); but at bottom the conflict was not determined on the battlefield. Two systems of colonization were at war in America; and free individualism won over despotic centralization (§ 16). A despotic French governor could wield effectively all the resources of New France, though this advantage was offset in part by the corruption that always threatens such a system;1 while among the English, dissensions between colony and colony, and, within a given colony, between governor and Assembly, many times cost dear. But in the long run, the despotic governor proved no match for the democratic town meeting. Had the French ever succeeded in seizing Boston, they could never have held it—not even as long as King George did a few years later. On the other hand, the English needed only one decisive victory. For, despite the noble patriotism of a few great French leaders, the mass of French colonists had too little political activity to care greatly what country they belonged to, provided only they were treated decently. 182. The closing chapter of the struggle was "the Great French War" of 1754-1763, often called "the French and Indian War." Here the interest centers around two heroic antagonists, Montcalm and Wolfe. All grade students know the romantic story. England's command of the seas made it impossible for France to send Montcalm the reinforcements he pled for; and Wolfe's victory at Quebec settled forever the fate of the continent. By the final treaties of 1763, England received Florida from Spain, and Canada and the eastern half of the Mississippi Valley from France. The rest of the valley France ceded to her ally Spain, and, except for some West India Islands, she ceased herself to be an American power. North America was 66 1 Canada, says Parkman, was the prey of official jackals." For illustrations, see Thwaites' France in America, 220-221. § 184] NEW NAVIGATION ACTS 147 left to the vigorous English commonwealths and to decaying Spain, with a dividing line, temporarily, at the great central river. The continent was destined to be English in speech and civilization. III. ENGLISH CONTROL VS. AMERICAN LIBERTY 183. The seventy years from the English Revolution to the American Revolution have been called "a forgotten half century." In internal development there are no brilliant episodes, no heroic figures, and no new principles. Much was done, however, in extending institutions already established. The central theme is the continuance of that inevitable conflict that appeared in the preceding period (§ 177). Under the pressure of ceaseless war, England felt, even more keenly than before, the need of controlling her colonies; and the colonies, realizing dimly their growing strength, felt more and more their right to regulate their own affairs. The projects of the English government to extend its influence in the colonies had two phases, commercial and political. 184. Several new Navigation Acts extended the old commercial policy of the home country. To the "enumerated articles" to be exported only through England (§ 138), rice was added in 1706, and copper, naval stores,' and beaver skins in 1722. More important was a new kind of restriction upon American industry, a series of attempts to restrict or prohibit manufac tures. In 1696, a parliament of William III forbade any colony to export, even to England or to any other colony, any woolen manufacture. In 1732, exportation of hats 2 was forbidden. Legislation of this sort had no such excuse as the earlier navigation laws. The motive now was plain jealousy on the part of English manufacturers. 1 England compensated the colonies by paying generous bounties upon such materials sent to her. 2 Making hats from beaver skins had been a prominent industry in some northern colonies and in Pennsylvania. Bad as this was, the restrictions upon manufacturing so far were indirect: no colony had been forbidden to make any article for its own consumption. But in 1750 (almost at the close of the period) the erection or use of iron mills was prohibited altogether. Unlike the unpleasant features of the earlier commercial restrictions, too, this law could not be evaded. The half dozen iron COLONIAL FIREPLACE AND UTENSILS, "BROADHEARTH," Saugus, Massa chusetts. In this house, built in 1646, lived the first iron founder in America. The works were situated near by and were successfully carried on for a hundred years. Cf. page 75. mills that had appeared in the northern colonies were closed, and all manufacture of iron ceased, except for nails, bolts, and the simpler household and farm implements, such as in that day were turned out at the village smithy. These English laws of 1696, 1732, and 1750 were selfish and sinister, the most ominous feature in all American colonial history. They must have become bitterly oppressive ere long, had the colonists continued under English rule; and at the time they fully deserved the condemnation visited upon them by the |