long term causes of the french and indian war?
141827
The French and Indian War was fought for the same reason all wars, current and past, were/are being fought/for. Territorial disputes. The Americans wanted to move into the Ohio Valley, the French and the Indians were already there. What do you get? A war, of course. \n\nBasically, the war was fought because both France and Britain wanted to control Northern Columbia.
553024
The Congress of Vienna met because of Napoleon...there was a long period of peace within Europe after that.  European countries were able to concentrate on internal affairs rather than the international ones, which would cause the revolutions in Greece/Germany or reforms in England.
145657
We have had two wars with Britian, the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  The American Revolution had many causes including taxes without corresponding representation in the British Parliament. Also resentment of the Quartering of British soldiers in colonist homes, the Boston Massacre, and the British punishment of Boston for the Boston Tea party. The War of 1812 was fought because the British were kidnapping American sailors off of American ships, and the British provoking Indians to attack Americans.
742252
Revolutionary War and French-Indian War would not count as wars America has fought after it became a country. The United States did not have sovereignty until after the Revolutionary War ended. So technically, the colonies did not constitute as a country yet. The French-Indian War took place prior to the Revolutionary War.\n\nSo the US, after its creation, fought in the War of 1812, Mexican-American War, American Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghanistan/Iraq (so called 'war on terror'). In that order.
859117
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1008.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars\n\nClick on the links for the individual battles during that time period in the wikipedia article for more info.
820762
1689—1763, the name given by American historians to the North American colonial wars between Great Britain and France in the late 17th and the 18th cent. They were really campaigns in the worldwide struggle for empire and were roughly linked to wars of the European coalitions. At the time they were viewed in Europe as only an unimportant aspect of the struggle, and, although the stakes were Canada, the American West, and the West Indies, the fortunes of war in Europe had more effect in determining the winner than the fighting in the disputed territory itself.\n\nTo the settlers in America, however, the rivalry of the two powers was of immediate concern, for the fighting meant not only raids by the French or the British but also the horrors of tribal border warfare. The conflict may be looked on, from the American viewpoint, as a single war with interruptions. The ultimate aim–domination of the eastern part of the continent–was the same; and the methods–capture of the seaboard strongholds and the little Western forts and attacks on frontier settlements–were the same.\n\nThe wars helped to bring about important changes in the British colonies. In addition to the fact of their ocean-wide distance from the mother country, the colonies felt themselves less dependent militarily on the British by the end of the wars; they became most concerned with their own problems and put greater value on their own institutions. In other words, they began to think of themselves as American rather than British.\n\nUsing trading posts and forts, both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country. \nBoth European countries ignored Native American claims to the land in order to pursue their beaver pelt economies. \nThe British colonists feared papal influence in North America (New France was administered by French governors and Roman Catholic hierarchy and missionaries such as Armand de La Richardie were active). For the predominantly Protestant British settlers, French control over North America could have represented a threat to their religious and other freedoms that were provided by English law.
860001
Wellll, I have no idea what "salutary neglect" is, maybe something to do with health?  Anyway, here is a site that provides a good discussion of the grievances of the colonists leading up to the Declaration of Independence. \n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_decl.html\n\nIt notes that the English finally won the French/Indian War in 1763, which took a terrible toll on the colonists both in terms of soldiers and taxes.  It discusses that forced taxation was a big issue, as were English soldiers forcibly residing in colonists' residences.  Also, that year the Proclamation of 1763 was declared which prohibited the southern expansion of settlements.  Also, note that at that time there were no trials by jury; colonists were at the mercy of English judges.  You can formulate some questions around these issues.\n\nGood luck!
258267
A variety of things caused the war, read your history book, it should tell you all about it.
171792
As trade between Native Americans and European settlers grew and as the Indians received European goods, traditional hunting and trading practices disappeared. Tribes began to compete with each other over trade with the Europeans.  \n\nFirst, as skilled hunters and suppliers of pelts, the Indians were sought after as trading partners and were exposed to white culture. \n\nIn exchange for their goods, the Indians received European products, both practical, such as iron tools and utensils, and decorative, such as bright-colored cloth and beads. \n\nThe Indians also received firearms and liquor, both of which had an enormous impact on Indian lifeways. \n\nA second and devastating effect from trade with whites was the outbreak of European diseases among the Indian population. \n\nA third effect was the long-term ecological disruption of the food chain by the depletion of fur-bearing mammals. \n\nAnd finally, the fur trade had another long-term impact in the Indians by bringing whites onto their lands. \n\nAfter the white traders, trappers, and hunters came the trading and military posts, and after the posts came the settlers.  Resulting in the loss of Native American lands.\n\nMost of what I could find was on the "fur trade", but you can also check the site below it contains more indepth information.  Hope this helps.  Good luck.
464486
There will always be world wars (if you're counting there have actually been nine, including the American Revolution, and the French and Indian War or Seven Years War depending on where you live) \n   There will be more world wars, as long as there are violent people on the earth, they just might not be labeled as such.
994967
The causes of the Industrial Revolution were complex and remain a topic for debate, with some historians seeing the Revolution as an outgrowth of social and institutional changes brought by the end of feudalism in Britain after the English Civil War in the 17th century. As national border controls became more effective, the spread of disease was lessened, therefore preventing the epidemics common in previous times. The percentage of children who lived past infancy rose significantly, leading to a larger workforce. The Enclosure movement and the British Agricultural Revolution made food production more efficient and less labour-intensive, encouraging the surplus population who could no longer find employment in agriculture into cottage industry, for example weaving, and in the longer term into the cities and the newly-developed factories. The colonial expansion of the 17th century with the accompanying development of international trade, creation of financial markets and accumulation of capital are also cited as factors, as is the scientific revolution of the 17th century.\n\nTechnological innovation protected by patents (by the Statute of Monopolies 1623) was, of course, at the heart of it and the key enabling technology was the invention and improvement of the steam engine[6].\n\nThe presence of a large domestic market should also be considered an important catalyst of the Industrial Revolution, particularly explaining why it occurred in Britain. In other nations, such as France, markets were split up by local regions, which often imposed tolls and tariffs on goods traded amongst them.[7]
356932
There were Loyalists in the American Revolution, maybe 20% of the population. The British also tried to recruit the Indians during the war and turn them against the Americans. That's the only thing that would suggest there was any kind of civil war during the revolution. More detail on this website...
693681
Some causes of slavery were immigration from other countries.this is because the u.s. did not want other groups of people to come.another was that they did not like the immigrants for some odd reason.An effect was that conflict around the u.s. started.Another effect was the war between the north and the south.An effect was also the underground railroad that helped slave escape from slavery.hope this helped!         :-)
660227
The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, politics, disagreements over the scope of States' rights, Manifest Destiny, sectionalism, economic competition, modernization, and competing nationalisms of the Antebellum period. Although there is little disagreement among historians on the details of the events that led to war, there is disagreement on exactly what caused what and the relative importance. There is no consensus on whether the war could have been avoided, or if it should have been avoided.
746192
Valcour Island.   He lost a navel battle with the British, but caused a delaying action.  Forced the British to delay for one year the attempt to divide the Colonies.
285939
The Treaty of Paris of 1783...\n\nIt was NOT the Treaty of Paris because that treaty ended the French and Indian War.
235055
If it is the US civil war, indeed slavery was one reason, but tensions between Northern and Southern politicians is another problem as they couldn't effectively compromise over how to deal with slavery and 1850 Compromise, Missouri Compromise etcetra were not effective. Also, Lincoln's election as President is a cause as well as he was suspected to be against slavery as he was a Republican:  as the Southern states succeeded in response to Lincoln's election, the North wanted the South to return = war. Also, arguments over who owned Fort Sumter is another cause. Other causes such as the break down of the two party system can be also claimed to have caused the civil war.