Imperial Agency in Pennsylvania During the Seven Years' War

Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2014 "Busy Mischievous Ffellows": Imperial Agency in Pennsylvania During the Seven Years' War Benjamin G. Scharff Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Scharff, Benjamin G., ""Busy Mischievous Ffellows": Imperial Agency in Pennsylvania During the Seven Years' War" (2014). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6578. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6578 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Busy Mischievous Ffellows”: Imperial Agency in Pennsylvania During the Seven Years’ War Benjamin G. Scharff Dissertation Submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Tyler Boulware, Ph.D., Chair Joseph Hodge, Ph.D Brian Luskey, Ph.D. Kenneth Fones-Wolf, Ph.D Daniel Barr, Ph.D., Robert Morris University Department of History Morgantown, West Virginia 2014 Keywords: Pennsylvania, Seven Years’ War, authority Copyright 2014 Benjamin G. Scharff ABSTRACT “Busy Mischievous Ffellows”: Imperial Agency in Pennsylvania During the Seven Years’ War Benjamin G. Scharff This project explores British colonial interaction with imperial authority in mid-eighteenth century Pennsylvania. The goal is to show that reactions to this authority proved much more complicated than previously identified. This has been done by examining the personal interactions of Pennsylvanians with Britons in political, economic, diplomatic and inter-colonial affairs. Upon examination of these exchanges, it becomes clear that Pennsylvanians differed greatly in their support of British authority depending on their personal place in society and the particular issues they were most personally connected to. By demonstrating the variety of reactions, this research highlights the importance of studying colonial opposition to Great Britain on a local level. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people are deserving of thanks for assisting me in the completion of my work. First, several of my fellow students—Isaac Emrick, Kat Fichtel, Laura Nelson, Jason Roberts, and Alec Upward—pushed me to improve during my time at West Virginia University. A special thanks is merited by Kat and Alec, along with my brother Pete Scharff, for sacrificing their time in reading dissertation chapters and providing me with invaluable comments. The faculty and staff at the history department at West Virginia were likewise extremely supportive throughout the course of my time at the university. The secretaries, Martha May and Becky Warnke, adeptly helped guide me through the program while the department chair, Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, offered consistent support. My committee, consisting of Ken Fones-Wolf, Brian Luskey, Joseph Hodge, and Tyler Boulware, shared their knowledge and provided excellent direction. A special thank you is merited by Tyler who served as my principal advisor and as such worked with me more minutely throughout the process. I would remiss if I did not recognize those outside the program who provided immeasurable sources of support. John Craig at Slippery Rock University, Kevin Kopper at Westmoreland County Community College, and Kathy Dennick-Brecht and Dan Barr at Robert Morris University each provided me with professional opportunities at their institution which have proven invaluable to my success. Dan additionally agreed to serve as my outside committee reader. Professionals at the David Library of the Revolution, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, British Library, Scottish National Archives, and Bodleian Library assisted me greatly in acquiring the research materials necessary to complete my project. My research additionally benefitted greatly from the lengthened time I was able to spend in London with the convenient lodging provided by childhood friend David Antoline and his very patient wife Katie. Finally, I would not have been successful without the unwavering support of my family. My father and brothers Pete, Andy, and Jon were consistent sources of motivation and encouragement. iii Their support pales only in comparison to that supported by Shasta. I look forward immensely to show her what a life without a dissertation is like. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………iii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 CHAPTER 1. Pennsylvania Provincial Politics……………………………………………………………………..20 CHAPTER 2. British Imperial Policy…………………………………………………………………………………….40 CHAPTER 3. The British Military and Provincial Authority…………………………………………………..90 CHAPTER 4. Pennsylvanians and Indian Policy…………………………………………………………………..119 CHAPTER 5. Southern Native Americans and Pennsylvania………………………………………………155 CHAPTER 6. British Agents and Colonial Competition………………………………………………….189 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….217 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..227 v Introduction On November 27, 1758, General John Forbes reported from the smoldering remains of Fort Duquesne that he had successfully ousted the French from their position controlling the contested Ohio Country region. Longstanding competition between the French and British for the strategic and lucrative territory had prompted the French to move military forces in to secure its control in 1754, which led the British to respond in turn. The resulting conflict, the Seven Years’ War, engulfed four continents and engaged numerous combatants. The war proceeded poorly for Great Britain in North America from the outset. Stunned by a series of significant defeats and paralyzed by lighting raids by France’s Canadian and Native American allies, Britain faced almost certain defeat until the tide began to turn in 1758 when significant support began to arrive under the direction of Secretary of State William Pitt. Pitt proposed a three-pronged attack that year that proved too overwhelming to be countered by the French. The Secretary entrusted the southernmost offensive to Forbes, an officer who had spent the majority of his career arranging the supply and maintenance of armies rather than commanding them in the field. He proved an excellent choice. Moving his headquarters to Philadelphia and opting for an attack on the French position in the Ohio Country where the conflict had begun, Forbes successfully harnessed the strength of the southern colonies, binding them to the British military, and drove the French out of the contested territory. Militarily, the French posed little threat to Forbes’s advance. The French possessed several hundred troops and an unstipulated, but certainly not overwhelming, amount of Canadians and Native Americans to combat the nearly eight thousand men under Forbes’s command. The general’s primary challenge resulted from the wide assortment of soldiers comprising his army—Scottish Highlanders, Germans, Pennsylvanians, Marylanders, Virginians, North Carolinians, Cherokee & Catawba among 1 others—and the corresponding squabbles that existed amongst some of these entities. Here Forbes’s administrative talents served him well. Navigating a labyrinth of issues within colonies, between colonies, and amongst Britain’s Native American allies, the general managed to secure the necessary support to keep his army in the field long enough to compel the French to abandon their position. Generating this necessary support from the provinces did not proceed as smoothly as British authorities might have thought because many of the colonists negotiated their interactions with Forbes and his officers rather than responding with unquestioning compliance. The general’s close interaction with various entities in North America thus proves an instructive arena to examine the nature of colonial views of their relationship with Great Britain in the mid-eighteenth century. Upon first arriving in North America in 1756, Forbes’s second-in-command, Colonel Henry Bouquet of the Royal American Regiment, reported that “while entering the city on horseback at the head of the battalion a farmer rogue mounted on a nag lashed at me with his whip.”1 This had been, the colonel further noted, the third episode of its kind. Bouquet’s negative interaction with a colonist colorfully mirrors other clashes that occurred between British military authorities and colonists throughout the colonial period. His report about colonial hostility has thus become, in part, the basis for a conveniently simplistic narrative about the decline of the relationship between the British and their North American colonists in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. According to this narrative, the relationship between Britain’s North American colonies and the imperial metropole

Load more