1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Travka [436]
3 years ago
12

Which describes the major cause of the French and Indian War? A. disagreements between the French and the Indians over how to us

e the land and who owns the land B. arguments about the prices Indians were paid for the furs they trapped for the British C.arguments about the rights of Indians in French North America D. disagreements between the French and British over land claims and the fur trade (I chose B...is that correct?) Thanks!
History
2 answers:
bixtya [17]3 years ago
5 0
Well I think the correct answer is C arguments about the right of Indians in French North America
steposvetlana [31]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The correct answer is D. The major causes of the French and Indian War were disagreements between the French and the British over land claims and the fur trade.

Explanation:

The French and Indian War was a war between France and Britain in North America between 1754 and 1763. The war ended with the Paris Peace Treaty, whereby France lost its territory in North America.

It began with a dispute between France and the United Kingdom over the control of the Ohio River Valley and, on a larger scale, was a competition for influence in most of North America. Fur trade formed an important factor for the inhabitants of both the French and English colonies in America. In 1727, with the permission of the Iroquois, the French had built a base at the mouth of the Niagara River, from where they ruled the beginning of the fur trade routes. At least in principle, the French also possessed the Mississippi River, from the Great Lakes to Louisiana. However, the Rich Valley area of ​​the Ohio Valley was threatened by Pennsylvania and Virginia migrants. To control the threat, Detroit's French commander Pierre-Joseph de Celoron de Blainville proposed the construction of a fortress chain from Lake Erie to the Ohio River. However, merchants from English settlements had already settled in the area. The Virginia colony maintained the area as its own and had begun to hand over land from the area to migrants since 1752.

The French began to forcibly expel English-speaking merchants from the controversial area by force in 1752 and, for example, the important Pickawillany trading station was destroyed. At the same time, the French began to build fortifications in the area to strengthen their position. In 1754, however, the trading position of the Ohio Trading Company near present-day Pittsburgh was destroyed. Fort Duquesne, French, was established in its place. In response to the actions of the French at that time, young Colonel George Washington later established a fort called Fort Necessity about 60 kilometers south of the French base. On May 28, Washington forces defeated a French reconnaissance force and, in response, the French besieged Fort Necessity on July 2. The French and their Indian allies had a larger number of defenders, and Washington decided to surrender the fortress to the French, leaving with their troops back to Virginia. The Colony of Virginia asked for help from Britain, where the idea of ​​war with the French was initially rejected. However, when it became clear that the Virginia troops could not cope with the French army's regular troops, King George II sent Major General Edward Braddock to Virginia. Admiral Edward Boscawen, for his part, was in charge of the Navy to prevent French reinforcements from entering Canada. The war thus expanded from the Ohio Valley into a war on a larger scale.

You might be interested in
(50 Points + Brainliest answer if it's detailed, original, and clear.)
nadezda [96]
Zealots were a political/philosophic movement in first century (what I call) Israel. They were (if I can put it this way) a sort of uncouth bunch who thought the only way to free themselves from Roman rule was to oppose the Romans with force. 

That was their platform. They did not take into account that the Roman's were a huge military power that was ruthless when antagonized. As these things go, Rome was a pretty good ruler. At least they knew the difference between meaningful opposition and tolerance of differences.

The zealots did not see Rome that way. They believed that any interference was too much interference. 

That's when Rome got upset and the first Jewish War of 65 AD or so began. It was like sticking your arm in a hornet's nest. The Zealots had gained the largely unwelcome wrath of Rome. The zealots were unlucky (in a way). If they had picked a time that a warrior/emperor was not leader, their opposition may have evaporated. It would be like hitting a marshmallow. Rome may have considered it an internal affair. They had up to this point. Even though some of the Pharisee priests supported the Zealots, the alliance was destroyed by the unwillingness to negotiate further. 

Anyone who is really dedicated can be termed a Zealot in modern times. I am using the term to describe someone that is Zealous. You could look up Galatians 1:11 - 14 to see how  Paul used the term. This connection between Paul and Jewish leaders (including Zealots) is really hotly debated. It's another hornet's nest.
3 0
3 years ago
Which explorer sought wealth but found the Mississippi River? Hernando de Soto Juan Ponce de León Francisco Vázquez de Coronado
BARSIC [14]
De Soto is the explorer that discovered the Mississippi River.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
By the 1860s, the united states had the most expansive franchise in the world, meaning that :
Luden [163]
I believe that means it had world power. I'm not positive but I hope this helps!
5 0
3 years ago
In the book thief how did death characterize the year 1942
Julli [10]
Death says he hasn't been so overworked since the Black Plague.

"1942, for Death, is one of those years where, more than most times in the full picture of human history, Death has to work just a bit harder."

Source(s): The Book Thief

6 0
4 years ago
Which bill of rights applied to the people?
alukav5142 [94]

Federalists argued that the constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti federalists held that Bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were main effects of the russian revolution?
    15·1 answer
  • Which of the following best descres Equality Colony?
    14·2 answers
  • 03.01 Interpreting History, for this assignment i chose the topic "Should students have to pass state or national tests to gradu
    7·1 answer
  • In at least 100 words, explain how Williams’s A Key into the language of America reflected his own religious views
    7·1 answer
  • Why do Skocpol and Williamson explain Tea Party Members’ fear of “societal decline” as more cultural than economic?
    14·1 answer
  • This Supreme Court decision indicated that the state must provide inmates with adequate medical care. Group of answer choices a)
    6·1 answer
  • How did the number of women involved in Texas politics change in the 1980s and 1990s
    11·1 answer
  • Who can approve or reject presidential nominees?
    15·1 answer
  • The second major step in Saul’s downfall was his incomplete obedience in the:
    5·1 answer
  • Follow me for answer your question
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!