A Battle in Quaker Pennsylvania: Reading a Document of the French and Indian War

by Kim Kutz

Introduction

Coming across a primary document when you're doing research in history is like taking a time machine back to the instant that a significant event took place. Finally, instead of just hearing about how a particular figure felt, or reading an account that only sums up what happened without going into the details, you hold in your hands the truth. The real words, as they were written, sometimes even in the original handwriting of the person who first came up with the notions that have been passed down to us as accepted history today.

But is it the whole truth? Sometimes it's easy to forget that our ancestors were no more all-knowing that we are; they didn't always have all the facts for themselves when they wrote the documents that have become their paper trail for us today. Reading a primary document can be a tricky business-to fully understand what the author felt, or the true meaning of the positions he or she may have taken, it's necessary to place the document in context. What major events had just taken place at the time it was written? What political or moral beliefs led the author to his stance? Are the views or the account she has recorded pure fact, or are they colored by prejudices or propaganda that may be difficult to catch from our modern perspective?

William Smith's A Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania is an example of one of these very complex documents. Set in the context of the French and Indian War, Smith advocates a position that would be unheard of today. He writes from what we would call the "wrong side of history": as a colonist wholeheartedly loyal to England, he believes that the government of Pennsylvania has become far too democratic in its handling of the war, and that the best thing for the colony would be to return to a much more autocratic rule. He also impugns the behavior of the elected Assembly, comprised mainly of Quakers, and accuses its members-who have gone down in history as principled, nonviolent protesters of war-of being selfish and power-hungry. During his lifetime, William Smith called into question the motives of some of the characters we look back upon as national heroes-most notably Ben Franklin-and challenged the validity of American democracy as we know it.

This essay attempts to break down the historical circumstances surrounding William Smith's polemical tirade against the Quaker government in an attempt to find the truth behind his words and to discover the benefits of using primary documents in the study of history.

The French and Indian War

The French and Indian War, which is also known as The Seven Years' War and as The Great War for Empire, lasted from 1756 to 1763. Though just a small part of a greater contest between England and France to determine which of those countries would dominate in colonizing the New World, it is considered a very important event in American history because of its role in shaping the Revolutionary War. The hostilities-and debts-this war stirred up between England and her colonies would explode in just a few years' time into British taxes and American protests. Furthermore, during the French and Indian War, a young Virginia militia officer named George Washington would garner his first recognition. William Smith's document criticizing the Pennsylvania colonial assembly for refusing to help the British protect the colonies from the French and their allied Native American forces will later become typical of accusations that the colonists weren't pulling their weight financially in the British Empire. To make up for their monetary losses in the French and Indian War, the British declared the Stamp Act in 1763. The subsequent riots and protests in the colonies over taxation began the chain of events that would soon lead to American independence.

But when William Smith wrote his Brief State in 1755, he couldn't have known what sorts of consequences the conflict in Western Pennsylvania would provoke. What he did know was that the dispute over territory in the Ohio River valley was getting intense. The 'uncharted' territory (which was already inhabited by the Delaware, Shawnee and Seneca tribes) around the forks of the Ohio River was not formally claimed by either power, though the French alleged to have made certified inroads during a 1750 expedition from Canada.(1)

The British insisted that the area be kept open for trade, establishing the Ohio Company as a private land venture. The French, however, saw the Ohio Company as an attempt by the British to claim the territory, and they directed troops as well as militia to establish a presence there. They built forts and expelled any British colonists already settled in the region.(2)

The British colonies responded in kind. In 1754, Robert Dinwiddie, governor of Virginia, ordered twenty three year old George Washington, Lieutenant Colonel in the Virginia militia, to lead a force of two hundred men into the Ohio River Valley. They were assigned to complete the construction of a British fort already in progress there, and to defend it from any onslaught from French forces. But before Washington's troops even arrived, they received news that the French had taken control of the fort and renamed it Fort Duquesne. Not to be dissuaded from his assignment to protect English interests in the region, Washington established Fort Cumberland at Wills Creek, then marched on toward Great Meadows and Fort Necessity.(3)

From May 24th to the 27th, Washington and his troops built Fort Necessity, in preparation for an ambush on nearby French forces. When they attacked, they killed ten French troops (including the commander, Ensign Coulon de Jumonville), and took twenty-one French soldiers prisoner, despite the fact that the French had foreknowledge of their "surprise attack." This unexpected victory marked the beginning of military combat in this theatre of the Great War for Empire, but it was the precursor to an embarrassing loss that notified the British that the struggle for dominance in Western Pennsylvania was not going to be easy.(4)

The arrival of British Regulars to aid Washington's detachment instantly caused serious problems in the chain of command. Captain James MacKay, who outranked Washington, refused to take any orders from his subordinate. With their forces in such disarray, the British were decimated by both gunfire and desertion when the French and the Native American forces attacked Fort Necessity on July 3rd. After nine hours of battle in the pouring rain, French Captain Coloun de Villiers, who felt he had adequately avenged his brother Jumonville, requested a settlement. The French were to take control of Fort Necessity, and George Washington would lead his troops back to Virginia without further provocation from the French or Native Americans-but the Native Americans decided to attack the British Forces anyway, killing several men and scalping many others, and the French officers made no attempt to stop them.(5)

Then, in mid-1755, the situation took a turn for the worse when the squadron assigned to recapture Fort Duquesne, led by the arrogant British General Braddock as well as George Washington, was attacked by French and Native American soldiers. Poor strategy, worse performance and a regrettable tendency to underestimate the enemy led Braddock to sustain 1,373 casualties among his 1,400 men, in comparison to the 36 casualties among 400 men on the French side. Braddock himself was killed in the skirmish, and George Washington was left to make his name by burying the General and guiding the remaining men to safety.(6)

More than anything, this humiliation and tragedy demonstrated to the British that they would not be able to defeat the French without substantial forces of British Regulars. Western Pennsylvania was now a serious point of contention in the Great War for Empire that required earnest attention from the British Empire.(7)

The Colonial Assembly

But when the British turned to the Pennsylvanians to make their contribution to the war effort, they found a colonial Assembly unwilling to defend its own territory. Back in Philadelphia, the political center of the colony, a heated controversy was taking place over the actions of the Assembly.

Pennsylvania was founded by in 1682 William Penn, son of the Admiral after whom the colony was named, as a place where Quaker precepts could be practiced as a "Holy Experiment." The Quakers were a religious group whose tenets sharply contradicted those of the austere Puritans who populated the New England colonies. Quakers, also called Friends, believed that all individuals had a divine light within them, and therefore no one could ever be justified in participating in any kind of violence or murderous activity against a fellow human being. Wholehearted pacifists, they embraced a culture of widespread equality, defiance against institutional religious practices, and tolerance for the native inhabitants of Pennsylvania.(8)

Pennsylvania was established as a proprietary colony-in other words, as the property of the Penn family. By 1701, a Charter of Privileges guaranteed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the colony, as well as giving men with fifty acres of land or fifty pounds worth of property a vote. A single-house Assembly was elected annually from the people. This Assembly could draft and implement legislation, although the right of veto was still reserved for the proprietors.(9)

However, problems grew as the colony grew. William Penn's kind treatment and strict adherence to treaties with the Lenape tribe was subverted by his sons, who orchestrated the famously deceitful 'Walking Purchase' of 1737: they produced an old deed that they claimed their father had negotiated but never carried out in 1700, which detailed a sale of land to the Pennsylvanians amounting to how far a man could walk in a day and a half. The Penns hired runners to hike a path they had already cleared, gobbling up sixty miles worth of land and all of the area between it and the river.(10)

But the issue that came to a head during the French and Indian War was the power of the Assembly. By 1755, the Assembly controlled the dispensation of money, including the salary of the governor, in addition to its other numerous legislative and executive powers. When the call for money to support the British forces and defend Pennsylvania colonists living in Western Pennsylvania came to the Quaker members of the Assembly, their religious commitment to pacifism left them in a quandary.(11)

The Document In Detail

It was in this atmosphere that William Smith drafted his Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania. Composed in the form of a letter, it was really a piece of propaganda meant to inflame readers in Pennsylvania and in England.(12) "In your last," he writes to his imaginary correspondent, "you was [sic] pleased to desire some Account of the State of Pennsylvania, together with the Reasons why we, who are esteemed one of the richest Colonies in North America, are the most backward in contributing to the Defence of the British Dominions in these Parts, against the present unwarrantable Invasions of the French?"(13)

He admits that the government of the Quakers in the early days of the colony was excellent, but puts forward the belief that the current Assembly was banking on the reputation of Quakers as "honest, sober and thoughtful" people to turn religion in to a "political Scheme of Power."(14)

The biggest mistake of the Pennsylvania government, according to Smith, was that it had grown too democratic. A small settlement could grow quickly with a popular government, he argues, but once administrating a large number of inhabitants becomes difficult, a government should add more checks to the power of the people. He expresses his outrage and disbelief that the citizens of the colony should be growing so quickly in "power, numbers, and riches" while their "governors have been decreasing in the same proportion ever since." The government of 1755, he confides in horror, is "now more a 'pure Republic' than when there were not ten thousand souls in it."(15)

Furthermore, Smith can not believe that it was up to the Assembly to decide the disposal of public money, especially their power to decide the salary of the governor, which they could withhold if he did not agree to enact their legislation. "Possessed of such unrestrained Powers and Privileges," he says of the Assembly, "they seem quite intoxicated; are factious, contentious, and disregard the Proprietors and their Governors. Nay, they seem even to claim a kind of Independency of their Mother-Country, despising the Orders of the Crown, and refusing to contribute their Quota, either to the general Defence of America, or that of their own particular Province."(16)

For instance, he points out that the colony had been reluctant to send aid to British forces abroad, and had allowed only one fort in Western Pennsylvania to be constructed, at the expense of private citizens, compared to the three French forts in the area. He reckons that English and European citizens view the Assembly as indifferent to whether the colony was taken over entirely by the French-as it is a rare occurrence that a government does not undertake to defend itself when attacked by foreign invaders. All of the British colonial forces that met the French in Western Pennsylvania had been called either from Europe or the southern colonies-George Washington's Virginia militia and MacKay's Regulars from South Carolina.(17)

After this point, Smith's letter reveals itself as a piece of propaganda. He attacks the license toward Catholics in Pennsylvania, appealing to fears of a worldwide Papist conspiracy. He attacks the German community in Pennsylvania, claiming that the Quakers were using a newspaper written in their vernacular language to spread ugly rumors about the proprietors and the governor in order to keep the Quaker Assembly in power. He theorizes that the Quakers in power were opposed to passing a Militia Law in order to minimize a bureaucracy that might vote them out of office. He even plays upon England's longstanding rivalry and revile toward France: "A French Enemy and their Savage Allies advanced far into our Territory! The People on our Frontiers liable to be murdered or driven from their Habitations! Our Lives and all our sacred rights exposed as easy Prey! ----And all this owing to the Infatuation and detestable Policy of a Set of Men who mind no Consequences, provided they can secure their own Power and their Seats in the Assembly."(18)

Smith does make one good point, however, when he notes that the Assembly's treatment of the Native Americans was not to the advantage of Pennsylvanians. He claims that the Assembly refused offers from the Native Americans in Western Pennsylvania to build forts for their own protection and the protection of the colonists in the area, missing the opportunity to establish good relations with them. Similarly, he alleges that the cries for help defending their families against Native Americans and French from white settlers in the backcountry were ignored by the Assembly altogether.(19)

He ends by recommending that a number of measures be taken to stabilize the situation, including limiting the position of schoolmaster to Protestant candidates, restricting the publication of newspapers in foreign languages as well as the vote for Germans "till they have Sufficient knowledge of our Language and Constitution," and requiring a Test Oath for members of the Assembly-effectively barring Quakers, who are prohibited by their religious beliefs from taking oaths, from participating in government.(20)

William Smith

Smith was born in Scotland in 1727. He attended Aberdeen University, which he left early in order to teach. He taught in Scotland for a few years, and then moved to the colonies to become a tutor in Long Island. After writing an essay on education called A General Idea of the College of Mirania following a controversy over the founding of King's College (now Columbia), he was discovered by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin set Smith up at the Academy of Philadelphia, which Smith soon rearranged into the College of Philadelphia with himself as provost.(21)

In 1754, Smith took Anglican orders, and officially became the Reverend William Smith, bolstering his image as an academic leader. But Ben Franklin, who had recommended that Smith become friends with Pennsylvania's proprietor, Thomas Penn, soon lost his appreciation for the new provost when Smith vociferously took the side of Penn in this document. His criticism of the Quaker government led Franklin's followers to call him "the infernal prince of darkness and father of lies." (22) After another vicious attack on the Assembly, printed in 1757, they went so far as to imprison him.

A Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania wasn't the first, or even the most famous, controversial document written by William Smith. In the wake of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Smith took on the identity of "Cato," and in his subsequent letters called for caution in the revolution, rather than radical change. His lack of commitment to revolutionary ideals prompted the Pennsylvania legislature to close the College of Philadelphia in 1779.(23)

Smith is a complicated figure in the era of colonial history. His writings reveal a man both passionately involved in current events and constantly suspicious of conspiracy-perhaps with good reason, as it seems that more than one unjust attempt to discredit him was made during his lifetime. His career as an educator has been celebrated for his belief in tolerance-teaching the likes of Benjamin West and Francis Hopkinson, Smith championed secular education, which he believed would encourage spirituality indirectly as instructors took the "proper opportunities of dropping seeds of goodness" into the hearts of students.(24)

He was elected the first bishop of the Anglican diocese in Maryland that he had helped to establish-but unsubstantiated rumors of public drunkenness disqualified him from the position. After the College of Philadelphia was restored in 1789 as the University of Pennsylvania, Smith was passed over entirely for a position-not because of his loyalist sympathies during the Revolution, but because his ideas on leadership in education were too strong.(25)

His "Whiggish loyalism" earned him ire during his lifetime, but in retrospect, the defense he and his lawyer mounted for his imprisonment by the Assembly envisaged the very same stance on the separation of powers that the American Revolution would soon guarantee.(26)

Overall, Smith comes across as an educated, principled man who made the mistake of quarreling with many of the figures we call heroes today. His bitterness about the treatment he received from these figures-whether fair or not-comes across most vividly in his writings. A Brief State is the ultimate expression of his abilities as a "skillful propagandist" bent on reforming the governmental body of Pennsylvania to a form more suitable to his liking.(27)

The Quaker Point of View

To understand the position of the members of the Quaker Assembly, it is necessary to examine their reluctance to submit funds for the prosecution of war in light of their own views and circumstances.

The Quakers had been more or less in control of the Assembly since its adoption, but they struggled with an essential disconnect between their own ideals and the practice of government. When the Assembly originally passed a tax in July, 1755 to support the war in Western Pennsylvania, the more conservatively pacifist members of the Assembly felt that they were honor-bound to their religion not to pay-or even to levy-the tax. The most repugnant facet of the tax, they felt, was that it taxed the land of citizens, meaning that anyone who paid it was indirectly supporting violence, Quaker or not. And, since the Quakers themselves had initiated the tax, they were "essentially dictating the management of the war" and not just peacefully complying with government as their traditions suggested they do.(28) However, the Quakers officially followed the Biblical injunction that they pay taxes to their government, even if they quarreled with it ideologically. As Quaker William Forster expressed it:

When the Roman Emperor's collectors queried of Peter: Doth your master pay tribute, Peter answered yes . . . and as we understand, the Roman Emperor was at that time in a war, it seems to me difficult, to distinguish between paying the Emperor's tax at that time, and the King's now. . . . Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.(29)

The Quakers have been widely praised for their "Holy Experiment" in government. After all, what other actively pacifist government had survived for so long? Isaac Sharpless, an historian who wrote exhaustively on the government of Quakers in Pennsylvania, praised their efforts: "Their ruling power in relation to government was their conscience divinely instructed," he said. "This called for obedience, for reverence, for submission. They were the most peace-loving and peaceable of subjects, restraining themselves and their froward brethren; insisting on the full performance of all governmental duties; but back of this it was perfectly known that legislation offensive to their convictions would be met by a resistance absolutely invulnerable, requiring more bravery than an open armed fight, and entirely sufficient in itself in time to conquer the offending legislation."(30)

It was John Woolman who best summarized the stance of pacifist Quakers in the Assembly:

Some of our members who are Officers in Civil Government are in one case or other called upon in their respective Stations to Assist in things relative to the wars, Such being in doubt whether to act or crave to be excused from their Office, Seeing their Brethren united in the payment of a Tax to carry on the said wars, might think their case [nearly like theirs, &] so quench the tender movings of the Holy Spirit in their minds, and thus by small degrees there might be an approach toward that of Fighting, till we come so near it, as that the distinction would be little else but the name of a peaceable [sic] people.(31)

Quakers worried that their support of a war would destroy the integrity of the church, proving the Society of Friends to be hypocrites in front of Pennsylvania and the world. (32)

Woolman and twenty members of the Assembly issued An Epistle of Tender Love and Caution to Friends in Pennsylvania in December of 1755, detailing their reasons for objecting to the tax and to any attempt by the Quaker Assembly to sponsor the war.(33)

Some members of the Assembly who did not cling as rigidly to the tenets of pacifism believed that it was necessary for Friends to withdraw from the legislature during wartime.(34)

In the following months, ten members of the of the Assembly resigned for various reasons-in some cases to avoid compromising the ability of the Assembly to conduct its business, in others to obey the orders of the London Society of Friends, which had suggested that Friends disassociate themselves from government during war in order to prevent any ideological conflicts.(35)

English Quakers, who had also been charged with property taxes to support the war effort, paid the tax, prompting charges that the English friends were "less conscientious and pacifistic than their American bretheren."(36)

In the wake of this evaluation, with the refusal of the remaining members of the Pennsylvania Assembly to step down as they had been asked to do, the London Friends moved to censure the Pennsylvanians in 1758. They did not succeed, but the danger of a split between Atlantic Quakers over the tax issue prompted the London Friends to avoid mentioning it from that point forward.(37)

Back in Pennsylvania, the Assembly briefly moved toward support of the war. In 1758, General John Forbes asked for wagons and teams to support his army's expedition to Fort Duquesne. The Quakers supported the legislation, and some Friends even personally supplied wagons. The outrage generated by this action, however, triggered a motion at the Quaker Yearly Meeting to declare any support of military expeditions in contradiction to their pacifist ideals. It also asserted that Friends were to decline any public office that might lead them to perform duties that could compromise the Quaker ethic, especially those that could force other Quakers to break their vows through forced complicity, such as a tax.(38)

The French and Indian War ended without any definitive statement as to whether pacifism and government were mutually exclusive. In his essay, "Conscience, the Quaker Community, and the French and Indian War," Jack Marietta confirms that "it had never become the policy of the Yearly Meeting that government was always and continually inimical to Quaker ethics, but only that some public offenses in wartime were irreconcilable with Quaker pacifism."(39) It would not be until the start of the Revolutionary War that the Pennsylvania Assembly would meet its crucible.

Weighing the Evidence

Reconciling the accusations of William Smith with the principles of the Assembly is difficult to do. Clearly, the reluctance of the Quakers to allot funds for a violent endeavor was born out of a genuine concern for the pacifist beliefs laid down by William Penn when he founded the colony.

But, in a time of war, government driven strictly by conscience could be dangerous to citizens in the colony. Deadlock between the Assembly and the Proprietor meant the denial of a fort for the defense of citizens living in the Ohio River Valley. It is arguable that the inaction from the Assembly contributed to the brutal 1763 massacre of Native Americans by the Paxton Boys, who felt that their lack of protection from hostile Native American forces in the war as well as their "inequitable allotment of representatives in the Assembly" called for a shameful and racist attack on a peaceful tribe.40 However, as Isaac Sharpless reminds us, "It must not be forgotten that notwithstanding all difficulties and imperfections there was for seventy years an efficient government in Pennsylvania, based largely on Penn's ideas. There were no wars or external troubles. The home affairs were quiet and orderly. Prosperity and contentment reigned, immigrants came in unprecedented numbers, and the public finances were so managed to encourage trade and lay no unnecessary burdens. Peace and justice were for two generations found available defences [sic] for a successful state."(41)

William Smith's document is undeniably inflammatory, and he plays upon many prejudices and sympathies of his intended audience in England. His suggestion that a Test Oath be required of members of the Assembly, in effect making it impossible for Quakers to participate in government, was obviously motivated by prejudice and not unlike the famous grandfather clauses of the Jim Crow era. However, his observation that the actions of the Assembly were alienating Native Americans and colonists living in the backcountry of Western Pennsylvania were not unfounded. As Matthew C. Ward writes in his book Breaking the Backcountry, "When faced with the Indians' onslaught, backcountry inhabitants were not prepared to accept unquestioning the leadership of the eastern elite . . . When the Pennsylvania Assembly delayed authorizing a defense bill, a mob of seven hundred backcountry settlers descended upon Philadelphia demanding protection."(42)

In the end, we are left to question whether "Quaker ethics, especially pacifism, were incompatible with occupation of civil offices."(43)

By 1776, John Adams put forth a resolution that "where no government sufficient to the exigencies of affairs existed . . . [the people should take control and create one] best conducive to their happiness and safety."(44) This motion was directed at Pennsylvania, whose participation in the Revolution had been conflicted and limited due to the influence of the Quakers in the Assembly.

The radical leaders in Pennsylvania finally instituted a kind of Test Oath of their own: they dissolved the Assembly and required that anyone who wished to vote for representatives to write the state's constitution had to take an oath swearing their defiance against the British.(45)

The "Holy Experiment" of pacifist government in Pennsylvania was a success for decades, promoting religious tolerance and social equality in the colony. But when war came to Pennsylvania, the conflict between protecting its people and adhering to its beliefs foreshadowed the destruction of the Quaker Assembly.

Conclusion

When we read William Smith's A Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania, we are faced with the political agendas and prejudices of a bitter man with a mission to spread propaganda. But we are also faced with a genuine opinion from the time period, from which we are able to glean some truths about how the people of the era thought and interacted. Researching the context and checking the facts that he puts forward in this letter give us a more complete understanding of how government functioned during the French and Indian War in Pennsylvania. Knowing Smith's biases allows us to pick apart his stance and formulate an historically accurate view of the conduct of Pennsylvania's Assembly. Going to the source, we can read the testimony from the Quakers he condemned, and think critically about their religious and philosophical dilemma as participants in government.

A primary source can be a mine of information, but the trick is in finding the diamonds in the rough. Nothing can better determine the truths of history than the opinions drafted by the people who participated in the events themselves. Learning to properly evaluate and balance these competing opinions makes the study of history come alive.

List of Sources

Brock, Peter. The Quaker Peace Testimony 1660-1914. York, England: Sessions Book Trust, 1990.

Calhoon, Robert. “William Smith.” American National Biography. John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Camenzind, Krista. “Violence, Race, and the Paxton Boys.” In Friends and Enemies in Penn’s Woods: Indians, Colonists, and the Racial Construction of Pennsylvania. William Pencak and Daniel K. Richter, eds. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Klepp, Susan E. “Encounter and Experiment: The Colonial Period.” In Pennsylvania: a History of the Commonwealth. Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, eds. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002.

Marietta, Jack D. “Conscience, the Quaker Community, and the French and Indian War.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 94 (Jan., 1971): 3-27.

Marston, Daniel. The French and Indian War 1754-1760. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Pencak, William. “The Promise of Revolution 1750-1800.” In Pennsylvania: a History of the Commonwealth. Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, eds. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002.

Sharpless, Isaac. A History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: T.S. Leach and Co., 1900.

Smith, William. A brief state of the province of Pennsylvania, in which the conduct of their assemblies for several years past is impartially examined, ... To which is annexed, an easy plan for restoring quiet in the public measures of that province, and defeating the ambitious views of the French ... In a letter from a gentleman who has resided many years in Pennsylvania, to his friend in London. London: R. Griffiths, 1755.

Starna, William A. “The Diplomatic Career of Canasatego.” In Friends and Enemies in Penn’s Woods: Indians, Colonists, and the Racial Construction of Pennsylvania. William Pencak and Daniel K. Richter, eds. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Waddell, Louis M. and Bruce D. Bomberger. The French and Indian War in Pennsylvania 1753-1763: Fortification and Struggle During the War for Empire. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1996.

Ward, Matthew C. Breaking the Backcountry: The Seven Years’ War in Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1754-1765. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003.

You are here