Why did the French and Indian War lead to increased taxes on Britain and American colonies?

Answer 1

Technically, there were no taxes directly on the colonists. There were tariffs, yes, but the tax on tea that motivated the Boston tea party wouldn't have effected the colonists, as the tea merchants of the british east India trading company would have footed the bill before any ships even left calcutta. The reason for these "restrictions" was that war costs money, and fighting a war 3000 miles from home across an ocean costs even more (as America should now realise, as they have 3 going on right now), so they were imposed to repay war debt.

Answer 2

Technically, there were no taxes directly on the colonists. There were tariffs, yes, but the tax on tea that motivated the Boston tea party wouldn't have effected the colonists, as the tea merchants of the british east India trading company would have footed the bill before any ships even left calcutta. The reason for these "restrictions" was that war costs money, and fighting a war 3000 miles from home across an ocean costs even more (as America should now realise, as they have 3 going on right now), so they were imposed to repay war debt.

Answer 3

It cost money to fight a war. The "French and Indian War" was the North American part of a World War between Britain and France known as the Seven Years War. It was fought in North and Central America, Europe, Africa, India, and the Philippines. Britain emerged victorious but the war more than doubled the national debt and Britain was close to bankruptcy. Neither side really gained or lost much, Britain gained Canada, which was relatively finacially unimportant to France, in exchange for keeping some West Indies possessions, and did transfer Louisiana to Spain.

The territories gained by Britain were in comparison to the 13 American colonies poor and unproductive, so new taxes were imposed on the colonies. If Britain had gained the sugar producing West Indian islands the story might have been different, but then France would have still been at the British colonies back door. As it was Britain had spent money and blood protecting the colonies and still had to maintain outposts against the Indians. The King and Parliament felt it only fair that the colonies should pay for that defense.

The Americans disagreed, claiming they were being overcharged, and, as Englishmen, couldn't be taxed without there permission by having representation in Parliament. And that they had actually won the War with local militias helped by British troops. They may have had a point, the British lost battles against French and Indian forces in America with European tactics. They had more success against purely French forces in Canada and after learning new tactics from colonial militia. But, as an American, I can also see the point of the British, that the French and Indian War, despite British success in America, was actually won by by winning the Seven Years War in the rest of the world. Even if the French had won in America, the losses elsewhere, especially in Europe, would have resulted in the same out come.

This was probably the first time that "America won the war " but it wouldn't be the last. Without the French Navy and Army and Spanish Army, America wouldn't have won the Revolution, which we all know was won by America and Americans. And of course, America saved Britain's and France's assets in WW1 and WW2, despite the fact that they had been fighting those wars for several years before America even became involved. Fans of The Simpsons also know the Britainn saved our assets in WW's 3, 4, and 5.

But I digress. Short answer, Britain spent a lot of money saving America from the French and Indians, America should pay the bill. America didn't want to pay the bill for saving India.