George Washington's attack on the French in 1754 is what most historians nowadays consider to be the start of the French and Indian War. Was this view held during the late 1700's? Did, for example, the fact that he started the Seven Years War come up when picking him as the general of the American forces? Did Britain try a smear campaign against him using this fact? Or was Washington not yet accepted as the cause of The French and Indian War?
Quick clarifying question: is it well accepted that Washington "started" the French & Indian War like OP is saying? As a General, did he not take his orders from a colonial governor? Did he launch this attack without authorization or was he just carrying out his orders?
I just don't understand this question's premise. For instance, Yamamoto led the attack on Pearl Harbor and it was his plan and he urged it but I'm not aware of anyone who seriously points to Yamamoto as having started the Pacific war.
I want to chime in to clarify some things that seem to be overlooked:
first off, Washington's attack was in the summer of 1754. The Seven Years war started in 1756, that was two years later. Not every historian considers this as the start of the Seven Years war or even as a trigger. So I think it very questionable the OPs original premise that "most" historians think he started the war. This is questionable.
Whatever orders Washington was under he was not ordered to attack the French. Going from memory, and I will recheck this but I am pretty sure he was sent not with the idea of fighting anybody. Some of the posters are talking about orders he had, which I think he did, but he was not ordered to attack anyone as far as I recall.
To call what happened an "attack" is pretty generous account of what Washington did. Others would call it am "ambush" or a "massacre." What apparently happened was Washington found a small French party, and basically did a suprise attack and killed about a dozen of them including their leader a French noble named Jumonville. The place is now known as Jumonville Glen a few miles off of route 40 in So Western Pennsylvania.
The attack was clearly unprovoked. It also seems undisputed that it was as surprise attack. Given the parties were not at war, it can be labeled murder or at least an unfortunate incident. Not trying to pick sides here, just trying to point out that others are saying this was an "attack" which is pretty generous, it was at least an ambush, and technically more of a murder.
EDIT: Okay here is part of the written orders Washington was under: "act on the [defensive], but in Case any Attempts are made to obstruct the Works or interrupt our [settlements] by any Persons whatsoever, You are to restrain all such Offenders, & in Case of resistance to make Prisoners of or kill & destroy them." Quoted in Crucible of War by Fred Anderson, p 51.
So yeah, these are pretty open ended orders and one can interpret "resistance" pretty liberally and find a way to kill anyone who stands in your way.
The casualties are listed in that book as something like French 11 KIA, 1 wounded and 20 captured. The British 1 killed, and 2 or 3 wounded. So it seems like it was a pretty one sided affair. A number of original sources claim that Jumonville was only wounded when the Indian chief operating with Washington finished him off. I dont see any British source that really disputes this so I think something like this must have happened.
The details are still disputed It looks to me like an ambush. And dont consider Washingtons role in this very honorable.
As for the Seven Years War. The british sent Braddocks expedition the following year, which ended in his disastrous defeat A much larger force and Admiral Boscawen fought a naval action that year as well. So these incidents were certainly larger in scope than Washington's attack. So my opinion is that the British and to some extent French were both raising the stakes that led to the outbreak of the Seven Years war.