Sunday, November 11, 2012
November 11
I spent this year reading many books set during and immediately after World War I. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 the carnage ended. Wilfred Owen was one of the poet/solders of World War I.
Owen died on November 3, 1918 and news of his death reached his family on Armistice Day. His poetry was published posthumously.
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilfred Owen
Saturday, November 3, 2012
250 Years Ago ... November 3, 1762
*Part of my continuing
blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis in February 2014.
On November 3, 1762 the representative of Louis, the most Christian king, finally managed to convince the representative of Carlos, the most Catholic king, that they could work a deal to put Spain and France in a position to end the war with Britain. The most Christian king, understanding completely the sacrifices that his dear relative, the most Catholic king, was going to make in giving up Florida to the British in order to get back Havana, was willing to do something really nice for him.
And, thus, the most Christian king betrayed his subjects then living in Louisiana.
____________
Notes:
French, Benjamin Franklin. Historical Memoirs of Louisiana, from the first settlement of the colony to the departure of Governor O'Reilly in 1770 (1853, Lamport Blakeman and Law) ebook version
On November 3, 1762 the representative of Louis, the most Christian king, finally managed to convince the representative of Carlos, the most Catholic king, that they could work a deal to put Spain and France in a position to end the war with Britain. The most Christian king, understanding completely the sacrifices that his dear relative, the most Catholic king, was going to make in giving up Florida to the British in order to get back Havana, was willing to do something really nice for him.
And, thus, the most Christian king betrayed his subjects then living in Louisiana.
Preliminary Convention between the Kings of France and Spain for the Session of Louisiana to the Latter
The most Christian king being firmly resolved to strengthen and perpetuate the bonds of tender amity which unite him to his cousin, the Catholic king, proposes in consequence to act with his Catholic majesty at all times and in all circumstances, in a perfect uniformity of principles, for the common glory of their house and the reciprocal interests of their kingdoms.
With this view, his most Christian majesty, being fully sensible of the sacrifices made by the Catholic king, in generously uniting with him for the restoration of peace, desires, on this occasion, to give him a proof of the strong interest which he takes in satisfying him and affording advantages to his crown.
The most Christian king has accordingly authorized his minister, the Duke de Choiseul, to deliver to the Marquius de Grimaldi, the ambassador of the Catholic king, in the most authentic form, an act, whereby his most Christian majesty cedes in entire possession, purely and simply, without exception, to his Catholic majesty and his successors, in perpetuity, all the country known as Louisiana, as well as New-Orleans and the island in which that place stands.
But as the Marquis de Grimaldi is not informed with sufficient precision of the intentions of his Catholic majesty, he has thought proper only to accept the said cession conditionally, and sub spe rati [under expectation that it will be ratified] until he receives the orders expected by him from the king, his master, which, if conformable with the desires of his most Christian majesty, as he hopes they will be, will be followed by the authentic act of cession of the said country; stipulating also the measures and the time, to be fixed by common accord, for the evacuation of Louisiana and New-Orleans, by the subjects of his most Christian majesty, and for the possession of the same by those of his Catholic majesty.
In testimony whereof, we, the respective ministers, have signed the present preliminary convention, and have affixed to it the seals of our arms.
Done at Fontainebleu, on the third of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty two.
THE DUKE DE CHOUISEUL
THE MARQUIS DE GRIMALDI
(a true copy from the original)
THE DUKE DE CHOUISEUL
____________
Notes:
French, Benjamin Franklin. Historical Memoirs of Louisiana, from the first settlement of the colony to the departure of Governor O'Reilly in 1770 (1853, Lamport Blakeman and Law) ebook version
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
250 Years Ago ... Meanwhile, Back in France ...
*Part of my continuing
blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis in February 2014.
As October turned into November in 1762, France, Britain and Spain were almost ready to agree on preliminary articles of peace to bring the war to an end.
Britain had undoubtedly won the war and France and Spain had lost. In North America Britain had taken Canada, St. Lucia and the valuable sugar islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe. In India the British had taken Chandalore and Pondicherry and, in Africa, trading posts in Senegal, the island of Goree and on the Gambia. In Europe the French army was defeated in its bid to defeat Prussia and the French navy was decimated. A bankrupt France was ready to come to terms with a war-weary Britain.
Although Spain had managed to stay neutral through much of the war, it had eventually grown alarmed by Britain's conquests and entered the war in 1762 allied with its relative, France, against Britain. In June Britain landed forces in Cuba and laid seige to Havana. By August Havana belonged to Britain as well as all the Mexican bullion stored there. Likewise, in July the British began the invasion of Manila and by October were in control. Despite these losses, Spain was not yet ready to concede defeat.
Prior to Spain entering the war, Britain had been engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations with France to end the war. By late fall of 1762 the duc de Choiseul, France's principal negotiator, had worked out the outlines of a treaty that would be incredibly generous to France and, incredibly, would allow for a relatively quick post-war recovery of naval power. France had every incentive to take these terms as quickly as possible before William Pitt, former prime minister and hawk, could negotiate a return to power in Britain. Although France would be forced to give up Canada as well as its East Indies and African trading posts, it would keep its profitable sugar islands and Louisiana.
Spain was not pleased that France was ready to capitulate.
Havana was Spain's most important port in the Caribbean, the "Key to the New World". Spain was not going to agree to give up Havana permanently. On the other hand, Britain was not going to give up a prize as great as Havana without gaining something.
As historian Fred Anderson sees it, the solution came through French diplomacy. France needed to make a deal with Spain that would allow Spain to come to terms with Britain.
_________
Notes:
Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754-1766.
Fowler, William M. Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763
Taylor, Alan. American Colonies: The Settling of North America.
As October turned into November in 1762, France, Britain and Spain were almost ready to agree on preliminary articles of peace to bring the war to an end.
Britain had undoubtedly won the war and France and Spain had lost. In North America Britain had taken Canada, St. Lucia and the valuable sugar islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe. In India the British had taken Chandalore and Pondicherry and, in Africa, trading posts in Senegal, the island of Goree and on the Gambia. In Europe the French army was defeated in its bid to defeat Prussia and the French navy was decimated. A bankrupt France was ready to come to terms with a war-weary Britain.
Although Spain had managed to stay neutral through much of the war, it had eventually grown alarmed by Britain's conquests and entered the war in 1762 allied with its relative, France, against Britain. In June Britain landed forces in Cuba and laid seige to Havana. By August Havana belonged to Britain as well as all the Mexican bullion stored there. Likewise, in July the British began the invasion of Manila and by October were in control. Despite these losses, Spain was not yet ready to concede defeat.
Prior to Spain entering the war, Britain had been engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations with France to end the war. By late fall of 1762 the duc de Choiseul, France's principal negotiator, had worked out the outlines of a treaty that would be incredibly generous to France and, incredibly, would allow for a relatively quick post-war recovery of naval power. France had every incentive to take these terms as quickly as possible before William Pitt, former prime minister and hawk, could negotiate a return to power in Britain. Although France would be forced to give up Canada as well as its East Indies and African trading posts, it would keep its profitable sugar islands and Louisiana.
Spain was not pleased that France was ready to capitulate.
Havana was Spain's most important port in the Caribbean, the "Key to the New World". Spain was not going to agree to give up Havana permanently. On the other hand, Britain was not going to give up a prize as great as Havana without gaining something.
As historian Fred Anderson sees it, the solution came through French diplomacy. France needed to make a deal with Spain that would allow Spain to come to terms with Britain.
Choiseul's ingenious answer to this puzzle had three parts. France would give Spain its last remaining territory in North America, Louisiana; Spain would surrender Florida (that is, the territory from the Mississippi to Georgia) to Britain; Britain would return Havana to Spain. In this way Spain would lose its claim to a sparsely inhabited, commercially unprofitable coastal plain and recover the Key to the New World and its trade. As a reward for its cooperation Spain would gain title to the western half of North America, access to the continent's interior via the Mississippi River, and possession of the valuable port of New Orleans. True, France would bid adieu to the rest of its North American holdings; but, as Choiseul understood, the colony of Louisiana had little population and no conceivable value to France if its destiny were to become a buffer between the demographically vital British colonies and the North American holdings of a disgruntled Spain. And Britain would gain undisputed control of the eastern half of North America -- a prize glittering enough to satisfy even the most rabid imperialists in the House of Commons.In the early days of November, 1762, Britain was signaling that it was ready to make a deal. France was working both sides behind the scenes. Pens were poised to put the various parts of the deal on to paper. It was just a matter of a little more time for French diplomacy to work.
_________
Notes:
Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754-1766.
Fowler, William M. Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763
Taylor, Alan. American Colonies: The Settling of North America.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
250 Years Ago ... Introducing Pierre Laclede
*Part of my continuing
blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis in February 2014.
In 1762 the only news that was reaching New Orleans was bad news. Canada had surrendered to Britain two years previously and since then Louisiana had been braced for an attack that never came. In September of 1762 the fishing fleet would have brought in the news that Havana had fallen to the British in August. Havana was the most important Spanish harbor in the Spanish West Indies. And although Louisiana would not know it for many months, by October of 1762 Britain had also taken Manila from Spain. Britain now controlled the most important Spanish port in both the West Indies and the East Indies. It looked as if Britain was on track to conquer the known world.
The Governor of Louisiana in 1762 was Louis Billouart, Chevalier de Kerlerec. Appointed ten years earlier in 1752, Kerlerec had one of the most thankless jobs in the French Empire. Although every Governor before him had dealt with seemingly insurmountable problems, within two years of his arrival in Louisiana war broke out with the English and Kerlerec's problems reached epic scale. As historian Frederick Fausz has written:
Lacking support from Versailles and expecting an attack any day, Kerlerec was forced to seek other means to finance the protection of the colony, working through the merchants of the City of New Orleans who had profited throughout the war from smuggling operations. Kerlerec, like every Governor before him, knew that the viability of the colony depended on the goodwill of the Indian allies along the Mississippi and the Gulf coast. The Indian culture required that expensive "gifts" be exchanged between allies. In vain would every Governor of Louisiana write to Versailles pleading for the necessary goods to keep the Indians attached to the French. When Versailles did not come through, and with war on his doorstep, Kerlerec turned to the merchants for assistance.
But Kerlerec was also thinking about the future. He looked to trade as a way to put Louisiana on an independent footing after the war so that it would not be so dependent on convoys from France, which arrived late if they arrived at all.
The most prominent merchant in New Orleans in the 1760's was Gilbert Antoine de St. Maxent (known simply as Maxent) who had made a fortune as a successful Indian trader. Maxent seems to have been the type of successful businessman who, in modern corporate-speak, looked on problems as "challenges" and "opportunities". Although it could not be known what would happen to Canada after the war, Kerlerec and Maxent chose to look on the fall of Canada as an "opportunity" for Louisiana and her merchants. Until this time, the most lucrative part of the French fur trade had always flowed north, through Montreal. Even the furs of the Illinois Country were mostly sent north. But now, if France was to have a fur trade at all, it would need to flow south through New Orleans, at least temporarily while the war continued. And if Britain kept Canada, the key to the entire trade would lay in Louisiana which encompassed a vast area both east and west of the Mississippi River, particularly along the Missouri River.
Kerlerec was fairly knowledgeable about trade along the Missouri River because his brother-in-law, Pierre-Joseph Neyon de Villiers, was the commander at Fort de Chartres in the Illinois Country (and, unlike today, "Illinois" in 1762 meant everything north of the Ohio and south of the Illinois River both east and west of the Mississippi). Kerlerec knew that the Osage Indians were the principal power south of the Missouri River and further west. The Osage visited Fort de Chartres; they had fought on the French side at Fort Duquesne in 1755. But not enough attention had been paid to them so far. The French had established two forts along the Missouri River in the 1700's, north of the principal lands of the Osage, but neither had been successful as trading enterprises. Maxent and Kerlerec decided that they now had the "opportunity" to remedy that.
In 1762, Kerlerec took a bold step without asking for royal authority. He granted a newly established enterprise called Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie the exclusive trade with all Indian nations lying west of the Mississippi River. The grant would last for six years and would extend all the way to the source of the Mississippi in Minnesota, but the real goal was to develop trade along the Missouri River with the Osage. Although in the past, the French crown had granted trade monopolies, the current policy in Louisiana was one of free trade. The grant of the monopoly was in violation of this policy but when Fort de Cavagnial on the Missouri had been established in 1744, a similar 6 month monopoly had been issued in violation of the policy, so there was precedent. As the reason for granting this monopoly, Kerlerec said that only Maxent had the capital necessary to undertake and finance such an endeavor, which would bring great profit to the colony.
But who was the Laclede of Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie?
Pierre Laclede was born on November 22, 1729 in Bearn, France, the son of a lawyer, Pierre de Laclede Sr., and his wife Magdeleine D'Espoey D'Arance. Pierre was one of seven children. Although he was from the landed class, there were merchants in his family background.
In accordance with his family's tradition, as the second son he added the word Liquest to his name. Always signing his name "Laclede Liquest" he would confuse future non-French historians of St. Louis. J. Frederick Fausz, in his Founding of St. Louis: First City of the New West writes:
No one seems able to explain what caused Pierre Laclede to emigrate to Louisiana. He was a second son and, hence, not in line to inherit. He didn't seem interested in his father's profession of law. It would not have been unusual for him to set out to make his way in the world. But Fausz points out that Laclede's decision was unusual as very few people from Bearn emigrated to North America and even fewer went to Louisiana. Fausz speculates that Laclede might have been recruited to go to Louisiana by a New Orleans merchant firm. There is no evidence, though, that he knew Maxent before he arrived in Louisiana.
Laclede left home just at the start of the Seven Years War and when he arrived in Nouvelle Orleans he became a part of the local militia. His regimental commander was Maxent. Maxent was also born in France and was also very well educated. Perhaps that was why they became friends.
By 1759 Laclede seems to have been acting as an independent merchant. Perhaps, as a merchant, he left New Orleans and went on trading expeditions to the Indians. If so, that part of his life seems to have escaped his biographers. I have seen no one claim that Laclede had any direct Indian experience before his experience with the Osage in Missouri.
According to a United States Supreme Court Case, it has been alleged that, in 1760, Pierre Laclede and Pierre Songy had some kind of right to a piece of coastal property in present day Deer Island Mississippi. (US v.Power's Heirs, 52 US 570 (1850))
Fausz, in his history of St. Louis, does a good job of looking into the kind of life Laclede would have lived in France and analyzing why that background would serve him so well in the newly founded St. Louis. But neither he, nor any other historian I've read, can explain why Maxent would choose to partner with Laclede on this venture when there were certainly many men with years of experience in the Illinois Country, on both sides of the Mississippi, who would have been pleased to have had this opportunity.
In Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie, Maxent would finance the expedition and provide the necessary trade goods and presents for the Indians; Laclede would be the man on the ground who would actually travel to Upper Louisiana and begin to trade in that part of the Illinois Country that lay west of the Mississippi. Although the expedition would not be ready to leave New Orleans until the summer convoy left in August, 1763, Maxent would have started in 1762 to begin the process of procuring the necessary goods.
I imagine Pierre Laclede, 250 years ago, was beginning to think about the long journey he was to take up the Mississippi with anticipation and maybe even a little dread.
In 1762 the only news that was reaching New Orleans was bad news. Canada had surrendered to Britain two years previously and since then Louisiana had been braced for an attack that never came. In September of 1762 the fishing fleet would have brought in the news that Havana had fallen to the British in August. Havana was the most important Spanish harbor in the Spanish West Indies. And although Louisiana would not know it for many months, by October of 1762 Britain had also taken Manila from Spain. Britain now controlled the most important Spanish port in both the West Indies and the East Indies. It looked as if Britain was on track to conquer the known world.
The Governor of Louisiana in 1762 was Louis Billouart, Chevalier de Kerlerec. Appointed ten years earlier in 1752, Kerlerec had one of the most thankless jobs in the French Empire. Although every Governor before him had dealt with seemingly insurmountable problems, within two years of his arrival in Louisiana war broke out with the English and Kerlerec's problems reached epic scale. As historian Frederick Fausz has written:
Versailles considered [Louisiana] to be a financial sinkhole with few prospects for economic solvency or social stability. France's neglect was symbolized by the failure to conduct a census for twenty-six years and the lack of responses to 162 urgent messages sent by Kerlerec in an 18-month period. The Ministry of Marine only dispatched ships to Louisiana in even numbered years during the French and Indian War, so Kerlerec received a mere seven official dispatches from 1760 to 1762.
Lacking support from Versailles and expecting an attack any day, Kerlerec was forced to seek other means to finance the protection of the colony, working through the merchants of the City of New Orleans who had profited throughout the war from smuggling operations. Kerlerec, like every Governor before him, knew that the viability of the colony depended on the goodwill of the Indian allies along the Mississippi and the Gulf coast. The Indian culture required that expensive "gifts" be exchanged between allies. In vain would every Governor of Louisiana write to Versailles pleading for the necessary goods to keep the Indians attached to the French. When Versailles did not come through, and with war on his doorstep, Kerlerec turned to the merchants for assistance.
But Kerlerec was also thinking about the future. He looked to trade as a way to put Louisiana on an independent footing after the war so that it would not be so dependent on convoys from France, which arrived late if they arrived at all.
The most prominent merchant in New Orleans in the 1760's was Gilbert Antoine de St. Maxent (known simply as Maxent) who had made a fortune as a successful Indian trader. Maxent seems to have been the type of successful businessman who, in modern corporate-speak, looked on problems as "challenges" and "opportunities". Although it could not be known what would happen to Canada after the war, Kerlerec and Maxent chose to look on the fall of Canada as an "opportunity" for Louisiana and her merchants. Until this time, the most lucrative part of the French fur trade had always flowed north, through Montreal. Even the furs of the Illinois Country were mostly sent north. But now, if France was to have a fur trade at all, it would need to flow south through New Orleans, at least temporarily while the war continued. And if Britain kept Canada, the key to the entire trade would lay in Louisiana which encompassed a vast area both east and west of the Mississippi River, particularly along the Missouri River.
Kerlerec was fairly knowledgeable about trade along the Missouri River because his brother-in-law, Pierre-Joseph Neyon de Villiers, was the commander at Fort de Chartres in the Illinois Country (and, unlike today, "Illinois" in 1762 meant everything north of the Ohio and south of the Illinois River both east and west of the Mississippi). Kerlerec knew that the Osage Indians were the principal power south of the Missouri River and further west. The Osage visited Fort de Chartres; they had fought on the French side at Fort Duquesne in 1755. But not enough attention had been paid to them so far. The French had established two forts along the Missouri River in the 1700's, north of the principal lands of the Osage, but neither had been successful as trading enterprises. Maxent and Kerlerec decided that they now had the "opportunity" to remedy that.
In 1762, Kerlerec took a bold step without asking for royal authority. He granted a newly established enterprise called Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie the exclusive trade with all Indian nations lying west of the Mississippi River. The grant would last for six years and would extend all the way to the source of the Mississippi in Minnesota, but the real goal was to develop trade along the Missouri River with the Osage. Although in the past, the French crown had granted trade monopolies, the current policy in Louisiana was one of free trade. The grant of the monopoly was in violation of this policy but when Fort de Cavagnial on the Missouri had been established in 1744, a similar 6 month monopoly had been issued in violation of the policy, so there was precedent. As the reason for granting this monopoly, Kerlerec said that only Maxent had the capital necessary to undertake and finance such an endeavor, which would bring great profit to the colony.
But who was the Laclede of Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie?
Pierre Laclede was born on November 22, 1729 in Bearn, France, the son of a lawyer, Pierre de Laclede Sr., and his wife Magdeleine D'Espoey D'Arance. Pierre was one of seven children. Although he was from the landed class, there were merchants in his family background.
In accordance with his family's tradition, as the second son he added the word Liquest to his name. Always signing his name "Laclede Liquest" he would confuse future non-French historians of St. Louis. J. Frederick Fausz, in his Founding of St. Louis: First City of the New West writes:
Laclede was well educated He was a student for a time at the Jesuit college in Pau and then later at the military college in Toulouse. In his twenties Pierre served with the "home guard". Then, in 1755, he suddenly emigrated to Louisiana. According to Fausz, he sailed on the ship La Concorde from the port of La Rochelle.
By family tradition, the second son appended the word Liguest to the surname, signifying his rights to revenues from the Lacledes' grove of willow trees (ligus or saligues in Bearnais) near the village of Athas, just south of [his village of] Bedous on the opposite side of the Gave d'Aspe. Liguest was similar to the word cadet (second son) in identifying birth order in families, and all cadets in Bearn were "promised a portion [of property or money] in return for renouncing their rights' of inheritance, according to the principle of The House.
No one seems able to explain what caused Pierre Laclede to emigrate to Louisiana. He was a second son and, hence, not in line to inherit. He didn't seem interested in his father's profession of law. It would not have been unusual for him to set out to make his way in the world. But Fausz points out that Laclede's decision was unusual as very few people from Bearn emigrated to North America and even fewer went to Louisiana. Fausz speculates that Laclede might have been recruited to go to Louisiana by a New Orleans merchant firm. There is no evidence, though, that he knew Maxent before he arrived in Louisiana.
Laclede left home just at the start of the Seven Years War and when he arrived in Nouvelle Orleans he became a part of the local militia. His regimental commander was Maxent. Maxent was also born in France and was also very well educated. Perhaps that was why they became friends.
By 1759 Laclede seems to have been acting as an independent merchant. Perhaps, as a merchant, he left New Orleans and went on trading expeditions to the Indians. If so, that part of his life seems to have escaped his biographers. I have seen no one claim that Laclede had any direct Indian experience before his experience with the Osage in Missouri.
According to a United States Supreme Court Case, it has been alleged that, in 1760, Pierre Laclede and Pierre Songy had some kind of right to a piece of coastal property in present day Deer Island Mississippi. (US v.Power's Heirs, 52 US 570 (1850))
Fausz, in his history of St. Louis, does a good job of looking into the kind of life Laclede would have lived in France and analyzing why that background would serve him so well in the newly founded St. Louis. But neither he, nor any other historian I've read, can explain why Maxent would choose to partner with Laclede on this venture when there were certainly many men with years of experience in the Illinois Country, on both sides of the Mississippi, who would have been pleased to have had this opportunity.
In Maxent, Laclede et Compagnie, Maxent would finance the expedition and provide the necessary trade goods and presents for the Indians; Laclede would be the man on the ground who would actually travel to Upper Louisiana and begin to trade in that part of the Illinois Country that lay west of the Mississippi. Although the expedition would not be ready to leave New Orleans until the summer convoy left in August, 1763, Maxent would have started in 1762 to begin the process of procuring the necessary goods.
I imagine Pierre Laclede, 250 years ago, was beginning to think about the long journey he was to take up the Mississippi with anticipation and maybe even a little dread.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
250 Years Ago ... Introducing the Becquets of Nouvelle Chartres
*Part of my continuing
blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis in February 2014.
This coming week we celebrate the birthday of my ancestor Jean Baptiste Becquet. On October 25, 1725 he was was baptized in the little chapel at Fort de Chartres in what is now southern Illinois. We don't know the exact date of his birth but in those days children were baptized within days of their birth if possible. 37 years later, in 1762, he was still living in Nouvelle Chartres with his wife and children, supporting his family by working as a blacksmith.
Jean Baptiste Beccquet was born in Nouvelle Chartres but his father, Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet, was an immigrant from Paris (the parish of St. Sulpice). The son of a locksmith, Jean Baptiste Nicolas also become a locksmith. His wife, Catherine Barreau (or Barreaux), was a seamstress from Poitou. In 1720 they set off for Louisiana and the New World, traveling on the French ship La Gironde. It would have been a long (and dangerous) voyage back in the days of sailing ships.
La Gironde would have set sail from La Rochelle and first made for Cape St. Vincent, off the southern coast of Portugal. From there the captain would hope to pick up a wind that would take the ship south past Madeira and the Canary Islands. The ship would then continue southwest across the Atlantic until it reached the correct latitude for Saint Domingue, where it would head due west. A stop in Saint Domingue would have been welcome as the passengers would, by now, have been on the small, 75 foot keel length ship for seven to nine weeks, and maybe longer depending on the weather.
After a stop in Saint Domingue, La Gironde would sail due west past Cuba before heading northwest. From this point forward the ship would be working against contrary winds and currents. After two to four weeks it would finally reach the sandy coast between Pensacola and Mobile. Before the port of New Orleans was built, ships put in at islands along the coast. During this period their ship would have put in at Ile aux Vasseaux (Ship Island, Mississippi).
Cargo and passengers would then be transferred to a smaller boat to be piloted the 160 kilometers up the Mississippi to New Orleans. This portion of the trip could take an additional one to two weeks because the lower Mississippi delta was so difficult to pass through. Sometimes, if the winds dropped, a ship could be stalled for up to two weeks at the bend known as Detour aux Anglais (English Turn), forty kilometers before New Orleans.
But finally they would glimpse the relatively new settlement of Nouvelle Orleans - New Orleans. I’ll let Kenneth Banks describe an arrival:
La Gironde arrived in August 1720 and we don't know how long the Becquets stayed in New Orleans waiting for a convoy to leave for the Illinois Country and the new Fort de Chartres. After the long ocean voyage, the Becquets must have been relieved to arrive back on dry land.
We don't know exactly why Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet and Catherine Barreau decided to travel to Louisiana. We don't know if they were recruited to specifically go to the Illinois Country or if that decision was made when they arrived in New Orleans. Since Becquet was a skilled craftsman he was probably recruited as part of a scheme that led to what became known as the Mississippi Bubble. A Scottish financier named John Law formed a company for the exploitation of Louisiana and was given the monopoly by the regent for Louis XV, who was still a minor. As part of the charter, the company was required to recruit settlers. The Becquets were probably recruited as part of this scheme. The scheme is too complicated to go into since it is only a peripheral part of our story, but at the end of this post I've appended a video that explains it.
In any event, the Becquets did not stay in New Orleans. The most arduous part of their journey was still ahead of them – a trip up the Mississippi River that would take at least three, sometimes four, months. This trip up the Mississippi would have been entirely by water. As historian Kenneth Banks remarks, “roads are barely mentioned in official correspondence relating to Louisiana." But in the days before steam engines, the trip against the fast current of the Mississippi would have been laborious. The boats would have been rowed, poled and winched (by tying ropes to trees upriver and pulling the boats to them) in a long slow journey north.
Historian Margaret Kimball Brown writes:
Because of danger from the Chickasaw, travelers from New Orleans to the Illinois Country always traveled in convoy. But at last they arrived in the Illinois country where the new fort and administration was being established. Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet's services as a locksmith would have been invaluable at the fort. Locksmiths were a specialized type of blacksmith; they not only made locks for doors and boxes but also could make weapons.
Historian Margaret Kimball Brown has often referenced Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet in her work on the Illinois Country. She has even created two fictional letters from Becquet back to his family in France to give us a better idea of what a journey up the Mississippi must have been like in those days. You can read them here (starting on page 3).
In her book about Praire du Rocher Brown writes:
As Brown points out, from documents still existing from the era, we know that he was literate. And he was successful. As she said, "if he came to improve his lot in the New World, he apparently succeeded."
As he and his wife, Catherine, baptized their son, Jean Baptiste Becquet, in October of 1725 they could not have known that within that son's lifetime the French Regime in Illinois would end but that he would be a part of the founding of the last great French settlement in North America, St. Louis.
PS: If you are interested, this video is an entertaining and, from what I can tell, accurate summary of the Mississippi Bubble.
_________________________
NOTES and SOURCES:
Banks, Kennth J., Chasing Empire Across the Sea: Communications and the State in the French Atlantic 1613-1673, pp 84-96.
Belting, Natalia Maree, Kaskaskia Under the French Regime.
Brown, Margaret Kimball, History as they Lived It: A Social History of Prairie du Rocher, Ill.
This coming week we celebrate the birthday of my ancestor Jean Baptiste Becquet. On October 25, 1725 he was was baptized in the little chapel at Fort de Chartres in what is now southern Illinois. We don't know the exact date of his birth but in those days children were baptized within days of their birth if possible. 37 years later, in 1762, he was still living in Nouvelle Chartres with his wife and children, supporting his family by working as a blacksmith.
Jean Baptiste Beccquet was born in Nouvelle Chartres but his father, Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet, was an immigrant from Paris (the parish of St. Sulpice). The son of a locksmith, Jean Baptiste Nicolas also become a locksmith. His wife, Catherine Barreau (or Barreaux), was a seamstress from Poitou. In 1720 they set off for Louisiana and the New World, traveling on the French ship La Gironde. It would have been a long (and dangerous) voyage back in the days of sailing ships.
La Gironde would have set sail from La Rochelle and first made for Cape St. Vincent, off the southern coast of Portugal. From there the captain would hope to pick up a wind that would take the ship south past Madeira and the Canary Islands. The ship would then continue southwest across the Atlantic until it reached the correct latitude for Saint Domingue, where it would head due west. A stop in Saint Domingue would have been welcome as the passengers would, by now, have been on the small, 75 foot keel length ship for seven to nine weeks, and maybe longer depending on the weather.
After a stop in Saint Domingue, La Gironde would sail due west past Cuba before heading northwest. From this point forward the ship would be working against contrary winds and currents. After two to four weeks it would finally reach the sandy coast between Pensacola and Mobile. Before the port of New Orleans was built, ships put in at islands along the coast. During this period their ship would have put in at Ile aux Vasseaux (Ship Island, Mississippi).
Cargo and passengers would then be transferred to a smaller boat to be piloted the 160 kilometers up the Mississippi to New Orleans. This portion of the trip could take an additional one to two weeks because the lower Mississippi delta was so difficult to pass through. Sometimes, if the winds dropped, a ship could be stalled for up to two weeks at the bend known as Detour aux Anglais (English Turn), forty kilometers before New Orleans.
But finally they would glimpse the relatively new settlement of Nouvelle Orleans - New Orleans. I’ll let Kenneth Banks describe an arrival:
Only at this point did passengers and crews
glimpse the first signs of the French settlement: two small and incomplete sets of earthworks
on either side of the river and the first smattering of thatched slave huts and
rough log cabins along the riverbanks. Important and weary passengers, as well
as critical dispatches, could be put ashore at this point as well and proceed
by horse or on foot to New Orleans.
Although some historians have calculated that it was theoretically
possible to sail to New Orleans from France in about twelve weeks, contemporary
ships’ logs show that the average crossing approached seventeen weeks, at least
a month longer.
La Gironde arrived in August 1720 and we don't know how long the Becquets stayed in New Orleans waiting for a convoy to leave for the Illinois Country and the new Fort de Chartres. After the long ocean voyage, the Becquets must have been relieved to arrive back on dry land.
We don't know exactly why Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet and Catherine Barreau decided to travel to Louisiana. We don't know if they were recruited to specifically go to the Illinois Country or if that decision was made when they arrived in New Orleans. Since Becquet was a skilled craftsman he was probably recruited as part of a scheme that led to what became known as the Mississippi Bubble. A Scottish financier named John Law formed a company for the exploitation of Louisiana and was given the monopoly by the regent for Louis XV, who was still a minor. As part of the charter, the company was required to recruit settlers. The Becquets were probably recruited as part of this scheme. The scheme is too complicated to go into since it is only a peripheral part of our story, but at the end of this post I've appended a video that explains it.
In any event, the Becquets did not stay in New Orleans. The most arduous part of their journey was still ahead of them – a trip up the Mississippi River that would take at least three, sometimes four, months. This trip up the Mississippi would have been entirely by water. As historian Kenneth Banks remarks, “roads are barely mentioned in official correspondence relating to Louisiana." But in the days before steam engines, the trip against the fast current of the Mississippi would have been laborious. The boats would have been rowed, poled and winched (by tying ropes to trees upriver and pulling the boats to them) in a long slow journey north.
Historian Margaret Kimball Brown writes:
The trip was hazardous. The river itself was treacherous enough with
snags, sawyers, currents and mosquitoes (a major complaint) but the greatest
danger along the route was from hostile Indians, particularly the Chickasaw,
who were affiliated with the English.
Many accounts tell of death or capture by the Indians.
Because of danger from the Chickasaw, travelers from New Orleans to the Illinois Country always traveled in convoy. But at last they arrived in the Illinois country where the new fort and administration was being established. Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet's services as a locksmith would have been invaluable at the fort. Locksmiths were a specialized type of blacksmith; they not only made locks for doors and boxes but also could make weapons.
Historian Margaret Kimball Brown has often referenced Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet in her work on the Illinois Country. She has even created two fictional letters from Becquet back to his family in France to give us a better idea of what a journey up the Mississippi must have been like in those days. You can read them here (starting on page 3).
In her book about Praire du Rocher Brown writes:
[Becquet] was apparently quite skilled, as a major part of his work in the Illinois was as a gunsmith. He was not just a specialist though. He was able to turn his hand to all types of blacksmithing Becquet made locks, keys, and other items, including the metal work for the early churck of Ste. Anne at Fort de Chartres. In 1725 a soldier, Francois Derbes, contracted with Becquet as an engage to work at the forge for him. In the contract Derbes also agreed that he would arrange to have his guard duty done at Fort de Chartres at his own expense.
The trade as a locksmith/ gunsmith was an important one. Becquet held a contract in 1737 to repair and maintain the guns of the troops and those in the royal storehouse. He also was to keep up the guns of the Indians, some of whom were hunters employed by the government. Later he had a partnership with a gunsmith in Kaskaskia to carry out royal contracts in gunsmithing.
As Brown points out, from documents still existing from the era, we know that he was literate. And he was successful. As she said, "if he came to improve his lot in the New World, he apparently succeeded."
As he and his wife, Catherine, baptized their son, Jean Baptiste Becquet, in October of 1725 they could not have known that within that son's lifetime the French Regime in Illinois would end but that he would be a part of the founding of the last great French settlement in North America, St. Louis.
PS: If you are interested, this video is an entertaining and, from what I can tell, accurate summary of the Mississippi Bubble.
_________________________
NOTES and SOURCES:
Banks, Kennth J., Chasing Empire Across the Sea: Communications and the State in the French Atlantic 1613-1673, pp 84-96.
Belting, Natalia Maree, Kaskaskia Under the French Regime.
Brown, Margaret Kimball, History as they Lived It: A Social History of Prairie du Rocher, Ill.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
250 Years Ago ... Wars of the 1700's
*Part of my continuing
blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis in February 2014.
In 1762 one of the biggest wars the world had ever seen was coming to an end and France had lost. But the French residents of North America might be forgiven for thinking that wouldn't matter to them. They were used to war and used to the idea that things never changed much because of war.
There was almost constant war during the 1700's. And, yes, battles were fought in the New World. But until 1762 none of the European wars deeply affected the French colonies in North America.
In 1702 Queen Anne's War (or the War of the Spanish Succession, as it was known in Europe) was fought. In that war, the English in Carolina fought the Spanish in Florida. Meanwhile, in the north, the New Englanders fought the French in Acadia and tried to take Quebec, with disastrous results. That war ended in 1712 with the Treaty of Utrecht. France was forced to give England a piece of land far north in Hudsons' Bay that it had not returned in the previous war. France did lose Acadia (Nova Scotia) and Newfoundland, which was a blow. They relocated their people to Cape Breton Island and built the fortress of Louisbourg to guard the entrance to the St. Lawrence river.
The next war, which began in 1739, was a war between Britain and Spain with a picturesque name: The War of Jenkins Ear. Basically, Spain had a policy of stopping and seizing ships suspected of carrying contraband. Robert Jenkins was a British ship's master who claimed that the Spanish had stolen his cargo and cut off his ear. Jenkins kept the ear, pickled, in a jar. In 1738 British imperialists, who were hawks, used Jenkins for propaganda, parading him (and his ear) before Parliament and eventually forcing the Prime Minister to confront Spain and demand that she stop seizing foreign vessels. Spain refused. Britain declared war. As part of the war, Britain granted American governors the power to give "letters of marque" to sea captains that desired to attach Spanish ports.
The War of Jenkins Ear led directly, without any pause, into the War for the Austrian Succession (known in North America as King George's War) which began in 1744. Britain entered the war on the Austrian side but continued its war with Spain. France and Spain allied to defend against what they saw as British aggression. There were a lot of land battles in Europe that I won't go into.
There was a land battle too between British Georgia and Spanish Florida that came to naught when the Georgians realized they might be forced to lay seige to St. Augustine. Not liking the idea of a seige in a swamp, they retreated. Later, Spain sent a force from Cuba against Georgia but it never actually attacked. In 1743 the Georgians again tried to attack St. Augustine and again gained nothing.
In the meantime, the French used their base at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island to attack New England shipping. Some plucky New Englanders took the opportunity of the war to attack Louisbourg and, after a 46 day seige, Louisbourg surrendered to them. There were great celebrations in Boston and other New England towns.
But, alas, when the war ended and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed, Britain returned Louisbourg to France and France returned Madras, in India, to Britain. France also withdrew from the Austrian Netherlands. The status quo was re-established and no one was happy. The American colonists, especially, were furious at having to give up Louisbourg.
But to people living in the Mississippi River Valley, like my ancestor Jean Baptiste Becquet, European wars would have seemed a long way off. They didn't affect day to day life except perhaps when ships were sunk and supplies didn't get through. And even when your country lost, there was no real affect on day to day life.
After the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed in 1748, most people assumed that it was just a matter of time before war broke out again. The new Governor-General of New France, the Comte de la Galissoniere, surveyed the situation in North America. In September of 1748 he wrote one of his many dispatches back to France, explaining the importance of the Illinois Country, a place which many French bureaucrats saw as an unnecessary expense. W.J. Eccles, one of the foremost Canadian historians, describes it in The Canadian Frontier: 1634-1760:
But, already, land speculators in Virginia, Pennsylvania and other colonies (many of whom were the leading men of the colonies) were already preparing to form the Ohio Company to exploit the land west of the mountains and war hawks in Britain were very interested in destroying French overseas trade. The British were aided by the local Indians who enjoyed having British traders and posts so close to them. The land speculators had no plans at all to preserve the hunting grounds of the Indians but they offered the Indians high quality merchandise at prices cheaper than the French could offer.
Galissoniere, knowing a bad situation when he saw it, decided to send a French expedition to the Ohio country to map it and to make clear that France claimed it as her own. But the leader of the expedition, Celeron, found the situation even worse than Galissoniere feared. It was relatively easy to drive the few British traders from the area, but the local Indian population were not impressed by the show of force and not inclined to give up their trading privileges with the British. They put up a resistance.
Galissonier's successor, Jonquiere, took a different approach. He tried to woo the local Indian population with presents and promises. But he too was unsuccessful; the Indians wanted to be able to trade with the British. Finally, his successor, Duquesne, went all in and sent troops to build a fort near the forks of the Ohio.
The Seven Years War (or the French and Indian War as the British colonists called it) began in America in 1754 when an American force, led by George Washington, was sent to tell the French to vacate their new fort. The French politely refused. Two years later the world was at war on a global scale. Winston Churchill said it was the true first world war. Battles were fought in Europe, North America, Central America, India and Africa. Many European countries were involved but, from the perspective of North America, it was a war fought between Great Britain, on the one hand, and France and Spain on the other hand.
At first, the war went well for the French in North America. They defeated far larger British forces and were holding their own in the war. But by 1759 the British had defeated the French navy and from that point on things went downhill as supplies and reinforcements could not get through. More importantly, trade goods could not get through and that affected relationships with the Indian allies of the French.
As Fred Anderson points out in his Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, the relationship between the French and its Indian allies was the key to retaining it's North American colonies:
As trade goods became difficult for the French in Canada to obtain, the alliance became frayed. The Indian allies didn't receive "pay" as such, but they expected "presents" in appreciation of their efforts. The French could not deliver "presents" because its ships were not getting through.
However, the biggest problem for the French may have been the French commander sent over to lead the Canadian troops - the Marquis de Montcalm. Rather than let the Canadian troops and their Indian allies fight in the manner that they had always fought, Montcalm sought to impose a European "order" on the local troops.
By 1759 Quebec had been taken by the British. Then on September 8, 1760, with Montreal surrounded, the governor of New France surrendered. New France was occupied, awaiting news of what would happen to them when peace was negotiated. If past history was any model, things would go back to the status quo.
In 1762 the British still had not taken Louisiana but the people of the Illinois Country had spent two years wondering when they too would be attacked by the British. What they could not know was that ongoing peace negotiations in Europe would bring an end to the war and would change their lives forever.
In 1762 one of the biggest wars the world had ever seen was coming to an end and France had lost. But the French residents of North America might be forgiven for thinking that wouldn't matter to them. They were used to war and used to the idea that things never changed much because of war.
There was almost constant war during the 1700's. And, yes, battles were fought in the New World. But until 1762 none of the European wars deeply affected the French colonies in North America.
In 1702 Queen Anne's War (or the War of the Spanish Succession, as it was known in Europe) was fought. In that war, the English in Carolina fought the Spanish in Florida. Meanwhile, in the north, the New Englanders fought the French in Acadia and tried to take Quebec, with disastrous results. That war ended in 1712 with the Treaty of Utrecht. France was forced to give England a piece of land far north in Hudsons' Bay that it had not returned in the previous war. France did lose Acadia (Nova Scotia) and Newfoundland, which was a blow. They relocated their people to Cape Breton Island and built the fortress of Louisbourg to guard the entrance to the St. Lawrence river.
The next war, which began in 1739, was a war between Britain and Spain with a picturesque name: The War of Jenkins Ear. Basically, Spain had a policy of stopping and seizing ships suspected of carrying contraband. Robert Jenkins was a British ship's master who claimed that the Spanish had stolen his cargo and cut off his ear. Jenkins kept the ear, pickled, in a jar. In 1738 British imperialists, who were hawks, used Jenkins for propaganda, parading him (and his ear) before Parliament and eventually forcing the Prime Minister to confront Spain and demand that she stop seizing foreign vessels. Spain refused. Britain declared war. As part of the war, Britain granted American governors the power to give "letters of marque" to sea captains that desired to attach Spanish ports.
The War of Jenkins Ear led directly, without any pause, into the War for the Austrian Succession (known in North America as King George's War) which began in 1744. Britain entered the war on the Austrian side but continued its war with Spain. France and Spain allied to defend against what they saw as British aggression. There were a lot of land battles in Europe that I won't go into.
There was a land battle too between British Georgia and Spanish Florida that came to naught when the Georgians realized they might be forced to lay seige to St. Augustine. Not liking the idea of a seige in a swamp, they retreated. Later, Spain sent a force from Cuba against Georgia but it never actually attacked. In 1743 the Georgians again tried to attack St. Augustine and again gained nothing.
In the meantime, the French used their base at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island to attack New England shipping. Some plucky New Englanders took the opportunity of the war to attack Louisbourg and, after a 46 day seige, Louisbourg surrendered to them. There were great celebrations in Boston and other New England towns.
But, alas, when the war ended and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed, Britain returned Louisbourg to France and France returned Madras, in India, to Britain. France also withdrew from the Austrian Netherlands. The status quo was re-established and no one was happy. The American colonists, especially, were furious at having to give up Louisbourg.
But to people living in the Mississippi River Valley, like my ancestor Jean Baptiste Becquet, European wars would have seemed a long way off. They didn't affect day to day life except perhaps when ships were sunk and supplies didn't get through. And even when your country lost, there was no real affect on day to day life.
After the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed in 1748, most people assumed that it was just a matter of time before war broke out again. The new Governor-General of New France, the Comte de la Galissoniere, surveyed the situation in North America. In September of 1748 he wrote one of his many dispatches back to France, explaining the importance of the Illinois Country, a place which many French bureaucrats saw as an unnecessary expense. W.J. Eccles, one of the foremost Canadian historians, describes it in The Canadian Frontier: 1634-1760:
He declared categorically that the Illinois country was of very little economic value to France, that for a long time posts and settlements there would merely be a source of expense to the crown and that the French settlers in the region would certainly not become very prosperous. Yet, he declared, the crown must maintain them, regardless of expense, to protect the investment already made, but, more significantly, because they served as a barrier to English expansion, enabling the French to dominate the Indian nations of the lower Mississippi and retain their trade and allegiance. (emphasis mine)Galissoniere believed that, although France could not hope for large profit from North America, Canada and Louisiana could ultimately be self sufficient and their real value would come from growing a large French population. He believed that the Britain so valued their North American colonies that a large French presence in North American would force Britain to "divert a sizable part of their navy and army" to protect those colonies, thus reducing the forces available to fight in other theaters of war. But if Britain seized the Illinois country then the "trade with the interior would be destroyed, Louisiana would be quickly lost, and the Spanish colonies, even Mexico, would then be in grave danger."
But, already, land speculators in Virginia, Pennsylvania and other colonies (many of whom were the leading men of the colonies) were already preparing to form the Ohio Company to exploit the land west of the mountains and war hawks in Britain were very interested in destroying French overseas trade. The British were aided by the local Indians who enjoyed having British traders and posts so close to them. The land speculators had no plans at all to preserve the hunting grounds of the Indians but they offered the Indians high quality merchandise at prices cheaper than the French could offer.
Galissoniere, knowing a bad situation when he saw it, decided to send a French expedition to the Ohio country to map it and to make clear that France claimed it as her own. But the leader of the expedition, Celeron, found the situation even worse than Galissoniere feared. It was relatively easy to drive the few British traders from the area, but the local Indian population were not impressed by the show of force and not inclined to give up their trading privileges with the British. They put up a resistance.
Galissonier's successor, Jonquiere, took a different approach. He tried to woo the local Indian population with presents and promises. But he too was unsuccessful; the Indians wanted to be able to trade with the British. Finally, his successor, Duquesne, went all in and sent troops to build a fort near the forks of the Ohio.
The Seven Years War (or the French and Indian War as the British colonists called it) began in America in 1754 when an American force, led by George Washington, was sent to tell the French to vacate their new fort. The French politely refused. Two years later the world was at war on a global scale. Winston Churchill said it was the true first world war. Battles were fought in Europe, North America, Central America, India and Africa. Many European countries were involved but, from the perspective of North America, it was a war fought between Great Britain, on the one hand, and France and Spain on the other hand.
At first, the war went well for the French in North America. They defeated far larger British forces and were holding their own in the war. But by 1759 the British had defeated the French navy and from that point on things went downhill as supplies and reinforcements could not get through. More importantly, trade goods could not get through and that affected relationships with the Indian allies of the French.
As Fred Anderson points out in his Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, the relationship between the French and its Indian allies was the key to retaining it's North American colonies:
France maintained its empire in America for more than a century despite the steady increase of British power and population because the governors of Canada had generally sponsored cordial relations with the Indian peoples of the interior. Trade was the sinew of these intercultural relationships, which in time of war became the military alliances that made the frontiers of the British colonies uninhabitable and rendered a successful invasion of the Canadian heartland impossible.
As trade goods became difficult for the French in Canada to obtain, the alliance became frayed. The Indian allies didn't receive "pay" as such, but they expected "presents" in appreciation of their efforts. The French could not deliver "presents" because its ships were not getting through.
However, the biggest problem for the French may have been the French commander sent over to lead the Canadian troops - the Marquis de Montcalm. Rather than let the Canadian troops and their Indian allies fight in the manner that they had always fought, Montcalm sought to impose a European "order" on the local troops.
... Montcalm had aggravated the situation, and accelerated the failure of the alliances, by seeking to command the Indians as auxiliaries, rather than to negotiate for their cooperation as allies. Eventually the combined effects of poor supply and Montcalm's Europeanized command alienated even the converted Indians and the habitants, so that in 1760 the chevalier de Levis and his regulars stood alone, abandoned by the peoples that they had crossed the Atlantic to defend.As Anderson points out, the British moved in the opposite direction. At the beginning of the war, using European tactics, the British were losing. George Washington watched General Braddock and his troops go down to defeat by the French and Indians outside Fort Duquesne. But once the British started to allow the colonists to fight in their own style, the tide turned.
By 1759 Quebec had been taken by the British. Then on September 8, 1760, with Montreal surrounded, the governor of New France surrendered. New France was occupied, awaiting news of what would happen to them when peace was negotiated. If past history was any model, things would go back to the status quo.
In 1762 the British still had not taken Louisiana but the people of the Illinois Country had spent two years wondering when they too would be attacked by the British. What they could not know was that ongoing peace negotiations in Europe would bring an end to the war and would change their lives forever.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
I Refer You to ...
It has been a busy week so no time to blog. But I did read two interesting things this week that I want to recommend.
First, I recommend that everyone read this very thought provoking essay by Sarah Sentilles in which she reflects on the responses to her writing and how they seldom are about the substance of her writing but are about her, personally. In reflecting on what she sees as the sexism inherent in reviews of works by women (fiction and nonfiction), she says "I am beginning to understand why Mary Ann Evans changed her name to George Eliot." Sentilles is a theologian and I've never read any of her work but I like the way she argued her point in this essay.
Second, I recommend Rohan Maitson's blog post in which she asks if she is making excuses for Dorothy Sayers' novel "Gaudy Night".
Maitzen teaches Gaudy Night in one of her classes and some of the students have raised questions about the novel that she addresses in her essay. I love Dorothy Sayers' novels and I like Maitzen's responses to her students' criticism, but I also applaud her for opening up her responses to the larger world for a critique.
First, I recommend that everyone read this very thought provoking essay by Sarah Sentilles in which she reflects on the responses to her writing and how they seldom are about the substance of her writing but are about her, personally. In reflecting on what she sees as the sexism inherent in reviews of works by women (fiction and nonfiction), she says "I am beginning to understand why Mary Ann Evans changed her name to George Eliot." Sentilles is a theologian and I've never read any of her work but I like the way she argued her point in this essay.
Second, I recommend Rohan Maitson's blog post in which she asks if she is making excuses for Dorothy Sayers' novel "Gaudy Night".
Maitzen teaches Gaudy Night in one of her classes and some of the students have raised questions about the novel that she addresses in her essay. I love Dorothy Sayers' novels and I like Maitzen's responses to her students' criticism, but I also applaud her for opening up her responses to the larger world for a critique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)