After spending the winter in the little village outside Fort Chartres, Laclede and Chouteau were anxious to move on. As Auguste Chouteau would later remember:
"On the tenth of February, A.D. 1764, Mr. Laclede sent Auguste
Chouteau, this deponent, at the head of a party of mechanics of all
trades, amounting to upwards of thirty in number to select a place
suitable for an establishment such as he proposed." 1 Hunt's minutes, p.
107. (As cited in the Missouri History Museum Collections of 1911).
It would take about five days to get to their destination. Let's hope that the weather in February 1764 was milder than the weather in February 2014.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
On Friday night I attended the opening of a new exhibition at The Sheldon Art Galleries called Imagining the Founding of St. Louis. This is part of the 250th birthday celebration which kicks off this month.
Of course there were no artists who traveled with Auguste Chouteau to the location of what would become St. Louis, hence the word Imagining in the title. This exhibition consists of paintings, drawings, sculpture and artifacts depicting either the founding of St. Louis or the people (or groups of people) involved.
Some of the most interesting items in the exhibition are artifacts of the native Americans who lived in the area at the time: Osage, Missouri and Illini tribes. I was surprised by the items that came from the collection of the St. Louis Science Center. I had no idea that the Science Center had these types of artifacts in their collection. Some of the artifacts were large. There was a shield belonging to Chief Black Dog of the Osage.
One of the highlights of the exhibition (at least, for me) was an original page from Auguste Chouteau's handwritten memoir, lent by the St. Louis Mercantile Library. This original document will only be exhibited during the first month of the exhibit because it is tremendously fragile. But to see Auguste Chouteau's actual handwriting was thrilling. A woman standing next to me seemed as awed as I was. "It's in French?" she asked. Yes.
I also enjoyed seeing some of the rare books and maps that were displayed. One of my favorite items was an early Christmas card from one of the Chouteau descendents that was sent in the 1800's that contained a depiction of the founding.
There are also a number of fairly large depictions that imagine the actual moment when Auguste Chouteau arrived to begin the building of the settlement. The curator has helpfully included descriptions of where these depictions are and are not accurate. They are very helpful in imagining The Moment as the exhibition calls it.
The exhibition runs until August 23, 2014. I recommend it. But if you want to see the page from the Chouteau manuscript you need to get there this month. There will be an Osage blessing of the exhibit on the actual anniversary date, next Saturday, February 15, at 1:45 p.m. And on that date, in honor of the actual birthday, the galleries will be open from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
As January turned into February in the little village of Nouvelle Chartres, Laclede and his companion, Auguste Chouteau, no doubt were in the midst of planning for the building of Maxent & Laclede's new trading post and settlement at the location they had chosen a couple of months previously. In fact, later in February Laclede would send Chouteau to start the building process while Laclede remained at Nouvelle Chartres, no doubt trading.
Who was this young man, Auguste Chouteau?
In 1764, Chouteau was no more than fourteen years old, which seems a young age to be entrusted with the tasks that Laclede entrusted him with. But in the 1700's, boys of 14 were eligible to serve in the militia and it was not unusual for them to leave home and become apprenticed to a master craftsman or, if they were literate and knew their numbers, be hired as a clerk to a merchant.
Chouteau was the son of Rene Auguste Chouteau, who had emigrated to New Orleans some time prior to September 20, 1748 when he married 15 year old Marie Therese Bourgeois. She was born in New Orleans on January 14, 1733 to Nicolas Charles Bourgeois and Marie Joseph Tarare.
Rene Auguste Chouteau kept an inn and tavern in New Orleans. His son, Auguste Chouteau was probably born the year following the marriage.
By 1752 the elder Chouteau had abandoned his wife and baby son and returned to France. There was a family tradition that Chouteau was abusive to Marie
Therese. But whether he was physically abusive, he abandoned a very
young woman and small child leaving her to fend for herself. By 1763, Marie Therese was calling herself Veuve (Widow) Chouteau, more an indication that no one expected Chouteau to return to New Orleans rather than any real knowledge as to whether he was alive or not. In fact, Chouteau was not dead. In 1767 he returned to New Orleans, only to find that his wife and son had moved to the new settlement of St. Louis with Pierre Laclede.
Within a few years after the elder Chouteau abandoned her, Marie Therese met Pierre Laclede. She was still legally married to the missing Chouteau, and in any event divorce was not allowed in French Catholic territories, so they could never marry. But Laclede and Madame Chouteau (as she was always known) seemed to be as committed to each other as any married couple and they had four children together: Jean Pierre (1758), Marie Pelagie (1760), Marie Louise (1762) and Victoire, born March 3, 1764 when Laclede was in the Illinois country. As Shirley Christian says in her book Before Lewis and Clark, Laclede and Marie Therese "followed a policy of never admit and never explain." Thus, even though everyone knew that Chouteau had been missing for years, Marie Therese had all of her children baptised as the legitimate children of Rene Auguste Chouteau and so none of Laclede's children bore his name. (This would cause confusion for historians and geneologists in the future).
Laclede became, in fact if not by law, the step-father of Auguste Chouteau and it seems that they had a close relationship. Laclede was a well educated man and he saw that Auguste Chouteau became educated. When young Auguste Chouteau was old enough, Laclede employed him as his clerk. He took Chouteau with him on the 700 mile journey up the Mississippi to found St. Louis, leaving behind (temporarily) the pregnant Marie Therese and the other three children. Eventually Laclede would send Chouteau and a group of men up the river to begin the process of building the new St. Louis.
In his old age, Auguste Chouteau would write his memoirs in which he is unfailingly complimentary of Laclede. He called him "a man of great merit, capable from his experience, of conducting with skill and prudence the interests of the company." It was Chouteau himself, however, who would become the patriarch of St. Louis, its leading citizen and a very rich man.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
By this time, in 1763, Laclede and Chouteau were settled into their new residence at Nouvelle Chartres. It makes sense that they would have begun their trading, including obtaining introductions by Commander De Neyon to the various Indian tribes in the area.
But Laclede had no intention of investing a great deal of time into business in Nouvelle Chartres, he was impatient to choose a location for his new trading post at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
At some point in December, Laclede set out on an exploratory trip up the river to view the Western Bank of the Mississippi River below the Missouri and choose a location for his post.
Years later, his companion, Auguste Chouteau, would remember this trip:
After all the business of trade was done, he occupied himself with the means of forming an establishment suitable for his commerce, Ste. Genevieve not suiting him, because of its distance from the Missouri, and its insalubrious situation. These reasons decided him to seek a more advantageous site. In consequence, he set out from the Fort de Chartres in the month of December, took with him a young man in his confidence, and examined all the ground from the Fort de Chartres to the Missouri. He was delighted to see the situation [where St. Louis at present stands]; he did not hesitate a moment to form there the establishment that he proposed. Besides the beauty of the site, he found there all the advantages that one could desire to found a settlement which might become very considerable hereafter. After having examined all thoroughly, he fixed upon the place where he wished to form his settlement, marked with his own trees, and said to Chouteau, "You will come here as soon as navigation opens, and will cause this place to be cleared, in order to form our settlement after the plan that I shall give you." We set out immediately afterwards, to return to Fort de Chartres where he said, with enthusiasm, to Monsieur De Neyon, and to his officers, that he had found a situation where he was going to form a settlement, which might become, hereafter, one of the finest cities of America -- so many advantages were embraced in this site, by its locality and its central position, for forming settlement.
It is doubtful that Laclede actually said that last part, about founding a city that would become one of the finest cities of America. Chouteau was remembering this years later, after the Louisiana Purchase by the United States, and that "memory" seems likely to be a bit of political correctness. It is more likely that Laclede was enthusiastic about the opportunity for commerce up the Missouri River and then down to New Orleans.
No one knows exactly when this reconnaissance trip took place, but today there was a commemoration ceremony at the Arch followed by a 1763 era Christmas dance at the Old Courthouse. It was as good a day as any to celebrate that first landing.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
By November 19, 1763, Pierre LaClede and his companion, Auguste Chouteau, had been in the Fort de Chartres area for not quite two weeks. Unlike today, the Mississippi River valley did not have Comfort Inns to check into, so Laclede and Chouteau were probably staying with a local family. They needed a more permanent place to stay for at least a few months.
Laclede had already been outbid on the Jesuit property put up for auction only a few days after his arrival. Now an opportunity presented itself. A soldier of the garrison was was willing to sell his house which backed up to the King's Road, the main road that led from the little village of St. Phillipe, north of the fort, through Nouvelle Chartres and south, past Prairie du Rocher to Kaskaskia. If you were a merchant, it would be a good location for people to stop and talk to you about your wares. The soldier, Jean Girardin, had acquired the house from the wife of Jean Prunet, who was on the verge of bankruptcy. Prunet's wife claimed that she had a power of attorney from her husband to sell the property but she was now not able to produce it. Girardin was required to give the buyer an indemnity to cover damages if Prunet or his wife showed up to claim any ownership of the house.
Laclede purchased the house on behalf of the Company. It appears that he paid 7500 livres for it, much less than the amount he had bid for the Jesuit property. This sum also appears to be less than the 15,000 livres that Girardin had paid Prunet's wife for the property.
It would provide a good place to stay for Laclede and Chouteau. It was a two room furnished house with a lot. A fence enclosed the property, as was common in French colonial villages. It also came with 17 head of cattle.
However anxious Laclede and Chouteau were to venture up the river and scout a location for their new trading post, they would winter in Fort de Chartres.
The following is the deed executed for Maxent, Laclede & Co.'s new location in Nouvelle Chartres (from The Village of Chartres).
Was present in person Jean Girardin, private in the troops detached of the Marine, garrisoned in Illinois, residing in New Chartres, who by the presents has acknowledged and confessed to have on this day, sold, ceded, quitted and conveyed, and promises to warrant against all troubles, debts, dowers, mortgages, evictions, substitutions and all other incumbrances whichever generally, unto Messrs. Maxant, Laclede and Co., merchants, residing commonly in Illinois here present and accepting acquirer for himself, and Messrs. Maxant and Co., to wit: one house built on sills, consisting of two rooms, two closets, a shed, the lot belonging to said house, of which the parties cannot tell the dimensions, and on which there is a barn covered with straw, a pigeon house, a well of wood and other conveniences; said lot enclosed with cedar posts on all its faces bounded on one side by Ignace Hebert, on the other by Girardot, in front by a street opposite the lot of Girardot, in the rear by the King's road, the whole situate in New Chartres, and further all the furniture now in said house of whatever description they may be, and of which the parties have not thought proper to make a more ample statement, further seventeen head of cattle, one thousand weight fowls, and such as the whole now stands and lies and which said Mr. Laclede says he well knows for having seen and visited the same, without reserving or retaining anything on the part of said Girardin to whom the whole belongs as having acquired verbally from Veronique Panisse, wife of Jean Prunet dit La Giroflee, who has a power of attorney of her said husband for the sum of 15,000 livres, which was applied for the payment of the debts of said La Giroflee, and without that sale the creditors of Jean Prunet would have had said house sold at auction, being said land of the king's domain and up to this day free from any charge, rent or dues;
to be enjoyed and disposed of by said Laclede, Maxant and Co., their heirs and assigns, conveying unto them all rights of property, names, actions, reasons and other he has or may have on the property aforesaid, willing that said acquirer may be seized and put in possession by whom it may pertain, appointing to that effect as his attorney the bearer of the presents, giving him full power; and as it is found that said Panisse, wife of said Prunet dit la Giroflee, had not any power of attorney from her husband to authorize her to sell the said house, and that she could not in consequence execute a regular deed, said parties have agreed that in case of a reimbursement from La Giroflee in order to reenter in possession of his house or any other troubles he could apprehend said Girardin, binds himself to indemnify said Mr. Laclede, and to give good and sufficient security of said sum of 7500 livres, and that as soon as Girardin shall review the said bills of exchange of 7500 livres, and this has been stipulated by express clause and as to secure said Mr. Laclede against any troubles from said Prunet and wife; and for the execution of the presents, the parties have appointed their domicile in their respective residences aforesaid, where all acts of justice shall be made.
For thus has been agreed between the parties. Promising. Binding. Renouncing. Done and executed in Illinois in my office in the year 1763, the 19th of November in presence of Messrs. Laysard and Jean LaGrange, merchants who have with the parties and the Notary signed the presents after reading.
Layssard; Laclede Liguest; Jean Gerardin; Lagrange, wit.; Labuxiere, Notary.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
Let's start with the fact that I am not the obvious target audience for comic book based TV shows. I don't read comic books. I've never read comic books. Not because I have anything against comic books but because I just don't read them.
But I have watched superhero television. And enjoyed it. I haven't seen that many movies. But between the few movies I've seen and the television, I can identify some of the major superheroes.
For instance, Superman. I know Superman. Of course I do. Doesn't everyone? I watched every episode of the old George Reeves television show in reruns during the 1960's when I was a child. I think I watched it with my dad sometimes. I can still recite: "Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane ..." You know the rest. I also saw at least the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie. I saw quite a few episodes of Lois and Clark in the 90's. And I saw a few Smallville episodes, but probably not more than 10 or 15 over the entire run of the show. I know enough about Superman and Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson and Lex Luther that I don't feel left out of a Superman conversation.
I can also identify a fair number of characters in the Batman universe. I watched every episode of that show multiple times when I was a child. Yes, yes, I know. The TV show was a camp version of Batman and that the comic books were "darker". But from that TV show I know Batman and Robin (and Joker and Catwoman and Riddler, etc). I don't know the whole back story though. I saw the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movie version that came out when I was in my 20's but I don't remember much of it. I've never seen any of the Christopher Nolan versions.
I think I know Spiderman pretty much only from the Sunday funny pages. But that gave me a pretty good knowledge of Peter Parker. I never saw any of the Spiderman movies. I must have watched a Spiderman cartoon on Saturday mornings too because I can hear the Spiderman song in my head as I type this.
I'm pretty sure I saw a few episodes of Wonder Woman, but I really don't remember them.
Finally, I know the Incredible Hulk from the Bill Bixby TV series. I don't know much because I was in college when it was on and didn't see much television. But I have a general idea of what the Hulk is.
So I have a history of superhero TV but not really a true understanding of superhero universes. When I went to the movie theater to see The Avengers last year, I went only because it was a Joss Whedon movie and I like to support Joss. Sitting in the theater with some friends, I turned to them right before the lights went down and asked if they had seen any of the other Marvel movies. They hadn't. "I hope we have a clue what's going on and who these people are," I said.
We did. I figured out that Iron Man didn't have any powers and was just a rich guy with a suit. I figured out that Captain America was (surprisingly, at least to me) from World War II and had been frozen (or something) and was now thawed (or something). I knew enough Norse mythology that I could follow the Thor/Loki thing. I loved the Hulk - but that's probably because I knew who he was. I never really understood what Black Widow was or who that guy was who she was so upset was kidnapped by the bad guy. But it didn't really matter. It was light hearted fun. I'd never want to see it again, but I enjoyed it enough that I didn't feel like it had been a waste of money.
So when ABC announced that there was to be a new TV show, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., to be produced by Joss Whedon, I decided that I would watch it. After all, I watch all things Joss. And I've enjoyed superhero television in the past even though I haven't watched a full season of anything superhero related since I was 8 years old. I also decided that I would give the show one full season because I knew that most of Joss's shows take a while to get started.
Let me be honest. After watching a couple of months worth of episodes, I'm having a hard time imagining that I will actually watch this for the rest of the season.
The main problem I'm having with the show is that there is not a single character that I care about. Not only that, I find that I actively dislike Agent Ward and I truly find Sky and the two scientists annoying. It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing that all the characters will be killed off in a disastrous event. I can tolerate Agents Coulson and May. I'd be fine if they kept Coulson and May and started over with just the two of them. But I'm ready to write off the other characters.
I also find that I don't care at all about the crisis of the week that they have to solve. The villains aren't that villainous and the crises are just too .... big. We all know that the world isn't going to end every week.
I have wondered if I my reaction would be different if I were a real
Marvel comics book fan. I mean, it's one thing to watch Lois and Clark
as an adult (yeah, I know he's DC comics and not Marvel), but that was essentially a
romantic comedy. But this is supposed to be a true tie-in with the
Marvel comic book/movie universe and I don't really understand that
universe.
Maybe I'm just not able to tolerate comics book based TV anymore.
Then, scrolling through Netflix to find something to watch, I happened upon Arrow in my Netflix to-be-watched list. I had put it on the list because I had heard that some actors I enjoyed on Doctor Who were appearing in it: John Barrowman (Captain Jack Harkness), Colin Salmon (Doctor Moon, from Silence in the Libarary) and Alex Kingston (River Song). I remembered hearing that it was based on a DC comics character called Green Arrow. I knew nothing about Green Arrow. Literally nothing. I hadn't even heard of him until this TV series premiered.
So, on a cold, damp night when I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch a couple of episodes. I settled in at 6:30 that night, intending to watch 2 or 3 episodes - about 2 1/2 hours of television (without commercials). I would be finished by about 9:00 and then I intended to read a book.
At midnight I told myself that I had to stop watching TV and go to bed. I've basically mainlined season 1 of Arrow on Netflix over the last couple of weeks. Then I went to the website of The CW and caught up on all the episodes of season 2 that have aired so far. In fact, last Tuesday night I skipped Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to watch episodes of Arrow so that I could watch Arrow in real time on Wednesday night.
It is really a fun show. Not a perfect show. You certainly have to suspend disbelief, but that's ok. There are some issues with some of the women characters. But aren't there always? On the whole it is really a fun show that keeps my attention with characters that I care about.
If, like me, you know nothing about Green Arrow, here's how The CW describes the premise of the series:
After a violent shipwreck, billionaire playboy Oliver Queen was missing
and presumed dead for five years before being discovered alive on a
remote island in the Pacific. When he returns home to Starling City,
his devoted mother Moira, much-beloved sister Thea, and best friend
Tommy welcome him home, but they sense Oliver has been changed by his
ordeal on the island. While Oliver hides the truth about the man he's
become, he desperately wants to make amends for the actions he took as
the boy he was. Most particularly, he seeks reconciliation with his
former girlfriend, Laurel Lance. As Oliver reconnects with those
closest to him, he secretly creates the persona of Arrow - a vigilante –
to right the wrongs of his family, fight the ills of society, and
restore Starling City to its former glory. By day, Oliver plays the
role of a wealthy, carefree and careless philanderer he used to be -
flanked by his devoted chauffeur/bodyguard, John Diggle - while
carefully concealing the secret identity he turns to under cover of
darkness. However, Laurel's father, Detective Quentin Lance, is
determined to arrest the vigilante operating in his city. Meanwhile,
Oliver's own mother, Moira, knows much more about the deadly shipwreck
than she has let on – and is more ruthless than he could ever imagine.
That description really doesn't give any spoilers, most of that is revealed in the pilot.
Why is this show different from S.H.I.E.L.D.? (For one thing it doesn't have periods to type, which is a relief). It has a compelling lead character that I bought into from the first episode. I wanted to know what happened to Oliver on the island to turn him into the man he is. Clearly there is more than he is letting on. The flashbacks show him how he was and we see him now how he is. His body is covered in scars. He is a deadshot archer, where he had no such skill before. He now has amazing physical fighting skills. He also now speaks Chinese. And Russian. And he is ripped. No, I mean seriously ripped. I'm not really into guys with big muscles but Stephen Amell, who plays the Arrow character ... whoa, baby.
The other thing about him is that he is maybe a little bit of a psychopath. Or at least has tendencies. He is a killer. He can lie like anything. And yet, he is also a nice guy and as a viewer I really want him to become a hero and not a psychopath. It is not, however, clear at the beginning of the show how he will get to the point where he can be a hero.
The villains are also much, MUCH better than on S.H.I.E.L.D. I've already outlined my entire knowledge of the comic book universe and clearly I don't know much. I'm pretty sure Superman isn't going to show up in Starling City, or Batman. But apparently the show has a lot of latitude to bring in DC Comics characters and do what they want with them. (Similar to the latitude that Once Upon a Time has with Disney fairy tale characters.) Most of the time I can't tell if the villain is a DC Comics character or someone made up for the show, but it doesn't matter. They are very villainous. And they have defined personalities (maybe being in costume helps). S.H.I.E.L.D. villains always seem ... bland.
The people who the Arrow producers have found to play all these weekly villains are often actors I know from other series. Ben Browder (Crighton from Farscape), James Callis (Dr. Baltar from Battlestar Galactica), J. August Richards (Gunn from Angel), Seth Gabel (Lincoln from Fringe). Just to name a few. And that was who they got in Season 1. It was exciting to see them show up. They really ought to think about finding a character for Tatiana Maslany that can recur on this show - she'd be great as a supervillain (or other superhero who shows up from time to time).
On S.H.I.E.L.D. the guest stars haven't been bad, but the characters they play don't seem fully developed.
Arrow has a multi-layered story and the writers aren't leading us along slowly. We have been immersed in the island story from the first episode. At first I was doubtful about how they could maintain the flashbacks to the island without it becoming a combination of Lost and Survivor. But I soon found that part of the story as engrossing as, and sometimes more engrossing than, the present-day story. On S.H.I.E.L.D. there is clearly supposed to be a back story to Coulson's death and resurrection. But they just refuse to go there. At this point I pretty much don't care.
The stakes always seem higher on Arrow than they do on S.H.I.E.L.D. I'm pretty sure the writers of S.H.I.E.L.D.aren't going to kill off any of the cast members this early in the series (not even Joss does that) and I'm pretty sure that the Earth isn't going to be blown up, etc. So there is never any real tension in the episodes. On Arrow the threat is never to the world, it is always to something in Starling City or to people that Oliver cares about. So the stakes are lower but that means that there are stakes. Maybe if S.H.I.E.L.D. were in a smaller universe the plots would mean more. Maybe having them on the plane is the real problem. If you have a big plane you have to travel. Maybe the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. need to stay in one place.
In Arrow, Oliver has a version of the scooby gang that I've grown to know and love. I won't give too much away but over the course of season 1, Oliver ends up with a few people who learn his identity and begin helping him while also trying to keep him on the straight and narrow. Each of those characters is a likeable and interesting character in their own right. They don't seem to be types. On S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Coulson's entire group all seem like types and not real people.
Finally, Arrow has a Big Bad. The Big Bad isn't a supernatural Big Bad, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer days. But the Big Bad exists and you have someone to root against. This gives the overall season a story arc that's very good. S.H.I.E.L.D. has yet to introduce a Big Bad. There is not yet any story arc, although there are hints of one with the mystery of Coulson's death and resurrection and now the mystery of Skye's parents (but really, I don't care about her parents because I don't care about her).
Mostly, the character of Oliver Queen is interesting. He has had mysterious things happen to him. He has demons. He is a good person who is also a killer. He is complex. There is no one like him on S.H.I.E.L.D..
As I said, Arrow isn't perfect. Sometimes I get tired of the fight sequences. Everything looks a little too much like the Pacific Northwest (as most Vancouver shows do). And some of the women characters are annoying - especially the character of Laurel, the girlfriend Oliver cheated on before he disappeared. I admit that I regularly hope that Laurel will get killed off. Oliver's sister Thea was also somewhat annoying at the beginning of the show, although she does get better as the show goes on and the writers finally figured out what to do with her.
But these are fairly minor complaints. Is this great television? No. I'm sure it's no Breaking Bad. It's no Orange is the Next Black. But it's entertaining television. Hope they can continue to make it so.
On November 6, 1763, Pierre Laclede, a visitor in the village of Nouvelle Chartres, attended a local auction. The Jesuit Mission in the Illinois was packing up and leaving as part of the suppression of the order in the France and its domains. On July 9, 1763, an order had issued from the Governor of Louisiana expelling them from Louisiana.
According to witnessess**:
"Except for some books and some wearing apparel which was allowed to them, all their property, real and personal, was to be seized and sold at auction." The chapel ornaments at the mission in the Illinois were to be delivered to the King's procurator and the chapels were to be demolished. The Jesuits were from that moment prohibited from living in the same house and were to take ship to France at the earliest time.
The Jesuits in Illinois had extensive property. On the day of the auction, the property being auctioned consisted of a house that must have been quite large as it was "divided into different rooms" and had a garret and a cellar. There were also outbuildings, including slave quarters, a weaving room, a barn, a horse mill, a dovecote, and a stable.
Laclede had no intention of establishing a permanent post at Kaskaskia, but he needed somewhere to live and to establish himself with the residents.
Bidding seems to have been brisk. The opening bid was 8,000 livres from Jean Baptiste Bauvais. Raphael Bauvais immediately jumped the bid to 20,000 livres and from there it went up steadily. Mr. de Rocheblave (who would later be acting commander of the fort) bid 25,000. At that point Laclede jumped in and bid 30,000 livres. But he was soon outbid as the price jumped to 32,000 and then 35,000. Laclede re-entered the bidding at 39,000 livres but Jean Baptiste Bauvais was the winner at 41,000 livres.
Laclede was probably not concerned to lose the auction. Many people were leaving the Illinois, including soldiers garrisoned at the fort. There would be other properties for sale.
*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.
**For this and the details of the auction, see The Critical Period, 1763-1765, Volume 10 by Clarence Walworth Alvord.
