Acadian Controversy

Newspaper
Year
1899
Month
1
Day
19
Article Title
Acadian Controversy
Author
Valentin Landry
Page Number
3
Article Type
Language
Article Contents
ACADIAN CONTROVERSY. Mr. Landry Repudiates Mr. Pier’s Contentions and Ably Defends his Compatriots. (Free Press, Jan. 13, 1899.) Editor FREE PRESS. SIR,—It is rather amusing that Mr. Piers, in an article nearly two columns in length, published in your issue of Dec. 23, should appear to take exception to the length of my editorial of half a column a few weeks previous, anent school history in general and some passages in his contribution to “Supplementary Reading in Canadian History” in particular. I repeat what, in substance, I said then, that an error in essential matters of history is a grave and most unfortunate one ; still graver and more unfortunate when it is perpetuated through long years, from one generation to another ; especially, when a patient and long suffering people are laid under the heavy burden of a cruel injustice, and have to bear the stigma of being entirely at fault, when, in point of fact, they were the victims of a great wrong. Upon the attitude of the Acadiens towards the English rests the crucial question : Was the expatriation of the Acadiens justifiable? Now, I contend that Mr. Piers, when he represents the whole body of the Acadiens—numbering thousands—as hostile to the English, such misrepresentation is false and misleading in the extreme, and should have no place in reading for our public schools, composed as they are of differing nationalities and religious creeds. There were, no doubt, a few Acadien malcontents, and when we consider the treatment to which they were subjected by the different governors and their administration, the wonder is that the whole people had not risen in revolt. It speaks volumes for their forbearance and meekness that they bore all with such patience. Is it fair to bring the whole under censure for the acts of a few ? The Acadiens were charged with violating their oath of neutrality, when, in reality, the treaty of Utrecht, which permitted them to leave the country and take with them their movable effects, if they preferred not to take the oath of allegiance, was grossly violated. It is a pity that in preparing an article for use in our public schools, Mr. Piers should have contented himself with the limited sources from which he acknowledges he derived his information ; namely, Parkman’s History and the archives at hand, when Parkman, though acknowledged to be a brilliant and fascinating historian, is notorious as a prejudiced and incorrect one, especially in his earlier volumes ; though, as far as the Acadiens were concerned, at least, he appears to have made an effort to rectify former errors in his later ones. As to the Archives, Haliburton in his history deplores the fact that important documents bearing upon the subject we are discussing, were missing from the collection, “as if,” he says, “the parties to it were, as they might well be, ashamed of the transaction.” Richard also gives incontestable proof that very important letters and replies are missing. Now, from such untrustworthy and defective sources bas Mr. Piers obtained his material with which to build for posterity, when he might have availed himself of reliable authority, such as the eminent historians Rameau, l'abbé Casgrain and Richard, who drank from the fountain head in their researches for accurate information ; availing themselves of documents bearing upon this matter in the British Museum and elsewhere. We would recommend Mr. Piers to take a glance at the other side of a question he is apparently willing to see settled, according to his own point of view, which has not been sufficiently enlarged ; but, we trust, added years will make clearer his vision, and a careful consultation of the authors just mentioned, also a perusal of the chapter dealing with the dispersion and the causes which led to it considered in the Calnek-Savary History of Annapolis, edited by Judge A.W. Savary, a conspicuously just, conscientious and painstaking writer, would tend to clear away the mists of prejudice and correct the erroneous impressions gleaned from incomplete and incorrect sources. Haliburton has also given valuable testimony to the truth ; as has also Rev. Andrew Brown, a very distinguished Scotch historian, a man of erudition who lived in Halifax soon after the events under discussion took place, and knew many of the actors in the drama. Despite the force de Ramesay had with him the Acadiens did not wish him to remain with them at the time d’Anville was expected. Mr. Piers says “his presence in the country tended to embolden the Acadiens, whose animosity to the English had been stimulated to the utmost by LeLoutre and his emissaries,’ as if all Acadiens had been influenced when, in fact, any large body of soldiery would compel any people to assist them as guides, etc., and to supply provisions. Under the circumstances their acts were only rational, and due to the peculiar circumstances of their position. Mr. Piers’ accusations in this regard are far-fetched. His statement that a large body of pilots were used, is too indefinite as to number to be accepted. If de Ramesay directed that 300 French be left to guard the Acadiens the people asked that they be removed from their midst as they did not wish them to remain, and they called Mascarene’s attention to what they were compelled to do by the French. It is childish to say that an Acadien brought news of the arrival of the reinforcement to Annapolis. It was to be expected under any circumstances. An Englishman or an American would be found to-day to do the same thing under the same conditions. No proof have I yet seen to warrant that the Acadiens of Grand Pré and Port Royal had been influenced by Le Loutre, or “emboldened” to make any hostile movements, or commit any breach of their oath. The English authorities may have feared that it was or would be so ; but the Acadiens did nothing to justify those fears. Charges of treason were, however, made against twelve men, (probably young men) about this time : probably the ground of the accusation was some aid they rendered to de Ramesay ; perhaps they were not guilty. On page 112 of the Calnek Savary history of Annapolis we read that “a proclamation by Governor Shirley, of Massachusetts, was published at Annapolis offering a reward for the apprehension of certain persons of this province who were accused of treason.” Twelve of these sympathizers were arrested upon the denunciations of Acadiens ; “the latter of whom had been a servant to Captain Handfield, of the 40th regiment.” It should be remembered that no Acadiens were arrested for having taken up arms against the English, but simply for having advised and assisted the enemy, or for having failed to give information to the authorities when they were able to do so. As to the general conduct of the Acadiens I shall further quote Judge Savary’s note to pages 111 and 112, citing from Parkman himself. “Coulon’s arrival was a surprise to the habitants as well as to the English, but he made his way to a house where he saw a light, and found it was to be the scene of wedding festivities. He impressed some of the guests into his service to conduct him to the English officers’ quarters, that he might make himself master of them first, but they led him to the wrong place, and he complains that the guides would not give him any assistance in the attack. Immediately after the attack Ramezay plied the Acadiens with threats of the severest punishment if they should decline to actively aid him, declaring that France had now reconquered the country. They replied in pathetic terms assuring him of their “good heart,” their sympathy as Frenchmen, but imploring him to consider their position—exposed to ruin if they failed in strict loyalty to their masters with whom they had been in close contact for so many years. At the same time they sent to Mascarene a copy of Ramezay’s letter, begging him to consider that they could not avoid answering it as they did, but assuring him of their unfaltering loyalty to King George. After this de Ramezay issued another proclamation invoking the death penalty upon any Acadiens who might refuse to take up arms against the English, and asserting that the Bishop of Quebec had absolved them from their oaths. Thus were they threatened on one Bide with death, and on the other with confiscation and banishment ; and Shirley boldly reproaches the English Government for not protecting them with an adequate force from this constant and cruel pressure from the French, to which he ascribes their “fluctuating state.’’ In a later chapter, the compact between Queen Anne of England and Louis XIV of France is given, in which “it was agreed that the Acadiens might retain their lands, or sell them if they saw fit to remove rather than take the oath of allegiance and remain.” How that agreement was broken is one-of the foulest blots on the pages of history, and, as the author just quoted says : “Being in violation of the pledged faith of the Crown, was the first criminal error, bringing all the subsequent ones in its train.” From the same authority we learn that in addition to their refusal to aid de Ramesay the Acadiens “were also relied on to give warning to the English of any sign of an attack by French or Indians. They warned Noble of a probable attack on him at Grand Pré………….. Undoubted records show that the most severe threats --by agents of the French government to hand them over to the merciless revenge of the Indians failed to shake their resolution to withhold from Duvivier the use of their arms and ammunition when, relying on their active aid, he laid siege to the fort. “We live under a mild and tranquil government,” replied the Acadiens to the threats of the French commander, “and we have all good reason to be faithful to it.” And it is further shown that despite the coercion and flattery, by turns, of the different governors to induce the Acadiens to take an unqualified oath of allegiance “their disposition to submit to extreme terms rather than subscribe to the required oath proved the transcendent importance they attached to such an oath, and would of itself indicate that fidelity to a sworn obligation was a ruling feature of their character. And their conduct, as a whole, in fulfilling the requirements of the oath they had taken, amply justified the conclusion to which their remarkable scrupulousness suggests.” “The statement of Parkman, that they would neither leave the country nor take the oath, is contradicted by every record bearing on the question.” And this untruthful historian blinded, it is thought, by intense religious bigotry, is the authority relied on by Mr. Piers, who should hereafter seek a safer guide. In their anxiety to shield the Imperial government—and no one of calm judgment who is aware of the false and garbled statements sent to the Lords of Trade in England wilfully misrepresenting the Acadiens—can, for a moment, hold the Home government,—so distant from the place where these outrages were being perpetrated, and so ignorant of the condition of affairs really existing there,—responsible for those outrages. Writers on Acadien History have willfully withheld facts, which they were well aware, would reflect unfavorably upon the conduct of the English towards the Acadiens. But there are now English writers who are disposed to throw a true light upon these past events, and none too soon, considering the long and cowardly silence of those who would naturally be considered the champions of these cruelly misrepresented people ; and the false accusations must stand forth in their naked shame, stripped of all specious disguise, and on not a few is the brand burned in, to their everlasting disgrace. With regard to the statement made by Mr. Piers that the French crew, during Le Palme’s homeward voyage, wished to have some of the English prisoners killed to satisfy their hunger, only one of the several authorities I have consulted gives any such account, and the story as he tells it describes a mutiny on board the ship at the time the dreadful demand of which Mr. Piers speaks was made, and the Captain without refusing to accede to it, put off granting the request, in hopes that a sail would appear, which hope was gratified in a few hours and provision furnished to the starving crew. But, conceding that statement made by Mr. Piers to be correct, is he so ignorant as to think that case a unique one in the annals of history? Has Mr. Piers, for instance, not read or heard of Franklin’s expedition and what occurred on that momentous voyage? It is not the first, or, by any means, a solitary instance of extreme hunger transforming men into beasts. Revolting as is the thought of demanding human flesh for food, how can we understand, if we have never experienced the cravings of starvation, and, not exempted from hard work either under such conditions ! The conditions prevailing at the time the events now under consideration took place have not been sufficiently taken into account by many writers and their readers also, who are too deficient in imagination to understand these conditions; while some are too prejudiced to make an effort to put themselves in the place of those they are criticizing. VALENTIN A. LANDRY.