King William's War
Page 36
22. NY Col. Doc., IX, 241–242, 252–258; Eccles, Frontenac, 167–169; Charlevoix, III, 249, 252–254.
23. NY Col. Doc., IX, 236–239.
24. Charlevoix, III, 253–256; Colden, History of the Five Nations, 49–57; NY Col. Doc. IX, 243-248. Meulles also claimed that La Barre had arrived at his decision without consulting a single officer or official with him. He then departed in such a hurry that he appeared to have “lost his wits, caring little what became of the army.” Given how ill La Barre was during the negotiations, the latter statement might go far in explaining La Barre’s state of mind and his actions during the conference. (Ibid., 245–249.)
CHAPTER 5: RIVALS TO THE NORTH
1. NY Col. Doc., IX, 269; Denonville, DCB, I.
2. NY Col. Doc., IX, 271–272.
3. Ibid., IX, 280–287; Denonville, DCB, I.
4. NY Col. Doc., IX, 271–287; Eccles, Canada Under Louis XIV, 141–147. Denonville noted that although the English colony of Virginia had problems with the Iroquois “the gain of the merchant of Orange and Manatte is paramount to every public interest.” (NY Col. Doc., IX, 281).
5. Battle for James Bay, 21–23, 93–96.
6. Willson, The Great Company, 39–41; Kellogg, Early Narratives of the North West, 27–66; Bryce, History of the Hudson Bay Co., 1–8.
7. Willson, The Great Company, 33–35, 38, 41–48; Bryce, History of the Hudson Bay Co., 8–17; Report from Committee on Boundaries of Ontario, 55–63. Although the French would reject the English water basin claim to Hudson Bay, they employed similar types of claims to the south.
8. NY Col. Doc., IX, 72–73; Boundaries of Ontario, 131–132; Bryce, History of the Hudson Bay Co., 110–111. Albanel’s journal of his expedition can be found in JR, LVI, 148–217.
9. Albanel, DCB, I; Frontenac to Colbert, 13 Nov. 1673, NAC, MG8-A1 serie 2.
10. Battle for James Bay, 8–9; Boundaries of Ontario, 132–133; “Radisson Relation,” RCA 1895, 3–7; NY Col. Doc., IX, 796–798.
11. Radisson Relation, RCA 1895, 9–49; Boundaries of Ontario, 133–135; Cal.A&WI, XI, 565.
12. State Papers-Hudson Bay, RCA 1895, 1–3; NY Col. Doc., IX, 800.
13. Battle for James Bay, 40–41, 66–76; Boundaries of Ontario, 139. The French detachment’s astonishing march is detailed in Troyes’s Journal in Battle for James Bay, 40–66.
14. Battle for James Bay, 76–88, 102–111. See Cal. A&WI, XII, 369, 388–390, 404–406, 412, 426, 468, for French and English territorial claims over Hudson Bay and the financials losses claimed by the Hudson Bay Company.
CHAPTER 6: DENONVILLE’S EXPEDITION
1. NY Col. Doc., III, 455–463, IX, 271–273, 280–292; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 97–98.
2. NY Col. Doc., III, 388–389, 428, 504–505, IX, 319–332; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 119–120; Colden, The History of the Five Nations, 61.
3. Lamberville was not aware of the plan.
4. The Windsor Border Region, 10–11; NY Col. Doc., IX, 362–363; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 121–124.
5. Charlevoix, III, 284–285; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 125–126; NY Col. Doc., IX, 363. Denonville dealt severely with a French guide who led one of the English parties. He treated him as a deserter and had him shot. (Charlvoix, III, 286.)
6. NY Col. Doc., IX, 363–365; Charlevoix, III, 285–289; DHSNY, I, 237–238, 246–250; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 128–129; French sources give 800, while Iroquois sources claim 400 to 450. Given that many of the warriors were gone at the time the latter number seems more likely.
7. NY Col. Doc., IX, 365; DHSNY, I, 237. French casualties reported by Denonville were one regular, five militia, and five Indians killed (among the latter was a Mohawk chieftain of the Sault St. Louis Mission), five regulars and six militia wounded. Denonville does not specify the wounded among his allies, which given the nature of the fight was probably a dozen or so. The casualties among the regulars are interesting given that they were not engaged and likely reflect friendly fire (Charlevoix, III, 286–289).
8. NY Col. Doc., III, 431–436, IX, 332–344, 368–369; Colden, The History of the Five Nations, 63–65.
9. NY Col. Doc., III, 436–444, 466–479, 512–519; Cal. A&WI XII, 432–438. Dongan was unquestionably in favor of English intervention on the side of their allies, writing England that, “the French are encroaching as fast as they can and a little thing now may prevent great expense of blood and money hereafter.” (Ibid., 432–433.)
10. Ibid., 457–458; NY Col. Doc., III, 537–550, 569–571, IX, 369–393; Charlevoix, III, 304–308, IV, 14–15.
11. NY Col. Doc., IX, 375–377, 395.
12. Ibid., 401–408.
13. Ibid., 416–418.
CHAPTER 7: ACADIA AND NEW ENGLAND
1. Murdoch, History of Nova Scotia, I, 36–37, 45–49, 55–59, 64; Calnek, History of Annapolis, 13–16.
2. Charlevoix, III, 128–129; Calnek, History of Annapolis, 16–19; Cal. A&WI, I, 132, 152.
3. Calnek, History of Annapolis, 19–29; Charlevoix, III, 129–132; Charles de St. Etienne de la Tour, DCB, I.
4. Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, I, 168–169; Murdoch, History of Nova Scotia, I, 126–127; Calnek, History of Annapolis, 13–16.
5. Chalmers, Collection of Treaties, I, 133–150 (Treaty of Beda). Under the treaty English interest in Nova Scotia was exchanged for the return of a portion of St. Christopher’s Island.
6. Cal. A&WI, VII, 2–3, 7–11, 35–36, 153–154. See Lincoln, Narratives of the Indian Wars, Drake, A History of King Philips War, and “Soldiers in King Philip’s War,” NEHGR, XXXVII (1883), 61–76, 170–189, 278–285, 362–375 for New England accounts of this conflict.
7. Baron Jean-Vincent de St. Castin, DCB, II; Charlevoix, III, 294–295. The Wabanaki Confederacy consisted of the Abenaki, the Mi’kmaq, the Maliseet, the Passamaquoddy, and the Penobscot. The confederacy was a traditional enemy of the Iroquois.
8. Whitmore, Memoir of Sir Edmund Andros, xvii-xix; NY Col. Doc., III, 248–249, 254–257.
9. NH Prov. Papers, II, 46–47; Charlevoix, IV, 15–16; Hutchinson Papers, MHSC, 3rd ser., I, 85–87.
10. Drake, Border Wars of New England, 10–11; Doc. Hist. Maine, VI, 429–430.
CHAPTER 8: THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION
1. Hall, The Glorious Revolution in America, 3–5; For the immediate causes of the Glorious Revolution in England, see Jones, Convergent Forces.
2. Neal, History of New England, II, 428–429; NY Col. Doc., III, 536–550.
3. Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, 316–324, 332–341; Hall, The Glorious Revolution in America, 30–36, 39–48; Andros Tracts, I, 149–173. Complaints as to Andros’s conduct had previously reached England to the extent that the Board of Trade recommended recalling Andros. (NY Col. Doc., III, 573.)
4. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 71, 101–102. The judges appointed by Andros as well as the custom agents and tax collectors were also seized as part of the revolutionary zeal creating havoc with basic government functions.
5. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 109–110.
6. Ibid., 80–81; NY Col. Doc., III, 277–278. Lt. Governor Nicholson wrote to the Board of Trade, “It has been very fatal to this city and province to be annexed to Boston; indeed, if continued it would have been our ruin.” Cal.A&WI, XIII, 35, 38–39.
7. NY Col. Doc., III, 574–576.
8. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 64–65; NY Col. Doc., III, 594. Stephen Van Cortlandt of the New York Council wrote that after arguing with Cuyler’s captain, Abram De Peyster, the two men stormed out of the fort and alarmed the town, greatly magnifying Nicholson’s comments. (NY Col. Doc., III, 593–594.)
9. Purple, Edwin, Geneological Notes Relating to Lt. Governor Jacob Leisler, Private Printing, New York: 1877, 7–8.
10. Hall, The Glorious Revolution in America, 102–114; NY Col. Doc., III, 738–739.
11. Ibid., 102–114; Cal.A&WI, XIII, 80–81. Leisler commandeered the £773 that h
ad been raised for the relief of Albany and used it to repair Fort James. (Ibid.)
CHAPTER 9: THE WABANAKI AND THE IROQUOIS
1. N.H. Prov. Papers, I, 357–358; Drake, Border Wars of New England, 15–19.
2. Ibid., 19–20; N.H. Prov. Papers, II, 47–50.
3. Lincoln, Narratives of the Indian Wars, 186–187, 195–196; Drake, Border Wars of New England, 20–22; N.H. Prov. Papers, 50–55.
4. Johnston, History of Bristol and Bremen, 163–170; Charlevoix, IV, 39–42; Collection de Manuscrits. . . Relatifs Nouvelle-France, I, 477–481. Of the 156 men assigned to the fort, desertion and recalls had reduced their numbers to a little over 30 at the time of Castin’s attack. (Johnston, History of Bristol and Bremen, 163.)
5. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 114–115; Ten Years at Pemaquid, 144–153; Charlevoix, IV, 42–44.
6. Doc. Hist Maine, IX, 66; Giles Memorial, 108–111.
7. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 111, 120.
8. Doc. Hist. Maine, IX, 54–56; Drake, Border Wars of New England, 36–37.
9. Belknap, History of N.H., I, 131; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 157, 166.
10. Church, King Philip’s War, 93–104; Siege of Falmouth, 38–39; New Plymouth, 75–78.
11. Church, King Philip’s War, 103–104.
12. NY Col. Doc., IX, 431, 434–435.
13. Girouard, Lake St. Louis, Old and New, 124–135; Collection de Manuscrits. . . Relatifs Nouvelle-France, I, 567–571; Colden, The History of the Five Nations, 72; Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 224–225.
CHAPTER 10: THREE WARS, ONE NAME
1. NY Col. Doc., IX, 422–428; Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France, 195.
2. Lahontan, New Voyages to North America, I, 150, 152; NY Col. Doc., IX, 431.
3. Frontenac to Minister, Nov. 15, 1689, MG1-C11A, vol. 10, fol. 217–224; NY Col. Doc., IX, 435–438.
4. Frontenac to Minister, Nov. 15, & Nov. 17, 1689, MG1-C11A, vol. 10, fol. 217–224, 343–344; NY Col. Doc., IX, 435.
5. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France, 205; Lanctot, History of Canada, II, 116–117.
6. Colden, The History of the Five Nations, 93–100.
7. NY Col. Doc., IX, 448–451.
8. DHNY, I, 186.
9. Ibid., 186–188; Charlevoix, The History of New France, IV, 121–125; Andros Tracts, III, 114–116. The compiled casualty list and those carried away as prisoners are printed in DHNY, I, 190–191.
10. DHNY, I, 187; Andros Tracts, III, 117; Cal. A &WI, XIII, 247–249.
11. DHNY, I, 188–189; Cal.A&WI, XIII, 247–249.
12. DHNY, I, 188, II, 87–88; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 247–249. The French reported twenty-one lost, four natives and seventeen Frenchmen. (King William’s War in America, 8.)
13. Also known as Wohawa. Hopehood was already known across the frontier for his raids during King Philip’s War (Drake, 116).
14. Frontenac to Minister, April 30, 1690, MG1-C11A, vol 11, fol. 83–85. Frontenac’s strategy was not without its critics. The intendant, Champigny, pointed out that the three attacks should have been concentrated on Albany. “If this blow had been struck against Albany we would have seen the Iroquois greatly humbled, being out of reach of Manhatten and Boston, particularly during the winter.” (Memoire de ce qui s’est passé en Canada . . . durant l’annee 1690, F3, Moreau de St. Mery. Cited in Eccles, Frontenac.)
15. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 272.
CHAPTER 11: THE REDUCTION OF CANADA
1. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 17–27; Clarendon Papers, 172–176. For accounts of Andros’s capture and imprisonment, see Andros Tracts, III, 95–102. An accounting of original documents pertaining to the political crisis can be found in Hall, The Glorious Revolution in America.
2. Andros Tracts, III, 119. The Iroquois also pressed the governments of Massachusetts and New York to undertake an invasion of Canada (Colden, The History of the Five Nations, 93–100).
3. DHNY, II, 113; Brandow, Old Saratoga and Schuylerville, 17; NY Col. Doc., III, 700–701, 716–717, 727; Munsell, The Annals of Albany, II, 210–211, 213–215.
4. Doc. Hist. Maine, V, 68.
5. Ibid., V, 59–63. Fears of a French fleet operating out of Port Royal would escalate to a point that one Bostonian wrote his colleague, “We are in great danger, if four or five French ships should attack us sharply we should probably be reduced under another Government.” (Cal A&WI, XIII, 213.)
6. Phips, Sir William, DCB, III. Phips lists his squadron as: Six Friends (forty-two guns), Porcupine (sixteen), Mary (eight), Union (four), Mary Anne (two), and a pair of ketches, the Lark and the Bachelor. Total compliment: 286 (A Journal of the Proceedings of the Late Expedition to Port Royal, 15).
7. Cal. A &WI, XIII, 275–276. NY Col. Doc., IX, 474–475, 921. Captain Southack of the Porcupine claimed that there were eighty-four French prisoners in all (Doc. Hist. Maine, V, 127). The French engineer, de Saccardy, that was dispatched to erect a new fort at Port Royal was taken prisoner by New England privateers in the Bay of Fundy not long after Phips’s departure. Fortunately for him, a French privateer overtook his New England captives and freed him a few days later. (NY Col. Doc., IX, 474–475; Villebon Memoirs, 22–24). One of Southack’s crew on this voyage was none other than future privateer Captain William Kidd.
8. Doc. Hist. Maine, V, 65–66. In a petition to Massachusetts concerning an attack on Quebec, New York questioned the wisdom of attacking Port Royal, as it would only warn the French of English intentions. (NY Col. Doc., III, 695–698.)
9. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 240.
10. NY Col. Doc., II, 263–269; Cal A&WI, XIII, 273, 283.
11. Doc. Hist. Maine, V, 64
12. Ibid., V, 93–94; NY Col. Doc., III, 700–705, 731–732; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 255–256, 261. Maryland also promised to raise a hundred men to support the expedition.
13. “Phips’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 35; “Savage’s Account,” ibid., 49; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 213, 376; The Expedition to Canada, 1690, 29. One account of the expedition claimed that there was only seventy barrels of powder for the entire fleet. (Cal. A&WI, XIII, 376.)
14. NY Col. Doc., IX, 473–474.
15. Ibid., 470–471; Wisconsin Hist. Coll., V, 65–67.
16. Charlevoix, IV, 142; NY Col. Doc., IX, 474–478. French losses were reported to be a dozen with claims of twice as many Iroquois casualties. (Charlevoix, IV, 142.)
17. Prevost was originally an officer in the Carigan-Salières Regiment. By Royal Commission he was appointed town major of Quebec in 1668 and would hold this post for more than thirty years (Prevost, DCB, II). Charlevoix, IV, 152–153; “Relation de Janclot,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 74; NY Col. Doc., IX, 482–483; Frontenac to Minister, Nov. 12, 1690 MG1-C11A, vol. 10, 121–122.
18. “Relation de Janclot,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 74–75; NY Col. Doc., IX, 459, 483–485; Charlevoix, IV, 168–169; “Plan de Quebec. . . ”. At this point none of the gates into the city had doors. Frontenac had them barricaded, particularly the palace gate near the intendant’s home. (NY Col. Doc., IX, 484–485.)
19. Cal. A&WI, XIII, 376–377; “Relation de Janclot,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 75–76; NY Col. Doc., IX, 485–486.
20. NY Col. Doc., IX, 485–487.
21. Ibid.
22. “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 10; “Savage’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 49; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 376–377. In addition, several large vessels were sent up the St. Lawrence to give the illusion that another English force was landing south of the town. (“Walley’s Journal,” ibid.)
23. Two Narratives, 9, 36–37; NY Col. Doc., IX, 487; “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 10–11.
24. Frontenac to Minister, Nov. 12, 1690, MG1-C11A. To the delight of the defenders Callières entered the town that evening with eight hundred men. (“Relation de Janclot,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 76.)
25. For simplicities sake I have attempted to use Gregorian calendar dates. The French had already adopted this current calendar style, while the Eng
lish still used the Julian calendar, which was ten days behind the Gregorian calendar.
26. Two Narratives, 37–38; “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 11–12; NY Col. Doc., IX, 487.
27. “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 13.
28. NY Col. Doc., IX, 487–488; Charlevoix, IV, 176–177. French casualties were reported as five killed and a dozen wounded. (NY Col. Doc., IX, 487.)
29. “Savage’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 50; “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 13–14.
30. NY Col. Doc., IX, 488; Two Narratives, 38; Charlevoix, IV, 179.
31. “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 13–14; “Savage’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 50–51.
32. “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 16–17.
33. NY Col. Doc., IX, 488; “Relation La Potherie,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 65–66; Charlevoix, IV, 179–181. There were less than half a dozen French casualties, but among them were the two Le Moyne brothers. (Ibid.)
34. “Walley’s Journal,” The Expedition to Canada, 16–19.
35. Ibid.; Two Narratives, 23–25. Rev. John Wise, who left a biting narrative of the campaign, placed the blame for the loss of the cannon and many other things on Walley. Savage, in his account, defended Walley, saying that it was more likely the fault of the captain in charge of the guns. (Two Narratives, 5–18; “Savage’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 51.)
36. Frontenac to Minister, Nov. 12, 1690 MG1-C11A; NY Col. Doc., IX, 489.
37. History Of New England, 465; “Savage’s Account,” Phips Devant Quebec, 1690, 51; Cal. A&WI, XIII, 376–377.
38. The wind channeling from the southwest (downriver) or from the northwest (upriver) is a common occurrence in this area triggered by low-pressure systems tracking north or south of the St. Lawrence valley. (The Weather of Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec, 97–99.)
CHAPTER 12: WINTHROP’S FOLLY