Acadia's Outpost: Beaubassin before the Deportation

ACADIA’S OUTPOST: BEAUBASSIN BEFORE THE DEPORTATION by Jared R.C. Smith Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in History Acadia University April, 2014 ©Copyright by Jared R.C. Smith, 2014 This thesis by Jared R.C. Smith Is accepted in its present form by the Department of History & Classics as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours Approved by the Thesis Supervisor ___________________________________ __________________________________ Dr. Barry Moody Date Approved by the Head of Department ___________________________________ __________________________________ Dr. Paul Doerr Date Approved by the Honours Committee ____________________________________ _________________________________ Dr. Matthew Lukeman Date ii I, Jared R.C. Smith, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis. Signature of Author iii Acknowledgements This accomplishment would not have been possible without the wonderful support that I have received in my growth as a scholar and as an individual. In the first place, I extend my generosity specifically to Dr. Barry Moody. Your patience and wise direction greatly developed not only my writing, but also my critical thinking. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. Stephen Henderson in this light for challenging me to meet a new standard. However, as this study elucidates, it is the development of distinct personalities which truly distinguishes people. I would not be the man I am today without the constant support of my family and friends. It is thanks to you that I even felt ready to tackle this task. Je vous aime tous beaucoup. Merci bien. iv Table of Contents Title page ............................................................................................................................... i Approval page ...................................................................................................................... ii Permission for Duplication .................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. v Abstract ............................................................................................................................... vi Introduction: The Intricacies of Identity ......................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Historiography ........................................................................................... 4 The initial naïve school of thought ........................................................................... 5 A need to focus on something deeper ...................................................................... 8 The conflict over the distinctiveness of an Acadian identity ................................. 12 Attempts to define a specific identity in Beaubassin ............................................. 20 Conclusion/Direction for rest of study ................................................................... 25 Chapter Two: Chignecto’s Peculiar Characteristics .................................................... 27 Beaubassin’s geography ......................................................................................... 27 The initial independence of Beaubassin’s habitants .............................................. 34 The impact of Beaubassin’s geography ................................................................. 43 Further character traits of the Beaubassin habitants .............................................. 48 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 61 Chapter Three: The True Test/A Comparison of Beaubassin with other Terroirs.... 63 The initial distinction of Beaubassin’s habitants ................................................... 63 Beaubassin’s division from the other Acadian settlements.................................... 65 Comparison of Beaubassin and France .................................................................. 71 Distinction from New France ................................................................................. 87 Difference from the British administrators of Acadia ............................................ 89 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 93 Conclusion: Definitely Distinct ....................................................................................... 94 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 96 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 98 v Abstract Pursuing a continuation of the most recent school of thought on the Acadians, this study reveals that the determining factor in the formation of a distinguishable identity of Acadians at Beaubassin was its setting. First, the separate historiographies of Acadia and Beaubassin are examined. Considering the prominence of geography in these histories, this paper subsequently shows that it extensively affected the character of Beaubassin’s inhabitants. Geography’s relationship with Beaubassin’s residents resulted in the development of attributes which distinguished these colonists in Acadia, such as their much greater obstinacy toward their British rulers. However, the Beaubassin community is demonstrated as complex, for example, in showing both hospitality and a dislike of outsiders. Through an expansion of the geographic peculiarities and distinct traits of Chignecto’s settlers, it is demonstrated that the Beaubassin residents were notably distinct from the inhabitants of the other Acadian settlements of Les Mines and Port-Royal, and also from the British administrators in Acadia after 1713. Considerable emphasis is placed on not only these communities, but also on the separate peoples of rural France and New France. Some parallels are shown to exist between these other regions, such as their inhabitants’ relationship with their environment, their family, the Church and the state. However, it is determined that although they share similarities with all of these separate areas, some differences ultimately existed. Like the greater independence of Beaubassin, this distinctiveness was rooted principally in geography. As these characteristics all derived from geography, the true distinction of Beaubassin was its unique status as Acadia’s outpost. vi Introduction: The Intricacies of “Identity” One of the major attractions of the study of history is that is not static, but constantly evolving. New sources, perspectives, and criticisms of viewpoints present themselves continuously. However, the perpetual transformation which strongly attracts people to consider history does not simply confine itself to historical study. Likewise, the identities of peoples portray a shifting nature. Clive Doucet elucidated this aspect of identity, asserting: “Identity comes from many places, from both within and without, and cannot be reduced to a single moment, or explained like a multiplication table. Identity resists absolute definitions and often remains mysterious to both the owner and the stranger.”1 He arrived at this conclusion in his effort to explain the significance of being Acadian. He suggested that Acadians are “a distinctive people even without frontiers.” 2 However, this strong assertion is puzzling to one uneducated in the history of North America. Appropriately therefore, the basic history of Acadia must be examined in order to properly understand Doucet’s claim. During the European colonization of North America after 1497, the French initially established themselves in the territory currently recognized as the Maritime Provinces of Canada. At that time, the French referred to this portion of the New World as “Acadie” or Acadia, and the colonists who settled there were known as Acadians. Although this territory vacillated under the European powers of France and England in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Acadians remained a permanent fixture. The status quo was broken, however, in 1755 when the English deported most Acadians from Acadia to multiple distant shores. Subsequently, the region became largely an English-speaking 1 2 Clive Doucet, Notes from Exile: on being Acadian (Toronto: M&S, 1999), 207-08. Doucet, 208. 1 territory. Although many studies have focused on the Acadians and Acadia, there is something to be gained from examining a specific Acadian community. Although the Acadian settlement of Beaubassin located on the Chignecto Isthmus was literally the smallest settlement over Acadia’s history, after its founding in 1671 through to its burning circa 1750, its population was never insignificant.3 Appropriately therefore, this analysis will investigate the question of identity at Beaubassin. As the Acadians operated between French and English, this paper utilizes certain French words and certain terms which are particularly important. First, this investigation uses the term terroir quite frequently. Similarly to Pierre Goubert, this investigation uses it to describe localities of varying sizes including all the physical attributes necessary “towards the existence, survival and prosperity of a group of human beings.” 4 Equally, this study commonly applies the term habitant to the residents of Beaubassin. It is meant to imply a relationship to the land, but, like the word “resident,” this applies only insofar as the persons in question dwell either permanently at Beaubassin or for a considerable period of time. This usage is not to be confused with the treatment of this word by other authors.5 Additionally, the terms “nation” and “people” are commonly used in reference 3 A.H. Clark, Acadia: the geography of early Nova Scotia to 1760 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), 130; Samantha Rompillon, “La Migration à Beaubassin, Village Acadien, Fruit de la Mobilité et de la Croissance,” M.A. thesis, Université de Poitiers, 1998, 122-24: we do not know the precise date of the burning of the village, but Rompillon showed that all sources seem to agree that it occurred in the year of 1750. 4 “A terroir meant a locality, which included all the buildings, courtyards, gardens, vineyards, fields, open or enclosed, meadows and pastures of all sorts, wasteland, moorland, woods, forest, not forgetting the network of tracks and streams, which all made varying contributions towards the existence, survival and prosperity of a group of human beings which might be as large as a big village, or a small one, or just a single, isolated farm. There was obviously an infinite variety of these localities then as now, although naturally most of the component elements are fairly universal.” Pierre Goubert, The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Maison de Sciences de l’Homme and Cambridge University Press, 1986), 6. 5 Naomi Griffiths, The Contexts of Acadian History, 1686-1784 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992), 20-21: Griffiths suggested the term habitant signifies adherence to the seigneurial system or a “rank-ordered system of land-ownership” where this study does not insinuate there to be a connection 2 to identity. Besides “nation’s” connotation with sovereignty, it shares with “people” the definition of a larger, distinguishable collective made up of similarly defining individuals.6 For example, similar traits, such as nationality or class, naturally give different perceptions and characteristics to individuals. This further distinguishes the “nation” or “people” from others. It is therefore understandable that, like identity, these words are important and their meaning is significant. However, it is crucial to separately define these words used frequently in this investigation due to their centrality to this analysis. The following essay investigates the applicability of the above terms of identity, nation, and people to the habitants of Beaubassin in the 17th and 18th centuries. The first chapter reviews the literature of the nature of the Acadians at Beaubassin. The next chapter investigates the actual character and development of Beaubassin’s residents, but limits itself to the region of Chignecto. Appropriately, the final chapter compares these conclusions to other peoples originating from the terroirs of Acadia, Europe, and North America. In this way, it is clearly established that the habitants of the Beaubassin area possessed characteristics which distinguished them from not only contemporary Europeans, but from other Acadians as well. between ownership of the land and the designation of being a habitant; Allan Greer, The Patriots and the People : The Rebellion of 1837 in Rural Lower Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 13: Furthermore, unlike Greer’s use of the term, habitant here does not necessarily require the people to be “rustic” and live rurally. 6 This definition is notably similar to Mouhot’s definition of “ethnicity” which he defined as as “[un] ensemble d’individus que rapprochent un certain nombre de caractères de civilisation, notamment de la communauté de la langue.” Jean-François Mouhot, Les Réfugiés Acadiens en France, 1758-1785 (Québec: Septentrion, 2009), 344. 3 Chapter One: Historiography In a character analysis of the Beaubassin habitants from 1670-1750, it is first necessary to delve more generally into the historiography of the ways in which Acadians understood the world around them. Originally, writers relied on a crude, simple image to portray the residents of Acadia. This initial naïve school of thought demeaned the habitants as it robbed them of the power of independent thought and action making them marionettes to European powers. It would not be until the investigation of John Bartlet Brebner that another view of the Acadians was introduced which interpreted them as more complex. This revolutionary perspective in the historiography of the Acadians opened the door to more sophisticated questions about them. One such question was the existence of a unique Acadian identity. The distinction established by Naomi Griffiths of the Acadian identity provoked a great deal of discussion, and many continue to support her position that these settlers were unique. However, understandably, there are those that denied this theory, as represented by the works of Jean-François Mouhot and of Gilles Havard and Cécile Vidal. Interestingly enough, both studies concluded there was nothing exceptional about these habitants, each arguing they were akin to the people of a French province.1 Further investigating this question of Acadian similarity with France, George M.W. Kennedy argued there was a similarity between Acadia and the Loudunais. He suggested that both groups display certain peculiarities from the larger whole.2 This is an astute observation as each of these authors struggled with the question of how geography affected the habitants’ character. After an analysis of their investigations, it is clear that Mouhot, 36 (see introduction, n. 6); Gilles Havard and Cécile Vidal, Histoire de l’Amérique Française (Mayenne: Flammarion, 2003), 13. 2 Gregory M.W. Kennedy, “French Peasants in Two Worlds: A Comparative Study of Rural Experience in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Acadia and the Loudunais,” diss., York University, 2008, 436. 1 4 physical setting factored a great deal in the development of Acadian character. Following this line of thought, authors such as Myriam Marsaud and Samantha Rompillon paid homage to Griffiths’ school of thought. They simultaneously determined there to be a distinctive identity to the separate terroirs of Acadia, such as Beaubassin. It is the intent of this chapter to explore strengths and weaknesses of these schools of thought. The initial naïve school of thought Widespread interest in the Acadians was first stimulated by Evangeline, an epic poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Published in 1847, this poem told the story of the fictional young girl Evangeline and her experiences in Acadia before, during and after le grand dérangement. In his verse, Longfellow portrayed the simplistic habitants as living in the ideal world, dwelling in “the love of God and man,” sharing equality and plenty.3 This early depiction interpreted these habitants as a very simple and unsophisticated people, desiring only their most basic needs. Moreover, these settlers were depicted as especially pious.4 However, as a historical source, Longfellow’s work was weak, not only because of the fact he that was writing fiction, but also because of how was led to his interpretation. Surely, he first heard of the account of the 1755 Deportation second-hand. Relying heavily on the work of Abbé Guillaume Thomas Raynal, Longfellow interpreted the untrustworthy “picture of [a] simple, almost idyllic life of the Acadians before the deportation.” 5 History provided the perfect conflict for Longfellow’s fiction as the brutality of le grand dérangement shattered the Acadian 3 Henry W. Longfellow, Evangeline: A Tale of Acadie (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing, 1995), 34; 117-18. Longfellow, 34. 5 James Laxer, The Acadians: In Search of a Homeland (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2006), 172-73: it must be noted as well that Raynal never went to Acadia. 4 5 utopia as the British uprooted and scattered the habitants. This tale continues to captivate readers. Longfellow’s fiction impressively affected Acadian pride, thereby making clear that his contribution to Acadian historiography was merely the popularization of it. For example, Gilles Havard and Cécile Vidal recognized that “Évangéline reste aujourd’hui le symbole de la singularité et du courage du peuple acadien.”6 The use of a fictional character as a symbol is not a strong base on which to build a national history. Despite the fact that a symbol perhaps simplifies the understanding of history, it does not allow for its complete appreciation. Correspondingly, this early view of the habitants was simplistic and fictional. However, this was the basis of popular opinion about the Acadians before the 20th century and long after. Although the 1889 work of Edmé Rameau de Saint-Père is that of an accomplished historian, and therefore more trustworthy than that of Longfellow, it equally exemplified nationalism. Certainly, as a French author, he wished to portray the Acadians differently from Longfellow’s simplicity. In Une colonie féodale en Amérique : L’Acadie (1604-1881), Rameau de Saint-Père distinguished the intelligence of the Acadians, “une race élite à laquelle rien n’a manqué, excepté la fortune.”7 But one may question whether this other extreme could provide further truth. For example, Barbara Schmeisser revealed that the Acadian residents of the Chignecto region needed to overcome hardships such as famine and the raids of Benjamin Church in 1696 and 1704. 8 6 Havard and Vidal, 435. Edmé Rameau de Saint-Père, Une colonie féodale en Amérique : L’Acadie (1604-1881), Tome I (Montréal: Granger Frères, 1889), 301. 8 Barbara Schmeisser, Acadian Settlement on the Chignecto Isthmus 1670-1760 (s.l.: Report #A1, National Historic Sites Service, 1970?), 12. 7 6 Therefore, in his depiction of these habitants living in an idealistic world, Rameau de Saint-Père portrayed an image that, although opposite, is as imagined as that of Longfellow. He described the Acadians as living in a utopian world.9 The fact that the accounts of Longfellow and Rameau de Saint-Père marked the beginning of interest in the nature of these habitants increased the challenges for later academic historians. Historians, however, need to be interested in more than simply providing a story to their readers. If they do not, they run the risk of missing the guiding principle of the historians’ practice. Peter Moogk proposed that this is “to explain, in clear prose, how the present came into being.”10 Seemingly, historians up to 1889 merely hyperbolized a validation or a refutation of Longfellow’s “simple Acadian farmers.”11 The crucial point missed by the Naïve School is that sorting through primary documents is necessary to answer a fundamental historical question, rather than merely tapping into imagination. Unfortunately, the gross generalizations of Will R. Bird and J.C. Webster at the beginning of the 20th century advanced this trend. For example, Bird portrayed the Beaubassin residents as uncomplicated peasants enjoying the “placid tenor of their ways” and having “implicit faith in their priest.”12 Similarly, Webster painted these colonists as “simple peasants” who were controlled by their clergymen. 13 Motivated by the desire to not distance themselves from the popularized Acadian image of the Naïve School, Bird and Webster merely expanded the ideas espoused by Longfellow. Additionally, as pointed Pierre et Lise Trépanier, “Rameau de Saint-Père et le métier d’historien,” Revue de l’Amérique française 33.3 (1979): 355. 10 Peter Moogk, La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada – A Cultural History (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000), xiii. 11 Longfellow, 34. 12 Will R. Bird, A Century at Chignecto: The Key to Old Acadia (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1928), 34-35; 67. 13 J.C. Webster, The Forts of Chignecto: A Study of the Eighteenth Century Conflict Between France and Great Britain in Acadia (Shediac, N.B.: The author, 1930), 26. 9 7 out by A. J. B. Johnston, there is great difficulty inherent in disparaging the idealism of these views. Johnston recognized that the initial draw of many readers to Acadian history is the “attractive” quality of their tragedy, “the deep-seated appeal of a universal archetype.”14 However, if Bird and Webster had searched thoroughly, they might have reached different conclusions.15 Although the events of the Deportation remain the outstanding tragedy in Acadian history, surely the failure of early historians to probe beyond stereotypes is equally regrettable. There is another explanation for the emphasis of these early authors. They focused on the administrative and religious structures of Acadia. This was not a failure, however, as this is where the largest quantity of primary sources regarding these colonists is found. This remains a limiting factor of their histories. Schmeisser astutely recognized that the illiteracy of these settlers led to a lack of primary sources available to historians.16 Certainly, one can endlessly debate the legitimacy of the previous authors’ depiction of this community. However, respect must be given to these authors as they encouraged further research on these people. A need to focus on something deeper More than mere interest on the researcher’s part, however, is needed for the accurate presentation of history. Johnston’s 2005 article, “The Call of the Archetype and the Challenge of Acadian History,” identified the problem as being the popular image of A.J.B. Johnston, “The Call of the Archetype and the Challenge of Acadian History,” French Colonial History 5 (2004): 84. 15 Although preconceptions and existing worldviews influenced in their respective views, weight is intentionally placed on the primary sources here as they are the base of interpretation. 16 Schmeisser, 6: Although Schmeisser disregarded the largely educated priests and seigneurs who lived amongst the Acadians. 14 8 Acadia as “the land of plenty.” In his view, this mindset impels the researcher to view only those sources which promote this perspective. If history is fundamentally “a good story,” Johnston suggested the Acadian story to be particularly good in the telling. 17 Once again, the bias and emotion that the researcher brings to their presentation becomes a roadblock for the Acadian researcher. Johnston was quite correct in his choice of title as this natural simplification of Acadian history does provide a strong challenge. Published in 1927, the research of Brebner symbolized the first acceptance of this challenge. His work was monumental in Acadian historiography as it gives agency to Longfellow’s “simple farmers” opening the school of thought that the habitants of Acadia were complex. He was the first to develop the idea of Acadian independence. In his analysis of the fiscal relations between Acadian and New England, Brebner spent considerable time in an analysis of the nature of the Acadians. For example, he recognized their substantial individuality, and their general nonchalance in regards to politics.18 This description of the habitants as an autonomous and disinterested group is noteworthy as it greatly differs from the previously held opinions of the Acadians. In denying the “stupidity” and sloth of the Acadians, Brebner refuted the significant simplifications of Longfellow. 19 His respect for their psyche is of utmost value to this study. Brebner maintains, in fact, that there were two Acadias: one of international conflict and the other of the habitants.20 This recognition is ground-breaking as it gives agency to the average Acadian. Additionally, that which motivates this distinction is also revolutionary. 17 Johnston, 84; the sources which promote the popular mindset are usually British or Anglo-American. John Bartlet Brebner, New England’s Outpost: Acadia before the Conquest of Canada (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927), 38. 19 Brebner, 41-42. 20 Brebner, 45. 18 9 Brebner elucidated the importance of geography in determining this independence. Continuing on his notable distinction of two Acadias, he reasoned that they were distinct in terms of population and, significantly, geography. Brebner clearly divided Acadia at the River St. John which for him signified not just a geographical difference, but also the division of the habitants’ general attitude toward warfare and politics.21 Therefore, he recognized the importance of geography to the development of Acadian history and identity. The work of Brebner was significant as it represents this large step forward in understanding the Acadians’ character. Brebner’s emphasis on geography and Acadian distinction not only advanced Acadian historiography, but his contributions were truly revolutionary as he was the first to recognize these important facts. His research on these habitants was thorough, to the point where few considered further work on them to be necessary. And yet, despite the strength of this analysis, Brebner’s evidence of the difference between the Acadians and their government was not overwhelming. This is partially due to the fact that the study of the actual colonists was a marginal topic until the rise of social history and the modern Acadian renaissance. Perhaps this combined with the exhaustive nature of his work made it so that it took almost fifty years to produce another major study focused on their thought. In any case, however revolutionary he was, Brebner did not produce a comprehensive study of the Acadians. As one will see imitated again in this historiography, the main shortcoming of Brebner is his description of these settlers as a united body. Certainly the Acadians were not homogenous. However, this imprecise account is due to the revolutionary nature of his work. The fact that he was the first to 21 Brebner, 45-46. 10 look generally at these habitants as more than a simple people limited the range to which he could complicate their story. However, Brebner did leave room for further questions to be posed. Jean Daigle recognized the lack of specificity in Brebner’s work and attempted to provide a new explanation. Although Daigle wrote long before Johnston, he similarly represented an answer to Johnston’s call to focus on something deeper in an analysis of the Acadians, through the groundwork laid by Brebner. He analyzed the lack of sufficient work done on their mindset and proposed further work in this field.22 He followed Brebner, however, by a further study of the Acadian relationship with New England. Daigle noticed that in earlier analyses, the overwhelming focus was on the administration of Acadia to the detriment of exploring the complexity of its habitants.23 He therefore delved into both primary and secondary research to explain the elaborate nature of this association. From their relations with Massachusetts, according to Daigle, the habitants were able to adapt in response to embargoes, war and corsair-activity.24 This conclusion remains significant because, like Brebner’s deduction, it gave the Acadians agency. This is something not credited to the historians of the Naïve School. Similar to Brebner, Daigle proposed that the reason which prompted this evolution and which largely determined their character was geography. However, Daigle moved beyond the simple indication of geography’s importance and attempted to explain its ability to change the Acadians. 25 To him, affairs with the New Englanders were a result of the Acadians’ isolation from not only France, but New France as well, a notable difference from Brebner. However, as Jean Daigle, “Nos Amis, Les Ennemis : Relations Commerciales de L’Acadie avec le Massachusetts, 1670-1711,” diss., University of Maine, 1975, 32. 23 Daigle, 1-2. 24 Daigle, 200. 25 Daigle, 64. 22 11 with Brebner, the issue that can be raised with Daigle’s study is the lack of significance he applies to the individual terroirs of Acadia. This lack of specificity would continue with subsequent authors. The conflict over the distinctiveness of an Acadian identity For most of the past fifty years, discussion of the Acadians centred on the nature, or even the existence, of an Acadian identity. For example, the role that Daigle played in this debate is quite clear. The evidence that he provided of the Acadians’ unique characteristics clearly places him in the camp which continues to promote the reality of the Acadian identity. However, the insistence on the unique identity of colonials in this imperial world transcends Acadia. We begin with the broader analysis of all the colonists of France, so as to underline the acceptance of this idea of distinction. La Nouvelle France, by Peter N. Moogk, attempted to distinguish the habitants of New France from all other societies. This placed Moogk in a new school of thought that maintains that the collective Acadian body was fundamentally different from the peasantry which they left behind in France, but also from their neighbours in New France and in New England. Surely, according to Moogk, this geographical separation also applied to the colonies of the St. Lawrence, or, Canada. To him, the strong distinction between the Estates in metropolitan France was overturned in these colonies as “status… did not depend upon wealth.”26 Although this system of social strata was not unique to France, Moogk pointed to a distinguishing feature of it: the French at the time of colonization were not a united people, but instead loyal to their province.27 Moogk suggested that a peasant in France had more allegiance to his/her resident priest and local seigneur than to a king who was 26 27 Moogk, 152-53. Moogk, 53. 12 disconnected, and hence unconcerned, with their affairs. Some would argue the similarities between Canada and the Old Régime were strong. An example of these similarities is in the comparable religious and authoritarian structures symbolized in the priest and the seigneur. However, Moogk argued for the unique nature of the Canadiens. For example, mainly through the use of a social model, he outlined that the habitants in both Canada and Acadia were different. In sum, Moogk understood that both the Canadiens and the Acadiens represented further extensions of the provinces of France.28 It is Moogk’s analysis of the different terroirs of France, New France, and Acadia, which notably links the ideas of independence and geography. Despite the fact that Moogk did not focus on the Acadians in his study, many other authors would pursue the question of identity immediately after Daigle’s work. With the introduction of the notion of identity, the stage was set for the most significant author to present her full ideas on the subject of the Acadians. The most famous proponent of the existence of an Acadian identity is Naomi Griffiths. Griffiths began her exploration into the existence of the Acadian identity with her article, “Acadians in Exile” in 1974. In this article she maintained that “There had always been more to the Acadian community than a collection of expatriated French traits.”29 However, with only eighteen pages in which to present her argument, these views were not completely developed in 1974. Griffiths further expressed her views in 1992 with her book, The Contexts of Acadian History, 1686-1784. Here she argued that these French immigrants became markedly different from their cousins in France as a 28 Moogk, 176. Naomi Griffiths, “Acadians in Exile: the Experiences of Acadians in the British Seaports,” Acadiensis 4:1 (1974): 84. 29 13 result of their experiences in the New World.30 Griffiths argued that this was brought about chiefly by a different reaction to external authority. As a result of these different experiences, Griffiths concluded, Acadians behaved differently. The logic in her conclusion is straightforward. The different experiences of the Acadians could certainly produce fundamental differences in their personalities. Largely, it is this fundamental aspect which divides the world’s cultures from each other. Griffiths understood a chief cause of these different experiences to be the “alternating administration of their society by French and English officials.”31 Acadia changed hands no less than ten times.32 To Griffiths, this bizarre experience of being traded between two of the world’s greatest powers would certainly have created a unique identity. This factor is only the strongest aspect she presented, however, and there were many others which she wished to develop. Griffiths’ 1992 publication was restrictively small to fully express her ideas. Although in 1998 she wrote an article specifically on the formation and the interpretation of Acadian identity, Griffiths planned a “major work” on this subject: her 2005 book entitled, From Migrant to Acadian: A North American Border People, 1604-1755.33 This work looked at the effects that Europe had on North America and the creation of the Acadians’ particular identity. 34 The strength of this work lay in Griffiths’ ability to not deny the power that Europe had over Acadia, while simultaneously showing the colony was not a mere puppet of France or Britain. Griffiths built on the ideas of Daigle, arguing 30 Griffiths, Contexts, 4 (see introduction, n. 5). Griffiths, Contexts, 69. 32 Kennedy, 79. 33 Naomi Griffiths, “The Formation of a Community and the Interpretation of Identity: The Acadians, 16041997,” British Journal of Canadian Studies 13.1 (1998): 32-46; Griffiths, Contexts, xxi. 34 Naomi Griffiths, From Migrant to Acadian: A North American Border People, 1604-1755 (Montréal: McGill University Press, 2005), xviii. 31 14 “Acadian identity is anything but simple.”35 Nevertheless, Griffiths simplified the identity of these habitants as being inclusive of the different Acadian terroirs. For example, Griffiths suggested that the communal work needed to build and repair the dykes, the common religious practices, and a largely unifying cultural life were all important factors in the development of a comprehensive Acadian identity.36 Griffiths did not respect the differences of the separate Acadian settlements, instead uniting them all under one banner. This presents a major flaw in her work, as may be illustrated by a case study of Beaubassin. Still Griffiths argued that there is “much more to Acadian heritage than the catastrophe of the deportation” and insisted on the existence of a fundamental Acadian identity before the events of 1755.37 A further example of these strong views presented itself in the work of John Mack Faragher, who referred to the Acadians as a people.38 However, unlike Griffiths, Faragher partially regressed into the views of the original Naïve School. He decided to present the history of these habitants as “tragic”, focusing on the “undeserved suffering of the Acadians” and “the destruction of hopes and dreams.”39 It should be noted that Faragher did not devote himself to his work as did Griffiths. For example, he did not strive to uncover the implications regarding the Acadians which are not immediately apparent, but instead superficially focused on British military force, notably in the 1740s and 1755. For instance, Faragher spent three of his sixteen chapters focusing on the events of the 35 Griffiths, Migrant, xv. Griffiths, Migrant, 310. 37 Griffiths, Migrant, xviii. 38 John Mack Faragher, A Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians from their American Homeland (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006), xx. 39 Faragher, xx. 36 15 Deportation.40 Yet even Faragher agrees the Acadians were distinct. It seems, after an analysis of Faragher and Griffiths, that the question of an Acadian identity was largely settled, as far as academic historians are concerned. This, however, is far from the case. There are a few authors who deny the existence of an Acadian identity, among whom Jean-François Mouhot is most important. In his 2004 book, he wisely considered that the same habitants might present themselves as “Français” to Abbé Le Loutre and “neutre” to the English administrators.41 Certainly, this challenges Griffiths’ conclusion that they felt unified as one group. Mouhot maintained that he can find no evidence of the habitants being united under the term “Acadian” before 1755, except in the circumstances of a label applied by French or English administrators. From that he understood that their bond to one another grew out of their common experience in becoming refugees together in the Deportation.42 Although Mouhot’s conclusion that 1755 defined the Acadians was similar to the belief of Faragher, Mouhot produced a much stronger argument. Mouhot believed that the segment of the habitants who went to France after the Deportation proves his point. The refugees were not unanimous in their decision of what to do next; some favoured settling in the British colonies or Louisiana, or to submit to fate and try to make a living in France.43 Mouhot further refuted the distinct identity theory through an analysis of the moments in which it was portrayed, quoting Jean-Claude Ruano-Borbalan, who said their proposed identity “n’existes qu’en actes.”44 To these authors, the Acadians’ 40 These are Chapter 11 Driven Out of the Country: The Decision to Remove the Acadians, June-July 1755; Chapter 12 Gone, All Gone: The Expulsion, August-December 1755; Chapter 16: Le Grand Dérangement: Memory and History in Faragher. 41 Mouhot, 37. 42 Mouhot, 25. 43 Mouhot, 33. 44 Jean-Claude Ruano-Borbalan, L’identité, L’individu, le groupe, la société (Auxerre: Sciences humaines, 1998) in Mouhot, 32. 16 desire to maintain the status quo in moments of crisis did not validate their distinct identity. Furthermore, Mouhot could find no evidence of habitant action which promoted their individuality outside of their official correspondence with the powers of Britain and France.45 However, he may have adopted this position toward the Acadians because the focus of his book. Analyzing these habitants’ experience from 1758 to 1785, Mouhot certainly did not investigate the development of an Acadian identity. He desired instead to prove that they were not assimilated in France.46 An analysis of the habitants only in this time of trial and conflict may not uncover their true identity. Despite the strong points made by Mouhot against an Acadian identity, however, the quality of the evidence and arguments which at least partially validated Griffiths’ position is too great to ignore. Havard and Vidal similarly recognized the unique and complex nature of the French in North America. However, they interpreted the point made by Ruano-Borbalan differently. They argued that it does not disprove a distinct Acadian identity, nor does it show that they were exactly like the French. Rather they cautiously concluded that, although the French who immigrated to the Americas were noticeably distinct from the metropolitan French, similarities did exist between their societies.47 This conclusion is particularly persuasive as it does not support either side of the argument too strongly. Certainly, like compromises, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Unlike Griffiths, Havard and Vidal argued that the differences between France and its colonies in North America were not great enough to constitute “un « peuple » ou une « nation » différente.” On the contrary, they recognized the difficulty inherent in measuring the 45 Mouhot, 32. Mouhot, 40. 47 When referring to the French colonists in North America, Havard and Vidal stated that “Ces populations avaient construit des sociétés nouvelles, proches et néanmoins distinctes de leur société mère.” Havard and Vidal, 17. 46 17 strength of the unity of these groups. 48 Even Griffiths admitted that the Acadians and the French shared aspects of their character, such as a large dependence on family. 49 The differences between these peoples, then, were not complete. Language offers an illustration of this point. Although Geneviève Massignon demonstrated that there were differences in their spoken dialect, it cannot be denied that both the French in metropolitan France and the Acadians spoke French.50 It seems too great then to draw a rigid line between these peoples. Despite the difficulty of drawing a definitive line between the “nations” of Acadia and France, Havard and Vidal provided another solution by exploring the definition of identity. They suggested that greater attachment is found within smaller groups. Hence, instead of Griffiths’ and Mouhot’s simplification of the Acadians as a single, united people, they proposed that perhaps connection is more strongly felt within smaller geographical divisions such as provinces, départements, or communities. Referring again to the point made by Ruano-Borbalan, they made clear that in these acts the Canadiens did not portray the qualities of a nation, but indicated only the characteristics of a province.51 Similarly to those living in Canada, Mouhot argued that before 1755 he finds that the Acadians more generally referred to themselves as “« d’habitants de Mines », de Copeguit, etc.”52 Therefore, it can be said with some degree of confidence that although the Acadians, and Canadiens in New France, did not distinguish themselves as a greater collective, a “nation” or a “people,” they more generally differentiated themselves by 48 Havard and Vidal, 413. Griffiths, Contexts, 10. 50 See Geneviève Massignon, Les parlers français d’Acadie : Enquête linguistique (Paris : Klinksleck, 1962). 51 Havard and Vidal, 413. 52 Mouhot, 25. 49 18 “leur paroisse” or individual settlement. Acadia and France importantly shared the different identities of their separate communities. Indeed, Havard and Vidal observed that “Sous l’Ancien Régime, la France ne connassait pas d’unité nationale… La plupart des Français ne se définissaient pas comme tels, mais s’identifiaient d’abord à leur paroisse.”53 Hence, Acadia showed similar traits with France at this time as they equally defined themselves not by a sense of national identity, but first with their province, township or parish. The extent of the similarities between the Acadian colony and a specific region in France symbolize the next step that would be taken. George M.W. Kennedy took this step in comparing Acadia to the French region of the Loudunais.54 His work represented a major advance in understanding the “French Atlantic World.”55 Certainly, no one had used a technique like his before.56 His method allowed him to draw certain conclusions that he made apparent in his thesis. Through a broad analysis, he proposed the idea that the Acadians were similar to the Loudunais because of their political pragmatism, their social organization, their local hierarchy and even their demographic success.57 His use of this new “social” way of understanding the “French Atlantic world,” is of particular value to this present study.58 Kennedy not only provided the method necessary to compare and contrast France with its colonies, but he left the door wide open for further analysis. Additionally, he validated the statement that the separate Acadian settlements were distinct from each other, supporting a further 53 Havard and Vidal, 400-01. According to Kennedy, the Loudunais is “a pays in western France” which he chose as a comparison for Acadia because “In the 1960s, Geneviève Massignon first proposed the theory that many of the founding Acadian families originated in the Loudunais.” Kennedy, 3-4. 55 Kennedy, 13. 56 Kennedy, 3. 57 Kennedy, 5. 58 Kennedy, 446. 54 19 analysis of the difference between them.59 Therefore, Kennedy provided both the method and the direction which guides this study. Before an analysis of this kind can be made, however, we need to understand the work completed on Beaubassin up until now. Attempts to define the specific identity at Beaubassin Before Griffiths induced the crisis of Acadian identity, researchers completed specific studies of the different sites of Acadian settlement. For example, Schmeisser claimed her work is not interpretive, but merely an attempt “to include as much information as a survey of secondary sources would permit.”60 Though flawed, Schmeisser’s investigation presented something strongly specific to Beaubassin. Her analysis of the Acadians, “where [they] lived in Chignecto, how many of them existed, what they ate and wore and… what political issues affected their lives,” permits one to begin exploring how these habitants thought.61 Schmeisser inspired further interpretive analysis of Beaubassin. Myriam Marsaud completed the first major study specifically of Beaubassin habitants in 1993. Her study, published just one year after Griffiths’ Contexts of Acadian History, shows how Griffiths’ certainty of Acadian identity shaped many works.62 First, outlining her belief in the importance of the individual through “l’histoire des mentalités,” Marsaud agreed with Griffiths on the distinctness of Acadian identity. 63 She explained that this “nouvelle histoire”, which studies not only the political, encourages an expansive 59 Kennedy, 436. Schmeisser, 2; for the particular difficulty of the study of Beaubassin due to the lack of documents regarding it, see Michel Cyr, Beaubassin, 1671-1763 (Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, 1982), 18; 29. 61 Schmeisser, 2. 62 Myriam Marsaud, “L’Étranger qui dérange : Le procès de sorcellerie de Jean Campagna, Miroir d’une communauté acadienne, Beaubassin, 1685,” M.A. thesis, Université de Moncton, 1993, 5-6. 63 Marsaud, 6-7. 60 20 view of the fields available for the study of history, for example, in the quantitative fields of economics and demographics. Marsaud particularly focused on “la micro-histoire.”64 She believed that this method of analysis particularly deepens understanding of Acadian history as an epistemological study, revealing “un geste, un mot, un detail qui nous échappe.”65 This powerful observation allowed Marsaud to move ahead with the discussion of identity. She chose the trial of one Jean Campagna for a case-study.66 To provide context for this event, she examined the creation of the village of Beaubassin, proposing that it developed its own identity, separate from the rest of Acadia.67 The appreciation of this separate community-identity is monumental. She reasoned that the factors that contributed to this unique identity were the powers of nature, the fear of the unknown and the strange, and finally the necessary re-adaptation of the settlers from PortRoyal to this new settlement.68 Certainly, all of these factors relate to the geography which largely determined the identity of the Beaubassin residents. However, she only considered these Acadians until 1685. Marsaud reasoned that the first settlers were particularly important for the construction of an original identity. 69 However, she did not consider the effects on the settlement of Beaubassin of the raids by Benjamin Church in 1696 and 1704, the Treaty of Utrecht and British domination, the 1730s and Acadia’s supposed “Golden Age,” and finally of the burning of the village circa 1750. Despite the specificity of Marsaud’s analysis on Beaubassin, there was clearly additional research to be done. 64 Marsaud, 7. Marsaud, 7. 66 Marsaud, 9 ; 155-56. 67 Marsaud, 153. 68 Marsaud, 149-50. 69 Marsaud, 156. 65 21 In 1998, Samantha Rompillon addressed this gap. In her master’s thesis she tried to articulate what particularly motivated the Beaubassin habitants. Rompillon was skeptical of the stereotype of “immobile” habitants.70 In a more expansive analysis than Marsaud – of the available data of Beaubassin, including the parish records and censuses – she concluded that Beaubassin’s defining characteristic was its status as a migratory settlement.71 To Rompillon, migration shaped the community, such as the foundation of Beaubassin, the growth and eventual colonization of Chipoudi, and the eventual outmigration of the Acadians. From this, Rompillon argued that the Beaubassin identity was distinct and that mobility gave Beaubassin’s people its own characteristics, such as a cosmopolitan nature.72 It is interesting to note, however, that she did not link this idea to France.73 Although she mentions the “localisation géographique” of Beaubassin as originally bringing Jacques Bourgeois to settle the colony, she did not explore this point further.74 This was the only disappointing factor of her investigation however, which certainly says a great deal. The present study intends to amend this lack of focus on the geographical comparisons of Beaubassin to France. Consequentially, Rompillon’s focus on migration of Beaubassin’s habitants and furthermore its terrain are of utter importance to this investigation. However, similarly to Marsaud, Rompillon argued that Beaubassin did, in fact, have its own identity. 75 The next major study on Beaubassin by Paul Surette in 2005 made no great claim about the settlement. Surette’s use of archival evidence was in the style of an antiquarian Rompillon, “Migration,” 16-18 (see introduction, n. 3). Rompillon, “Migration,” 156. 72 Rompillon, “Migration,” 156-57. 73 Moogk, 89: For example, Moogk certainly recognized that such mobility is simultaneously present in France. 74 Rompillon, “Migration,” 47. 75 Rompillon, “Migration,” 156-57. 70 71 22 or one whose only aim is to reconstruct the past. François Furet would certainly have labelled Surette’s narrative history as returning to Longfellow’s simplicity. 76 However, its major distinction from Longfellow was its reliance on historical documents. Surette produced a work “rooted in genealogy” which presented an extensive and annotated chronology of Beaubassin from 1667 to 1755.77 Even though Surette made no assertion in his work, he did sprinkle his chronology with the added flavour of interpretation. This is evident in his educated guesses, for example, about the various feuds that took place between the major families of the settlement.78 Although it does not offer much in the way of interpretation, it is invaluable as a source as it focuses primarily on Beaubassin giving an exhaustive chronology of events concerning this Acadian settlement. Two years later, in 2007, Rompillon completed another work on Beaubassin. This smaller article, based upon the results of her much larger thesis a decade earlier, sought to accomplish two goals. The first of these was to measure the relation of conflict at Beaubassin with the mobility of the settlement explained in her previous work, and second, to better define the connection between the habitants’ identity and Acadian geography.79 In her short article, she notably switched her conclusion of the origin of the Beaubassin habitants’ identity. She now suggested that, “L’attachement au sol prévalait. Leur identité était ancrée à leur territoire. S’en éloigner signifiait perdre leur identité.”80 Her focus on French-English conflict underscores the importance of Beaubassin’s François Furet, “Beyond the Annales,” The Journal of Modern History 55.3 (1983): 402. Paul A. Bogaard, foreword to Atlas of the Acadian Settlement in Beaubassin, 1660 to 1755: Tintamarre and Le Lac by Paul Surette (Sackville, N.B.: Tantramar Heritage Trust, 2005), v. 78 Paul Surette, Atlas of the Acadian Settlement in Beaubassin, 1660 to 1755: Tintamarre and Le Lac (Sackville, N.B.: Tantramar Heritage Trust, 2005), 20. 79 Samantha Rompillon, “Entre mythe et la réalité : Beaubassin, miroir d’une communauté acadienne avant 1755,” Balises et références : Acadies, francophonies, sous la direction de Martin Pâquet et Stéphane Savard (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2007), 272. 80 Rompillon, “mythe,” 295. 76 77 23 geography. Rompillon mentioned in her article that its position on the fringe of the colony not only placed Beaubassin out of the reach Port-Royal’s authority, but also sheltered it from the consequences of war.81 She recognized that, before 1710, the focus of military conflict was on Port-Royal and, as mentioned above, this was hundreds of kilometres away from the settlement of Beaubassin. However, this distance was insignificant in 1755 as Beaubassin was the first region to be affected by the Deportation.82 Although Beaubassin was not completely secure because of its distance from Port-Royal however, Rompillon’s assertion of the importance of its geography certainly was a wise observation. It is difficult to appreciate the contributions of Rompillon’s 2007 article as her conclusions show remarkable errors. Indeed, she eventually argued that the characteristics of Beaubassin applied to all Acadians. This conclusion is markedly similar to the weakness of Griffiths. Although she chose examples that illustrate the Beaubassin identity, Rompillon perceived no particularity occurring at Beaubassin where, “tout semble s’être passé comme pour tout village acadien.”83 This can be easily perceived in her subtitle as well, “Beaubassin, miroir d’une communauté acadienne avant 1755.” Therefore, the mobility which she explored in her earlier study she applied equally to other Acadian settlements at Port-Royal or Les Mines. The attention that Rompillon brought to a broader Acadia in her conclusions offers an interesting return to the emphasis of its larger structures. Rompillon refuted the concentrated interpretations of Marsaud which characterized internal conflict as the major factor of life in Beaubassin. Instead, Rompillon, “mythe,” 273-74. Surette, 35: For example, Surette also noted this. 83 Rompillon, “mythe,” 294. 81 82 24 Rompillon concluded that the largest factor affecting the lives of the Beaubassin Acadians was the French-English rivalry.84 The importance that she placed upon the larger European battles and systems of control marked a noticeable return to the interpretations of the first Acadian historians. Conclusion/Direction for rest of study The focus on the major structures and conflicts in Acadia appears to be the alpha and the omega of the historiography of Acadian thought at Beaubassin. Longfellow, Rameau de Saint-Père, Bird and Webster all neglected most of the primary sources which limited their conclusions to simple generalizations. Following them, Brebner took a major leap forward in the analysis of the Acadians as more than “the simple farmers” of Longfellow. The trouble then becomes the particular focus of Acadian historians. After Griffiths, authors mostly desired to prove or refute the existence of a distinct Acadian identity. Marsaud did attempt a study of the particularity of Beaubassin, but did not view anything past 1685. More recently, Rompillon attempted to answer these questions, although she failed to apply her conclusions distinctly to Beaubassin. Endeavouring to properly link ideas together, this investigation proposes to complete this analysis of Beaubassin by Marsaud, using Kennedy’s model, and exploring the conclusions reached by Rompillon. These conclusions will hence apply to a distinct character of the region and not that of a general Acadia. This is due to the confirmation of the belief that the Acadians did indeed have their own identity. Yet, this work intends to show the reader that Acadians at Beaubassin had their own identity, largely determined by their geography, which was both similar to and different from other peoples in Acadia, whether from the 84 Rompillon, “mythe,” 294. 25 other Acadian settlements or their British administrators, as well as France and New France. 26 Chapter Two: Chignecto’s Peculiar Characteristics To outline the identity of a people, one has to return to their roots. Beyond the literal connection of these roots to the earth, however, humans are fundamentally connected to their geography. Jared Diamond argued that “History followed different courses for different peoples because of the differences in peoples’ environments.” 1 It follows that Beaubassin’s residents were profoundly shaped by their settlement’s location on the borders of Acadia. This setting of Beaubassin, as Acadia’s outpost, certainly inspired the distinct character of its inhabitants. However, this relationship endured for much longer than simply their initial migration to the region. The natural conditions of Beaubassin continued to shape the character of its settlers to their final days in Chignecto. Furthermore, similar to the extensive impact of nature on the settlers, this independence applied to the Beaubassin residents in more than simply the political fashion. In a variety of connotations, the defining feature of the Beaubassin habitants was their independence which was rooted in their geography. Beaubassin’s geography To better understand the nature of Beaubassin’s habitants, the territory of Beaubassin must be explained. Beaubassin was situated on the southern side of the Chignecto isthmus at the border of the present-day Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This placed Beaubassin near the centre of Canada’s Maritime Provinces, or as the region was referred to in the eighteenth century, Acadia. 1 Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), 25-26. 27 The political centre of Acadia was Port-Royal, founded by the French in 1605.2 However, it was difficult to govern all of Acadia from Port-Royal considering its geographical position. Port-Royal’s location at the southwestern edge of the Nova Scotian peninsula prevented authorities there from easily trading, communicating, or even reaching other Acadian settlements. Thereby, Samuel de Champlain was logical in his quick abandonment of Port-Royal for the more beneficially-located site of Québec in 1608.3 Conversely from Port-Royal however, Beaubassin was situated at a very central point. Brebner appropriately referred to Beaubassin as the crossroads of Acadia, due to its central role connecting Acadia and New France.4 This made Beaubassin’s position quite attractive militarily. Its placement in the geographical center of Acadia made it a hub through which military forces often passed.5 Consequently, the central nature of Beaubassin lured many to this outpost.6 With only the estranged and poorly-situated settlement of Port-Royal, the Acadian colony certainly needed a more beneficial location from which to operate. Although Alain Gelly recognized that both empires respected Beaubassin’s “position géostratégique cruciale,” Charles Morris maintained that the only difficulty to securing this advantageous position was the presence of its residents and their Arsenault, History of the Acadians (Québec: L’Action Sociale Ltée, 1966), 9. Arsenault, 9-10: the French colony changed the position of its headquarters because of an interest in furs. In comparison to Québec, Acadia was no longer valued for its furs. However, certain colonists remained because of the continuing benefit of the farming there. 4 Brebner, 116 (see chap. 1, n. 18). 5 Brebner, 117-19: This is particularly notable when one recalls the multiple times that Beaubassin was used as a military centre by the French in their attempts to reclaim Acadia as a part of their empire, for example, on their raids to Grand Pré 1747. 6 For example, the importance of family is suggested by Michel Le Neuf de La Vallière in the settlement of the region as he brought with him “a number of families from Québec” to help him with agriculture there. Margaret Coleman, Acadian History on the Isthmus of Chignecto (Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, 1968), 5. 2 3 28 hold of “almost all the marsh lands throughout the Country.” 7 Morris therefore underlined the connection of Beaubassin’s geography to the presence of its settlers. Before this relation can be further explored, however, one has to effectively outline the geography of Beaubassin. The distance which separates Beaubassin from Port-Royal made it particularly attractive to the habitants of the latter settlement. This was because Beaubassin was located on the frontier across the Bay of Fundy, or the Baie Française as it was known to the French of the 17th century. This study adopts Michael S. Cross’ definition of frontier as a thinly-settled place, “where man meets the wilderness.”8 However, despite this emphasis on advancement, Beaubassin’s position on the frontier also denotes the difficulty of its settlement. Despite this, the geographic position of Beaubassin at the centre of Acadia meant that it was able to exploit all of the geographical weaknesses of Port-Royal. For example, Jacques De Meulles in his memoirs of his stay at Beaubassin in 1685 explained its auspicious position as a centre for communication.9 For instance, he observed that the isthmus could be traversed by portage rather quickly. Additionally, he asserted that further trade would be possible between the settlements of Acadia and the St. Lawrence colonies of New France through the construction of a canal at Beaubassin.10 Although this canal was never built, the trade through Beaubassin between the Acadian settlements of Île Royale and Minas, which occurred after 1713, demonstrated its Alain Gelly, Historiographie de l’isthme de Chignectou : 1713-1755 (Report #15, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, 2005), 2; [Charles Morris], “A Brief Survey of Nova Scotia with an Account of the Several Attempts of the French this War to Recover it out of the Hands of the English,” 107-09. 8 Cross also pointed out that frontier is also, “a process, as a symbol of the continuing American commitment to progress and improvement.” Michael S. Cross, ed., The Frontier Thesis and the Canadas: The Debate on the Impact of the Canadian Environment (Toronto: Copp Clark Publishing Company, 1970), 1-2. 9 Jacques De Meulles, “Beaubassin ou Chignitou et la Baye Verte : Mémoires originaux 1686,” Les Cahiers de la Société historique acadienne 4:9 (1973): 382. 10 De Meulles, 382. 7 29 profitable position.11 Further trade and communication certainly was possible through the distance of Beaubassin from both French and English authorities in Port-Royal. This physical separation of the settlements was no accident. In 1671, Jacques Bourgeois, one of the wealthiest residents of Port-Royal, began Chignecto’s initial European settlement. Although it began as a relatively isolated and meagrely developed outpost, it grew just enough to become an important base of French supplies.12 However, supporting the French Empire was definitively not the original motivation of Bourgeois. Indeed, Charles Burke advanced that Bourgeois’ decision to colonize Beaubassin originated from his dislike of French authority.13 This suggests that the isolation of Beaubassin further developed the independence of its founders.14 This desire for liberation from overarching powers eventually embraced the attitudes of those who also settled this region. At first, Beaubassin was removed from the attention of the European powers. Robert Rumilly noted that Beaubassin was a place that particularly lured Acadians from Port-Royal as it was a place “où règnent la sécurité et la prosperité.”15 However, Beaubassin’s distinction lies in more than merely the kilometres separating it from Port-Royal. Multiple sources cited the lands of Chignecto as particularly fertile. Chignecto, the first name applied to this region, actually means “great marsh district.” 16 Certainly, 11 Coleman, Chignecto, 33: Île Royale is Cape Breton Island, and Minas was located in the eastern end of the Annapolis Valley on the shores of the present-day Minas Basin. 12 Brebner, 68. 13 Charles Burke, Personal Interview, 17 October 2013. 14 Rompillon, “Migration,” 120 (see introduction, n. 3): Rompillon commented that Beaubassin’s isolation made its inhabitants very difficult to govern; even Brebner referred to Beaubassin as independent. Brebner, 151. 15 Robert Rumilly, L’Acadie Française (1497-1713) (Louisville: Édition Fides, 1981), 151, 159: this security was greatly lacking at Port-Royal, particularly in 1690 when Sir William Phipps attacked it. 16 Webster, Forts, 9 (see chap. 1, n. 13). 30 Morris wrote that the bays and rivers of Chignecto “abound with saltmarshes” and furthermore that, “The Soil is Rich and fertile.”17 Generally speaking, the Europeans were more familiar with the laborious cultivation of the uplands which were also present in Beaubassin. A.J.B. Johnston noted that because the Acadians relied on the more profitable marshlands instead of the uplands, which required more labour to cultivate, they were unfairly deemed “lazy” by European observers. 18 Truly, these marshes added great fertility to Chignecto’s soil. However, as much as J.C. Webster described the marshlands of Chignecto as its most striking feature, there is another trait of Chignecto which survived to the present.19 However, additionally defining the region, the Acadian colonists also adapted the region to their use. The development of Chignecto, from the original European description of it as a perpetual forest to Nicolas Denys’ description of the variety of land on the coasts of Chignecto in late seventeenth century, clearly shows this.20 A deeper analysis of Chignecto reveals its further alluring quality of abundant natural resources. Raw materials extended from the timber, already noted as present in the region, to its mineral wealth. Interestingly enough, British authorities after 1713 referred to the coal mines that were present in Chignecto as “very good.” 21 Furthermore, Paul Mascarene, British administrator, suggested that the earth presents yet further resources to [Morris], 67; Cyr further wrote that “l’abondance des marais salants dans cette région assura un développement économique constant caractérisé par la richesse des Acadiens qui y vécurent.” Michel Cyr, “La Fondation du Beaubassin,” Les Cahiers de la Société historique acadienne 12.2 (1981): 65-66. 18 Johnston, 72 (see chap. 1, n. 14). 19 Webster, Forts, 15; Webster, Forts, 5: Webster also commented that Acadia’s land-fertility was unsurpassed in the world. 20 R.P. Biard, Relation de la Nouvelle-France, de ses terres, naturels du pais, et de ses habitants, Lyon, Muguet, 1616, p. 27 in Rompillon, “Migration,” 44; Nicolas Denys, The Description and Natural History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia), ed. William Francis Ganong (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1908), 122. 21 Paul Mascarene in Coleman, Chignecto, 121-22; [Morris], 59. 17 31 this region. He recorded that “there is a small Island which has a good Quarry of Soft Stone, it cuts in layers of four or six inches thick, and hardens soon after it is cut.” 22 A.H. Clark suggested that Mascarene is referring to the resources available at Grindstone Island, which he guessed is probably gypsum.23 However, Dr. Sandra Barr doubted this as gypsum is too soft for grindstones.24 She instead referred to the study of Howard J. Falcon-Lang on the geologic history of Chignecto, who explained the importance of grindstone quarrying in this region “from the beginning of the eighteenth century and possibly earlier.”25 Falcon-Lang also referred to this description of Mascarene in the early 1720s; however, he reasoned that the stone referred to in these early geological descriptions of Chignecto is “the famous “Nova Scotia blue-grit.”26 Either case, however, does not imply that the Acadians actually did any mining themselves. The mention of Denys of iron mines however shows that the Acadians may have been mining.27 These natural resources, in combination with the agreeable land available at Chignecto, certainly made it an attractive place to settle. However, its first inhabitants were not sedentary at all. The original residents of Chignecto were the Mi’kmaq who gave the name to the region. They needed to have many names for places as the Mi’kmaq were a migratory people. Hence, regular movement dictated their livelihood. For example, in the early 22 Paul Mascarene in Coleman, Chignecto, 121-22. Clark, 144; 222 (see introduction, n. 3). 24 Dr. Sandra Barr, “Re: question about gypsum,” e-mail to the author, 29 December 2013. 25 Howard J. Falcon-Lang, “Earliest history of coal mining and grindstone quarrying at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and its implications for the meaning of the place name ‘Joggins’,” Atlantic Geology 45 (2009): 14. 26 Falcon-Lang, 15. 27 In describing the Chignecto and Minas basins in the 17th century, Denys wrote that “Continuing along the coast, about three or four leagues… there are said to be mines of iron.” Denys, 120-121; this observation is further supported by his additional description of “mines of copper” in the Minas Basin. Denys 121-22. 23 32 spring, families moved towards the coast to “known fishing sites.” 28 As much as they relied on fish and waterfowl for protein, they also depended on hunting in the winter.29 Although this constant movement suggests a great deal of organization, their local system was not built on a grandiose scale. Tom Peace elucidated how the “household was the basic unit of Mi’kmaq society” which underpinned both this seasonal movement and their social structure.30 This social structure was not built on an appreciation for the individual but the collective.31 The collective nature of the Chignecto Mi’kmaq was perhaps even more valued as there were so few of them. The only count of the Mi’kmaq to ever be provided is by Gaulin in 1708 who concluded there to be 97 Mi’kmaq living in the Chignecto region.32 Furthermore, Peace suggested that the average size of a Mi’kmaq family and household was very low, furthermore showing that Chignecto families were one of the smallest in Mi’kma’ki.33 Additionally, family was very important to the Chignecto Mi’kmaq. Evidence suggests that the family of Arguimeau dominated the Chignecto region from at least the mid-1680s to 1761.34 William C. Wicken, Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land, and Donald Marshall Junior (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 36. 29 Thomas G.M. Peace, “Two Conquests: Aboriginal Experiences of the Fall of New France and Acadia,” diss., York University, 2011, 56-57: Furthermore, their general movement back to the coast in January to hunt seal demonstrates that they were in fact a coastal people. 30 Peace, 46. 31 Wicken, Treaties, 44: The inclusion of the people in decisions was very important to the Mi’kmaq, as is illustrated by the number of people at Annapolis Royal to sign the treaty in 1726. 32 Peace, 45-46: However, as Peace suggested, this number should not be taken as definite as Gaulin’s ability to get all these migratory people on the first try is doubtful. 33 The name Mi’kma’ki was the original name for the region which the Europeans referred to as Acadia. Peace, 47: Peace showed a graph labeling Chignecto’s average family size as 4.316 and their average household size as 5.105 which are superior only to Cape Sable’s average family size and household size as 4 and 4.5 respectively. 34 Wicken, Treaties, 42. 28 33 The initial independence of the Beaubassin habitants All of the bonuses inherent in Chignecto’s geography encouraged its settlement by the Acadians. For example, Morris suggested that its excellent agriculture was what drew the Acadians to Beaubassin. He maintained that the rich and fertile soil in combination with the allure of the bountiful saltmarshes “has induced the Acadians to principally settle here.”35 However, many more reasons can be deduced for their eventual migration to the region. The economic, familial, and political motivations of the colonists to settle Chignecto are most easily distinguished. 36 This initial migration to Beaubassin from PortRoyal was dominated by those close to Bourgeois. Rompillon argued that in Bourgeois’ initial migration from Port-Royal to Beaubassin in 1671, “il entraine ses fils, Charles, Germain, Guillaume, mais aussi son gendre Pierre Cyr, son future gendre Jean Boudrot et quelques proches : Jacques Blou, Pierre Aresenault et François Pellerin.”37 This initial migration to Beaubassin by a small group most clearly outlined the familial incentives for Beaubassin’s colonization, which reflects the domination of the Mi’kmaq Arguimeau family. However, the analysis of all of the different interests of economy, family, and politics reveal that each has an unquestionable connection to autonomy. This suggests the habitants’ desire for greater independence inspired the settlement of Beaubassin. Despite what many scholars believe, the engagement in the Beaubassin terroir by the Acadians began long before the emigration of settlers from Port-Royal led by Bourgeois in 1671. Myriam Marsaud recounted how Bourgeois frequented the region 35 [Morris], 67. Rompillon, “Migration,” 43-47: For further reading on other draws to Chignecto, see Rompillon’s suggestions under “Un site prometteur.” 37 Rompillon, “mythe,” 274-75 (see chap. 1, n. 79). 36 34 many times in his youth trading actively with the Mi’kmaq of the region. 38 The survival skills of the Mi’kmaq were important to a European people so ill-suited for the wilds of North America. The Mi’kmaq offered overwhelming assistance to Bourgeois and the original settlers of Beaubassin which allowed the survival of the Europeans in their new environment. For example, they offered furs for warmth and fish for food.39 Therefore, the example of Bourgeois illustrates that interaction with the Chignecto region actually began commercially. However, for trade to occur, the Beaubassin Acadians needed to have something that was attractive for the Mi’kmaq, which was principally cloth. 40 This mutually beneficial trade created an amicable relationship between the two peoples. The fact that Bourgeois did not betray his Mi’kmaq allies by giving Benjamin Church details about them further showed the faith that he had in his Aboriginal allies.41 This care originated from economic support. Rompillon additionally maintained that this motivation was central to the initial settlement of Beaubassin.42 The roots of Beaubassin’s history then lay in commercial activity with the Mi’kmaq that was noticeably independent of the influence of other European powers. Additionally, one has to respect that the habitants were led by Bourgeois. It was mentioned above that this man was one of the wealthiest Acadians in Port-Royal which shows that he had already developed the economic 38 Marsaud, 35 (see chap. 1, n. 62). Burke, Personal Interview, 17 October 2013; Marsaud, 26-27: Marsaud further explained the value of this connection for the Europeans; Robert Hale, “Journal of a Voyage to Nova Scotia made in 1731 by Robert Hale of Beverly,” Historical Collections of the Essex Institute 42:3 (1906): 233: furthermore, Hale suggested that trading frequently occurred between the Acadians and the Mi’kmaq. 40 Burke, Personal Interview, 17 October 2013: Archeological findings at Beaubassin of many cloth seals, or those which signified there had been no tampering with the product, highlights that it must have been the large trading outpost between the Mi’kmaq and the Acadians. 41 Coleman, Chignecto, 17. 42 Rompillon, “Migration,” 46; Rompillon, “Migration,” 38-42: Through a consideration of three theories for this migration, Rompillon determined that the prospect of “Ces différents liens commerciaux” explain the movement to Beaubassin, for example, she doubted the overpopulation at Port-Royal induced these habitants to migrate; This is because she found it hard to believe that three hundred and fifty people could occupy “tout l’espace disponible à, et autour de Port-Royal.” Rompillon, “Migration,” 38. 39 35 independence to do as he desired.43 The desire for profit was initially a distinguishing characteristic of the Beaubassin residents. Bourgeois’ fiscal success demonstrated to the colonists that he was a savvy leader financially. Following him shows that the original settlers of Beaubassin were also interested in becoming economically independent. But economic reasons were not the sole impetus for Acadian migration from Port-Royal. A desire for the betterment of the family through their independence also initially spurred interest in the settlement of the Chignecto region. If one accepts the importance of the economic factor regarding the interest in the Chignecto region, then according to Griffiths, we must additionally accept the importance of family. 44 Rompillon suggested, therefore, that Bourgeois’ desires to move to Beaubassin originated from the wish to provide for his children.45 Like the leadership by the Arguimeau family of the Chignecto Mi’kmaq, the power demonstrated by the Acadians at Beaubassin originated from a family base. The migration of families further demonstrated the independence of the initial Beaubassin habitants. If Brebner was correct in his comment that they were in fact “two Acadias,” certainly the Acadia which was defined by the settlers was led by their families in Chignecto.46 The construction of dykes to farm the Chignecto saltmarshes Rompillon, “Migration,” 47: this enterprising Acadian developed his leadership not just by his daring, but also by his wallet. The census taken in Port-Royal in 1671 claims that Bourgeois was the richest man before the migration of the settlers to Beaubassin. This shows how he had already developed the economic independence to do that which he desired. 44 Griffiths, Contexts, 72-73 (see introduction, n. 5): Surely, she claimed the family and the household were the economic arbiters of the community. 45 Rompillon, “Migration,” 48-49; those who followed Bourgeois to Beaubassin certainly reflect this; Marsaud, 57: Certainly, the majority of settlers who came were a part of Bourgeois’ family. 46 Brebner, 45; Marsaud, 57: Marsaud noted that the majority of settlers that came from Port-Royal to settle Beaubassin were a part of Bourgeois’ family; Griffiths, Contexts, 72: Griffiths additionally agreed with this assertion. 43 36 strengthened this bond as it could only be accomplished by a group. 47 Therefore, at the base, family meant something to the residents of Beaubassin. However, this Acadian settlement did not remain a strictly domestic one for long. Bourgeois’ desire to advance his family certainly became more difficult with the arrival of Michel LeNeuf de la Vallière. This was because the French royal council granted him a seigneury in the Beaubassin area in 1676.48 Understandably, there was a definite rivalry between these families of New France and those who had come with Bourgeois, forming two competing colonies at Beaubassin.49 The Bourgeois pioneers’ early refusal to warmly accept the habitants from New France demonstrates the independence which these families forged in Chignecto. There developed inevitable tension between their two different outlooks. Rompillon goes as far to refer to Beaubassin as “la recontre de deux mondes différents,” differentiating the Bourgeois colony, which represented the desire to live independently, and the world of La Vallière, contended by both Rompillon and Daigle to be the symbol of the Ancien Régime to these habitants.50 Certainly, La Vallière imitated French seigneurs. For example, often he did not even live on the seigneury. 51 47 As discussed on page 44-45. Surette, 4 (see chap. 1, n. 78); The citation of the actual concession from the French crown to La Vallière = « Commission de Frontenac à La Vallière », 16 juillet 1678 C11D I, 148. « Concession de Chignectou ou Beaubassin à Michel Le Neuf de La Vallière » 24 octobre 1676, Mémoire des Commissaires du Roi et de ceux de sa Majesté britannique sur les possessions et les droits respectifs des deux couronnes en Amérique, 4 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1755-57, II, 576 in Jean Daigle, “Notes sur Michel LeNeuf, Sieur de La Vallière, Seigneur de Beaubassin et Commandant à l’Acadie de 1678 à 1684,” Les Cahiers de la Société historique acadienne 2:7 (1967): 93-94. 49 Many authors note that La Vallière was instructed in this his commission in 1676 that he was not to disrupt the settlers who had already established themselves on the isthmus; Schmeisser, 2 (see chap. 1, n. 8); Daigle, “Michel LeNeuf,” 93-94; 253; Coleman, Chignecto, 4; Griffiths, Migrant, 116 (see chap. 1, n. 34): Thereby, the Bourgeois family was protected, however, Griffiths questioned this document’s existence. 50 Rompillon, “Migration,” 53: Rompillon noted that he is a French noble who had studied in France and was “impregné du mode de vie français.” Griffiths, Migrant, 193: for example, like a true seigneur, La Vallière collected dues from the habitants; Daigle, “Michel LeNeuf,” 256: Daigle arrived at the same conclusion of his profound connection to France. 51 Coleman, Chignecto, 7-8: La Vallière got credit for Bourgeois’ hard work as Coleman noted that although La Vallière had not lived in the province for fifteen years, “improvements which had been made 48 37 However, through inter-marriages and business relationships, these two groups gradually became one.52 A flight from the expanding French presence in Port-Royal additionally inspired interest in the Chignecto region before 1671. Acadia fell to the English in 1654.53 When Port-Royal was returned to the French following the Treaty of Breda in July 1667, some settlers decided to migrate up the Bay of Fundy to Beaubassin. Surette proposed that the news of the return of French power threatened Acadian autonomy and hence “some enterprising Acadians,” such as the Doucet, Dugas, and Bourgeois families, began to pursue new lands “as far away as possible from the incoming Port-Royal officials.”54 This caused the expansion of the Acadians. However, English-speakers continued to affect the lives of these habitants. For example, although the Acadians were largely self-sufficient, “they conducted vigorous trade with New Englanders.” 55 Furthermore, interaction between New England and Beaubassin was sustained after 1667. Finally, English involvement in the lives of Acadians became even more fundamental in the 18th century. Queen Anne’s War signaled the recommencement of hostilities between England and France in the North American theatre in 1702. This war “put the inhabitants of… Chignecto to great distress.”56 It eventually concluded with the French cession of Acadia in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht which permanently made it the British territory of “Nova Scotia.” However, this tale of changing allegiances was far from over. [to Beaubassin] had been made largely by Jacob Bourgeois.” For French seigneurs not living in their seigneury, see Chapter Three: Goubert, 110; 168 (see introduction, n. 4) and Kennedy, 442 (see chap. 1, n. 2); Kennedy, 306: this expanded further when La Vallière actually left Beaubassin in the 1687. 52 Rumilly, L’Acadie Française, 119-20. 53 Arsenault, 32-33; Surette, 3: Paul Surette noted that the Acadians at Port-Royal had been able to maintain a relative autonomy under British rule. 54 Surette, 3. 55 According to Laxer, they “provided them with goods that they could not produce themselves.” Laxer, 1 (see chap. 1, n. 5). 56 [Morris,] 9. 38 Given the vagaries of the Treaty of Utrecht, the extent of the territory being conveyed in 1713 was unclear. The French claim to Chignecto was not respected by the British. To maintain order over their new possessions, the British began the practice of “employing [Acadian] representatives” to act as intermediaries between the Acadians and their new government.57 These deputies certainly had a tough role to play. A selection of their stringent duties shows that these responsibilities were potentially divisive. For example, Margaret Coleman asserts that, “When disputes arose between different habitants, the deputies were often asked to investigate and report back to Annapolis.” 58 This emphasizes the deputies’ power, however, it also denotes their ability to disregard British wishes. Thus began a period of uncertainty for both the British and the Acadians. It was not clear to either group if the Acadians should remain on their lands, or if they could expand elsewhere. The result was a series of failed attempts at securing oaths of allegiance.59 The French, in their attempts to reclaim Acadia after the Treaty of Utrecht, had established themselves on the northern side of Chignecto. This eventually provoked the British to send a squadron to Beaubassin in 1750. “In this tense situation, someone set fire to the village” and the Acadians were forced into French-occupied territory.60 There is great debate on whether or not the prominent abbé Jean-Louis Le Loutre was responsible for this. However, Le Loutre’s lack of reference to the burning of Beaubassin circa 1750 57 Coleman, Chignecto, 41-42. Coleman, Chignecto, 42-43. 59 Léopold Lanctôt explained that although the British “voudraient bien se débarrasser des Acadiens le plus tôt possible” they hampered the Acadians as best they could from leaving Acadia after 1710 which was a combination of the fact that the British were “encore trop peu nombreux” in Acadia to exercise their authority efficiently over the Acadians and moreover “ils savent que leur meilleure protection contre les Micmac and les Abénaquis (qui détestent les Anglo-Américains), c’est encore la présence des Acadiens, qui réussissent à les calmer.” Léopold Lanctôt, L’Acadie des Origines, 1603-1771 (Montréal: Les Éditions du Fleuve, 1988), 106; Surette, 16, 18-19, 23-24: Surette noted that the British attempted to secure an oath from the Acadians at Beaubassin at least five separate times in 1711, 1714, 1715, 1727, and 1730. 60 Laxer, 55. 58 39 in his autobiography confirms the supposition of many that Le Loutre is responsible.61 Perhaps the additional swelling of the French ranks caused by the movement of the Beaubassin settlers to the other side of the Missaguash after the burning of Beaubassin helped to convince Edward Cornwallis that the Acadians could not be trusted and may have precipitated the initiation le grand dérangement of 1755.62 This great Deportation resulted in the diaspora of the Acadians throughout the North Atlantic. The power of this event is evident when one remembers that Jean-François Mouhot determined this event as the profound shaper of Acadian identity. However, Mouhot did not recognize that an equally independent identity had already formed in Beaubassin. As was mentioned above, the 1667 migration to Beaubassin was driven by a desire for autonomy. The independence sought by these habitants does not imply that they wished to establish their own political structures however. They merely desired to rid themselves of the requirement to listen to someone else.63 This implies two things about the Acadians at Port-Royal. First, their French government at the time was not agreeable, and second, these habitants believed that they could maintain a greater level of independence if they moved to a place farther away. They placed their trust in geography. The geographic separation of Acadian settlements from Port-Royal meant that they “had even less contact with the government.” 64 61 Le Loutre in J.C. Webster, The Career of Abbé Le Loutre in Nova Scotia: With a Translation of his Autobiography (Shédiac, N.B.: Privately Printed, 1933), 43-44; for examples supporting his guilt see Gelly, 19; for the defence of Le Loutre’s innocence see Norman Rogers, “The Abbé Le Loutre,” Canadian Historical Review 11.2 (1930): 105-128. 62 Surette, 31: They Beaubassin residents moved across the Missaguash river in October 1750; Coleman claimed that there was earlier settlement than this as “De Meulles’ map of 1686 shows several houses on the Beauséjour ridge.” Margaret Coleman, Acadian Settlement in the Atlantic Provinces (Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, 1967), 17. 63 This applied most strongly to their commitment to neutrality, which all Acadians shared. Griffiths, Contexts, 41-42. 64 Clark, 113. 40 Therefore, these settlers moved to Beaubassin in part because of the independence that they would attain upon their arrival there. Hence, similar to Brebner’s influential assertion that Acadia became New England’s outpost, Beaubassin correspondingly became Acadia’s outpost. The result of the colonists’ desire for further independence in Chignecto was very successful. 65 This was certainly a consequence of their migration to the limits of Acadia. Several priests were present only sporadically in Acadia, suggesting that the Acadians were positioned on the frontier.66 Therefore, as the priests were often the representatives of the mother country, the French state was not very present in Beaubassin, the distant outpost of a community already on the frontier. Louis Hartz offered his fragmentation theory to the discussion of colonization which similarly highlighted the importance of environment. Hartz argued that identity really “fragments” during colonization, and that distinguishable aspects remain of the mother country in the colonials. According to Hartz, “there is nothing mysterious about this system of fragmentation. A part detaches itself from the whole, the whole fails to renew itself, and the part develops without inhibition.”67 Furthermore, Hartz asserted that it is only particular fragments of society which migrate during colonization. These elements are dominated by people who are noticeably more adventurous and independent than those who decide to remain behind.68 Surely the independence of families who migrated to Beaubassin reflected this. Hartz additionally stated that when a fragment For example, Robert Rumilly stated that around the 1730s, “Les Acadiens des Mines et de Beaubassin, qui sont les plus nombreux et les plus riches, vivent encore dans la relative indépendance politique dont ils ont l’habitude et le goût.” Robert Rumilly, Histoire des Acadiens, 2 vols. (Montréal: Fides, 1955) 1: 280. 66 Faragher, 66 (see chap. 1, n. 38). 67 Louis Hartz, The Founding of New Societies: Studies in the History of the United States, Latin America, South Africa, Canada, and Australia (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964), 9. 68 Barry Moody, Thesis-Direction Conversation, 8 November 2013. 65 41 dislodged itself from Europe, it became quite distinguishable from it.69 If one applies the Hartzian theory to the Acadians, even though the Acadians still spoke French and were identified as the “neutral French,” they evolved separately and distinctly in their new environment to form a new identity. The appearance of “nouvelles opportunités,” exemplified for instance by amicable relations with the New Englanders, demonstrate the differences between the Acadians and the French. 70 Furthermore, Hartz maintained that fragmentation is not static. He asserted that even the colony continues to splinter throughout its development.71 The further colonization from Beaubassin of the Chipoudi and Petitcoudiac areas reflected this.72 Furthermore, this underlines the importance of different geographic regions to the character and development Beaubassin’s habitants. If these sites, located approximately 30 kilometres from Beaubassin were crucial to its development, the land in closer proximity of the settlement was equally fundamental to its settlers.73 It follows therefore that the place where the Beaubassin residents eventually decided to settle is incredibly important as it represents their immediate geography. Rompillon maintained that the identity of the Beaubassin people “était ancrée à leur territoire.”74 However, it must be recognized that “Beaubassin” applied to different areas at different moments in time. In the early years of the settlement, “Beaubassin” encompassed “all settlement on the Isthmus” of Chignecto. However, by 1750, it meant 69 Hartz, 4. Daigle, “Nos amis,” 67 (see chap. 1, n. 22): this is not to imply the inexistence of French smugglers, but rather the different opportunities offered to the Beaubassin Acadians. 71 Barry Moody, Thesis-Direction Conversation, 8 November 2013. 72 Maurice A. Léger, Patrimoine religieux acadien: Essai personnel, (Shédiac, N.B.: Falstaff, 2008), 92-93. 73 At the end of the Chignecto Basin (Baie de Chignectou), there are two bays. The eastern bay was what the French called Beaubassin, and it was in the western bay where they established the settlements of Chipoudi and Petitcoudiac (see appendices). 74 Rompillon, “mythe,” 295. 70 42 only the small, but “distinct settlement” which developed at the south-west end of the Fort Lawrence ridge.75 There were only fifty-nine souls in the first census taken at Beaubassin in 1686.76 Additionally, Coleman indicated that this settlement was found “on the forestcovered ridge on the east (south) side of the Missaguash River.”77 It is interesting to note that this settlement was not close to the coal reserves that were previously mentioned to be in Chignecto. Multiple sources cite the relative distance that lay between the settlement and these mines.78 There are two explanations for this. First, the Beaubassin habitants were indifferent to the coal, or second, that they did not initially understand its value. In either case, nature presented strong positives to the Beaubassin settlers in the profitability of the coal mines. Furthermore, this natural feature affirms the nature of Chignecto’s residents. For example, Hale’s observation in 1731 that “One Man will dig many Chaldron of this Coal in a day” reflects the productive nature of these Acadians.79 The adjacent geography in which these residents decided to settle profoundly impacted their identity. The impact of Beaubassin’s geography Before the settlers were affected by the land, however, they had to actually get from Port-Royal to Beaubassin. This voyage reflects some of nature’s negative aspects on the Beaubassin inhabitants. Certainly, the initial move to a new region presented a great 75 Coleman, Chignecto, 100-01; Coleman, Acadian Settlement, 16. Fonds Ministériels (FM), Dépôt des Papiers Publics Des Colonies (DPPC), G1/466 no. 10, Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer, Aix-en-Provence, France (ANOM): this demonstrates its tiny size. 77 Coleman, Acadian Settlement, 14. 78 Clark, 144; 222; Hale, 229-30; Coleman, Chignecto, 44: listing further sources that cite these coal mines, Coleman suggested that Hale’s source demonstrates that the mines had been dug there since at least the start of the 18th century. 79 Hale, 230; Hale, 229: furthermore, considering that these coal mines were “about 5 Lgs below Mefkquesh ye chief place of Checnecto,” or Beaubassin as the main settlement of Chignecto, suggests their industriousness and ability to overcome trial. 76 43 number of challenges to settlers. For example, both Denys and Hale commented on the danger of even the approach to and landing at Beaubassin.80 This relationship with the sea was fundamental to the existence of Beaubassin. Local knowledge of the navigable channels and tides was extensive, which is appropriate considering they were separated from the main Acadian settlement at Port-Royal by the Bay of Fundy’s tides, the highest in the world.81 These tides certainly impressed both Hale and Morris which demonstrates the ocean’s influence of the perception of Beaubassin.82 This apprehension further extends to Beaubassin’s soil as, despite the clear fact that it was excellent, several writers misunderstood its quality.83 However, Coleman’s comment that the only habitant to tend the marginally-arable uplands “regularly reaped a good harvest” demonstrates that the Beaubassin Acadians were actively shaping their destinies.84 The superb fertility of all Acadian land, particularly the saltmarshes, was greatly dependant on the dykes. Although the farming technique probably originated in Brittany, “the Bay of Fundy marshlands proved more successful” at creating a sweeping prairie landscape from low, coastal land.85 Although the construction of dykes was quite labour-intensive, the task brought communities together as it required collaboration.86 Gabriel Bertrand claimed that dykes 80 Denys, 121; Hale, 229-30: Hale had quite a difficulty landing his boat, running aground and being caught up by the mud, which stalled him for two days. 81 T. Stephen Henderson, conversation with the author, 27 March 2014. 82 Hale demonstrated respect tidal power, “wee were Oblig'd to quit our purpose till next Highwater for 'tis impossible to go against the Tide.” Hale, 232; The power of the tides equally impressed Charles Morris who commented that the “Currant of the Tides makes another difficulty.” [Morris], 70. 83 [Morris], 109: for example, Morris commented on the difficulty to produce grain on the uplands, remarking it as only sufficient area for the growth the cattle’s hay; Hale, 231: additionally, in an evaluation of tree growth, Hale commented on the poorness of the land. 84 Coleman, Chignecto, 13-14. 85 Doucet, 144 (see introduction, n. 1). 86 Sieur de Dièreville, Relation of the Voyage to Port Royal in Acadia or New France, trans. Mrs. Clarence Webster, ed. Dr. J.C. Webster (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1933), 94-95; Griffiths, Migrant, 310-11. 44 gave the Acadians additional independence through economic freedom.87 Like all Acadians, the Beaubassin colonists saw nature as a mother-figure who gave them plenty, but who could be punitive. Accordingly, the Beaubassin habitants both respected and feared “la forte presence de la toute puissante nature.”88 Nature was pervasive in the lives of these residents. However, the Beaubassin Acadians’ migratory character did not simply end after their arrival in Chignecto. After 1685 but before 1693, there were two large departures from Beaubassin. These were the departure of La Vallière and the incidence of the Morin affair.89 First, Rompillon supposed that the habitants of New France, who had followed La Vallière to Beaubassin, accompanied him when he departed in 1689.90 Furthermore, she speculated about the departure of the Morin family after the Morin affair.91 Although these mass departures are understandable, Rompillon estimated that the migrations from Beaubassin were inspired by the desire to escape “tout ce contexte de guerre.”92 However, Rompillon conceded that she could not offer “réelles explications” of the tendency to leave after 1693.93 This study certainly can account for these exoduses. Temporary residence of some individuals in Beaubassin underscores the status of Beaubassin as Acadia’s outpost. The Gabriel Bertrand, “La culture des marais endigués et le développement de la solidarité militante en Acadie entre 1710 et 1755,” Les Cahiers de la Société historique acadienne 24 :4 (1993): 238-49. 88 Marsaud, 120. 89 Rompillon, “mythe,” 278: The Morin affair occurred when Louis Morin impregnated the daughter of the seigneur La Vallière. 90 According to Surette, Governor Frontenac of Canada had requested “his involvement in the new war” in Europe, “that of the Augsburg league,” and “also because of the ill will” which the population of Beaubassin bore on him. Surette, 9. 91 This is understandable as although Louis Morin was the perpetrator of the crime, “les repressions s’abattent également sur toute la famille Morin [until finally]… 19 personnes sont donc obligées de migrer.” Rompillon, “mythe,” 279. 92 Rompillon applied this to not only to the migrations circa 1750, when the British maintained a foothold in Chignecto, but also wrote that war “est à l’origine des migration citées précédemment.” Romipillon, “Migration,” 124. 93 Rompillon, “Migration,” 116: for example, in the departure of multiple habitants in 1700, 1701, and 1703. 87 45 frontier was not somewhere one wished to stay. If the residents of Beaubassin were stationary, they would have attracted further immigrants and subsequently drawn the attention of those who sought to exploit the large centres of Acadia. This would annul the freedom which initially drew these migrants to Beaubassin’s frontier. Although it is conceded that Beaubassin grew, it always remained the smallest settlement in Acadia.94 Moreover, the relatively small size of Beaubassin also illustrates its nature as an outpost. However, the rest of the Acadians similarly lived in frontier-like conditions.95 Beaubassin was thus doubly removed from political centres as it was the outpost of a community already on the frontier. Furthermore, in a frontier-town, one has to cope with the limited materials available. These people therefore need to be independent, which is a liberating experience reflected in Beaubassin. However, Rompillon contends that in both the cases of Jean Campagna’s trial for sorcery and the Morin affair, “l’image de l’éden s’efface.”96 The tranquility of nature is not always pervasive. Nature also benefitted the Beaubassin habitants. For example, on the seemingly superficial level, the bishop of New France, Jean-Baptiste de la Croix de Chevrières de Saint-Vallier, described Chignecto as “un des plus beaux havres au monde.”97 This did not go unappreciated. Although a connection to the land exists among all Acadians, Beaubassin’s residents secretly returned to their home after 1750 with the British still 94 Clark, 130. Certainly, the Beaubassin habitants were a frontier people of the Acadians, whom both Doucet and Griffiths have described as a frontier people, “The Acadians… have always been a people balanced on the frontier between larger, more powerful national identities.” (Doucet, 4) Griffiths further noted that Acadia itself “could be considered as a distant outpost of the British empire. But it also could be seen as a moving frontier of the French.” Griffiths, Contexts, 81; Rameau de Saint-Père, Une colonie féodale, Tome I, 358 (see chap. 1, n. 7): however, it cannot be forgotten that Beaubassin was described by Rameau de Saint-Père as one of the four major districts of Acadia. 96 Rompillon, “mythe,” 294. 97 For example, Saint-Vallier described it as “un des plus beaux havres au monde.” (Jean-Baptiste de la Croix de Chevrières de Saint-Vallier, Estat présent de l’Église an la Nouvelle France [Québec: Augustin Coté & Cie, 1856] 35-36). 95 46 present, and Charles Des Champs de Boishébert’s Acadian allies continued to harass the British in Chignecto even after the Deportation. This differentiates them from the rest of the Acadians.98 However, this late agitation does not mean that they were constantly roused by nature. For instance, De Meulles commented on the Beaubassin settlers’ relaxed attitude for their environment with respect to their livestock: “Ils ne se donnent point la peine de les faire venir dans LEstable hors deux ou trois mois de Lannée et lorsqu’ils en ont affaire pour les tuer, ce qui est cause qu’ils en perdent beauceoup par les chiens sauvages qui les mangent.”99 This relaxed nature reflects that the Beaubassin habitants were most certainly human. Assuredly, the extended presence of an element eventually transforms into the laxity of its perception. However, the fact that the Beaubassin settlers continued to corral their livestock throughout the year demonstrates that they were not lazy. Laziness would be particularly difficult to prove in the Beaubassin habitants as they were involved in a diversity of tasks. The land of Beaubassin was good for other things than merely working the soil. Appropriately, Marsaud stated this is because of nature’s effect on the settlement.100 For example, one cannot deny that the cattle of Doucet, 82; Rompillon, “Migration,” 151-52; Phyllis E. LeBlanc, “DESCHAMPS DE BOISHÉBERT ET DE RAFFETOT, CHARLES.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 4. University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–. 27 March 2014 < http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/deschamps_de_boishebert_et_de_raffetot_charles_4E.html>: Charles Des Champs de Boishébert was an officer of colonial troops who left Québec with Jean-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramezay in June 1746 to counterbalance the British presence in Acadiain J.C. Webster, Memorial on behalf of the Sieur de Boishebert: Captain, Chevalier de Saint-Louis, Former Commandant in Acadia: A Statement by M. Clos, Attorney, in Defence of M. de Boishebert at his trial in Paris in 1763 for alleged misdemeanors during his military career in Acadia (Saint John, New Brunswick: The Tribune Press, 1942), 22-24. 99 De Meulles, 381. 100 Marsaud, 79-80: Marsaud elucidated how the long winter and short summer at Beaubassin made work’s diversification necessary. 98 47 Beaubassin were especially prized. 101 Furthermore, De Meulles suggested that the quantity of beef at Beaubassin could further limit the colony’s dependence on imports. He stated that, “il sy trouveroit assez de Bestiaux pour faire le commerce des isles et leur fournir leur provision de bœuf que lon tire des pays étrangers…” 102 However, Rompillon claimed that, “Contrairement à leurs voisins, les habitants ne semble pas être spécialement des « agriculteurs ».” Although Rompillon conceded the ownership of some land by most of Beaubassin’s settlers, she maintains that “l’agriculture n’est pas le point fort de Beaubassin et encore moins son activité principale.”103 Rompillon moved therefore into an explanation of what else there was at Beaubassin. Her position of the occupational pluralism of Beaubassin’s habitants is justified through their separate acts of fishing, rearing of livestock, working the land, and trading.104 Taking this into account, Marsaud qualified Beaubassin as a semi-agricultural and semi-commercial settlement.105 This analysis is pleasantly unified with the ideal geographic situation of Beaubassin. However, nature affected Beaubassin more through its geography than its purely agricultural assets. Further character traits of the Beaubassin habitants The geography of Beaubassin was crucial to the actions of its residents, and their character is the core of this study. Many of the characteristics of the Acadians at 101 The British definitely loved the beef at Beaubassin as Lieutenant-Governor Caulfield writes from Annapolis in 1715, “Skekenectoe is Cituate North about Thirty Leagues distant from us, A Low Country and is mostly Applied for the raising of Stocks of black and white Cattel, from which place in our necessity wee were Supplyed with about Seventy barrels of Extraordinary good Bieff.” Archibald M. MacMechan, ed., A Calendar of Two Letter-Books and One Commission-Book in the Possession of the Government of Nova Scotia, 1713-1741 (Halifax, N.S.: [Herald Printing House], 1900), 25. 102 De Meulles, 383. 103 Rompillon, “Migration,” 95. 104 Rompillon, “Migration,” 97-109: But what Rompillon missed here is the fact that agriculture is much more than simply the working of the soil. Agriculture equally includes the rearing of animals. Rompillon referred to cattle farming at Beaubassin as something separate from agriculture. 105 Marsaud, 78-79. 48 Beaubassin extended from their relationship with their geography. But as much as some of their mannerisms made them unique, the Beaubassin residents shared some of these fundamental aspects of character with the rest of Acadia. For example, Beaubassin’s settlers were naturally perseverant. Saint-Vallier recounts that although “ils y furent réduits d’abord à ne vivre que herbages,” they eventually became prosperous enough so that they were able to live quite comfortably. 106 This determination exemplified by these habitants is an example of their common traits as Acadians. Morris maintained that the Acadians in general are persistent.107 This perhaps originates from their common religious bond in Acadia. Gladys Trenholm, Josephine Trenholm, and Miep Norden asserted that the Acadians learned both perseverance and patience through their deep faith in the Catholic religion.108 In any event, this trait of perseverance understandably led to their obstinacy. Another feature of the Acadians shared by the Beaubassin habitants was that they were rebellious in their obstinacy. This is most easily perceptible in the common Acadian refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the British monarch.109 However, the obstinacy portrayed by the Beaubassin residents showed that they were adamant in their neutrality moved beyond the “common political framework” suggested by Griffiths. 110 As much as the Beaubassin residents shared this resistance to the oath with the other Acadian 106 Saint-Vallier, 35-36. [Morris], 103. 108 Gladys Trenholm, Josephine Trenholm, and Miep Norden, A history of Fort Lawrence: Times, Tides, and Towns (Edmonton, Alberta: Sherwood Printing, Ltd., 1986), 28. 109 For example, the minutes of Her Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal referred to, “ye Submission of ye Inhabitants of this Province, but that there were about Seventeen of those from Chignictou who persist in their obstinacy in refusing to Conform to his Majestys Orders.” Archibald M. MacMechan, ed., Original Minutes from His Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal, 1720-39 (Halifax, N.S.: McAlpine Pub. Co., 1908), 171. 110 Griffiths, Contexts, 59. 107 49 settlements, this inflexibility of the Beaubassin Acadians was much greater. 111 This was a reflection of their location on the borders of Acadia and, from 1750-55, their position a few hundred metres from the French at Fort Beauséjour and the English and Fort Lawrence. For example, their true stubbornness was revealed in their refusal to abandon their homes even after they were burned.112 This truly shows that they were undeniably tied to more than the ideals which Beaubassin represented (notably independence), but its actual geography. Furthermore, British officials disdained the Beaubassin residents in particular. On 16 July 1741, British administrators claimed that “The people of Chignecto appear in all things of a refractory spirit.” To further illustrate, the officials cited their unwillingness to “pay the King’s dues” and even when they did eventually pay, the currency they used was “in bad Species.”113 Although not paying taxes correctly may not be considered to be disobedient, joining “the enemy” is a blatantly rebellious action. This defiant nature exemplified in Chignecto originated from their geography. For example, the habitants would not have been in a position to “rebelliously” join Louis de La Corne in 1750 unless they were on the northern fringes of Acadia, closer to New France.114 Compounding this, Britain certainly viewed Beaubassin as distinct from the other settlements of Acadia. For example, in 1747, in a letter to Governor Shirley of Massachusetts, the Duke of Newcastle forbid the expulsion of “even the habitants of Chignecto,” and earlier British officials had referred to Acadians’ disobedience, “Il n’y a décidément rien au monde plus obstiné qu’un Acadien des Mines ou de Beaubassin.” Rumilly, Histoire des Acadiens, 266. 112 Coleman , Chignecto, 65; Coleman, Chignecto, 84: Coleman noted that the Beaubassin habitants even continued to collect their hay after their home was burnt. 113 MacMechan, Letter-Books, 152-53: Although they might not have had British specie as the colonial government may have wanted, they interacted more with the British and the French than any other Acadian settlement, further illustrating their difference; furthermore, British officials deemed Chignecto habitants to have “Rebellious behaviour.” MacMechan, Minutes, 144. 114 Charles Lawrence, The Journal of Joshua Winslow: Recording his participation in the events of the year 1750, ed. J.C. Webster (Saint John, N.B.: The New Brunswick Museum, 1936), 34. 111 50 “Particularly that of Chiconecto.”115 This reflects their peculiarity from the rest of the Acadians. Likewise, this annoying individualism of the Beaubassin inhabitants is reflected in the minutes of Her Majesty’s Council for 11 January 1743 at Annapolis Royal which maintain that “[the] District of Chignecto has so long been in a state of disobedience that the habitans can only regain the confidence of the Govt. by repentance and amendment.”116 The weariness that is portrayed in these words by Her Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal demonstrates the persistence of these traits at Beaubassin. The obstinacy of the Beaubassin Acadians translated into their similarly defining characteristics of hesitance, caution, and an inactive nature. As harmless as these may seem, they particularly irked the British at the time. For example, Beaubassin did not immediately reply to a request from Annapolis Royal, particularly agitating Paul Mascarene. He described the Chignecto Acadians as being “like criminals against whom sentence is about to be pronounced.”117 Mascarene is generally noted to have been rather beneficent to the Acadians, which further highlights Chignecto’s independence.118 Furthermore, the Beaubassin Acadians avoided hostility even in the face of threats. For example, Morris recounted that “They gave me assurances that their District was hearty in their Allegiance… but that there was a party of Indians of 150 among them, and that the People could not meet on it at present.”119 Their lack of devotion towards the Aboriginals in order to avoid conflict needs to be carefully considered. The source is taken from a 115 Newcastle to William Shirley, 3 October 1747 C.O. 5, 901, ff.157-8v in Brebner, 130; MacMechan, Letter-Books, 246. 116 MacMechan, Letter-Books, 158. 117 Paul Mascarene to the deputies of Minas, Piziquid, and River Canard, Oct. 13, 1744 in Barry Morris Moody, “’A Just and Disinterested Man’, The Nova Scotia Career of Paul Mascarene, 1710-1752,” diss., Queen’s University, 1976, 312. 118 For example, see Moody, “Just and Disinterested Man,” 301-03. 119 [Morris], 59. 51 British official, and the Beaubassin habitants clearly could have deceived Morris. Certainly, these Acadians were interested in their own well-being. For example, Morris additionally stated that they did not wish to follow Duvivier in 1744 merely because they were tired, a statement which many historians support.120 Furthermore, Brebner argued that the Acadians’ hesitant nature is essentially quantitative. He believed that their confusion originated from the basic facts that “British strength was very much greater, [and] British policy somewhat more continuous and interested.”121 He therefore asserted the sheer practicality of these Acadians. As their acknowledgement of stronger British power demonstrated, they more often rationalized issues quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.122 However, the attachment of the Beaubassin Acadians was much more complex than merely this numeric reasoning. The Beaubassin Acadians were practical as they were faithful to their agriculture and to each other and not to an outside power. Their questionable devotion to the Mi’kmaq has already been shown, but they were also not won over by the French.123 Duvivier’s attempt to secure Acadian men from Beaubassin for his raid on Annapolis Royal in 1744 aptly demonstrated this. Although he succeeded in attracting great support, more than “trois quarts” of the crowd, the Beaubassin Acadians largely dismissed him and he left with only ten men from the region.124 The prospect of marching on Annapolis Royal certainly was not attractive to these practical people. Duvivier noted that they were [Morris], 19; Moody, “A Just and Disinterested Man,” 308: for example, Moody supported this statement ; Gelly, 15: however, Alain Gelly believed that the Beaubassin habitants were not against military action. 121 Brebner, 180. 122 Surely, if they had reasoned things out more quantitatively, they would have supported the French, or those with whom they shared language and religion. 123 François DuPont Duvivier, Course à L'Accadie, Journal De Campagne De François Du Pont Duvivier En 1744, ed. Bernard Pothier (Ottawa: Les Éditions d'Acadie, 1982), 73. 124 Duvivier, 72-74. 120 52 faithful to their agriculture instead.125 The Beaubassin habitants were devoted to the nature which had treated them so beneficently, but they were furthermore faithful to each other. For example, Morris commented on the residents of Baie Verte, in the north of Chignecto, saying that, “they themselves had been very honest and indeed they were so to each other” because they did not accuse any fellow settler of disloyalty to Britain.126 However, the practicality of these residents extended further. The Beaubassin habitants were also pragmatic because they knew when to take risks. This bold nature equally distinguished the Beaubassin habitants. Rumilly portrayed Beaubassin as the most prosperous of the Acadian settlements, the result of the active and youthful nature of its residents.127 Additionally, Rompillon’s assertion that they had a migratory nature also illustrates their nerve.128 These characteristics all show that they were ready for the frontier. Appropriately, therefore, Rompillon noted that “les personnes plus de quarante ans sont fort peu nombreuses à migrer vers Beaubassin.”129 Returning again to the attraction of the frontier of administratively neglected territory, a truly frontier characteristic is the mobility of a population. Although these families may have Duvivier notes, “Leur récolte leur pressois. Je ne voulois pas les en detourner.” Duvivier, 73-74. [Morris], 61. 127 Rumilly, L’Acadie Française, 123; Mascarene in Coleman, Chignecto, 43-44: Mascarene further noted that the Beaubassin society showed great promise as he recounts that they grew rapidly in number; Milton P. Rieder Jr. and Norma Gaudet Rieder, Acadian Church Records, Volume II: Beaubassin 1712-1748 [Metairie, Louisiana: 1976] 11-12; 88; 100: further supporting their thriving nature therefore is the fact that there are not that many people listed as dying on the parish register; Winston De Ville, Acadian Church Records, Volume I (Mobile: 1964): moreover, De Ville did not list any deaths occurring in Beaubassin from 1679 to 1686, the earliest record that remains from Beaubassin’s church; Rompillon, “Migration,” 70: Rompillon asserted their strength originates from their youth; Marsaud also defined the population of habitants at Beaubassin as “jeune et active.” Marsaud, 47. 128 Through an extensive analysis of the censuses, Rompillon determined that the average couple “qui migrent, on donc moins de trente ans ou plus de quarante ans. Ce sont principalement des couples établis depuis quelques temps à Beaubassin, qui ont moins de neuf enfants.” Rompillon, “Migration,” 124-27. 129 Rompillon, “Migration,” 81. 125 126 53 been drawn to Beaubassin, Rompillon showed that that it was a migratory village. 130 Furthermore the migrants to Beaubassin were either single or recently married. Rompillon noted that “Ceci correspond à l’image du jeune pionnier qui va chercher ailleurs une vie meilleure, et qui entraîne avec lui, sa femme et ses enfants s’ils en ont.”131 This was a people with few things restricting them which would have impeded their migration to Beaubassin. The desire for self-preservation created in the Beaubassin habitants a certain selfsufficiency which further made them independent. For example, De Meulles maintained in 1685 that they were autonomous agriculturally, further asserting that they would soon be ready to export surpluses. Additionally, he cited their many handcrafted items of clothing such as “Etamines” and “sousliers sauvages.”132 Their self-sufficiency from their mother country and colonial government was not only apparent in their adoptions of Aboriginal practices, but also in their relations with New England. De Meulles also noted that, “Il vient tous les ans dans ce lieu une barque angloise au mois d’avril qui leur aporte de leurs petites necessités.”133 The fact that these necessities are only “petites” demonstrates that the Beaubassin residents were virtually self-sufficient. However, De Meulles understandably feared that the English had gained too great an influence over 130 Perhaps Rompillon summed up the nature of the Beaubassin habitants best the brief sentence of her later article that, “C’est ainsi que des gens qui ont passé leur enfance à Beaubassin s’y sont marries, y ont fondé une famille, migrent.” Rompillon, “mythe,” 294; to conclude who was leaving however, Rompillon determined that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from those who left Beaubassin as “il n’y a pas un modèle, mais des modèles… Elles sont différentes… mais ells sont parfois semblables… dans l’ensemble, c’est vaste, c’est multiple, c’est la disperson.” Rompillon, “Migration,” 158. 131 Rompillon, “Migration,” 83; Rompillon, “Migration,” 81: for example, if the couple was married, this was often for less than ten years; Rompillon, “Migration,” 84: this further clarifies Campagna’s arrival as single males were more likely to take this risk. 132 De Meulles, 381. 133 De Meulles, 382. 54 Beaubassin.134 Saint-Vallier subscribed to De Meulles’ beliefs that the French needed to have a greater interest in trade. Saint-Vallier reported that a French vessel only need bring small commodities, but they would find “sa charge de bois, de planches, et de saulmon sallé pour les Isles.”135 The abundance of goods available for the French which the Beaubassin Acadians had accrued over their short time in Chignecto further demonstrated their independence on the frontier. This conclusion is supported by the lack of interest of Beaubassin residents in money, as unessential to survival in the wilds of Acadia.136 They were more concerned with fundamental survival techniques, which were much more necessary on the frontier. These techniques notably involved their handiwork and their resourcefulness.137 As independent as the Beaubassin habitants were, this autonomy partially stemmed from their bonds to family which shows that they were dependant on, and close to, those around them. This is logical on the frontier, where it was possible to augment your power through having a fecund household. Having larger families enabled the Acadians to cultivate more land. Hence in Acadia, preserving heritage was not as important as procreation and the formation of a family. 138 It is generally agreed that Beaubassin was a migratory village and these migrants were often related to those already For example, De Meulles suggested, “Les Anglois de Baston se regardent comme seigneurs de toutes ces costes par la raison qu’ils font perpetuellement et y font tout le commerce et qu’ils sont plus aimez des habitans que les françois mesme.” De Meulles, 382. 135 Saint-Vallier, 35-36. 136 Hale, 232-33. 137 Rumilly, L’Acadie Française, 172: Rumilly noted that they restored their losses from Church’s raid 1696; Coleman, Chignecto, 92: Coleman recounted that many Beaubassin habitants escaped the Expulsion; Charles Burke, Archeological and Material Culture Evidence from the Acadian Village of Beaubassin,” HIST 2773, Acadia University, 17 October 2013: Burke suggested that Beaubassin’s habitants remembered it and hid away all of their valuables while Hale was held up on the mud which caused him to refer to them as poor. Hale, 229-30. 138 Schmeisser, 7-8: Schmeisser also supported the importance of the family in Acadia. 134 55 in the terroir.139 As seen above, interest in the colonization of Beaubassin crucially originated with certain nuclear families.140 This connection to family is not limited to the beginning of Beaubassin. Bourgeois and his wife Jeanne Trahan returned to the settlement in the autumn of their life to be among their children.141 Additionally, family shaped the departures from Beaubassin. Rompillon noted that often habitants migrated out of Beaubassin once their parents had died.142 This suggests that once the bastion of the family’s older generation was gone, there was nothing left to hold them there any longer. Beaubassin was a family community. Marsaud argued that the closeness of the community in Beaubassin really made its residents one big family.143 This clan-like aspect supplemented the identity of this community which was founded by the original families of Beaubassin. The precedence in society enjoyed by these original families perhaps further explains their disapproval of outsiders. The internal conflicts at Beaubassin demonstrate that as much as its habitants were united, they enjoyed squabbling. The trial of Jean Campagna illustrates that these internal conflicts originated from the environment which surrounded them.144 In 1684, Rompillon, “Migration,” 79; Marsaud, 35-36. Marsaud, 43; Marsaud further explained who these nuclear families are. “Au-delà des familles nucléaires, comme les Mercier, les Chiasson, les Caissie, les Poirier, les Aucoin, au-delà même des groupes intermédiaires qu'ils peuvent former, se dressent trois grands groupes qui sont à même d'exercer des choix. Il s'agit de l'ensemble formé par la famille La Vallière, le groupe Morin, et celui dit des premiers colons formée des sept couples suivants Cormier-Girouard, Blou-Girouard, Girouard-Bourgeois (Cyr), MirandeBourgeois (Cyr), Mirande-Bourgeois (Boudrot), Mignault-Dugas (Bourgois), Bourgeois (Beliveau)-Dugas et Dugas-Bourgeois.” Marsaud, 78; Marsaud, 68-69: however, Beaubassin’s mobility meant that there eventually was a shift in power; Rompillon, “Migration,” 48-49: Moreover, this supports Rompillon’s hypothesis of Bourgeois’ migration to Beaubassin for his children’s profit. 141 Rompillon, “Migration,” 116-17. 142 Rompillon, “Migration,” 141. 143 Marsaud, 88. 144 According to Rompillon, Beaubassin represented “la fusion de trois nations” with the original migration of the habitants from Port-Royal, the Canadiens, and the Aboriginals. Rompillon, “Migration,” 56; however, Marsaud forwarded that “par ricochet et par intérêt, la crise a frappé le village dans son ensemble.” Marsaud, 135; for a more extensive analysis of the Beaubassin trial of Jean Campagna, see Marsaud, L’Étranger qui Dérange. 139 140 56 Campagna was put on trial for sorcery.145 However, Marsaud argued that this was not the real motivation for his trial. She repeatedly asserted that Campagna was merely someone to blame for all of the hardships which the Beaubassin settlers had endured.146 Undeniably, there was a series of unfortunate circumstances which befell the Beaubassin Acadians in the year of 1684 when they arrested Campagna. For instance, the crops failed that year, according to Marsaud.147 However, given the position of the original families at Beaubassin, they could not as easily condemn an important member of their nascent community. Therefore, Campagna may have served as a scapegoat because he was not only an outsider, but he was single and consequently had no fundamental connection to the settlement.148 Beyond the apparent maliciousness of these Acadians, they were also devious. The verbatim testimonies of the residents however reveal not only their dishonesty, but also their organization.149 The harmony of each habitant’s chosen words against Campagna demonstrates their disciplined coordination. Despite a strong defence by Campagna, villagers at Beaubassin did not want someone to block “leur épanouissement,” they wanted him dead.150 Marsaud concluded that the real culprit behind the whole affair was probably nature. Although the fear of witches pervaded European societies at the time, it was the Beaubassin settlers’ fear of the consequences of 145 Marsaud, 95: Marsaud reminded us was an act considered of lèse-majesté. Marsaud, 110-11; 141; 143. 147 Marsaud, 21: Again, this exemplifies nature’s strong impact on the habitants. Additionally, Marie Denys, the wife of La Vallière, had died. 148 Marsaud, 61. 149 Marsaud, 130. 150 Marsaud, 141 ; Marsaud told us that when questioned about the sickness, Campagna responded, “« Qu’il ne scait pas que s’estait une mortailité et que tout le monde s’estoit malade. » Effectivement, il est tout à fait possible que le décès brutal de François Pèlerin soit dû simplement à une maladie.” Marsaud, 114-15; Marsaud, 101. 146 57 nature which made them irrational.151 However, the Beaubassin residents’ animosity toward this outsider does not mean that they were detached or aloof. The Beaubassin Acadians customarily welcomed visitors. It is interesting to note that they did not discriminate against British visitors, but rather entertained them and guided them.152 Their commercial relationship with New England perhaps explains this. Furthermore, there were facilities in their settlement to receive guests. William Sears’ tavern offered Hale’s company both refreshments and “water to wash [their] Legs & feet (bedaubed with Clay in coming ashore).”153 Additionally, it was not as if the Beaubassin Acadians had that much which they could offer to guests. Hale described their houses as small, with minimal furniture and flatware.154 These conditions suggest that the Beaubassin settlers were frugal. However, De Meulles described that, even in 1685, the lodging of the Beaubassin Acadians are “assez raisonnables pour la campagne.” 155 Whether their homes were frugal or not, Beaubassin’s residents offered a warm welcome to their visitors all the same. Notably, religion has issued laws to its disciples which have also proven to be restricting over history. However, multiple sources describe the Acadians as pious, particularly at Beaubassin. In a review of the Beaubassin Acadians, Saint-Vallier 151 Marsaud, 129; 149-50 ; further demonstrating the importance of marriage, Campagna attempted to attract a wife to gain the true acceptance of these residents. However, despite his efforts “À diverses reprises,” he failed each time 152 Hale, 231. 153 Hale, 232; Schmeisser, 7 citing Hale, 233: although the meals at Beaubassin were frugal, they show that the habitants shared what they had, for example, Schmeisser commented that they had a fondness for bonnyclabber, but they shared it with the British. 154 “They have but one Room in y' Houfes besides a Cockloft, Cellar, & Sometimes a Closet... They have not above 2 or 3 chairs in a houfe, & those wooden ones, bottom & all. I saw but 2 Muggs among all y e French & ye lip of one of y"* was broken down above 2 inches. When they treat you with ftrong drink they bring it in a large Bason & give you a Porringer to dip it with.” Hale, 231; 233-34. 155 De Meulles, 381. 58 described them as “fort bonnes gens, qui craignent Dieu, qui vivent en paix, et qui seroient tout à fait irréprochables.”156 The bishop’s assessment of their devotion is echoed by Hale, who recorded that they prayed every night.157 Their strong spirituality was also exemplified through the importance they placed on the practice of marriage. Campagna’s case clearly illustrated this. Marsaud believed that marriage was necessary in Acadian society for the placement of individuals.158 Two marriages in 1722 and 1745 further illuminate Beaubassin’s religious situation.159 These marriages took place in August and January. Jacques Vanderlinden suggested that few marriages happened in those months for seasonal reasons, whether agricultural or liturgical.160 Although between 1679 and 1682 four of the six marriages in Beaubassin coincide with this schema, Marsaud supposed that the reason that the reason the other two marriages broke this pattern was because “ce fut une question de circonstances, d’urgence. Ces unions devaient se faire le plus rapidement possible, dans l’intérêt de chacun… la nécessité l’emporte sur la coutume et brise parfois le rythme de vie établi.”161 This supposition further supports the frontier hypothesis. On the frontier one definitely did not have the time to fret over customs or preferences.162 Additionally, these two marriages may exemplify Beaubassin’s seclusion as the priest’s visits were infrequent. Beaubassin’s piety decreed that, when he was 156 Saint-Vallier, 36-37. Hale, 233. 158 Marsaud, 62. 159 Rieder Jr. and Rieder, 14; 100. 160 Jacques Vanderlinden, Se Marier en Acadie Française: XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Moncton: Les Éditions d’Acadie, 1998), 62-63: Vanderlinden stated that the general period without marriages lasts from March to June, with few marriages in July and August, where the greatest amount of marriages occurred in November. 161 De Ville, 2: for example, of the three marriages in 1679, two took place in April; Marsaud, 54. 162 Furthermore, on the frontier, it did not seem to matter from whence you originated as spouses married in Beaubassin came from far away as Paris or the “diocese of Nantes.” Rieder Jr. and Rieder, 19. 157 59 present, the priest’s services needed to be exploited.163 The villagers respected the priests as far as their authority to administer sacraments. The Beaubassin habitants’ general piety stands in contrast to the common disposition they had toward their priests. Despite the fact that they were needed for the ritual of marriage, Acadians often believed the priest overstepped his authority. 164 The use of Le Loutre in this context, however, has been presented excessively by historians. This study will explore anti-clericalism among the Beaubassin Acadians through the less notorious priest Laurent Laboret. Serving the Acadian parishes from 1741-46, Laboret was referred to by Duvivier as “peu aimé de ses paroissiens parce qu’il les fait trop prier Dieu, outre ce qu’il est fort amateur d’argent.”165 This suggests that the Beaubassin Acadians had issues with Laboret as it has been shown that they were pious. Perhaps these issues originated in their dislike of complying with their priest due to their proven independence. In this way, they show remarkable similarity to Allan Greer’s description of habitants in New France.166 Although they respected the priest’s power they still disliked Laboret, indicating that they retained some agency and supporting Barbara Schmeisser’s judgment that the Beaubassin priest was “influential.”167 The priest was not all powerful, as the Naïve School suggested. Laboret’s money-handling skills created resentment among the savvy Beaubassin residents. The directness of Duvivier’s language may perplex the reader. Beaubassin Acadians may not have valued money because they lived on the frontier. Yet, if money was not good for anything in Beaubassin, its residents 163 For more on the rarity of the visits of Acadian priests, see Griffiths, Migrant, 331 and Faragher, 66. Vanderlinden, 13, 52-53; for further reading of the many roles of the Acadian priest see Brebner, 155-56. 165 Duvivier, 70. 166 “Generally, the habitants seemed prepared to obey legitimate authority, but their actions in innumerable local squabbles indicate that they reserved to themselves the right to decide which authorities were legitimate and how far their powers could rightfully extend.” Greer, Patriots, 118 (see introduction, n. 5). 167 Schmeisser, 8. 164 60 still respected its power and the skill one needed to use it.168 Furthermore, this certainly marks their independence from the rest of Acadia. Contrasted to Beaubassin, Griffiths argued that “Specie did not serve as a major regulator of the internal economy” in the other Acadian communities.169 This independence which the Beaubassin residents then demonstrated from the other Acadian settlements was demonstrably strong and furthermore would not have been possible if Beaubassin’s geographical situation was different. Conclusion Chignecto’s geography shaped the creation of the Beaubassin habitants’ distinct character including their independence. Initially, this autonomy was rooted in the distance of this new settlement from the rest of Acadia and the natural resources available in it. But the people were unique in themselves, too. Their economic, familial, and political reasoning to move to Beaubassin shows that they were more willing than other Acadians to take risks. Once they migrated, these special aspects of their character were amplified through an overlap of this peculiar people on a particular landscape. The Beaubassin community was complex, demonstrating both hospitality and a dislike of étrangers; while their trade with New England indicated their self-sufficiency and business acumen, although they otherwise seemed indifferent to specie. Some of these attributes distinguished Beaubassin, such as their much greater obstinacy. However, this is not to This is demonstrated in their independent interaction with New England and furthermore supports Hale’s conclusion in 1731 that these residents did not care to “take” the money offered to them. Hale, 232-33. 169 Not only do her sources revolve around the settlement of Port-Royal, but Griffiths also explicitly stated in the proof of one of her points that “the Acadians, particularly those of Grand Pré and of the Minas basin in general…” Naomi Griffiths, “The Golden Age: Acadian Life, 1713-1748,” Readings in Canadian History: Pre-Confederation, ed. R. Francis Douglas and Donald B. Smith (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Ltd., 1990), 165-66. 168 61 imply that this was particular to this settlement. This is clearly demonstrated by the features reflected in other Acadian inhabitants, such as their perseverance, hesitancy, and devotion to family. Despite this, the diffusion of the distinct geography of Chignecto into its residents proves the individuality of the Beaubassin habitants. Thus far, this interpretation has purposefully contained itself to the interaction with Chignecto. To truly understand the uniqueness of Beaubassin, however, it must be compared and contrasted with both peoples and terroirs originating from outside this region. 62 Chapter Three: The True Test/A Comparison of Beaubassin with other Terroirs Having established the specific identity of the Beaubassin residents through events in Chignecto, we must compare and contrast these habitants with settlers in other terroirs to truly prove their distinction. As important as its nearby geography is to explaining the colonists’ individuality, the boundaries of Chignecto restrain the argument that the characteristics just shown were unique. However, these restraining borders also show that, geographically, the inhabitants of Chignecto were a rural people. Further supporting the need for this comparison, Allan Greer proposed that often “rural folk are roused by some external stimulus.”1 The terroirs chosen for comparison are varied, however, each has a connection to Beaubassin. Perhaps the most important distinction of Beaubassin was its separation from the other settlements of Acadia. This chapter compares Beaubassin to the Acadian settlements of Les Mines and Port-Royal. Moving outside the region, comparisons continue with France, and the colony of New France. Exploring the relationship between the colony and the imperial power helps to reveal differences between the British administrators and the Beaubassin residents. All of these comparisons ultimately demonstrate the distinct identity of the Beaubassin habitants. The initial distinction of Beaubassin’s habitants The residents of Beaubassin were different from the rest of the Acadians. In 1720, Paul Mascarene noted that: “The Inhabitants [at Beaubassin] are more given to hunting and trading than those of the other settlements, which is partly occasioned by their being 1 Greer, Patriots, 11 (see introduction, n. 5). 63 so conveniently seated for it.”2 Mascarene underlined the importance of geography to the distinct identity of the Beaubassin settlers. Naomi Griffiths determined that boundaries meant a lot to the Acadians.3 Therefore, the distance of Beaubassin from the other main Acadian settlements further proves the distinction of its residents. According to John Bartlet Brebner, it was this isolation which gave the people of Beaubassin their individuality.4 Griffiths, however, argued that all Acadians were a “border people.”5 Nevertheless, it is always possible to amplify a common characteristic to the point where it is no longer similar. Accordingly, Beaubassin demonstrated itself to be the border-town of Acadia. Even those who did not connect Beaubassin’s distinction to geography still assert that its habitants had their own identity. 6 Fittingly, this distinct identity was highlighted through their hostility towards outsiders. On multiple occasions Beaubassin residents refused to accept “les étrangers” as a part of their community. For example, at its very beginning the community refused to accept Michel LeNeuf de La Vallière and his entourage. This caused La Vallière and his habitants to return with him to New France in 1688.7 Furthermore, as Myriam Marsaud 2 Public Archives of Canada, MG11, Nova Scotia A, vol. 12, p. 137ff reprinted in T.B. Akins (ed.), Selections from the Public Documents of Nova Scotia, p. 40, 47-48 in Coleman, Chignecto, 121-22 (see chap. 2, n. 6); Coleman, Chignecto, 83: furthermore, Coleman outlined how Peregrine Hopson differentiated them from the rest of the Acadians when he mentioned that they actually lived in better from than all of the other Acadians. 3 Griffiths, “Golden Age,” 166 (see chap. 2, n. 169): she referred here to the litigious nature of the Acadians to span all regimes and suggests the reading of Clark, 198 (see introduction, n. 3) and Brebner, 140 (see chap. 1, n. 18). 4 Brebner, 46-47. 5 Griffiths, Contexts, 70 (see introduction, n. 5); Kennedy, 64 (see chap. 1, n. 2): this argument is buttressed by Kennedy who claimed that Acadian isolation generally increased their commitment to community. 6 Schmeisser, 5 (see chap. 1, n. 8): Although Schmeisser agreed that they had a distinctive identity from the rest of Acadia, she does not link this to their geography but rather, reliance on a mixed economy, friendship with the local Indians, little interference from the authorities in the organization and government of their settlements, and encouragement of individual effort; Rompillon, “Migration,” 156-57 (see introduction, n. 3): furthermore, Rompillon noted in her master’s thesis that the distinction of Beaubassin came from the mobility of its habitants. 7 Rompillon, “mythe,” 279-80 (see chap. 1, n. 79). 64 implied, the case of Campagna similarly illustrated the Beaubassin habitants’ dislike of strangers.8 Furthermore, Le Loutre was not welcome in Beaubassin in the 1740s. Will R. Bird suggested that the Beaubassin residents had little trust in him.9 This dislike of strangers applied to those distanced by language, for example, Anglophones. For example, in December 1736, James O’Neal was appointed the “rent-gatherer” for Chignecto. Adding to the fact that the tax collector is usually not an admired member of the community, O’Neal was British. The people of Chignecto did not take kindly to an outsider in their midst and the feeling was mutual.10 O’Neal complained “not only of [the habitants’] taking of the land granted to him on La Valiere's Island but also of burning his brush and other stuff which he had laid there for the dyking and inclosing of said land…”11 Perhaps then these “strangers” were justified in their prickly nature. In any event, all of these examples portray the response of Beaubassin’s residents to outsiders in their midst. However, further differentiation is required from the other terroirs of Acadia to validate their distinction. Beaubassin’s division from the other Acadian settlements An analysis of the geography and inhabitants of the Acadian settlement of Les Mines reveals its differences from Beaubassin. First, and most obviously, the natural characteristics of Les Mines were different from Beaubassin. Nicolas Denys and Samuel de Champlain recorded respectively that “mines of copper in several places” and white 8 Marsaud, 101 (see chap. 1, n. 62). Bird, 84-85 (see chap. 1, n. 12). 10 “For one thing, relations between the habitants and O’Neal were not smooth. Hard feelings over a grant to O’Neal on La Vallière’s Island may have been the root of the conflict or it may have been uneasiness among the inhabitants about O’Neal’s honesty.” Coleman, Chignecto, 37-38; Bird, 41. 11 MacMechan, Letter-Books, 230 (see chap. 2, n. 189). 9 65 limestone existed in Les Mines.12 These were different resources from the coal and grindstone on the periphery of the Beaubassin settlement. The southern shores of the Baie Française trumped the north’s productivity and lured many more families to its settlement.13 Bird claimed that Beaubassin was much more productive than Les Mines, but Les Mines was the largest settlement in Acadia.14 Furthermore, Beaubassin’s residents had a much more agreeable relationship with the Aboriginals, supposedly because of their position on the frontier.15 To be sure, Duvivier chose to strike out for Annapolis Royal from Les Mines rather than from Beaubassin.16 This misleads the appreciation that the British were present at Les Mines more often than at Beaubassin.17 For example, in 1746, Charles Morris recounted that, upon intelligence from the inhabitants of Les Mines, “a party of Canadeans” learned that it was “not safe to keep their head Quarters any longer at Minas [Les Mines], but remov’d to Chignecto, from whence they could easily pass to Bay Vert and from thence to St. Johns Island [Prince Edward Island] where they could winter in safety.”18 Beaubassin was therefore viewed as part of an escape route. Beaubassin was a hub through which the French passed, rather than a location where the British remained 12 Denys, 121-22 (see chap. 2, n. 20); Lavardière, Champlain, 272 in William Francis Ganong in Denys, 121-22. 13 When referring to Beaubassin, Dièreville mentioned that “In regard to Beaubassin… it is the least populous settlement, & also the least productive.” Dièreville, 90 (see chap. 2, n. 86); Dièreville, 100: Dièreville later referred again to Beaubassin as the least productive Acadian settlement. 14 Bird, 71; [Morris], 92 (see chap. 2, n. 7); Clark confirmed this in his later study saying that, “The push to the north and east was such that before the end of the century the Minas settlers outnumbered those at Port Royal and by 1710 the population of the Chignecto marshes was half that of the mother settlement.” Clark, 130; Additionally, Dièreville noted that Beaubassin “is the least prosperous settlement, & also the least productive.” Dièreville, 90. 15 MacMechan, Minutes, 108 (see chap. 2, n. 197). 16 Duvivier, 67-85 (see chap. 2, n. 123): Duvivier’s company was at Beaubassin (13-18 August 1744) first and then Les Mines (20-30 1744) before striking out for Annapolis Royal. 17 [Morris], 44, 60. 18 [Morris], 36. 66 for an extensive period of time.19 It follows that Beaubassin habitants were less engaged with the British. Additionally, Margaret Coleman contended that the people at Beaubassin were far more inclined to cooperate with François DuPont Duvivier than those at Les Mines.20 This suggests that its residents were more supportive of the French. However, Duvivier’s failure to attract support at Beaubassin confirms Robert Rumilly’s claim that Beaubassin’s residents were “encore plus indépendants” than those at Les Mines. 21 In fact, the only similarities which can be drawn between the two settlements are very broad.22 Yet, these similarities are typical of the general Acadian and alone are not substantial enough to demonstrate real similarity between the two settlements. After an analysis such as this, it is obvious that the inhabitants at Beaubassin were quite distinct from their cousins in Les Mines. However, it is not the only Acadian settlement from which the Beaubassin habitants distinguished themselves. Settlers at Port-Royal were also different from the Beaubassin residents. PortRoyal was the seat of government for the French to 1710, and for the British until 1749. Constant supervision by authorities understandably made the Port-Royal settlers less independently minded than their fellow Acadians at Beaubassin.23 However, it has to be appreciated that the Acadians at Port-Royal retained the agency to choose for themselves. Indeed, Robert Hale recognized that “no English” lived outside of the Fort at Annapolis Royal.24 Yet, Port-Royal’s overwhelming lack of independence dominantly coloured its 19 However, during times of war, the British remained in Chignecto; for the mobility of Beaubassin, see Rompillon, “Migration.” 20 Coleman, Chignecto, 50-51. 21 Rumilly, Histoire des Acadiens, 215 (see chap. 2, n. 65). 22 [Morris], 9: for example, Morris forwarded they were similarly distressed during Queen Anne’s war by the British attacks. 23 Coleman, Chignecto, 14. 24 Hale, 227 (see chap. 2, n. 39). 67 residents. Here, the evidence of the Sieur de Dièreville is particularly important. Although Dièreville celebrated the benefits of trade, at Port-Royal he observed that no one dares do any business; if a Settler attempts anything of the sort even in the Neighbourhood… trouble is made for him on some fine but specious pretext, suggested by base interests; his buildings are taken from him [the settler], & in this way districts which might have become productive, are rendered forever barren.25 Therefore, Dièreville argued, Port-Royal residents generally did not participate in trade. The Beaubassin habitants, by contrast, were always looking for gain as exemplified in their open trade with New England, Louisbourg, not to mention New France. However, this is not to assume that the Port-Royal settlers had no backbone. This was exemplified on 13 October 1699 upon the arrival of Dièreville to Port-Royal.26 He recounted that the habitants of Port-Royal had mistaken his vessel for “a Pirate Ship” and further claimed that “Had they been able to bring their Cannon to bear upon our Ship, we should have fared very ill.”27 This further differentiates them from the Beaubassin residents as they are noted to have shown hospitality to the New Englanders when Hale visited in 1731.28 However, this is understandable when one considers the many attacks to which PortRoyal was subject because of its position as the political centre of Acadia. For example, in 1706 during Queen Anne’s War, New Englanders attempted to seize Port-Royal from 25 Dièreville, 100. Jacques Rousseau, “DIÈREVILLE,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 2 University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed 24 March 2014, <http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/diereville_2E.html>. 27 Dièreville, 81. 28 See Chapter Two. 26 68 the French. In response, the Port-Royal settlers removed their possessions and cattle, and then then went to give support to the French defenders.29 This is a large difference from Beaubassin as its habitants retreated immediately after seeing Church the second time.30 Finally, the differences extend even to their choice of footwear. Dièreville commented on the people of Port-Royal wearing seal-skin shoes where the writings of De Meulles and Hale disagree on whether the Beaubassin residents wore “sousliers sauvages” (De Meulles) or “wooden Shoes (Hale).”31 In either case, the footwear of the two Acadian groups was different. In fact, the similarities which Dièreville draws between the two settlements were flimsy at best. For example, in a description of the three major settlements of Acadia – Port-Royal, Les Mines, and Beaubassin – Dièreville outlined that the habitants there “have the same occupations.” However, he then immediately mentioned that he had “never been” to les Mines or Beaubassin.32 It is then clear that Dièreville made this assertion based on evidence which is not first-hand. Although the residents of Les Mines were also agriculturalists, a review of the evidence clearly shows that these Acadians were notably different. The multiple differences which existed between the habitants of Beaubassin and the other Acadian settlements prove their distinction. The distinctiveness of the Beaubassin residents also extended internationally, such as with the metropolitan French 29 Dièreville, 209-10: this combative relationship with the New Englanders further contrasts the relationship of the habitants of the different Acadian settlements. For further reading on the relatively amicable relationship between the New Englanders and the Beaubassin residents, see Hale, 234. 30 Faragher, 111 (see chap. 1, n. 38); Coleman, Chignecto, 19; Rumilly, L’Acadie Française, 192 (see chap. 2, n. 15): although this can be said to be because of their lack of military installations, this further demonstrates a difference between the settlements. 31 De Meulles, 381 (see chap. 2, n. 9); Hale, 234. 32 Dièreville, 89-90. 69 or those with whom the Acadians shared their language and religion.33 For example, although they were most influenced by France, the Acadians felt little natural sympathy for the French, according to Brebner.34 Marsaud referred to the similarities and the differences between the people of France and Beaubassin, noting that Pierre Goubert’s description of a “paysan plus” in France applies particularly well to the Beaubassin settlers.35 According to Goubert, “Every peasant was something of an artisan and odd-job man… [the 1700s were] a period when people showed no interest in the specialisation of tasks.”36 However, these similarities do not encompass the relationship between Beaubassin and France. Marsaud also observed that at Beaubassin, “ce type de diversification se retrouve plus encore qu’en France.” 37 Therefore, although Beaubassin is comparable to France, it is also markedly different. Goubert’s analyses of French peasants can offer insights on the Beaubassin habitants. However, George M.W. Kennedy’s study is perhaps more fundamental. His analysis of Acadia and the Loudunais is echoed in the present investigation of the relationship between Beaubassin and France.38 The current study also utilizes the ideas of Gilles Havard and Cécile Vidal. They attest, “la France ne connaissait pas d’unité nationale,” but most French peasants, “s’identifiaient d’abord à leur paroisse, puis à leur province.”39 Furthermore, Greer noted that French customs “varied greatly from region to region.” 40 Research shows this regional diversity was 33 Griffiths, Contexts, 52: However, as Geneviève Massignon described Acadian French as noticeably distinct than metropolitan French in her work, Les parlers français d’Acadie : enquête linguistique. 34 Brebner, 178. 35 Marsaud, 79. 36 Goubert, 135 (see introduction, n. 4). 37 Marsaud, 79. 38 Kennedy, 10: Similarly, the present study begins with an analysis of the natural environment, moves into other aspects of their character; however it does not analyze the demography of the two terroirs but rather delves immediately into a comparison of power-structures. 39 Havard and Vidal, 400-01 (see chap. 1, n. 1). 40 Allan Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution: Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837,” Social History 15:1 (1990): 27. 70 reflected in Acadia. Although Mouhot refuted the existence of an Acadian identity, he conceded that the “particularités propres” portrayed by the Acadians made Acadia akin to a French province.41 Observations ultimately reveal that the Beaubassin habitants were the same as the French peasants because they were distinct from the other Acadian settlements. Comparison of Beaubassin and France Following Kennedy, this comparison appropriately begins with a look at the different terroirs of France and Beaubassin. Although Kennedy argued that the peoples’ responses to the environments of France and Acadia were similar, these terroirs were markedly different.42 However, one has to respect that these were two separate physical environments divided by an ocean. For example, the Acadia which Jesuit Father Biard and the Sieur de Biencourt described in 1612 was not affected by pollution.43 Meanwhile, the quality of the water was a danger in France.44 This contamination of the land greatly affected a people so connected to the earth. Besides the actual state of the land, difference also applied to what could be wrested from it. Where the few Acadians were able to take abundant resources from their land, the greater population in France made it so that starvation was common.45 This was by no means due to the lack of effort by the French however. The French at this time were predominately agriculturalists. 46 Although the Beaubassin colonists also tilled the land, this was different from Beaubassin as it has 41 Mouhot, 36 (see introduction, n. 6). Kennedy proposed that, “As different as the environmental conditions and resulting agricultural methods were, peasants in both places developed systems that were best utilized to them.” Kennedy, 66. 43 Coleman, Chignecto, 3. 44 Goubert, 91; 93. 45 Griffiths, “Golden Age,” 168; Goubert, 91-96; John Lough, An Introduction to Seventeenth Century France (Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957), 20. 46 Lough, xx. 42 71 already been shown to be quite diverse in its occupations. John Lough attested that multifunctional French peasants existed. However, unlike Beaubassin’s entire population participating in this occupational diversity, Lough separated these peasants into one smaller group of the population.47 The economies of the regions therefore differed. Geographically speaking as well, there were neighbouring townships with which to share celebration in France.48 These were not present in Beaubassin which has already been described as the isolated frontier-village. Moreover, in terms of the settlers’ relationship with nature, the Acadians could get what they wanted relatively easily from their environment.49 This lack of governmental social controls is opposed to the French peasants’ restrictions for water and wood.50 The liberating feeling this provoked in these Acadians was reinforced by the amount of land available to them in the New World. In contrast to the majority of the French poor, who “farmed only two or three acres,” there were many tracts of land available for cultivation and expansion in Beaubassin. 51 Lough suggested that the way in which the two cultures used the land was also noticeably different. He noted that in France “the methods employed were very primitive,” which contrasts greatly from the widespread Acadian use of dykes. 52 The Beaubassin residents’ interaction with their natural environment was different from the French peasants, but this is not to suggest that there were not similarities between their environments. The French character was similarly affected by their natural environment as it was in Beaubassin. For example, Goubert indicated that the French “were far more interested 47 Lough, 5. Goubert, 224. 49 Kennedy, 61; 63. 50 Kennedy, 60. 51 Goubert, 87; Furthermore, Kennedy noted the difference between the Loudunais and Acadia in the “availability of the land for expansion.” Kennedy, 259. 52 Lough, 18. 48 72 in what linked them to the land, and the way they ‘held’ it.”53 The hesitance of the Beaubassin residents to leave their fields and crops when pressed to join Duvivier echoed this. Furthermore, land practices were similar, as can be seen in the dykes in Brittany.54 The collaboration that took place in the building of the dykes confirms the effect on character. However, that is not to imply that nature was always beneficent in France. As in Beaubassin, French peasants shared a deep respect for nature’s dangerous power.55 The wild state of the land might have further provoked this respect. Most land in France was uncultivated, similar to Beaubassin.56 The danger apparent in this wild land went beyond the physical characteristics which Goubert implied however. The two terroirs of Chignecto and Touraine also shared the dangers within the wilds such as possible wolf attacks. Kennedy suggested the province of Touraine “the most dangerous in France for wolf attacks,” while “a few [wolves] traveled across the isthmus of Chignecto to hunt.”57 Certainly, the presence of wolves as well as the subsequent fear it affected in the residents’ character demonstrates that similarities existed between the two terroirs. Although Kennedy conceded that, “there is no evidence that they [wolves] lived anywhere near the Acadian communities,” he added that “the settlers would not have known this when they first arrived, and fear of forest may have contributed to the decision of most Acadians to live in the coastal and marshland areas.”58 However, as the Acadians 53 Goubert, 22. Goubert, 12. 55 Goubert, 1. 56 Lough, 17-18. 57 Kennedy, 45-47; 49. 58 Kennedy, 49-50. 54 73 who lived with Charles Des Champs de Boishébert demonstrated after 1755, this fear must have eventually dissipated.59 Disease and the selection of building materials were two more differences. For example, epidemics were common in France, according to Goubert.60 Contrasted to this was the generally good health of the average Acadian. This was most apparent to a European, such as Governor Lawrence who noted “most of them [the Acadians] are healthy strong people.”61 Lack of proper nutrition, however, was not the sole cause of the Frenchman’s comparatively ill health. In detailing the relations between the French and the Acadians, Moogk described the Acadian diet as “based on French staples [of] wheat, peas, cabbages, turnips, and apples.”62 Mouhot agreed with this evaluation. In comparing the two societies, he maintained that there is only one document which truly shows that the Acadians were “déjà fortement différenciés des « Français de France ».” 63 Despite the indirect contact with millions of people throughout Eurasia, one would speculate that the disease must have originated from another vital aspect of living, such as the housing. Additional inspection of Acadian housing’s features is required than merely the observation that the French similarly lived in single-roomed houses.64 An examination of their building material also reveals significant differences. The French peasants in 59 For further reading regarding Boishébert, see J.C. Webster, Charles Des Champs de Boishébert: A Canadian Soldier in Acadia (s.l.: Privately Printed, 1931) and J.C. Webster, Memorial on behalf of the Sieur de Boishebert: Captain, Chevalier de Saint-Louis, Former Commandant in Acadia: A Statement by M. Clos, Attorney, in Defence of M. de Boishebert at his trial in Paris in 1763 for alleged misdemeanors during his military career in Acadia (Saint John, New Brunswick: The Tribune Press, 1942). 60 Goubert, 106-07; 233. 61 "Circular letter from Governor Lawrence to the Governors on the Continent," Report Concerning Canadian Archives for the Year 1905, 3 vols. (Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1906), 2: App. B., 15-16 in Griffiths, Contexts, 64. 62 Moogk, 229 (see chap. 1, n. 10); Goubert, 86; 92: Goubert described French nutrition as lacking. 63 Mouhot, 36: he claimed that Acadians in France only demonstrated their distinction in terms of food, using the following document, 1759-05-10; Ladvocat de la Crochais à Guillot, le 10 mai 1759, SHM, Brest 1 P1/23 pièce 7. 64 Goubert, 37; the Beaubassin Acadians similarly, “have but one room.” Hale, 233-34. 74 Brittany tended to use stone such as granite, where the Beaubassin Acadians built their homes with “large Timber.”65 This shows first that the environments of the two terroirs were markedly different as both peoples built their homes with what was abundant environmentally.66 However, this also notes a similarity between peasants in France and habitants in Beaubassin as they operated similarly within these environments. Moreover, both peoples possessed little furniture on average. Lough described the French peasants as poor in terms of furniture, and Hale mentioned that the Beaubassin residents equally “have not above 2 or 3 chairs” in a house.67 The types of buildings constructed were also similar. For example, there was a tavern or cabaret in Beaubassin, and Goubert maintained that such would be a part of any French village.68 The fundamental differences in their environments of Beaubassin and France were therefore surpassed by the similar reactions and development of their inhabitants in the face of them. Similarities of the Beaubassin habitants and the French peasants provide one interpretation for these parallels. First and foremost, scholars have emphasized social divisions in both groups. According to Lough, there were “two nations” within France just as Brebner claimed that there were two Acadias.69 Furthermore, both Lough and Brebner characterized this division as arising from a social divide. Lough maintained that socially France was still a “semi-feudal state” in the seventeenth century with a distinct separation between the superior classes (nobles, clergy) from those of an inferior status (middle classes, artisans, peasantry). Meanwhile, Brebner claimed that the division in 65 Goubert, 36; Hale, 231. Goubert explicitly stated that French houses “tended to be made with materials that were generally abundant environmentally.” Goubert, 36. 67 Lough, 19; Hale, 233-34. 68 Hale, 232-33; Goubert, 136. 69 Lough, xxiii; Brebner, 45. 66 75 Acadia derived from the origin of the peoples, either local or international. The isolation experienced by the Beaubassin habitants further marks their similarities with French peasants as it resulted in their increased power. The residents’ experience of political independence in Beaubassin may have been reflected in French villages at the time where there existed “the origin of the modern municipal council.”70 Yet, these similarities advanced even further. The settlers in both regions certainly did hard, physical work. 71 This labour crossed gender lines. Both men and women in both Acadia and France are described as tough.72 Perhaps it was their hardened nature that they presented to state officials. Men and women contravened laws and detested soldiers.73 However, their characteristic similarities were not limited to serious affairs. Acadians and French peasants liked to dance and made fun where they could. 74 This marks their similarly independent nature even in the face of authority. Unfortunately, historians of these two collectivities share a similarity as well. They each have a tendency to generalize the peoples into a single group.75 This echoes Griffiths’ generalization of all the Acadian communities noted in Chapter One. However, as the inhabitants of both France and Beaubassin asserted their independence from authority, they were likewise independent from each other. The differences in the inhabitants’ character in France and Beaubassin were many. As noted in the last chapter, Beaubassin’s habitants were characterized by their 70 Goubert, 178-79. Goubert, 104-05; Kennedy, 368: according to Kennedy, in Beaubassin there were few dependent workers, as opposed to subsistence workers. 72 Goubert, 46. 73 Goubert, 88-89; 181. 74 Lough, 19-20. 75 Goubert, 23: For example, Goubert noted the cliché of the French peasant’s attachment to the soil. 71 76 willingness to take risks. Conversely, Goubert proposed that young French men were relatively unadventurous, preferring instead to continue serving as an unpaid apprentice to their father.76 This represents a major difference between the two peoples. Furthermore, Goubert cited the shepherd to be a rather fundamental profession for the small French community.77 Conversely, in Beaubassin, nearly everyone was a shepherd as all families are recorded as having sheep on the censuses of 1693, 1698, and another where the date is not known but supposed to be around 1714.78 The census shows that the majority of residents wrested their life from the land. However, these roles were much more varied in France. For example, occupations ranged from small schoolmasters, to soldiers, or even to “village idiots.”79 These positions were simply not fundamental duties to fulfill in Beaubassin. However, that is not to suggest the unimportance of a grounded role in this frontier community. As Campagna exemplified in Beaubassin, the unemployed worker was feared. Marsaud argued that the maintenance of a role, and specifically in Beaubassin an agricultural occupation, was essential.80 Furthermore, the options for an occupation were much more numerous in France. Goubert proposed that even crime was an option for these peasants.81 Certainly, this exemplifies that they had more options than Campagna ever had! However, a diverse economy denotes self-sufficiency, a trait which 76 Goubert, 58. Goubert, 142. 78 Census for 1693: FM DPPC G1/466 no. 16, ANOM (see chap. 2, n. 76), for 1698: FM DPPC G1/466 no. 19, ANOM and the other from 1714?: FM DPPC G1/466 no. 24h, ANOM. 79 Goubert, 140; 145; 212. 80 “Au travers Au travers des accusations lancées, ce que l'on reproche en fait à l'accusé, c'est de ne pas être comme tout le monde… il vaut mieux ne pas être différent d'eux. Ne pas être trop étrange. Ne pas être étranger. Ne pas déranger. Ne rien menacer. En fait, il aurait mieux vallu pour Jean Campagna à ressembler à tous les habitants.” Marsaud, 147; to be like the rest of the residents, therefore, Marsaud forwarded that Campagna needed to be a landed agriculturalist, something impossible for an étranger who was not present originally in 1671 to get “une réelle occupation du sol.” Marsaud, 79; 28. 81 Goubert, 95; 104. 77 77 Lough contended that peasants in France lacked.82 This contrasts greatly with Beaubassin’s general self-sufficiency. The role and nature of the family in both France and Beaubassin illustrated major differences and a few similarities between the two societies. For example, the nuclear family predominated in France, and furthermore Goubert argued that there were few children in French families in the 17th century.83 This is greatly differentiated from Acadia where the copious relations and high birth and survival rate kept the population growing. Furthermore, there was a greater balance of power between the sexes. In France, paternal power dominated which contrasts greatly from Doucet’s explanation of an Acadian woman’s power.84 However, there were also similarities between Acadia and different regions of France. Goubert commented on the relatively large size of families in central France.85 This corresponds to the large families found in Acadia. For example, initially following the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, French officials made an effort to move the Acadians to French-controlled territory. Félix Pain warned the Governor of Île Royale of the danger of this move considering the size of Acadian families.86 The familiarity with one’s family is a sacred bond which Pain respected. However, there are bonds considered even more sacred. The institution of marriage also reflected fundamental differences in France and Beaubassin. Goubert attested that most marriages in France were between members of the 82 Lough, xxii. Goubert, 71; 77-79. 84 Goubert, 74; Doucet, 24 (see introduction, n. 1). 85 Goubert, 73-75. 86 Father Félix Pain in Clark, 187. 83 78 same parish.87 It seems that familiarity with the spouse mattered to the French. Although the Beaubassin habitants shared this general tendency, their status as a border-town made this unreliable. A review of the parish records of Beaubassin reveals not only a series of marriages to residents from the other Acadian districts, but also marriages to Aboriginals.88 On the frontier in Beaubassin, familiarity did not matter as fundamentally as survival. However, French peasants reflected this trait as well, as Goubert suggested that survival also trumped love in the French marriage decision.89 Perhaps the difference lay in the greater population in France. The metropolitan French had a greater chance of finding a familiar person in the same parish than one did in the smaller, remote parishes of Acadia, especially someone who was not their first cousin. The gene pool was significantly smaller in the New World, a trait of which the Acadians were only too well aware.90 The marriage practices of France and Beaubassin were similar in many ways. For example, Jacques Vanderlinden explained that after a French declaration in 1639, the state was an essential actor in marriage.91 At Beaubassin, La Vallière, as representative of the state, was present at each marriage. And as the story of Jean Campagna relates, marriage was crucially important for a person’s survival and identity in Beaubassin; bachelors were rare as they were in France.92 Furthermore, marriage in both terroirs was often a 87 Goubert, 67. For further reading, see Rompillon’s sections entitled “Les couples dont l’époux n’est pas originaire de Beaubassin” and “Les couples dont l’épouse n’est pas originaire de Beaubassin” found in Rompillon, “Migration,” 134-39; De Ville listed two daughters from two separate mixed marriages, the daughter Jeanne Guidry the “daughter of Claude Guidry called la Verdure and Kesk8a, Indian.” De Ville, 3 (see chap. 2, n. 127). 89 Goubert, 68. 90 Barry Moody, Thesis-Direction Conversation, 5 February 2014. 91 Vanderlinden, 61-62 (see chap. 2, n. 160); Marsaud, 60. 92 Goubert, 66. 88 79 necessity. Rapid remarriage was common in both places after the loss of a spouse. 93 Marriages usually took place at the same time of the year.94. As well, marriages were a magnified event in France, which the pomp and circumstance revolving around marriage in Beaubassin reflected.95 Perhaps in both terroirs, marriage, perhaps the only time a person’s name was recorded, was the centre of much festivity in Acadia.96 Furthermore, there was the rapidity with which both French peasants and Beaubassin habitants had children after their marriage. For example, Goubert outlined that it was common for a French couple to have their first child ten to eighteen months after the wedding; anecdotally, at Beaubassin Emmanuel Mirande and Marguerite Bourgeois were married on 30 November 1679 and baptized their first child 20 October 1680.97 Although similar between each different terroir, this is reasoned to be common for most cultures at the time. However, children were not the only “post-marriage” activity that is common throughout France and Beaubassin. For example, habitants and peasants similarly emigrated from their home after their marriage.98 However, one can compare these terroirs through more than merely the practices of the church. The strong role of priests in France is both different from and similar to Beaubassin. For example, G.R.R. Treasure mentioned that the curés had no real power in France, and Goubert argued that there were not many conflicts between the French priest Goubert, 105; Rompillon, “Migration,” 73-74. Goubert, 66: Goubert outlined that French marriages tended to take place in the months of November, January, and February which is reflected in Acadian practices as outlined by Vanderlinden in Chapter Two. Vanderlinden, 62-63. 95 Goubert, 227. 96 Goubert, 56; Rieder Jr. and Rieder, 59 (see chap. 2, n. 127): in Beaubassin, for example, Jean Carré and Marie-Joseph Poirier the 23 November 1740. 97 Goubert, 44; De Ville, 2-3. 98 Rompillon highlighted as the defining feature of Beaubassin. Rompillon, “Migration,” 156-57; In France, Goubert noted that marriage meant “leaving their parents’ dwellings” (Goubert, 69); Kennedy, 258: Kennedy also mentioned that it was common for peasants in the Loudun to leave their communities in search of land or work. 93 94 80 and his flock.99 Here, the history of Jean-Louis Le Loutre marks a striking difference between the two terroirs as he often had squabbles with the Beaubassin residents over how much power he could exercise.100 Perhaps Le Loutre would have been more restrained if closely checked by his bishop. The bishop of New France ministered to Acadia, however, he only visited Beaubassin once, in the person of Saint-Vallier in 1686. Contrasted against this, Goubert related how French bishops commonly performed the sacrament of confirmation.101 Yet in the eighteenth century, French bishops still did not get to choose the priests, which was a power exercised by the bishop in New France.102 The fact that it was supervised by the bishop in New France underlines that Beaubassin was a remote colony. As outlined in Chapter Two, this meant that Acadian priests were often migratory. Griffiths asserted that the overwhelming size of Acadia presented a problem in the relative lack of priests to minister to it.103 This and the fact that most of these priests were from France made it quite difficult for priests to get a good appreciation of the colony. This is not at all like France where Goubert suggested that priests had a firm understanding of the locality. 104 This limited the capacity of the Acadian priest compared to his French counterpart. Goubert further proposed that French priests were mentors of the population.105 This is not at all like the distrust that was apparent for example between Beaubassin’s settlers and Jean Beaudoin. Certainly, Beaudoin’s limited 99 G.R.R. Treasure, Seventeenth Century France (London: Rivingtons Limited, 1966), 81; Goubert, 184. J.C. Webster, Le Loutre, 13 (see chap. 2, n. 61): for example, Webster asserted that Le Loutre decided that the Missaguash would be the dividing line between the British and the French; Bird, 114. 101 Goubert, 155. 102 Goubert, 161; 154: in France the power to select priests was given to the village-founders; Faragher, 66: conversely, Francis-Xavier de Montmorency-Laval, the bishop of New France, appointed Claude Moireau to first take up the post in Beaubassin. 103 Griffiths, Migrant, 331 (see chap. 1, n. 34): Acadia was such an expansive, untamed territory and Griffiths noted that there were “never more than five priests, at any one time, working within the colony and usually only three or four.” 104 Goubert, 154. 105 Goubert, 157. 100 81 power in Beaubassin is contrasted from the generally powerful figure of the French priest. Goubert noted that this depended on the character of the priest in question of course, and there were similarities between the priests of Beaubassin and France. 106 For example, as with Le Loutre, the powers of the French priest often went beyond parochial ministry. 107 Therefore, the French priest seemed to jockey similarly between the powers of the state and the church. The explicit task of a French parish priest, according to Colin Jones, was “to produce at parish level a God-fearing Christian – and for the state, a docile and obedient subject.”108 Le Loutre in Beaubassin likewise tried to maintain Acadian loyalty to the French state. The general action of priests is demonstrably similar between the two terroirs which further relates to their duties. In our currently secular world, commonly, death is handled administratively by the state. In both France and Beaubassin from 1671 to 1750 however, the church executed the affairs surrounding death and burial, but there were noticeable differences between these two terroirs in this event. For example, according to Goubert, death was quite a frequent occurrence in France; however, life was common in Beaubassin.109 Life expectancy was longer in Acadia than in France. Goubert observed that the death of young infants in France was common and therefore guesses the parents’ indifference, whereas only four of the twenty-eight deaths counted between 1712 and 1748 in Goubert, 152; 164; Schmeisser, 8: this relates to Schmeisser’s evaluation of the priests in Beaubassin as influential but not all-powerful. 107 Goubert, 157; 165; 160: furthermore, Goubert noted that the French priests were hot-headed, strict, austere, dominant, and liked to get a little wild, which further reflects Le Loutre’s actions in Chignecto. 108 Colin Jones, The Cambridge Illustrated History of France (Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 149-50. 109 Goubert, 228; Rieder Jr. and Rieder: parish records from 1712 to 1748 records only counted twenty-four deaths vs. nine hundred seventy-eight ceremonies celebrating life, that is, marriages and baptisms; this is partially attributed to the greater population in France. 106 82 Beaubassin were of those under one year old.110 It is therefore clear that death was not a common occurrence in Beaubassin, above all not the death of infants. However, deaths of the elderly in Beaubassin marked another difference from France. Goubert observed that there were few elders in France during the seventeenth century, however, there are six deaths that occurred in Beaubassin that were of those older than sixty years of age. 111 Furthermore, Goubert supposed that, when dying, the French simply hoped “to enter Paradise, to be near God, among the angels, the saints, and the blessed.”112 This marks another difference from Beaubassin’s restless nature. As Rompillon proposed, this was a constantly mobile village. It follows therefore that, after a death in the village, the remaining Beaubassin residents largely simply wished to continue and keep moving. Again there were similarities. For example, the church, as the administrative centre, recorded deaths.113 This corresponds to the Acadian practice. In both terroirs, “the most reliable information” regarding originates in the parish registers. However, this can be seen as a difference as well as Acadian records are not as easily described as “inexhaustible” due to the lower population in the colony. 114 As Schmeisser wisely recognized, this lack of available data restrains Acadian history. Likewise, the French peasants and the Beaubassin habitants shared similarities and differences in their views of the state. In Beaubassin, the state was personified in La Vallière and therefore a comparison will be drawn between the power of the state in 110 Goubert, 230-31; Rieder Jr. and Rieder, 11-12, 88, 100. Goubert, 232; Rieder Jr. and Rieder, 51, 58, 62, 64: these individuals died in 1740 and 1741, and were sixty, sixty-two, seventy-five, eighty-five and eighty-eight years old!; at the same time, the average age of death in Beaubassin of those surviving infancy was 41.9 years old. 112 Goubert, 235-36. 113 Goubert, 150. 114 Goubert, 230. 111 83 France and Beaubassin through the seigneur.115 La Vallière himself would have agreed with this comparison as Rompillon suggested that he desired to emulate seigneurs in France.116 A comparison of La Vallière and the French seigneurs shows that they were similar in both their power and prestige. For example, in the censuses, the seigneur’s name not only always prestigiously came first, but he had the greatest amount of land and the largest flock of sheep in both France and Beaubassin.117 Furthermore, just as La Vallière did not base himself out of Beaubassin after the 1690s, the French seigneur also often did not live in the seigneury. 118 La Vallière’s absence might have caused the disagreements between him and Bourgeois. These quarrels were also quite normal in France between the peasant and the seigneur.119 This did not, however, translate into the independence of the French peasants as much as it did for the Beaubassin habitants. After La Vallière’s death there was no governmental power in Beaubassin and the leadership of the settlement was promptly recovered by Bourgeois. 120 However, despite these similarities between the seigneurs in the two terroirs, the separate environments inspired striking differences. For example, the French trait of complete seigneurial power over peasant lives demonstrated a major difference to the general freedom of the Beaubassin 115 The primary descriptions of La Vallière are quite positive, portraying him as a benevolent lord. However, it is very risky to solely trust these perspectives; both originate not from the habitants of Beaubassin, but the étrangers of De Meulles and Duvivier. De Meulles, 383: De Meulles affirmed that the habitants liked La Vallière; Duvivier, 107: however, Duvivier did not trust him at first; Duvivier, 129: however, he eventually warmed up to him. 116 Rompillon, “Migration,” 53. 117 Goubert, 167; considering La Vallière left Beaubassin in the 1690s, understandably the only census with his name first is when he was living in the community, and additionally, Mignault, Lavallée, and Cormier have more “bestes à corne” than he does in this year. FR DPPC G1/466 no. 10, ANOM; Goubert, 171: Goubert also noted that the seigneur was the most important in the parish, theoretically the most honoured, but often tyrannical. 118 Goubert, 110; Kennedy, 442; Goubert, 168: despite not being there, the seigneur often claimed a large territory of seigneurial authority in France, which is similar to La Vallière’s claim of Chipoudi. 119 Goubert, 26; 173; 183. 120 Kennedy, 285; 301. 84 residents.121 Seigneurs were significantly different in three additional aspects. First, La Vallière was often defied by Bourgeois where Goubert claimed that French seigneurs often went “unchallenged” in their authority. 122 Bourgeois’ power derived from his notable position at the head of the colony for Beaubassin’s nascent years until the 1676 appointment of La Vallière. Second, in France the law required peasants to pay both taxes and rents, where the Beaubassin residents were often free from taxes.123 Third, Beaubassin and France managed legal issues differently. France ceded judicial powers to the seigneurs where La Vallière had to relinquish power over the Campagna-case to senior officials in New France.124 Moreover the resolution of Campagna’s case took place within a single year, where similar cases could take a lot longer in France. 125 Therefore, despite the similarities which were shown to exist, differences were also present in the French peasants’ and Beaubassin habitants’ views of the state as represented by the seigneur. French views of these colonists also varied. On the one hand, there were those who viewed them favourably, such as Jean-Baptiste-Louis Le Prévost Duquesnel. In an order sent from Louisbourg, this French naval captain wished to guarantee “la seuretté des habitants.”126 Alain Gelly argued, however, that the French were concerned only for the 121 Lough, 1; Kennedy, 144; 148-49: Kennedy noted that the state-subject relationship was weak in Acadia, although he noticed that the frequent trips by Bourgeois demonstrate that geography did not induce this. 122 Goubert, 176; 167. 123 Kennedy, 158; Rompillon, “Migration,” 55; Goubert, 188, 196,199, 204: the French were also required to pay more; Lough, 18: Lough proposed that the increased dues in France inspired the backwardness of agriculture which is further differentiated from Beaubassin’s use of dykes. 124 Lough, 85-86 ; 68. 125 Lough, 9: contrasted to the relatively long cases in France, Campagna’s trial only lasted from his arrest in in 1685, to his acquittal in Québec in 1686. 126 Ordre de Duquesnel à De Gannes (Louisbourg, 8 septembre 1744) in Bernard Pothier, ed., Course à L’Accadie : Le Journal de Campagne de François Du Pont Duvivier 1n 1744 (Ottawa: Les Éditions d’Acadie, 1982), 172-73. 85 land which the Acadians inhabited.127 Besides Le Loutre’s obvious suspicion of Acadian loyalty, doubts of the allegiance of Beaubassin’s residents was further demonstrated by the acts of French agents in Beaubassin. For example, Duvivier noted in his journal that the Abbé Du Guay has no confidence in the loyalty of the Beaubassin residents. In regards to Duvivier’s attempts to secure this, Du Guay remarked that, “Monsieur, vous estes bien bon/ et avez trop de patience. Il n’y qu’à faire bourer touts ces coquins qui font les mutins.”128 Du Guay thought that the only way to secure their loyalty was to get them drunk. Additionally, Brebner noted the French belief that the Acadians were lazy.129 Rompillon agreed with this line of thought, but added the French changed their minds on the Acadians and did not want them to leave Nova Scotia after the Treaty of Utrecht.130 This may have been overconfidence on the part of the French. Surely, the French wanted the Beaubassin Acadians to stay in the event of the repatriation of Acadia.131 Of course, this never came to pass. The best analysis of the French feelings towards the people of Beaubassin is given by Rompillon. She recognized that the French wanted simply to keep hold of Acadia.132 Here, Bird presented a good metaphor of Chignecto as the “Key to Old Acadia.” The French were motivated less by a desire to maintain the Acadians’ safety, but rather to retain the land on which they lived. This two-faced position of the French toward the Beaubassin residents superbly represented the general relationship between the two terroirs. 127 Gelly, 14 (see chap. 2, n. 7). Duvivier, 71-72. 129 Brebner, 178-79. 130 Rompillon, “Migration,” 120. 131 Schmeisser, 10. 132 Rompillon, “Migration,” 40. 128 86 Here has been outlined the many similarities and differences of Beaubassin and France. Moving beyond Mouhot’s suggestion that Acadia was similar to a French province, the differences and similarities which existed between the inhabitants of the two terroirs ultimately prove that Chignecto, too, was as distinct as a French province. Likewise, its uniqueness and individuality made it akin to all the other regions in France, although it simultaneously shared common roots with the other French terroirs.133 Thus Beaubassin represented another French settlement. It needs to be repeated that, despite the many similarities between the two places, the Beaubassin habitants were significantly different from those in France. This is understandable given its distance from the mother country. Yet these differences were not more pronounced than the provincial differences apparent within France.134 The comparison of Beaubassin and France therefore emphasizes that the distinct human identities are not necessarily alien from each other in every respect. There were similarities and differences that existed among even radically separate peoples geographically. However, this is not to say that those living in proximity are homogenous. Distinction from New France As important as it is to analyze the relationship with France, it is equally necessary to compare Beaubassin with New France, the largest French colony in North America, located in present-day Québec, which reveals further similarities and differences. The transportation of l’eau de vie from Québec to Chignecto provided a minor relation between the two terroirs.135 However, the British understandably feared that Beaubassin’s 133 Goubert, x-xi. Goubert, 15; Mouhot, 36. 135 Rameau de Saint-Père, Une colonie féodale en Amérique, Tome I, 170-71 (see chap. 1, n. 7). 134 87 independence and proximity to New France, as compared to the rest of Acadia, would provoke an uprising. Mascarene certainly attributed the lack of success to win Acadian loyalty to New France.136 Perhaps he was astute in this belief as Beaubassin shared many characteristics with New France. As Kennedy supposed the primacy of agriculture was the core of the similarities between Beaubassin and France, these likenesses between Chignecto and New France likewise developed from agriculture.137 For example, the habitants in New France were considered hospitable, similar to the Beaubassin residents’ welcoming reception of visitors. Similarly, the Canadiens extended their hospitality even to the very foreign Scandinavian Pehr Kalm.138 Both engaged in a great deal of smuggling. According to Kalm, the Canadiens were pragmatic as they sold their goods to the New Englanders for a better price.139 This shows the similarity of the settlers in not only their relaxed relationship with “loyalty” to France, but also with their practicality. As Greer argued, the habitants of New France “reserved to themselves the right to decide which authorities were legitimate and how far their powers could rightfully extend.” 140 Residents of Beaubassin similarly chose when and to what extent to conform to either French or British laws.141 The similarities of Beaubassin and New France suggest that the habitants’ status as colonials was a fundamental part of their character. However, this is not to suggest that the two places were identical. Until 1713, they were separate provinces under the same greater power with similarities as well as differences. The variations highlighted between Beaubassin and New France, however, are essentially numeric in 136 Brebner, 125. Pehr Kalm, Peter Kalm’s Travels in North America, vol. II , Adolph B. Benson, ed., (New York: Dover Publishing, Inc., 1966), 478: Kalm cites their reliance on large-sized cattle in New France; Saint-Vallier, 35-36 (see chap. 2, n. 97): Saint-Vallier surmised the proposed origin of cattle at Beaubassin. 138 Kalm, 558; for a review of manners in New France see Kalm, 402-04; 446-47. 139 Kalm, 343. 140 Greer, Patriots, 118. 141 Greer, Patriots, 350. 137 88 nature.142 Yet, differences did extend to something more qualitative. Havard and Vidal noted that the French dialects of Acadia and New France were noticeably different.143 If the minor difference in language is worth mentioning, then a further analysis of the Anglophones in Acadia is required. Difference from the British administrators of Acadia It may be easier to identify two different peoples when they were in military conflict. This makes it simpler to distinguish the Beaubassin residents from the British residents of Acadia during the period of 1710-1755. During this time, the Beaubassin habitants demonstrated their rebelliousness to British rule.144 Although Bird referred to Chignecto as “the very key to old Acadia” whose “importance was recognized by all claimants,” he equally observes that there was no military conflict in Chignecto until 1696.145 Bird’s interpretation does conveniently indicate the year 1696 as the year in which the first conflict occurred between the Beaubassin settlers and the British however. Coleman asserted that, in September 1696, “the settlement at Beaubassin suffered the worst set-back of its history.”146 This is not a bold claim to make as the history of Beaubassin, starting with its permanent settlement, had not even lasted thirty years up to that point. Furthermore, the Beaubassin habitants, like the rest of the Acadians, were 142 Kennedy, 247-48: for example, according to Kennedy, there was a greater number of grooms in Beaubassin than in New France; Rompillon, “Migration,” 60: Rompillon noted that the average family-size was much greater in Beaubassin than not only the rest of Acadie but also New France, possibly a consequence of this; Kalm, 436: Kalm additionally noted that there was a need to promote greater fertility in the women in New France. 143 Havard and Vidal, 403. 144 MacMechan, Minutes, 144; Bird, 115: however, secondary scholars still debate over their passivity of mind: for example, Bird suggested that they are “passively submissive; Gelly, 15-16: furthermore Gelly asserted that they were not submissive, even in the face of Le Loutre. 145 Bird, x; 26-27. 146 Coleman, Chignecto, 17; Schmeisser, 2: Schmeisser definitely agreed with this saying that the decade of the 1690s in Beaubassin was definitely not a decade of prosperity with La Vallière’s departure from Beaubassin, Church’s attack 1696, and the crop failure of 1699. 89 particularly “pacific.”147 However, this did not mean that Beaubassin residents were unwilling to assist the Europeans. At Beaubassin, both the French and the British found guides to assist them in their navigation, interpretation, and piloting as well as to provide extra muscle as was the case when Hale’s boat ran aground. 148 The residents of Beaubassin therefore demonstrated impartiality. They were truly autonomous because they did not care about either the British or the French. The Beaubassin settlers were more familiar with dealing with the English. Although Morris contended that they were “indeed much prejudic’d in their [the French’s] favour,” the view of this Englishman is obviously biased against the French.149 However, one may contend that by the 1740s Chignecto had become a French stronghold, yet this was never the habitants’ choice. The French out of New France seized hold of it as a staging ground to reclaim Acadia due to its advantageous position on the fringe of the colony. 150 One further uncovers the uniqueness of Beaubassin’s residents from their British overseers, however, by more than merely military conflict. A review of the Beaubassin habitants’ views of the British reveals their indifference and therefore further acknowledges their distinction. Coleman and Rompillon observed that the change in their administration effected by the Treaty of Utrecht meant little in Chignecto for many years.151 The Beaubassin residents were clearly indifferent as to whom they were helping which stresses their commitment to neutrality. It was already Moody, “A Just and Disinterested Man,” 377 (see chap. 2, n. 117). Hale, 231-32; Bird, 46; 152. 149 [Morris], 63. 150 It is reasoned that this was because they felt that it was easier to maintain they were outside of the “ancient limits” of Acadie from Beaubassin than from Minas. The French needed one of these places to serve as a staging ground for their troops, as the Grand Pré raid of 1747 demonstrated. Coleman, Chignecto, 50-51. 151 Coleman, Chignecto, 20; 47; Rompillon, “Migration,” 40; Bird, 87: Bird went a step further saying that the Beaubassin residents actually trusted Howe. 147 148 90 shown in Chapter Two that they were more faithful to their agriculture and to each other. However, over time, when they were forced to choose between French allegiance and British allegiance, they took the former. This is most easily demonstrated by their refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the British monarch. When referring to the oath, the notes from Her Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal in 1726 states, “in particular those of Chignecto Declard they were resolv’d to continue true and faithful to their Good King, the King of France.”152 This demonstrates that when it came to their ruler, despite the major risk they took to settle in a new environment, the Beaubassin residents preferred consistency. They chose to take direction the French because it seemed more appropriate. The Beaubassin habitants had also shown their willingness to follow the French in their agreement to organize a militia by the orders of the Governor of Acadia in 1701, JacquesFrançois de Monbeton de Brouillan.153 Perhaps the best example, however, of the indifference of the Beaubassin residents to their British masters was their use of the deputy-system. They constantly refused to send deputies when requested by the British, unlike Les Mines and Port-Royal.154 These negligent actions assuredly disturbed their new rulers in a profound way. A review of British views of the Beaubassin habitants affirms their distinction. The British viewed the residents of Beaubassin in two general ways: as troublesome and with dislike. First, the British regarded the residents of Beaubassin as an irritating bunch of Acadians. This is in the “disrespect and Insolence” which they gave “M. r W.minniets” Charles Bruce Fergusson, ed., Minutes of His Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal 1736-1749 (Halifax, N.S.: Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1967), 81. 153 Coleman, Chignecto, 15. 154 Moody, “A Just and Disinterested Man,” 311-12. 152 91 [William Winniett] in 1725, a trader from Annapolis Royal. 155 Morris, Lawrence, and Philipps were also aggravated by the Beaubassin residents.156 However, it needs to be recognized that this disobedience was present even during the French period. For example, Rompillon argued that this is a “particularité bien à eux” as described in the comparison of Beaubassin and France.157 The attitudes of the Beaubassin habitants stemmed from their geography. Coleman suggested that the British were naturally suspicious of Beaubassin because of its position and she is bolstered by many other authors in this suspicion.158 However, their perspective of the Beaubassin habitants as troublesome decidedly turned to contempt. For instance, in 1744, Mascarene called the Chignecto Acadians “recalcitrant criminals,” and earlier in 1742 the British had warned that, “If, after all that has been said and done, the habitans of Chignecto persist in disorder, a time of retribution will surely come.”159 Thereby, the British foreshadowed the Deportation which Mouhot asserted distinguished the Acadians as a collective body. However, as has been seen, the Beaubassin Acadians had proven their distinction long before that. 155 MacMechan, Minutes, 149. [Morris], 8, 98-99: Morris used the words “troublesome neighbours” when referring to the Chignecto Acadians; Lawrence, The Journal of Joshua Winslow, 32(see chap. 2, n. 115): Furthermore, Lawrence feared that they are only up to mischief, which demeans the Beaubassin Acadians; Coleman, Chignecto, 24: finally, Philipps’ greasing of the oath-deal suggests that the British found the Chignecto Acadians harder to deal with. 157 Rompillon, “Migration,” 120. 158 Coleman, Chignecto, 55; Coleman’s suggestions are bolstered by a series of authors who further suggest how they are wild and ungovernable: Schmeisser, 6; Rumilly, Histoire des Acadiens, 242; Brebner, 156-57: Brebner explained how Utrecht promises did not mean a thing; Bird, 52: Bird suggested that they are a dangerous enemy to have. 159 Moody, “A Just and Disinterested Man,” 311-12; MacMechan, Letter-Books, 164. 156 92 Conclusion The Beaubassin habitants’ were distinct from other residents of Acadia, and from peasants in France and settlers of New France. Although Britain’s difficulty with Beaubassin might imply language was at the heart of the problem, Beaubassin’s differences from other francophone communities shows the fallacy in this assertion. Its distinctiveness was rooted instead principally in geography. However, some parallels simultaneously existed between these other terroirs, such as their inhabitants’ relationship with their environment, their family, the Church and the state. This determines that even distinct human identities were not necessarily alien from each other in every respect. Although they also share some similarities with all of these places, these are understood as the likenesses of the human condition. These extended, and continue to extend, over oceans. For example, relating to each other over the Atlantic Ocean, Beaubassin’s habitants were the same as French peasants because they were similarly different from the other Acadian settlements. Ultimately reaching an accord with Marsaud, a review of the full history of Beaubassin reveals that its habitants’ defining aspect was a dislike of strangers. However, as these characteristics all derived from geography, the true distinction of Beaubassin was its unique status as the Acadia’s outpost. 93 Conclusion: Definitely Distinct After an examination of the identity of the Beaubassin habitants of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it seems particularly appropriate to consider them a separate people. The historiography of Acadian identity reveals the requirement of this investigation. Naomi Griffiths’ broad generalizations most clearly exemplify this point as she oversimplified the Acadians as a homogenous people. A comparison of Beaubassin with the separate settlements of Les Mines and Port-Royal in Chapter Three suggests distinct traits existed. Furthermore, despite the fact that Marsaud and Rompillon explored the causes of the uniqueness of the Beaubassin Acadians, they either failed to review of the settlement’s complete history, or to provide a consistent conclusion. Although inconsistent in her two publications regarding Beaubassin, Rompillon eventually recognized the importance of geography. Considering the prominence of geography in the histories of the separate Acadian settlements, notably Beaubassin, this study argues that it extensively affected the character of the habitants. This most strongly applies to Beaubassin’s distance from PortRoyal and the natural resources available to it. Although the soil’s fertility and the Fundy environment similarly influenced other Acadian settlements, geography indisputably affected the development of the character of the Beaubassin residents. They shared the aspects of perseverance, obstinacy, hesitancy, and respect for the family with the other Acadians, but their nature was demonstrably different from them. This is most clear in their dislike of strangers and their amplified resistance to British authority. Geography presents itself then as the factor which distinguished these habitants. 94 Expanding upon the geographic peculiarities and distinct traits of Chignecto’s settlers, Chapter Three demonstrates that the Beaubassin habitants were notably distinct from the other inhabitants of Acadia, such as the other Acadian settlements of Les Mines and Port-Royal, but also its English administrators after 1713. This distinction is further extended to the separate terroirs of rural France and New France. The major differences in each group were similarly inspired by their geography. Beaubassin Acadians took risks on the frontier and although they customarily welcomed visitors, they rejected outsiders if they stayed for too long. However, as distinct as Beaubassin was from these other areas, they also shared characteristics with them. These went beyond the agricultural and pious tendencies they each demonstrated however, as both the Acadian habitants and the French peasants were similarly not united with others in separate regions likewise deemed “Acadian” or “French.” Although major similarities exist between all peoples, even the smallest difference amidst separate terroirs creates notably distinct human identities. This resolution suggests that the further application of Kennedy’s schema to other Acadian settlements, or even the colonies of New France and New England, will likewise show the colonists’ similarities and differences, additionally proving that although geography creates distinctions between peoples, this discrepancy is by no means absolute. However, as it is now generally accepted that the Acadians developed their own identity, it is expected that scholars will eventually understand the distinction of separate identities, however minimal, in geographically different areas. This investigation expands upon the important lessons to be learned following this idea, hoping to further inspire micro-studies such as this of Acadia’s outpost. 95 Appendix A – Beaubassin circa 1755 “Plan de l’isthme entre la Baie verte et la Baie française, où sont situés les forts de Beauséjour, de Gaspareaux et l’établissement des Anglais à Beaubassin (échelle de 300 toises) s.d., 1755.” FM DPPC G1/466 no. 4, ANOM (see chap.2, n. 76). 96 Appendix B – Eastern Canada, 1800 Wilbur Zelinsky, Dean R. Louder and John F. Rooney, Jr, eds. This Remarkable Continent: An Atlas of United States and Canadian Society and Cultures (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1982), 161. 97 Bibliography Arsenault, Bona. History of the Acadians. Translated by Upton, Brian M. and John G. McLaughlin. Québec: L'Action Sociale Ltée., 1966. Barr, Dr. Sandra. “Re: question about gypsum.” E-mail to the author. 29 December 2013. Bertrand, Gabriel. "La Culture Des Marais Endigués Et Le Développement De La Solidarité Militante En Acadie Entre 1710 Et 1755." Les Cahiers De La Société Historique Acadienne 24, no. 4 (1993): 238-249. Bird, Will R. A Century at Chignecto: The Key to Old Acadia. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1928. Brebner, John Bartlet. New England's Outpost: Acadia before the Conquest of Canada. New York: Columbia University Press, 1927. Burke, Charles. “Archeological and Material Culture Evidence from the Acadian Village of Beaubassin.” HIST 2773. Acadia University, 17 October 2013. ———. Personal Interview. 17 October 2013. Chiasson, Père Anselme. Chéticamp: Histoire Et Traditions Acadiennes. 4e édition ed. Richibouctou: Les Éditions Babineau, 1990. Clark, A. H. Acadia; the Geography of Early Nova Scotia to 1760. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Coleman, Margaret. Acadian History in the Isthmus of Chignecto. Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, January 1968. ———. Acadian Settlement in the Atlantic Provinces. Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, 1967. Cross, Michael S., ed. The Frontier Thesis and the Canadas: The Debate on the Impact of the Canadian Environment. Toronto: Copp Clark Publishing Company, 1970. Cyr, Michel. Beaubassin, 1671-1763. Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, 1982. ———. "La Fondation De Beaubassin." Les Cahiers De La Société Historique Acadienne 12, no. 2 (1981): 65-66. Daigle, Jean. "Nos Amis, Les Ennemis : Relations Commerciales De L'Acadie Avec Le Massachusetts, 1670-1711." Doctor of Philosophy (in History), University of Maine, September 1975. 98 ———. "Notes Sur Michel Le Neuf, Sieur De La Vallière, Seigneur De Beaubassin Et Commandant à l'Acadie De 1678 à 1684." Les Cahiers De La Société Historique Acadienne 2, no. 7 (octobre-décembre 1967): 252-256. De Meulles, Jacques. "Beaubassin Ou Chignitou Et La Baye Verte: Mémoires Originaux 1686." Les Cahiers De La Société Historique Acadienne 4, no. 9 (avril-juin 1973): 381-383. Denys, Nicolas. The Description and Natural History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia). Edited and translated by William F. Ganong. Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1908. De Ville, Winston. Acadian Church Records, Volume I. Mobile: 1964. Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999. Dièreville, Sieur de. Relation of the Voyage to Port Royal in Acadia Or New France. Translated by Mrs. Clarence Webster. Edited by Dr. J.C. Webster. Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1933. Doucet, Clive. Notes from Exile: On being Acadian. Toronto: M&S, 1999. Duvivier, François DuPont. Course à L'Accadie, Journal De Campagne De François Du Pont Duvivier En 1744. Ed. Bernard Pothier. Ottawa: Les Éditions d'Acadie, 1982. Falcon-Lang, Howard J. "Earliest History of Coal Mining and Grindstone Quarrying at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and its Implications for the Meaning of the Place Name "Joggins"." Atlantic Geology 45, (2009): 1-20. Faragher, John Mack. A Great and Noble Scheme. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Fergusson, Charles Bruce, ed. Minutes of His Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal 1736-1749. Halifax, N.S.: Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1967. Fonds Ministériels. Dépôt des Papiers Publics Des Colonies. Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer. Aix-en-Provence, France. Furet, François. "Beyond the Annales." The Journal of Modern History 55, no. 3 (1983): 389-419. Gelly, Alain. Historiographie De l'Isthme De Chignectou : 1713-1755: Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, 2005. 99 Goubert, Pierre. The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and Cambridge University Press, 1986. Greer, Allan. "From Folklore to Revolution: Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837." Social History 15, no. 1 (1990): 25-43. ———. The Patriots and the People: The Rebellion of 1837 in Rural Lower Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Griffiths, Naomi. "Acadians in Exile: The Experiences of Acadians in the British Seaports." Acadiensis 4, no. 1 (1974): 67-84. ———. The Contexts of Acadian History, 1686-1784. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992. ———. "The Formation of a Community and the Interpretation of Identity: The Acadians, 1604-1997." British Journal of Canadian Studies 13, no. 1 (1998): 32-46. ———. From Migrant to Acadian: A North American Border People, 1604-1755. Montréal: McGill University Press, 2005. ———. "The Golden Age: Acadian Life, 1713-1748." In Readings in Canadian History: Pre-Confederation, edited by Francis, R. Douglas and Donald B. Smith. 3rd ed., 158172. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited, 1990. Hale, Robert. "Journal of a Voyage to Nova Scotia made in 1731 by Robert Hale of Beverly." Historical Collections of the Essex Institute 42, no. 3 (1906): 217-244. Hartz, Louis. The Founding of New Societies: Studies in the History of the United States, Latin America, South Africa, Canada, and Austrailia. First Edition ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964. Havard, Gilles and Cécile Vidal. Histoire De l'Amérique Française. Mayenne: Flammarion, 2003. Henderson, T. Stephen. Conversation with the author. 27 March 2014. Jaenen, Cornelius J. The Role of the Church in New France. Montréal: McGraw-Ryerson Limited, 1976. Johnston, A. J. B. "The Call of the Archetype and the Challenge of Acadian History." French Colonial History 5, (2004): 63-92. Jones, Colin. The Cambridge Illustrated History of France. Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 100 Kalm, Pehr. Peter Kalm's Travels in North America, Vol. I. Ed. Adolph B. Benson. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966. ———. Peter Kalm's Travels in North America; Vol. II. Ed. Adolph B. Benson. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966. Kennedy, Gregory M. W. "French Peasants in Two Worlds: A Comparative Study of Rural Experience in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Acadia and the Loudunais." Graduate Program in History, York University, April 2008. Lanctôt, Léopold. L'Acadie Des Origines, 1603-1771. Montréal: Les Éditions du Fleuve, 1988. Lauvriére, Emile. La Tragédie d'Un Peuple, Histoire Du Peuple Acadien De Ses Origines à Nos Jours. Paris: Libraire Plon, 1924. Laxer, James. The Acadians: In Search of a Homeland. Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2006. LeBlanc, Phyllis E. “DESCHAMPS DE BOISHÉBERT ET DE RAFFETOT, CHARLES.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 4. University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–. 1979. 27 March 2014 < http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/deschamps_de_boishebert_et_de_raffetot_charles_4 E.html>. Léger, Maurice A. Patrimoine Religieux Acadien: Essai Personnel. Shédiac, N.-B.: Falstaff, 2008. Longfellow, Henry W. Evangeline: A Tale of Acadie. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing, 1995. Lough, John. An Introduction to Seventeenth Century France. Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957. MacMechan, Archibald M., ed. A Calendar of Two Letter-Books and One CommissionBook in the Possession of the Government of Nova Scotia, 1713-1741. Halifax, N.S.: [Herald Printing House], 1900. ———. Original Minutes from His Majesty’s Council at Annapolis Royal, 1720-1739. Halifax, N.S.: McAlpine Pub. Co., 1908. Marsaud, Myriam. "L'Étranger Qui Dérange: Le Procès De Sorcellerie De Jean Campagna – Miroir d'Une Communauté Acadienne, Beaubassin, 1685." M.A., l'Université de Moncton, Juillet 1993. Massignon, Geneviève. Les Parlers Français d'Acade: Enquête Linguistique, 2 Vols. Paris: Klinksieck, 1962. 101 Moody, Barry Morris. "‘A Just and Disinterested Man’, the Nova Scotia Career of Paul Mascarene, 1710-1752." Doctoral of the Philosophy of History, Queen's University, 1976. ———. Thesis-Direction Conversation. 8 November 2013. ———. Thesis-Direction Conversation. 5 February 2014. Moogk, Peter. La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada - A Cultural History. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000. [Morris, Charles]. "A Brief Survey of Nova Scotia: WITH AN Account of the several Attempts of the French this War to Recover it Out of the Hands of the English.". Mouhot, Jean-François. Les Réfugiés Acadiens En France, 1758-1785 : L'Impossible Réintégration ?. Québec, Québec: Septentrion, 2009 / 2006 ?. Peace, Thomas G. M. "Two Conquests: Aboriginal Experiences of the Fall of New France and Acadia." Graduate Program in History, York University, September 2011. Pothier, Bernard, ed. Course à L’Accadie : Le Journal de Campagne de François Du Pont Duvivier 1n 1744. Ottawa: Les Éditions d’Acadie, 1982. Rameau de Saint-Père, Edmé. Une Colonie Féodale En Amérique: L'Acadie (1604-1881), Tome. I. Montréal: Granger Frères, 1889. ———. Une Colonie Féodale En Amérique: L'Acadie (1604-1881), Tome II. Montréal: Granger Frères, 1889. Rieder, Jr, Milton P and Norma Gaudet Rieder. Acadian Church Records, Volume II: Beaubassin 1712-1748. Metairie, Louisiana: 1976. Rogers, Norman McL. “The Abbé Le Loutre.” Canadian Historical Review 11.2 (1930): 105-128. Rompillon, Samantha. "La Migration à Beaubassin, Village Acadien, Fruit De La Mobilité Et De La Croissance." M.A. Thesis, Université de Poitiers, 1998. ———. "Entre Mythe Et Réalité : Beaubassin, Miroir d'Une Communauté Acadienne Avant 1755." Balises Et Références : Acadies, Francophonies, Sous La Direction De Martin Pâquet Et Stéphane Savard (2007): 271-298. Rousseau, Jacques. “DIÈREVILLE.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 2. University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–. 1969. 24 March 2014 <http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/diereville_2E.html>. 102 Rumilly, Robert. L'Acadie Française (1497-1713). Louiseville: Éditions Fides, 1981. ———. Histoire Des Acadiens, Vol. 1 of 2. Montréal: Éditions Fides, 1955. Saint-Vallier, Jean-Baptiste de la Croix de Chevrières de. Estat Présent De l'Église an La Nouvelle-France. Québec: Augustin Coté & Cie., 1856. Schmeisser, Barbara. Acadian Settlement in the Chignecto Isthmus 1670-1760. s.l.: National Historic Sites Service, 1970?. Surette, Paul. Atlas of the Acadian Settlement of the Beaubassin, 1660 to 1755, Tintamarre and Le Lac. Sackville, N.B.: Tantramar Heritage Trust, 2005. Treasure, G. R. R. Seventeenth Century France. London: Rivingtons Limited, 1966. Trenholm, Gladys, Miep Norden, and Josephine Trenholm. A History of Fort Lawrence: Times, Tides and Towns. Edmonton, Alberta: Sherwood Printing Ltd., 1986. Trépanier, Pierre and Lise Trépanier. "Rameau De Saint-Père Et Le Métier d'Historien." Révue d'Histoire De l'Amérique Française 33, no. 3 (1979): 331-355. Trueman, Howard. The Chignecto Isthmus and its First Settlers. Toronto: William Briggs, 1902. Vanderlinden, Jacques. Se Marier En Acadie Française : XVIIe Et XVIIIe Siècles. Moncton: Les Éditions d'Acadie, 1998. Webster, Dr J. C. The Career of Abbé Le Loutre in Nova Scotia: With a Translation of His Autobiography. Shediac, N.B.: Privately Printed, 1933. ———. Charles Des Champs De Boishébert: A Canadian Soldier in Acadia. s.l.: Privately Printed, 1931. ———. The Forts of Chignecto: A Study of the Eighteenth Century Conflict between France and Great Britain in Acadia. Shediac, N.B.: The author, 1930. ———. The Journal of Joshua Winslow: Recording His Participation in the Events of the Year 1750. Saint John, N.B.: The New Brunswick Museum, 1936. ———. Memorial on Behalf of the Sieur De Boishebert: Captain, Chevalier De SaintLouis, Former Commandant in Acadia: A Statement by M. Clos, Attorney, in Defence of M. De Boishebert at His Trial in Paris in 1763 for Alleged Misdemeanors during His Military Career in Acadia. Historic Studies; Publications of the New Brunswick Museum. Translated by Manny, Miss Louise. Saint John, New Brunswick: The Tribune Press, 1942. 103 Wicken, William C. Mi'Kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land, and Donald Marshall Junior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ———. "Re-Examining Mi'Kmaq-Acadian Relations, 1635-1755." In Vingt Ans Après, Habitants Et Marchands, Twenty Years Later : Lectures De l'Histoire Des XVIIe Et XVIIIe Siècles Canadiens, Reading the History of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Canada , edited by Dépatie, Sylvie, Catherine Desbarats, Danielle Gauvreau, Mario LaLancette and Thomas Wien, 93--109. Montréal: McGill University Press, 1998. Zelinsky, Wilbur, Dean R. Louder and John F. Rooney, Jr, eds. This Remarkable Continent: An Atlas of United States and Canadian Society and Cultures. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1982. 104