In my university class, our history proffesor explained that the Acadian population of Nova Scotia/New Brunswick was deported by British officers - British-American officers to be exact.
The army dudes who put the Acadians in ships and deported them wore the blue uniforms of Americans, not the red of the British.
Now, it true that when word got back to Britain, no one was overly upset, but they didn’t order the act.
Why would British colonists from what would become the US northeast deport the Acadians?
Because of their kick-ass land.
Given the alternative which was to climb over the Appalatian mountains, the British (American) colonists decided to steal the land from the Acadians instead. Good farming land was getting rare and the population was increasing in the British (US) colonies.
Anyway, can anyone confirm or deny these facts? I haven’t been able to find anything about this on the Web.
But I’m too lazy to look up facts to back my assumption. I know colonists contributed significantly to British forces in the Americas during the Seven Years’ War. So it’s quite possible that “American” forces were in the area. But I don’t buy the premise that the land was more accessible than that on the other side of the Appalachian range. British policy was what kept the colonists from crossing the Appalachians, not any difficulty in doing so. Also, I believe that most of the Arcadians left the region voluntarily, which is why they traveled to (French) Louisiana.
My 2 cents. I can try to kick in with some research later if no one else has picked up on it.
Well, in fact I saw that PBS special on NYC and they had a bit about the Erie Canal and how Gov. Clinton’s grand project made the west accessible. The reason it wasn’t before? The Appalatians. At least that’s what PBS says.
jdl: Actually, the British prohibition on settlement on the other side of the Appalachians after 1763 was one of the major reasons why so many highfalutin Virginia land specualtors (including George Washington) supported the Revolution. Washington was something of a sleazeball land speculator. Whatever one might say about the British, they at least tended to keep their word when it came to the Indians.
The specific conflict that immediately preceded the Acadian deportation was, indeed, a colonist-hatched plot (as is noted in this Biography of John Winslow
Rather than an attempt to secure Nova Scotia for themselves, however, I suspect that this plan was more intended to remove the French as a threat to westward growth–particularly in the Ohio Valley.
The man who actually conceived of the Acadian deportation was not a colonist, but a British officer who was upset at the refusal of the local population to acknowledge their “defeat” and swear allegiance to the British Crown. (The Acadians were not strong supporters of New France or (old) France and had not actively supported the French during the various wars; they saw no reason to take oaths of fealty to either side.)
Charles Lawrence was born and raised in Britain and was a British officer.
There is no doubt that there were a number of British colonists who cast covetous eyes on certain sections of New France, but it was not a general feeling within the British colonies that they would really have rather been living up North. (Note that in the history provided by Reeder’s link, it was five years before the British lured colonists up from New England–and then they had to do a hard sell to get them to come look over the land.)
[ side note ] I hope that it was a single aberration and not indicative of greater problems with the history provided in Reeder’s link, but this reference
is to the Indian Nations along the Ohio Valley, not to the Acadians.
[ /side note ]
Would the francophones of Quebec have been more of a threat to the interior (where they already had an extensive presence in the Ohio and Mississippi vallies) than the coastal-oriented Acadians?
I would guess that the British colonists wanted to remove the military and political power of the the French to their north–which extended into the Ohio Valley–while not specifically coveting their land.
The war that the colonists initiated attacked two western and two eastern strongpoints. When the rule of France was finally overthrown in North America year later, there was no major migration into Quebec–or even into Nova Scotia.
I am not claiming that no rock farming New Englander wanted to try his luck in the lush Annapolis valley. I am suggesting that the reason that the colonists as a group were willing to go to war with their Canadian neighbors was to remove a threat to their expansion toward the west. As long as the French could use the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes to provision forts in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan (with the possibility of arming the natives in Kentucky), they were a threat to expansion.
Re-reading Labradorian’s post, I think the point of the deportation was the specific desire of Charles Lawrence and his concern about loyalty, rather than the ultimate intent of the colonists.
Lower Canada did not suffer the same fate by the good fortune of having a different governor.
Had the deportation occurred for the purpose of siezing the land, it should not have taken five years and a lot of persuasion to get the first re-settlers to make their way into the region.
For those who don’t know, the deportation of Acadians (corrupted into “Cajuns” to which Acadian descendants in southern U.S.A. are still referred) occurred in 1755, (before a clear distinction between “British” and “American” existed) after the French ceded Acadia to the British after the War of Spanish Succession. Much like the english-speaking people of New England, they were very long established, prosperous and increasingly independent of their old colonial power. This is why swearing oaths to the British crown may not have been popular. It was soon to be unpopular with British subjects as well. In any case, this was used as a pretext to deportthousands to points south including, but not exclusive to Louisiana. The Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem Evangeline mythologizes this time in history. Many Acadians fled the deportation or escaped from emprisonment before being deported and regrouped in areas of what is now Northern New Brunswick. Misery, broken up families, extreme poverty as refugees and the coming winter forced them to start afresh, cutting down trees and establishing farms as their ancestors had done over a hundred years before. Their former farms in what is now Nova Scotia were mostly taken over by another conquered people, the Scots, hence the name Nova Scotia (New Scotland). Even today, Northern New Brunswick province is mostly french-speaking and the only officially bilingual province in Canada.
I also must add that the interior of what is now the U.S.A. including the Mississippi valley and points west not belonging to Spain was still French territory until 1803.
France lost almost all its North American possessions in the Seven-Years War (the so-called French and Indian War on this continent). In 1762 it ceded the land west of the Mississippi River to Spain; in 1763 it ceded the land east of the Mississippi River to England. This effectively ended the French threat to the English possessions on the eastern coast of the continent.
Napoleon finagled the return of Louisiana to France in 1801 through the Treaty of San Ildefenso. This treaty, known as a treaty of retrocession, caused much dismay in the United States, as we had established with Spain a right to ship goods down the river and out the port of New Orleans (Treaty of San Lorenzo, 1795); there were worries Napoleon would block the port. It was this worry that lead to the purchase of Louisiana from the French in 1803.
The penninsula of Nova Scotia was so named when, in 1621, Sir William Alexander, later Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada and Lord Alexander of Tullibody, obtained from James I of England a charter to establish a colony there (Sir William was from Scotland). A colony of Scotsmen was established, but it was removed in 1631 after only 2 years, following the Treaty of Susa.
While there were Scots who settled the former Acadie after the deportation of the French settlers in 1755 (for example, the settlement of Pictou in 1773), there were also many who moved there from New England, and indeed four delegates from the colony attended the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.
I might also point out that, while the Council of Alexandria can be viewed as a colonial effort, it was a council of Governors, most if not all of whom were crown appointed men, to whom the English forces in the area were apparently attached. The link tomndebb gave shows that General Braddock was part of the effort established by the Council of Alexandria, which shows that there must have been crown support; it is hard, therefore, to view the attempt to initiate hostilities with the French in 1754 as wholly a colonial effort.
Fred\Anderson in 'Crucible of War’suggests additional motives for the expulsion of the Acadians. Previously they had sold provisions covertly to the French Fortress at Louisbourg, intrigued with the Abenaki and Micmac Indians seeking to stir up rebellion, and had openly agitated for an insurrection to return Acadia to French control- offering to buy English scalps for 100 livres a piece. Anderson notes that this may have been the first time in modern history that mass expulsion like this was used.
Anderson does note that the expulsions were carried out by the New England regiment under Braddock. IIRC such regiments did not wear red, but were kitted out in more ordinary clothing. Thus the act was an act of the King, but would have been carried out by Americans (who were calling themselves this by this time- whilst also claiming the rights of Englishmen) in non-redcoat uniforms- although home commissioned officers may have been dressed in red.
[quote]
Their former farms in what is now Nova Scotia were mostly taken over by another conquered people, the Scots, hence the name Nova Scotia (New Scotland).
[quote]
I stand by this. The Halifax Gazette changed its name to The Nova Scotia Gazette in 1766. This is a more likely way to date the vulgarization of the name Nova Scotia, after the deportation and subsequent influx of the recently British Scots. Even British documents continue to use “Acadia” up to to deportation.
Also re: Louisiana Purchase http://www.nara.gov/exhall/originals/loupurch.html
In 1803 the United States paid France $15 million for the Louisiana Territory–828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River. The lands acquired stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border. Thirteen states were carved from the Louisiana Territory. The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the United States, making it one of the largest nations in the world.
For obvious reasons, the Acadian/French perspective of history, especially that of the populace itself in these events is not particularly well represented.
[quote]
Their former farms in what is now Nova Scotia were mostly taken over by another conquered people, the Scots, hence the name Nova Scotia (New Scotland).
[quote]
I stand by this. The Halifax Gazette changed its name to The Nova Scotia Gazette in 1766. This is a more likely way to date the vulgarization of the name Nova Scotia, after the deportation and subsequent influx of the recently British Scots. Even British documents continue to use “Acadia” up to to deportation. Also re: Louisiana Purchase
In 1803 the United States paid France $15 million for the Louisiana Territory–828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River. The lands acquired stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border. Thirteen states were carved from the Louisiana Territory. The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the United States, making it one of the largest nations in the world.
Please keep in mind that for obvious reasons, the Acadian/French perspective of history, especially that of the populace itself in these events is not particularly well represented.
Does Anderson specifically say that the British parliament (or King) order the expulsion? Again, going back to my original post, I was told that the act was conceived and carried out by “American-British” army men. Does he confirm or deny this?
I think that the question is based on a misconception of the politics and military control at the time. There was no ‘American’ polity that could make a decision to expel people from Acadia- no American legislature claimed jurisdiction over the area under consideration; ENgland and its parliament did. The regiment concerned would be acting under nominal command of the King- all regiments claimed their right to action from the monarch. Decisions made in the field were often ratified (or not) later my the military command structure leading to the King.
The make-up of the regiment would be a mixture of English (both officers and men) and ‘Americans’ (officers and men) and also of people falling between the two categories, and people in neither category. All the officers would claim that their decisions relied on their King’s commission, and that they were justified by that. No regiment claimed authority from any colonial legislature- all authority flowed from the King in Parliament.
This, of course, does not make it impossible that ‘American’ officers acting in ‘American’ interests, by ordering ‘American’ regular troups to carry out the expulsions. However, their claimed authority would be to the King in Parliament and not to a colonial legislature.
IIRC the inflow of settlers that replaced the Acadians came from Scotland, England and Ireland, more than from New England or elsewhere in the American colonies- many were retired and discharged soldiers from the very regiments that expelled the Acadians.
Checking sources, the regiment that expelled the Acadians was given its orders by William Shirley (1694-1771) Royal Governor of Massachusetts 1741-1756. Anderson notes that ‘he had promoted’ the campaign in Nova Scotia ’ as a means of resolving longstanding difficulties in British control over the region.’ Anderson also notes that 'Shirley…deeply believed in bringing the colonies more closely under London’s control, and to that end favored the idea of colonial union. I think that we can agree that Shirley was and Englishman through and through who saw himself as the King’s representative and not in any way an American. He commanded the force and therefore I would say that the decision to expel the Acadians was made in British (London) interests, rather than the interests of New Englanders themselves.
Mayhaps I chose my wording poorly. Physically, the trip over the Appalachians might have been slightly more difficult than hopping a ship up north, depending on where one was crossing the mountains. But I know for sure that, as black455 pointed out, colonists were desirous of settling on the other side of the mountains, and were blocked only by British policy. Hence my doubt that the region settled by the “Arcadians” represented some mecca of land physically unavailable to the colonists elsewhere.
eunoia -
This I did not know (regarding the attempts of the Arcadians to hike back from Louisiana). I didn’t believe that they were all clamoring to leave their homes. But I had thought that some voluntarily made the choice rather than live under British control/swear allegiance to the British. Thanks for the info.