Of course, the term was being used in cartography in 1747 (before the expulsion, you’ll note) as seen here. Not to mention that the royal charter that created the colony in 1621 is called Royal Charter of New Scotland (Nova Scotia in the Latin), and the baronets that were created to entice Scotsmen to emigrate (each Scot who gathered six men to go with him got such a title) were called Baronets of Nova Scotia. You can find further information at the EB web site, and at various web sites describing the history of the colony. You will note that the coat of arms granted in 1625 by Charles I has St. Andrew’s cross in reversed colors.
There is, however, a bit of a problem with the use of the phrase “still French.” From 1762 until 1801, it was claimed by Spain and not by France. Only after Napolean conquered Spain and imposed the Treaty of San Ildefenso did France get it back. In the two years that France held it before selling it to the U.S., the European war severely limited the amount of actual governance that France exercised over the region.
Are you arguing that thousands of Acadians called it Nova Scotia? Or that “Nova Scotia” connoted anything near what is does now in 1755, even to the British? Is was a marketing term, like “tropical oasis” was used to sell Florida swampland. I’m not asking you to learn French, just to accept that almost everybody living thereabouts was French-speaking.
As for “still French” regarding the Louisiana Purchase, let’s compromise and say “not British or American”.
I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough wiper. I fart in your general direction.
According to Will Ferguson’s “Canadian History For Dummies”, the man who expelled the Acadians was Charles Lawrence, the British governor of the area, because the Acadians remained neutral in all battles and would not join his military. He arrested all the Acadian delegates. The Acadian farmers were gathered together in a Church at Grand Pre in the Minas Basin on September 5th, 1755, and told they were non-citizens, all their land and possessions would now be confiscated, and they would be herded into transport ships to be taken away.
There was a more complete acount in his earlier book, ‘Bastards and Boneheads: The Prime Ministers of Canada’, but I can’t find it at the moment.
For further info, check out: http://www.genweb.net/acadian-cajun/origin.htm
Right. The influx of strange Monty Python references has made this thread a bit tough to follow.
Narcoleptic_Quaker (nice name, btw) -
I couldn’t get your link to load. Not broken, but called up a web cache error. I’ve been getting these a lot over here in England, and hopefully it will clear up.
But, in the meanwhile…I’m curious as to the deportation. Why did the Arcadians end up in Louisiana? If I’ve got all my dates right, the expulsion occurred in 1755 because the Arcadians would not take up arms against the French, with whom the “Seven Years’ War” had begun in the spring of 1754. Now, at this point, Louisiana was still nominally French. So it seems that by shipping the Arcadians there, the British would be essentially shipping potential soldiers to their enemy. On the other hand, if the British did not fear this, viewing the region as no longer French, then why choose that spot to ship the Arcadians to? It seems to me that, depending on who else laid claim to the region, either the British would want to keep the land for their own uses, or the Spanish might be upset at the arrival of a bunch of deportees. Or was it just seen as useless swamp and a good place to stash the undesirables?
ellis555, check the link provided by Reeder in the third post. Originally, none of them were sent to Louisiana. They were scattered up and down the American East Coast, with one group being “repatriated” to France after being held in England for several years.
Louisiana is actually where they later tended to gather, over the years, because it was the only sizable French community in North America that was not held by the British.
And just so we make it clear, I never said that Nova Scotia wasn’t called Arcadie (it wasn’t called Arcadia by the French there; presumably they did speak French, not English). What I said was that the term Nova Scotia (New Scotland) wasn’t coined after the migration of Scots to the penninsula in the late 1700’s. Nor was it a “marketing tool”; it was the vision of then Sir William Alexander to have a New Scotland to allow Scotland (then still an independent country with a shared monarch) to have a colony same as France, Spain and England (not to mention Holland). James VI of Scotland (James I of England), being Scots, tended to agree; there is, of course, more to this, and one can get really involved in the intricacies of the relationship between the Stuart monarchs and the Scots barons while looking into it if one wants.
Further, as to Louisiana, I never said it was ever British or American prior to 1803. That is not the point, of course. The point is, it wasn’t French. Not sure why this is still being discussed…
To clarify, eunoia was wrong in two particulars, and, having had these pointed out by myself and others, can’t manage anything but weird references to Monty Python. But the Straight Dope will out.
I humbly submit, and apologize for my sophomoric, and at best, eristic arguments, and for failing to address the OP.
Also ellis555 , I see your point. Thank you for delicately pointing out the error in my post re: the initial destination of the deportees. Again, I’m eating crow.
Can’t resist…
[outrageous accent]…(snickering)I told him we already got one! [/outrageous accent]
