History    WITHOUT WHICH OUR ANCESTORS ARE STRANGERS...

 

The first law for the historian is that he shall never utter a falsehood; the second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. CICERO 106-43 B.C.

 

ACADIA                                     THE ACADIANS                                          DEPORTATION and The Oath

 

ACADIA…The grandest visual description of New France depicted it as extending from Newfoundland, south to Florida, west to the Mississippi and north to Quebec; the English Colonies along the Atlantic shore not evident. The de facto New France, the St. Lawrence area and Acadia were alone apparently too much for the French Crown, for the support of these colonies in sharp contrast to the British Empire’s holdings to the south, left much to be desired. Further, most of its meager effort was concentrated in the Montreal area while Acadia, every bit as much a part of New France, was most sorely neglected and ignored. The price paid was a dear one, for Acadia was the key to an expanded French Empire…or British conquest.

 

Romantics suggest that the name Acadia came from that ancient area of Greece, Arcadia, a place frequently chosen as a background for pastoral poetry. The evidence for this theory is slim at best, the body of proof suggesting it derives from a Micmac Indian word  Quoddy or Cady generally rendered in French as Cadie, meaning a piece of favorable land. Virtually all old French references used the form without the “r”, and  La Cadie, L’Acadie  and Acadie evolved in that language, Acadia in English. The few European explorers who used the term Arcadia did not use it in reference to the land we know as Acadia, and the oldest extant map of that place by a French cartographer (Champlain’s of 1613) reads Acadye.

 

The Acadian sector of New France was never clearly defined geographically, but today it is generally conceded to have incorporated the present provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, portions of New Brunswick, as well as part of the present state of Maine. Various treaties and other agreements between the British and French governments occasionally took great liberties with its boundaries, conveniences of the moment frequently guiding their geographers. There is no contention with respect to which of the two nations first settled the land that had at its center the shores of Baye Française (Bay of Fundy) and was called Acadia; however undefined its borders.

 

In 1605, two years before Jamestown and fifteen years before Plymouth, the French established a presence at Port Royal. Lescarbot’s Map of Port Royal (1609) pictures the “port” as the entire basin of the R. Dauphine (now the Annapolis River) and while indicating settlements on both the north and south shores of that river, does not identify the location of what has become known as the “habitation” albeit it was a part of the early settlement. When the British took control of the area as a result of the 1713 treaty it became known as Annapolis Royal and a town on the bay retains that name today (“Annapolis Royal…a town in Nova Scotia…one of the oldest settlements in North America, having been founded in 1604 by the French, who called it Port Royal.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, prestigious 11th Ed.) As early as 1497 (see below) the area had been explored by the mariners of many European countries and in 1534 Jacques Cartier took possession in the name of France. The early effort at Port Royal consisted of not much more than a fur-trading site and it was not until 1632 that a true colony, the first Acadians, came to be at that place, with more arriving in 1636.

 

In 1497 Giovanni Cabota, a citizen of Italy, journeyed to London to persuade the English King, Henry VI, to support his attempt to reach Asia via the western route and he did indeed reach land on Cape Breton Island that year but believed to the day of his death that he had approached the mainland of Asia (thus having claimed for the King a part of that continent). Upon this event was based the claim of the British Crown to what, knowing they were in the New World and not Asia, the French came to call Acadia. In 1613, and thus subsequently after the establishment of the French settlement at Port Royal, the English claimed the land by virtue of the Italian’s 16th century voyage and expelled the French inhabitants making no attempt at settlements. In 1621 Sir William Alexander obtained a grant to the area naming it “Nova Scotia” but no colonists appeared until 1629 when Scots were brought to the place. Nothing permanent resulted, for the Treaty of Germain-en-Laye (1632) confirmed France’s title and the Scots were returned to England. Next, those most scholars consider to be the First Acadians came, most of the familiar early surnames among them. The British, under Cromwell in 1654, took possession by force and Acadia was under British control until the Treaty of Bréda (1667) which again returned the area to the French.

 

By the year 1651 some forty families were established there and the dyking of the sea marshes, a familiar mark of these people over the years, had begun. The entire population in 1671 totaled 375, with another forty families arriving soon after. Settlers began establishments at the eastern head of Chignecto Bay and a decade later Minas was peopled. These new colonists and the natural population growth brought the total to 515 by 1679. By 1686 it had grown to over 800 with the fecundity of the settled families accounting for virtually all the increase. Infant mortality was low compared to the same period in France where fewer than 50% of children lived to adulthood.  By contrast, families of ten and twelve survived to that age in this new place, and it was a general pattern, not an occasional anomaly.

 

For the most part the settlers had come from France, but one of the earlier arrivals, one of my ancestors, allowed in a legal matter that he was a native of Ireland…Roger Cassie. While Michel DeVaux  was a relative late comer, arriving around 1691, my ancestors include a number of the “older” families; Pierre Melanson was one of the founders of Grand Pre, Jacques Bourgeois was a prominent  member of the Port Royal community who became one of the founders of Beaubassin, Philippe Mius d’Entremont was a significant figure in the Cape Sable area. Other early ancestors bore the Acadian names Richard, LeBlanc, Dugas, Poirier, Gaudet and Boudrot.

 

The rapid growth in the population continued, prompting expansion up the bay to sites at Chignecto Bay and the Minas Basin. Most of these settlers were sons and daughters of families from Port Royal. Beaubassin was founded in 1671 and we know that Port Royal’s Roger Cassie was at the new place as early as 1682.

 

By 1686 there were 127 souls at Beaubassin, but by the time we estimate progenitor Michel arrived, 1691-3, it was down to 119. The settlement did not grow as rapidly as the Minas Bay area, but by the late 1680s a gristmill and a sawmill had been built, grain was being produced, and Beaubassin had adopted all of the field crops and animals known at Port Royal. Fruit trees were well established by the turn of the century and included pears, plums and apples, the last reputedly introduced to the community by Roger Cassie. The history of Beaubassin is covered in considerably more detail at Devoe-deVaux.

 

A number of factors contributed to the slow growth of Acadia in the early years. The most significant was the neglect of the mother country to support and defend the colony; another was the lack of significant migration from France, for after 1671 only 61 men and 5 women arrived through1710. In that year the total population of New France was but 16,000 with a mere 1700 in Acadia; the English Colonies to the south numbered some 115,000. The third deterrent to colonization was the constant destructive British attacks, often on entirely unprotected villages, which did little to inspire confidence in the minds of potential French settlers.   

 

The very geography of Acadia placed it between the two enemy dependencies described, French Canada to the northwest, English colonies to the southwest. England coveted all of this territory and saw Acadia as the latchkey to all that possessed by France. As early as 1619 claims of sovereignty were made by the British and for a century or more all or parts of Acadia were passed from France to England and from England to France in a weary series of treaties and arrangements which left the Acadians mindless as to whom they owed allegiance at a given time. They learned to accommodate the extant ruler, and in the process developed an independence and self-reliance that became a mark of their culture. They resisted taxation, took liberties with land occupation and expansion, traded with whom they pleased, prospered and multiplied. By mid-18th century some sources put their number as high as 15,000 souls.

 

With the exception of a brief period from 1670 to 1690 the first eighty years were not those of peace. From 1690 to 1710 Britain, primarily through its colonies to the south, continued the destructive attacks on Acadia, looting and burning whatever lay in the path of conquest and by the end of that period they had become the rulers of the majority of the Acadians. In 1710 Port Royal had fallen to the British for the fifth and final time. The French garrison, a mere 156 men, marched out of the fort as they had requested with drums beating and flags flying; honour saved, but little else. The French effort to hold the most significant part of Acadia ended in 1710. The treaty of Utrecht in 1713 placed all of what is now mainland Nova Scotia under the British Crown, leaving present day Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick under French rule. Most Acadians were now British subjects and in fact enjoyed a period of peace and plenty for over three decades continuing to enjoy, for the most part, their Roman Catholic faith, and accommodation with both the English and their French-ruled neighbors. They also continued to enjoy considerable independence and despite laws to the contrary, brisk trade with their compatriots to the west continued, both Crowns recognizing unique advantages to their respective causes in these violations.

 

Many of British persuasion cite this period as an example of how well the Acadians fared under their new rulers, suggesting that the Deportation would never have taken place had the Acadians simply recognized the state of affairs during these years. To do so ignores the long-held plan to rid Acadia of these French Roman Catholics (and to thus conquer all of Canada) at such time as they were no longer needed. While the 1713 treaty professed to allow the Acadians to sell their property and leave with their livestock and other possessions within one year, and some managed to do so, for the most part they were prevented from migrating to French-held territory by one subterfuge or another for the British schemata did not favor any strengthening of the French in North America

 

The founding of Halifax in 1749 and the subsequent success of that establishment should have enlightened the Acadians with respect to the permanency of the British conquest, but given the past history of alternating sovereignty it is likely most assumed a similar future for their Acadia. The British had other plans for both “New Scotland” and the Acadians, but for the time the French population and their cultivated lands would serve a useful purpose.

 

The French, finally recognizing a serious threat to its holdings in the New World, selected a key piece of geography on Isle Royal (Cape Breton) and commenced the building of a massive fort at Louisbourg. While they encouraged large numbers Acadians to move to the island, relatively few responded, many hearing of the poor farming conditions. By 1715 the population of the island had reached 720 people however, not including the unmarried soldiers of the garrison, with most of the Acadians located at Port Toulouse or Port Dauphine. The actual construction of the fort did not begin in earnest until 1717 and as the town grew around it the area took on a character of its own, surely more French than Acadian. By 1726 there were some thirteen separate communities on Isle Royal adding more than one thousand settlers in addition to the thousand at Louisbourg. By 1738 it was a thriving colony with the population estimated at as much as 4,000 with some 150 ships a year visiting the port and more than 200 vessels based on the island. French support for Loisbourg began to wane in the years following and a general air of depression replaced the enthusiasm of the early beginnings.

 

On 18 March of 1744 France declared war on England. French forces under Captain Du Vivier successfully threatened and forced the surrender of Canso in Nova Scotia but aborted an attempt to take Annapolis (formerly Port Royal). Thus riled, and ever coveting all of New France, the New Englanders prepared for an attack on Louisbourg in 1745. Supported by elements of the Royal Navy the force under Pepperrel began the attack in late April and accepted the surrender of the fort from Du Chambon on the 17th of June. The British troops were guilty of reckless looting and destruction of the town in violation of the surrender agreement. Once again the pattern of the past was repeated; the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle in October of 1748 returned Isle Royal to the French, to the disgust of the New Englanders. One of them, a Captain Edward Moore of New Hampshire, remained in Cape Breton and fathered my grandmother’s family of that name. Louisbourg again flourished, for a period of five or six years, but war between the two nations began again (not officially declared until 1756) and though the town had prospered the fort and its garrison had been again neglected. Further, British gunboats had blockaded the harbour at Louisbourg since early 1755. In 1757 the French managed to get some 24 ships through to Louisbourg in spite of the enemy fleet, thus were able to bring much needed supplies to that place. Expecting an attack by land, the French commander fortified the shores two to four miles southwest of the town.

 

The British sailed into Gabarus Bay on the afternoon of 2 June 1758 with 150 ships and 14,000 men. French Governor Drucour had 3,000 men and a fort not adequately restored to defend itself; the surrender was on 26 July. French power in Acadia was no more. The British commander, General James Wolfe, was hailed as a hero, promoted, and died in battle a little over a year later at Quebec, commander of the force that was to take all French holdings in what became Canada. Drucours’s defense had merely delayed the end by one year.

 

Some ten years before, another chapter in Acadian history played itself out on the Isthmus of Chignecto where the French were attempting to establish a new Acadia in the Shepody-Petitcodiac area, building Forts Beausejour at the Missaguash River and Gaspareau across the isthmus. For some years they had been encouraging the Acadians of Nova Scotia to move across that river into French held territory. Many had lived there for years, a part of what could be considered Greater Beaubassin, but those who made the move from now British held lands at this time, chose to go to Ile Saint-Jean, away from the center of conflict yet under French rule. The population of that island soon increased from 735 to 2,200 between 1743 and 1752. These were not good times for the Acadians and with land unprepared for cultivation on the island reliance on public charity became the lot for thousands.   

 

In May of 1755 Colonel Monckton captured Fort Beauséjour and the loss of Fort Gaspareau followed. French troops on the St. John River removed to Quebec, likely to share in the defeat on the Plains of Abraham some four years hence. It was over.

 

The victor writes the history and selects the material to be archived, but even as one reads the tainted histories of these times (by the likes of Francis Parkman for example) it should be abundantly clear that the French never posed a real military threat to the British with respect to the English Colonies to the south, nor did they covet them. Compared with the repeated British Crown-supported military raids on Acadia (the eventual goal, conquest) beginning early in the 17th century, the poorly organized and for the most part non-military French-supported Indian raids on the Colonies were not significant in the larger scope of things. Again, the French sought no territory…content with their “Canada”…while the British goal was to control all of North America; imperialism (and other yet less honorable stimuli), not fear of the French, was their motivation. The French were the gentler of the two peoples, thus less adept at aggression, conquest, and yes, as it turned out, colonization.

 

THE ACADIANS…

 

Those dedicated, stubborn, resilient, pettifogging, inventive, exasperating, peace-loving, and in so many ways altogether magnificent people. ANDREW HILL CLARK

 

Though most Acadians had their roots in 17th Century France as did most of the French who came to inhabit their nation’s colonies in North America, we should be reminded that they became a distinct and unique people as a result of their experience in France’s eastern colony of Acadia. This resulted from their separation, culturally and geographically, from their compatriots to the west who became French-Canadians. While there never was a sovereign state of Acadia, its people created a nation, a condition no better described than in Naomi Griffith’s The Acadians: Creation of a people.

 

The Old World background of the Acadians varied to a great degree, many tradesmen among them, likely many peasants. The freedom and independence they grew to enjoy resulted in a kind of democratic society and under both French and English rule the hand that dealt with their daily lives rested lightly on their shoulders. When in their opinion it did not, they very often took matters into their own hands until satisfied with the result. Within a generation or so none could any longer be described as peasants and they lived under conditions that would have been the envy of many of their forebears in France. They lived simple lives in a successful agricultural society with a division of labour which contributed greatly to an abundance of the necessities of life. Women did spinning, weaving, dyeing, knitting and sewing to produce clothing; gardening, preserving, and cooking sustained life; they cared for the very young as well as the very old. For the men it meant lumbering, building, farming, fishing, and hunting to provide the shelter and food for their families. Author Antoine Bernard: “…a splendid flowering of strong qualities, at the head of which shone religious devotion, moral integrity, a scrupulous respect for others’ property joined to a practical charity which was above all employed in favour of the priest, the widow, and the orphan.”

 

And as celebrated by Longfellow:

Neither locks they had to their doors, nor bars to their windows; But their dwellings were open as day and the hearts of their owners; There the richest were poor, and the poorest lived in abundance.

 

Descriptions of the Acadians were varied in the words of those who wrote of them, most but not all, of a positive nature. A sampling: “The Acadians were the most innocent and virtuous people I have ever known or read of. They anticipated each others wants, and demanded no interest for loans of money. They were remarkable for their purity of morals, I do not remember a single instance of an illegitimate birth among them, nor marital infidelity. They were altogether ignorant of progress in the arts and sciences, depended little on outside sources but for salt and tools… They were a very healthy people, able to endure great fatigue, and generally living to advanced age though none of them employed doctors… The men were hard-working in the sowing and harvesting seasons, securing for at least half the year, leisure, save for cutting wood for their fuel and hunting. The women were more constantly at work. Though most of them were quite illiterate, yet seldom did any of them remain silent for long. They appeared at heart joyful and accustomed to behave with candor under all circumstances. If there ever was a people that recalled the Golden Age, that people was the old-time Acadians… Trade with the French and English provided what they could not produce and there were few houses without a cask of French wine; their country was rich in thousands of head of cattle… The Acadians were not poets, nor enthusiasts, nor dreamers; they were simply good folks, des braves gens, very obliging to one another, very religious, very devoted to their families and living gaily in the midst of their children without much worry… Honest, peaceable, and happy with more or less of the weaknesses of our common nature.” Thus spoke the English and French of the Acadians; chose your description

 

The dyking of tidal marshes is a mark of the Acadians, and remnants of many still exist. It was not an unfamiliar technique in their homeland, Dutch engineers having supervised the French in the construction of such fertile farmland in the early half of the 17th century. The charge that the Acadians chose to cultivate the lowlands rather than clear the forests because they were “lazy” is entirely without merit. They knew their land, and comparing the uplands of Acadia with farmland of France ignored what the Acadians had learned; those uplands were simply not as productive. Further, the building of dykes was every bit as labor intensive as axe-work, probably greater. Crops grown included an abundance of wheat, as well as peas, corn, oats, barley, rye, apples, cherries, varieties of the cabbage family, and flax from which linen was woven. Root crops included carrots, turnip, onions and potatoes.

 

Livestock raised by them included cattle, sheep, and swine. Horses represented a small portion of their holdings, one observer noting “they had little use for them.” The sheep were kept primarily for their wool, the family meat diet consisting of beef, pork, and wild game, the last serving as an alternative to large poultry holdings. Cattle of course also provided traction, leather, and milk. Fishing was not a commercial enterprise of these early Acadians, but it did play a role as food supply, especially in time of crop failure or dyke destruction (whether by the elements or the English). Weirs were built across rivers and bass, shad, herring, and alewife were caught; cod from the open waters was a staple in the diet as well.

 

The relationship of the Acadians and the Micmac Indians of the region was unique when compared with that of other European settlers in America due in no small way to what evolved with respect to the “division” of territory. The Acadians established themselves on the lowlands, the natives continued to hunt and fish the woods. With rare exceptions it was a harmonious relationship, each side contributing knowledge and goods to the other and the Indians became the allies of the French, and brothers and sisters in their faith, to a significant degree. The bedding of Indian women was likely a common practice in the early fur-trading days, but it never became an accepted or established practice in the organized settlements; the priests discouraging such sharing of the blanket. While they did continue to a minor degree throughout the Acadian presence, they were more likely, in the words of historian Clark, “…to lead the men to the forest than the woman to the cornfields.” While the Indians did not share the European’s view of individual land ownership, they tolerated the permanent settlements of the Acadians in that European tradition. Their idea of  “settlement” was pitching a village (for a limited period of time) where the hunting or fishing was to their benefit. The Micmacs likely watched as their neighbors fought the sea and wrestled with the soil to build their dykes on the tidal marshes, doubtless thinking it was a waste of time; crazy Frenchmen…not a problem.

 

In recent years  I note an absence of the spelling “Micmac” in favor of  “Mi’kmaq” which is often followed by “(formerly Micmac)” which I consider to be nothing more than a bow to Political Correctness rather than accuracy. A written language for the Micmac tongue is a relatively modern phenomenon and I find no need to introduce it into the English language unless as Mi’kmaq as would I write Acadien in lieu of Acadian. The spelling “Micmac” pre-dates the more recently created spelling and is perfectly proper when one is writing in the English language.

 

The role of the priests among the Acadians was a significant one and they were for the most part much respected and their advice sought in all matters, religious and civil. Disputes in the community were brought before him and his resolution generally accepted by the parties involved. Education centered on matters ecclesiastical (in many cases limited to no more than  twelve or so years) may not have always equipped them to deal with matters civil, but they seldom resisted the challenge, and by applying the general tenants of the Christian ethic, likely were worthy of the respect granted them. Their apparent lack of any significant effort to educate the Acadians in matters other than their faith is indicative of the nature of such things in the mother country, where the formal education of those in rural areas, and certain groups within the urban areas, was considered unnecessary rather than, as some charge “to keep them ignorant.” The education of the average Acadian came from his or her parents, who taught the skills to survive, prosper, and provide homes abundant in love and good cheer. French Catholics and English Protestants. It surely put the priests in a most unenviable position. The clergy had always been assigned their duties by the Quebec hierarchy, French of course in their sympathy, and this continued under English rule. The British concern for the practice was based on fear as well as bigotry. The fear was that the priests would encourage the Acadians to aid the French cause in the area; anti-Catholicism was endemic to the English mind. For the most part the priests were on the side of neutrality, with the nearly singular exception of the Abbé Le Loutre who drove the Acadians to distraction with his unbridled threats and recriminations: “…no forgiveness in this world, nor salvation in the next.” Most priests managed to serve their people well, and accommodated the authorities to the extent their consciences would allow, thus precluding their possible removal.. Whatever their ecclesiastical education lacked in depth and breadth with respect to secular history, literature, and world affairs, their devotion was great and selfless, continuing throughout the terrible journeys the future held for their flocks. Would that their understanding of the history they had witnessed been passed on to Bishop Octave Plessis of Quebec, who chastised the Acadians in a 1776 pastoral letter for being the cause of the events of 1755-63 for not recognizing that the British had (since 1713)  “…treated them with unprecedented respect and consideration.” Including the Deportation Bishop?

 

The isolation that brought them their independence, inventiveness, stubbornness, prosperity, and content, was unique and it was inevitable that it would not last. Historian Naomi Griffiths described the condition: “In 1748 the Acadians considered themselves Acadian, the French considered them unreliable allies, and the English, unsatisfactory citizens.”  The end was close at hand.

 

DEPORTATION AND THE OATH…

 

We did upon pretenses not worth a farthing, root out this innocent, deserving people, whom our utter inability to govern or reconcile gave us no right to extirpate.

EDMUND BURKE (1728-97) British statesman, author, on the Deportation

 

The Deportation was unique in its intent and cruelty. There are those who would compare it to the French treatment of the Huguenots, or the American Colonists’ treatment of the so-called Loyalists, both of whom were driven from their homelands. Such a comparison is without merit, for the Acadians were not merely expelled (though British apologists prefer the term “Expulsion” to describe the events of 1755-1763) and allowed to select their destination, but were physically removed and sent to places chosen by their captors; thus only “deportation” properly describes the act. Consequently, it behooves those of us who reject the British view to scrupulously avoid the substitution of “Expulsion” for the more accurate “Deportation” and at the very least (should we find an occasion which suggests the use of “expulsion”), avoid capitalization of the word. There is a “code” here with respect to the views of an author if one would check the index pages: A. H. Clark (as neutral a writer as I have found) uses “Deportation” in his Acadia while the English bias of Mahaffie in his recent A Land of Discord Always is evident in the index as well as the text; his word is “expulsion”, the word “deportation” is never used. I offer the following for the scholarly inclined: Most lexicographers appear to have not taken seriously the etymology of the two words, often giving them a similar meaning in spite of the differing roots from which they evolved. The Latin origins of “deport” are deportare, carry off, carry away: de-away, off + portare, carry and for “expel”, we find expellere, drive out: ex-out + Pellere, to drive. Again, the Acadians were not driven, they were taken. It is not my intent here to describe the actions taken in the autumn of 1755 in detail, for it has been described, and is understood, by any reader of Acadian history. The events leading up to the Deportation, the responsibility for it, and the motivations behind the nature of it, are often not clearly understood and this is due in no small measure to an attempt on the part of certain officials of the Nova Scotia government to cloud many of the significant issues relating to it through the selective choice of archived documents in the years following the cruel act. There are four major areas of interest upon which light can be shed: When was the evil deed first suggested; what was the primary motivation; by whom was it planned and authorized and executed; and what direct bearing did the taking (or refusal to take) The Oath have to do with its implementation? What follows is a condensation of some six pages on the subject from the pages of my Devoe-deVaux Family History 1691-1991 published in 1999.

 

Was indeed the Deportation decided upon only when the British, after attempting to govern the Acadians for some 42 years, became convinced that they would always be “unsatisfactory citizens” for all time? Hardly. The English coveted all of Canada and Acadia was the key. The hideous deed that began in 1755, “…that which all good men have agreed to condemn” had its beginnings nearly one hundred years before: “It will be to Britain’s great interest to drive away all the French people from America and even from Canada, beginning now in Acadia…” in the words of then ex-governor Thomas Temple to his British monarch, 1662. And Samuel Vetch in 1710: “It would be of great advantage to the Crown if this measure were carried out with all possible speed and the deported families be replaced by good Protestant families from Great Britain…” (emphasis added, both quotes).

 

Why not done subsequent to the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 when the most significant part of Acadia became British territory? The conquerors were not prepared to re-populate the colony with their “good Protestants” as yet, and their military and civil presence there required the bounty of the land…provided by the Acadians. As evidence of this concern, while the Treaty of 1713 provided that the Acadians were free to leave with their cattle and belongings, and some did, the British actually prevented many from doing so. In the words of Samuel Vetch: “Every one is now engaged in effort to leave Acadia. If they leave, the country will be deserted. The garrison will be without provisions…exposed to Indian attacks…(and) the French will increase in strength.” It in fact took some forty years for the British to establish a major presence in what became Nova Scotia and perhaps some voices were raised as to the merit or moral of deportation over the years, but in the interim they used the Acadians to their purpose; subsistence and a further increase in cultivated lands. As for the Acadians, they in turn likely expected history to repeat itself, finding themselves again under French rule; after all, the bulk of Canada remained French and Fort Louisbourg was to the north. There was talk of “salting in” British settlers, of converting the Acadians to the Protestant faith, but such settlers were few, and the idea that they would eventually outnumber the French was as remote as was their conversion to another faith; in the end La revanche des berceaux defeated the plans of the English if indeed they ever entertained any notion of letting the French remain. The years that followed Utrecht were without doubt good and bountiful times for the Acadians.  Had wiser minds prevailed on the part of the British Crown, there might have been a noble resolution.

 

In view of what has been said thus far, and what will follow, the motivation to deport rather than simply expel suggests an explanation might be in order. As has been said, the British coveted all of Canada and Acadia was the key. To advance further west and leave at their backs a people presumed to be in sympathy with the colony they wished to take by force did not appeal to the British Crown. To drive the Acadians out of Nova Scotia and allow them to choose their destination would be to strengthen the French in North America; to deport them, to carry them to a place of British choosing, would preclude this. Thus (in the first and largest of the Deportations) they were brought to the English Colonies to the south, placing them in an environment that was hostile to both their faith and national origin…the Acadians could be destroyed as a people as well. Apparently no consideration was given to returning them to France, though later Deportations did so…only because the colonies to the south refused to accept any more deportees. Thus the primary motivation: Do not strengthen the French, whatever the cost to these “…in so many ways, altogether magnificent people.”

 

My first extensive venture into Acadian history was the reading of Edouard Richard’s Acadia written in the flowery language of the late 19th century by a man passionate about the Acadian cause. In the two volumes and some 700 pages he makes two basic charges: First, the record of events concerning the Acadians archived by the government of Nova Scotia in that century were intentionally skewed to present a less than honest presentation of the facts even to the extent of documents being destroyed, and second, that Governor Lawrence and his partner in crime, Governor Shirley of Massachusetts, were alone responsible for the Deportation. I accept the first, for he and others have provided ample evidence that such was the case, but I reject the second. This attempt to ascribe personal rather than corporate (The British Crown) blame might bring some satisfaction to those who detest Lawrence, the same who also charge he did it for personal gain, livestock, land…but this last has no basis in fact, he died in poverty. It did indeed take an evil man to do an evil deed, but it also took a government to support such a massive undertaking. The British were biding their time…and now recognized they had their man in Lawrence. Biding their time? The plan always had continuous support. In 1745 Governor Mascarene wrote London: “We humbly propose that the French settlers be removed from the Province of Nova Scotia and be replaced by good Protestant subjects.”

To Shirley of Massachusetts he wrote: “Every preparation for this eviction must be made without their knowledge and with the greatest secrecy, even at Boston.” On 14 October 1747 the King ordered a study and survey of the means to exile them and Governor Shirley that same year was advising the Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, on just how it might be done.

 

A number of factors likely played a role in the British decision to deport in 1755. They had gained strength in Nova Scotia, sufficient to believe they could survive by placing settlers of their choosing on the Acadian lands. The French had made an effort to defend the rest of Canada by the building of two forts on the isthmus that separated the territory of the two nations, Beauséjour along the Missaguash River the more impressive. Fort Louisbourg on Isle Royal (Cape Breton) posed another threat to English conquest. Something need be done. There was, however, no significant actions on the part of the Acadians in the years leading up to ’55 that would have provided their rulers with an excuse to deport; one was needed and a man was needed.  Over the years since the British conquest, the matter of the Oath of Allegiance appears to have come and gone depending to some degree on the person in charge. One of Lawrence’s first acts as Lt. Governor was to again raise the issue of The Oath. A reason was needed for what was to be done, since the conduct of the Acadians with respect to their neutrality offered none. His predecessor Hobson had not pressed the issue and was asked to resign. From Britain the message to Lawrence was clear: “Quo facis, fac citius”…(whatever you do, do it quickly).

 

On the 5th of September in that tragic year, the Acadian men and boys aged ten or more were ordered to report to the church at Grand-Pré. Colonel John Winslow was in charge and after reading a proclamation in the name of the King of Great Britain, announced they were all prisoners and that all of their possessions were confiscated except their money and some effects that they would be allowed to bring with them on the ships that would take them off to unknown destinations. The ships began arriving here and at other locations two days later. With the men under guard at all these places, the women and children would surely follow. Some say there was no attempt to separate families, others suggest that “families” to the Acadians meant more than one generation and included uncles, aunts, cousins, thus families were separated. The words of Lawrence (to Monckton 11 SEP): “I would not have you wait for the Wives and Children coming in, but ship off the men without them as you mention” certainly suggests no care was taken not to separate families, and much separation did occur, whether by intent or chance. Winslow wrote in his journal: “It was determined that it would be best to divide the prisoners” and boys were lined up, some 250, the first fifty sent  to one boat, the next to another, with no regard for relationship.

At the time of the first phase of the Deportation, which lasted through December of that year, the total population of Acadia, including the Chignecto area, Isle Royal, and Isle-St-Jean has been estimated as high as 18,000 by some sources. The number deported from British Acadia (mainland Nova Scotia) to the English Colonies to the south was close to 7,500 in two dozen or so vessels. Some of the ships never reached their destination and some 360 Acadians died aboard those sent to Virginia, a fate likely shared as well by many destined for other ports. It is probable that thousands avoided this first attempt to remove the Acadians, some escaping and hiding in the woods, while others were able to remove themselves to Isle St-Jean, the eastern shore of what is now New Brunswick, and to Isle Royal. With the exception of those sent to English-Catholic Maryland the deportees were not well received. A few became slaves, many became indentured servants, families were separated.

 

The means to do it were somehow “made available”…Lawrence and Shirley need not build shipyards in Halifax and Boston to provide the tonnage. The archival materials preserved are strangely silent on the subject of authorization from the Crown for the assembling of the vessels and other related matters; perhaps something was inadvertently “lost” in the collection process. What was not lost (strangely enough) is a letter from the Secretary of State purported to have arrived on the evening of the tragic events of the autumn of 1755 warning against the removal…too late. The letter was addressed to Lawrence…likely intended for the archives. The notion that the Deportation was done without the consent and support of the British government is entirely without merit. After accomplishing what was in fact expected, Lawrence was not reprimanded, he was in fact promoted and the Deportations continued for some time after he had met his Maker.

 

Though much has been written about The Oath…unqualified, conditional, signers, rejections, etc., it was in fact pretty much a non sequitur for in the end it became a excuse, not a reason for the Acadians’ removal, a long stated goal of the British in spite of many promises to the contrary. In 1755 Lawrence advised his subordinates: “Do not allow them under any circumstances to take the Oath of Allegiance for we would be deprived of an excuse to remove them.” With no evidence of any Acadian disloyalty Lawrence organized a sort of trial at Halifax, declaring: “I will propose to them the Oath of Allegiance…if they refuse, we will have a pretext for expulsion. If they accept I will refuse them the oath. In both cases I will deport them.” (emphasis added). The governor went so far as to have legal briefs prepared to justify the deportation; they bore little resemblance to existing British Law…the Acadians were British subjects, entitled to its protection

 

And thus the despicable wrong was done. The Acadians were carried away while back in their homeland the settlements were in ruins, many thousands of head of livestock had been confiscated, dykes destroyed, homes and churches burned. Haliburton: “For several successive evenings…the faithful dogs…howled over the scene of desolation, and mourned alike the hand that had fed and the house that had sheltered them.”

 

With the capture of all of what had been Acadia in the autumn of 1758, a repetition of the brutal events that had engulfed Nova Scotia in earlier years was repeated. The fort at  Louisbourg had capitulated in July of that year, the civilian French deported to France, the soldiers taken prisoner and transported to England. The fort was demolished in 1760. There were no French military forces on Isle St-Jean, thus the 2,500 Acadian inhabitants were merely rounded up by a British detachment and sent to France. Many of the Acadians who had taken refuge in what is presently New Brunswick (now in British hands) were  captured and removed. The deportations to France resulted in many deaths due to the sinking of a number of the ships, and of others from illness aboard due to the poor conditions on the vessels.  The latter took the lives of my ancestor Pierre DeVaux’s widow Marie Cassie, one of her daughters, and grandchildren, who had been living on Isle Royal (Cape Breton) when carried away. The hunt for, and deportation of, Acadians continued until the peace of 1763, three years after the death of Lawrence.

 

                                                                                   ‘Tis better to suffer a wrong than to do it.  THOMAS FULLER

 

Return to Salut     Table of Contents