This is Joseph Broussard (Beau Soleil) who is remembered by the Acadiens as a folk hero who had resisted the British during Father Le Loutre's War (Anglo-Mi'kmaq War).

It appears that Lieutenant-Colonel Monckton is silent as to the behaviour of Lieutenant-Colonel Winslow. This should probably be interpreted as a silent condemnation of him or otherwise a snubbing.

These comments about the New Englander contingents reinforce my earlier observation that there is a class disctinction between the settlers and the British regulars.

These sort of tensions may contribute to the conditions which trigger the American Revolution 20 years later.

This Acadien village is on the Western side of the Isthmus.

These Acadien villages appear to be situated around the Isthmus of Chignecto. Some Acadiens resist by shooting at the British soldiers.

Some Acadiens appear to resist their expulsion and escape from their imprisonment by the British. According to Lieut.-Colonel Monckton, no one collaborated with the habitants from within the British garrison but it is possible.

These Acadien villages, in contrast to those referenced earlier, are situated along the coast of the Bay of Fundy.

The day after this, August 13th, is where Lieut.-Colonel Winslow's journal ends. Everything which follows here is not referenced by his records (available in our transcript).

Louis Du Pont Duchambon de Vergor, he appears to be the commander of Fort Beauséjour during the siege given that he is responsible for the capitulation.

Fort Beauséjour was just renamed Fort Cumberland by the British. These 400 habitants are likely those which Lieut.-Colonel Monckton had just provided amnesty after their capitulation under Mr. Vergore.

I initially presumed these to be the villages near Fort Beauséjour but discovered that they were in fact scattered throughout Nova Scotia according to the two maps from Module 1.2.

Lieut.-Colonel Monckton dramatically reverses his position of granting amnesty and begins the expulsion of the Acadians the day after he receives the order from Lt-Governor Lawrence.

This is the nation whose Sachem, Sauguaaram, took a leading role in establishing peace with the New Englanders circa 1725-7. If this statement is true then the Penobscot nation may have maintained decent relations with the British settlers at the expense of the Mi'kmaq in the North-East.

Perhaps I did not misread the terms of capitulation in Lieut.-Colonel Winslow's journal. It appears that Lieut.-Colonel Monckton did in fact grant amnesty to the Acadian habitants/irregular French troops.

This is referring to the anniversary of George II's (r. 1727-1760) ascension, not the ascension of a new British King.

i.e. the Acadians who live in the nearby villages.

Father Jean-Louis Le Loutre, the Catholic Priest who joined with the Mi'kmaq resistance. He is the author numerous communiqués between the Mi'kmaq and the British.

Lieut.-Colonel Winslow documents this exchange of fire in his journal, describing it in detail. He also mentions the terms by which the French capitulated.

Lieut.-Colonel Monckton does not know the names of the men he sent off to die since he is not at the front lines. It would appear that he sends the irregular troops on the most dangerous missions (these irregulars are also most likely sourced from the colonies and not from the home nations).

It is Lieut.-Colonel Monckton who sends Lieut.-Colonel Winslow survey the Fort.

Prima Facie; Lieut.-Colonel Monckton appears to be both higher educated (by virtue of his writing) than Lieut.-Colonel Winslow and to be organising/leading the campaign rather than fighting on the frontlines as Lieut.-Colonel Winslow.

I reviewed Lieut.-Colonel Monckton's identity in our digital textbook and discovered that he is an aristocrat from Yorkshire. Given that aristocrats are typically given higher rank than commoners (of which Lieut.-Colonel Winslow is as a settler despite descending from governors) in the British army it makes sense that he would be both more educated and organising the siege.

Lieut. Colonel Winslow is first mentioned in this journal arriving June 4th. He documents this encampment in his own journal. Furthermore, it appears that Colonel Winslow leads a battalion of irregular troops (likely settlers from Massachusetts).

Lieut.-Colonel Monckton documents that Governor Lawrence (of Nova Scotia) has collaborated with Governer Shirley to gather troops for this siege from the Massachusetts Colony.

Lieutenant-Colonel Monckton's journal begins approximately one month earlier than Colonel Winslow's journal.

The British officials appear sceptical of the Acadiens and justify their collective punishment by citing examples of collaboration with the French and/or Wabanaki in Mi'kma'ki.

To pass uniform judgement on the Acadiens would be unwise given that some appear to have been willing to collaborate with the British to some degree. It appears that Acadiens, much like any ethnic group, are diverse ideologically-speaking and in their allegiances.

This paragraph reinforces the idea that the British want to renew the oath in order to obligate the Acadiens to fight on behalf of the British Crown. While the Acadiens reject this call in order to maintain their neutrality.

According to the delegates, the Acadiens reject the demand for a renewed oath to the British Crown as they already have made one in good faith. Extra-textually speaking, the previous oath made an exception for taking up arms against the French on behalf of th British. Presumably, this new oath includes this clause and the Acadiens are not willing to compromise their neutrality.

The British also detain the Acadiens in sordid conditions with very little care for ensuring the preservation of their lives during the expulsion.

The British officials enact the expulsion with the veneer of legality and with appeals to their Christian faith.

A primary motive for Lt. Governor Lawrence in expelling the Acadiens was their geopolitical value in the imperial contest for Turtle Island.

Acadien communities were a vital source of produce to sustain both Mi'kmaw and French military presence in Wabanakik/Mi'kma'ki. They also, contingent on sympathisers in these communities, were a source of intelligence for the French and Mi'kmaw working against British imperial interests.

The British essentially steal the means of economic production from the Acadiens and use them to build new colonies of Protestant settlers throughout Nova Scotia.

Lt-Governor Lawrence commands Lt Col. Monckton to obstruct the migration of Acadiens from Annapolis Royal (Port Royal) to Louisbourg and Île Saint-Jean. He orders this specifically to ensure that the Acadiens are not able to sustain the food supply of the Mi'kmaq and French living in those latter colonies.

These are the three primary Acadien settlements in British-controlled Acadie/Mi'kma'ki.

This is the letter which Lt Col. Monckton receives on the 5th of August 1755.

Further evidence that Lieut.-Colonel Monckton himself is not preparing for the expulsion of the Acadiens.

The day prior to the order for the Acadien expulsion being received by Lieut-Colonel Monckton he has issued an order for the soldiers to not approach the Acadian settlements (which are usually situated near or on marshlands). This suggests that the Lieut.-Colonel and the troops were not necessarily expecting this order (despite carrying it out without apparent resistance afterwards).

While Lieut.-Colonel Monckton dismisses this period as uneventful, Lieut.-Colonel Winslow (and presumably his irregular troops) feel like they have been wasting time. This has contributed to a division between the front line and the command camp. (the former is likely primarily composed of Settlers while the latter are likely British regulars from the home nations)

Lieut.-Colonel Winslow clarifies what Lieut.-Colonel Monckton ordered him to do and gives a more detailed description of the incident.

Lieut. Colonel Winslow is first documented in Lieut. Colonel Monckton's journal here. We can assess their differing perspectives based on their provided dates and references to each other.

EDIT: I initially misread these lines. The French garrison are proposing these terms and the British have rejected them without documented their counter-terms.

ORIGINAL:The British offer amnesty to the Acadian habitants who live around the fortress and presumably provided passive support to the French garrison.

Even though they were initially offered amnesty (?) the Acadien habitants have been charged with treason and are being detained by the British. Their property will also be seized on behalf of the Crown.

With this order on the 11th of August 1755 it becomes clear that the forced expulsion of the Acadian peoples have begun and their property will be stolen on behalf of the British Crown.

It is not clear whether the officers are ordering the abduction of Acadien men for conscription, or whether they are forcibly removing them from the settlement.

British officials begin discussing the expulsion of Acadians and the resettlement of the land by Protestant settlers from New England.

The British troops (be they British regulars or irregular troops from the colonies) appear to be illegally looting during the conflict.

Two days after the capitulation of Fort Beauséjour, the French fortress of Gaspareaux along Baie Verte.

St. John's tribe refers to the Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) who's lands are nearby along the St. John's river.

The French garrison are to be sent to Fort Louisbourg at the French colony of Ile Royale.

On June 16th the French garrison appears to have capitulated to the British besieging the fortress. After the capitulation, the British officers negotiate the terms of the French surrender.

It would appear that the British soldiers have been plundering from the Acadian villages and the naval trade routes during the siege.

This may be the Sachem who is KIA by the British during the siege of Beauséjour.

This is Lieutenant Colonel Robert Monckton who leads the siege of Fort Beauséjour the following year. He writes one of the primary documents we are annotating in Module 5.1

While the delegation could just be clarifying the position of the British, this could be evidence of a language barrier between the Wabanaki and the British.

Likely due to language barriers, the British do not seem to be fully aware of the difference between Sauguaaram's nation and that of the Seguntacook and Noridgwalk nations.

If they were aware then they likely would not have ventured so far into their territory without having negotiated peace.

This episode (and others) of a nation who resides beyond British claimed lands in those claimed by the French engaging in hostility with English settlers likely prompts the clause referencing nations living in French lands of the subsequent treaty of 1725.

The vastness of the geographic area makes it difficult to communicate and co-ordinate between nations of the Wabanaki. Just because Sauguaaram's nation establishes terms of peace one day does not mean that allied nations would be capable of learning of these terms in such short notice.

Sauguaaram's nation lays along the Androscoggin river. The lands/nations which the British are referencing are to the east of the Kenebeck river and quite outside of Sauguaaram's territory.

The British authorities seem aware of the necessity of wampum belts for ensuring the legitimacy of both the delegates and any treaties written as a consequence of these conferences.

Sauguaaram (alias Loron) of the Arresaguntacook (Androscoggin Abenaki) mentions that the Ahwenoh, Passanawack, Pamadniack, Norridgewock (Narantsouak), and Wessungawock are all in attendance alongside is own nation's delegates.

The delegates reference the fact that their nations need to prepare for the transition to the winter season (the wintering practices of the Maliseet/Wolastoqiyik were documented by John Gyles in his captivity narrative).

It appears also that the British have been rushing previous negotiations to the detriment of the Wabanaki (who also need the assistance of interpreters).

This conference appears to involve the same nations who would eventually sign the treaty of 1725. Namely; Penobscot (Penawahpskewi), Noridgwock (Nanrantsouak), St. John's (Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet), Cape Sable (Kespukwitk Mi'kmaq).

While the Wabanaki/Mi'kmaq cede sovereignty over dispute-resolution to the British courts (and by extension gain rights within British Common Law), by virtue of the wording in this sentence, they have not ceded their absolute sovereignty.

I conclude this since they continue to use a separate legal term "Indian" for the Mi'kmaq rather than describing them as "British Subjects".

This further suggests, as with the 1725 treaty, that from the British perspective the Wabanaki nations are entering into either a sub-sovereign status or a transnational status. I am hesistant to assert that the Wabanaki share this sentiment, but I am confident in asserting that the British do not consider them to be either British Subjects or a vassal nation.

Again, the British are now pledging to arm the Mi'kmaq as the French had done previously. Building upon their policy of replacing the French King in relations with Wabanaki.

Given that the Wabanaki are presumably willing to establish such a relationship would suggest a shift in their foreign policy as well.

Any nation which signs this treaty will gain the benefit of economic support from the British King. This was a role previously played by their amicable relationship with the French King, given that the missionary documents recorded such a practice.

This suggests a shift in British policy wherein they wish to become the "patron's" of the Indigenous nations while the Wabanaki appear to be more amenable to the British (whether willingly or by coercion).

Two things occur to me with this passage. Firstly, this is something the Mi'kmaq have actively asked for and the British have conceded ("It is agreed..." suggests that both parties have concluded this together to the benefit of the Mi'kmaq).

Secondly, this is a positive right for the Mi'kmaq and a restriction of British liberty. Mi'kmaw hunters and fishers are free to exercise their right to hunting and fishing throughout Mi'kma'ki and now the British are restricted from obstructing this practice. This was one of the primary disputes the Mi'kmaq had with the founding of Halifax overtop Kjipuktuk.

The language used here, as well as the implications of the clause itself, reinforces the notion that this treaty goes further than the previous.

Now these nations have the support and protection of the British King much as the British envisioned them having with the French in the past. It also suggests the foundations of a conditional alliance only possible with a firm foundation of peace and cooperation (ideally speaking of course).

The British invoke a concept from the Haudenosaunee and their Great Law of Peace. Without digressing too much, the Haudenosaunee first confederated by quite literally "burying their hatchets" and affirming a permanent state of peace between the 5 founding nations of the confederation.

I imagine the British, being traditional allies of the Haudenosaunee, are either invoking this concept or otherwise agreeing to the Wabanaki's invocation of it. This suggests something both deeper and grander than the wording used in the previous treaty of 1725.

While the overall language of this document suggests the submission of the Wabanaki, and thus suggests that they have lost the war to the British, the fact that the previous treaty is "Renewed, Reiterated, and forever Confirmed" might very well be a compromise from the British as well.

The justification for war given by the Wabanaki in July of 1721 mentions British violations of this treaty. Presuming that they either have no objections to the terms of this treaty or have otherwise amended them through the other terms of this treaty suggests to me that it is in the interests of the Wabanaki to renew this older treaty.

This phrase has appeared in both treaties. At first, I presumed this phrase to have come from either a Mi'kmaw or Wabanaki concept translated into English.

However, I reviewed the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and the Treaty of Paris (1763) to see if they used this term as well. It appears that they do so this is likely either a convention from Europe, or if it is Indigenous then this cultural exchange happened prior to these treaties.

Given how they're used in these two treaties between the British, French, and Spanish I'm led to believe that they do not imply a state of alliance but rather of peace or prolonged ceasefire.

The wording of the Mi'kmaw delegates indicates a distinction in governmet. Namely, the British delegate represents the British Monarch whose singular authority is carried through the office of the Crown.

In contrast, the Mi'kmaq are represented by Major Jean Baptiste Cope as well as other delegates who represent a more popular conception of sovereignty. It also suggests that the following in this document does not obrogate or otherwise annul their governmental system.

This suggests a state of either full or partial sovereignty maintained by the Mi'kmaq nation in the eyes of the British.

John Gyles appears again in this historical narrative. He is now an active agent of the British, after his captivity, and has used his knowledge of the Abenaki language to work as an interpretor.

Potentially to the detriment of the Wabanaki given his documented activities in the lead-up to this war (Maine Documents).

The legal mechanisms mentioned here, i.e. the chiefs, public and solemn manner, ratification and confirmation etc, suggest again that the Wabanaki nations are considered as sovereign.

However, the terms of the treaty aforementioned appear to modify this sovereignty when operating within the territories of the British colonies. I am under the impression that the British, rather than the Wabanaki themselves, view this document as establishing a sub-sovereign and/or transnational status for the Wabanaki Confederacy.

"Reducing them to reason" would suggest that the Penobscot are obligated to engage with British enemies diplomatically as opposed to militarily.

This further suggests that the Wabanaki are not forming an alliance with the British, but establishing terms of peace for either co-existence or a hybrid co-sovereign/trans-national legal status within the British Kingdom and its colonies.

The fact that Wabanaki living in the lands claimed by the French suggest that the British conceived of the nations as primarily trans-national as opposed to merely sub-sovereign.

Regarding war and peace, the terms of this treaty apply internationally. While terms regarding commerce, economic rights, and freedom of mobility are covered domestically.

This appears to be a concession from the Wabanaki. The language suggests that the nations have surrendered their sovereignty over all dispute-resolution. It is now something regulated by the courts of the colonial authority and not by the Wabanaki councils alone.

Trade and Commerce are restricted by this treaty as they are to be regulated by the government of the Massachusetts colony alone (neither British Parliament nor the Wabanaki councils).

While this might seem to be a concession from the Wabanaki, it might also be a concession from the British or otherwise a compromise.

Previously, land could theoretically be purchased from Indigenous persons via private (unregulated or documented) exchanges with settlers. This would no longer be the case under this treaty, as all exchanges of land must be regulated by the colonial authorities.

This is where things get a bit more complicated. The Wabanaki nations are not British subjects, but they are living within lands in which the British Crown is sovereign. This suggests that the Wabanaki nations are considered either sub-sovereign or trans-national under British law.

Positive language provides them the rights to fish, hunt, and fowl along all lands still legally owned by them.

This suggests that Indigenous nations (or persons?) are legally allowed to sell their land and rights but also to enforce their right to use said land and rights if they have not sold them to settlers (or British subjects).

Positive language is used here to convey that the British subjects have a right to move freely within their legally-owned lands in the colonies. Negative language is used to restrict the Wabanki's nations freedom to disturb settler activity.

The fact that a concept of legally-owned lands exists would suggest that there can be such thing as land which is illegally-occupied by settlers.

Obligating the Wabanaki nations to neither confederate nor combine with nations hostile to the British is distinct from allying with the British. I am under the impression that this treaty obligates the Wabanaki to maintain neutrality if war breaks out against the British.

The wording used in this paragraph suggests that the Wabanaki nations are still conceived of as being separate and sovereign from the British Crown.

I believe this due to the decision of the authors to distinguish between the "several tribes" and the "Subjects of the Crown" as well as the framework of "Amity and Friendship with all the English". If they were becoming British subjects then there would be no need for this wording nor for this legal distinction.

The wording of "all captives" suggests both captives of the British and of the Wabanaki. This is likely a concession to the Wabanaki Confederacy from the British as European powers would traditionally hold hostages as ensurances of peace.

One of the reasons the Wabanaki entered this war was due to a hostage not being returned after payment was duly rendered (28 July 1721). The fact that the British do not repeat this policy suggests that they have conceded to a request from the Wabanaki.

While this might be secondary to our main topic, King George I (r. 1714-1727) is the first of the Hanoverian Kings of Britain.

Given that the Hanoverians are now ruling, Britain will experience a major shift in its policies: the nation will be consistently Protestant (not the case with the Stuart dynasty), parliament will take on a more central role, and they will become far more focused on Europe than their colonies. This will have an impact on their settlers in these colonies and will inform their policies with Indigenous nations of Turtle Island.

Sauguaaram (Loron Arexus), François Xavier, and Meganumbe are the legitimate delegates of the Wabanaki Confederacy. Their aliases appear to be derived from Latin which suggests to me that their lingua franca is likely French and not English.

The British characterise the Wabanaki as being the party responsible for the war and suggest that they had previously been in the good graces of the British King.

This clause also suggests that the Wabanaki have acknowledged this responsibility and indicates that this acknowledgement is a condition of the treaty.

The British characterise previous treaties signed with the Wabanaki Confederacy to have been both agreed upon and ruptured.

At the outbreak of this war, the Wabanaki accused the British of having entered into these "treaties" through trickery and declared them all null-and-void.

The war in question is known as Dummer's War (or Father Rale's War) and was sparked by the dispute raised by the Wabanaki in their letter dated 28 July 1721 and addressed to the Governor of Boston, Samuel Shute.

These Indigenous nations all compose members of the Wabanaki Confederacy and have been mentioned in documents from our previous modules.

-Penobscot (Penawahpskewi) live along their eponymous river and their land is situated in the colony of Maine. They are the western-most of these Wabanaki nations.

-Narridgewalk (Nanrantsouak) live along the Kennebec river and are to the North-East of the Penobscot nation. Their land is also situated in the colony of Maine.

-St. John's Indigenous live along the St. John's river in the colony of New Brunswick. Their endonym is Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) and are the nation with which John Gyles lived in captivity.

-Cape Sable Indigenous reside in the Mi'kmaw region of Kespukwitk (Western Nova Scotia) and are a subgroup of the Mi'kmaq nation. They are the eastern-most of these Indigenous nations.

This could either be reference to the village Shubénacadie or the region of Mi'kma'ki from which this village is named (i.e. Sipekne'katik).

The British do not appear to have any desire to recognise the claims to either sovereignty or land by the Mi'kmaq, Wabanaki, and their allies.

Given the geographic location of Halifax (Kjipuktuk) I would assume that the British are trying to isolate the Indigenous leaders and crush their resistance rather than negotiate with them in good faith.

Mr. Le Loutre appears to be stationed at the French Fort Beausejour which is situated directly across the isthmus from Fort Lawrence (to whom he is writing).

Mr. Le Loutre, if not the French as a whole, recognises the sovereignty of the Mi'kmaq (presumably the Wabanaki Confederacy and their allies as well) and that their lands both used to cover considerably more territory and require more territory than what they are asking for.

Not only does this coalition of Indigenous nations consider themselves to be sovereign (de facto) and separate from the British and French they are actively seeking legal recognition as such by the British (de jure).

This territory which the Indigenous nations are asking for appears to again correspond to the territory claimed by the French in their map dated 1756 with the exception of the coast from Canceau to Antigonish (mostly the north-eastern quadrant of Eskikewa’kik).

This is all traditionally Mi'kma'ki lands which also happen to contain the most concentrated Acadian settlements on the mainland.

Presumably, the Indigenous nations have assembled a council without formal French presence which reinforces the notion that they consider themselves and de facto are sovereign nations.

Furthemore, the fact that the British make a distinction between French inhabitants who have sworn an oath of fealty and the Indigenous actors would suggest that the British share this position that the Indigenous nations are sovereign and separate nations from both themselves and the French Kingdom.

It appears that the British will consider any Acadians who take up arms against them as criminals (i.e. treason) rather than soldiers in an armed conflict.

The reference to an Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch suggests that the Acadians had at one point of time sworn an oath of fealty, unlike the Indigenous actors in this struggle.

Copequid (i.e. Cobequit/Cobeguit) appears to be a settlement listed both on the British and French maps and lays on the eastern coast of the Basin of Minas. It is listed as French on the French map and British on the British map.

Bay Verte is adjacent to Fort Lawrence between the mainland of Acadie/Mi'kma'ki and that of Isle Royale (Epekwitk).

This sentence seems to confirm my suspicions that it is presently controlled by the British since Mr. Hussey is described as its present commander according to Mr. Le Loutre.

I tried to find this fort on the maps in Module 1 but was unable to find it. So I googled "Fort Lawrence" and discovered that it is presently a rural community named after the fort in the isthmus between modern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (via Google Maps).

When I reviewed the maps in Module 1 using this geographic knowledge, I discovered that the British Map listed this fort as "usurped by the French" while the French Map listed them as "Forts Anglois" (English Forts).

Given that both of these maps were printed after this letter was written (1755 and 1756 respectively) I assume that the Fort is still controlled by the British.

Contrary to the assertions of the Wabanaki and Mi'kmaq in previous documents, Mr. Le Loutre is expressing the idea that the French are responsible for these Indigenous nations in the context of international law and diplomacy.

Mr. Le Loutre is here referring to British King George II (r. 1727-1760) and French King Louis XV (r. 1715-1774). Both succeeded to their respective thrones after the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and inherited the status quo (or successive contestations) of Mi'kma'ki/Acadie/Nova Scotia established by this treaty.

Despite historical friendship with the French and cultural affinities (i.e. shared Catholicism and use of French as a lingua franca) the Abenaki assert that the French King, at no point in history, has had the right to transfer land on behalf of the Abenaki.

This asserts the following notion: that the Abenaki and other Indigenous French allies are sovereign and equal nations to the French Kingdom

I was unaware until this point that this letter was originally written in French but reviewing the preface seems to confirm this fact (the document is titled "Grand Captaine des Anglois" there).

This seems to reinforce the notion that there is a greater degree of fidelity and reciprocal relationships between the French and Abenaki than between the British and Abenaki at this period of history. Even if the Abenaki do not presently swear fealty to Louis XV.

I was under the impression that the Haudenosaunee, being traditionally allies of the British, were hostile to the Wabanaki Confederacy but this seems to refute my assumption.

These nations collectively cover most East Algonquin peoples living from Lake Ontario, through to Mi'kma'ki (albeit south of the St. Lawrence River).

These nations' traditional lands appear to correspond to the French claims along the southern bank of the St. Lawrence River contiguous with their claims in Acadie/Mi'kma'ki which are depicted on Lesson 1.2's French map "Carte de Possessions Françoises et Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane" (1756).

I reviewed the maps in Lesson 1 but was unable to find any village named Menaskek within the defined territories of the Abenaki nation (i.e. between the Kenibege and Peggakki rivers).

After performing a google search with the query "Menaskek", I found a website from the Maine Historical Society which stated that this settlement lay on Arrowsic island and corresponds to the English/US settlement of Georgetown.

I reviewed the maps and discovered both Georgetown and Arrowsic island at the mouth of the Kenibege river along the Atlantic coast. However, I did not find Menaskek listed there but the English equivalents appear to be documented in the British Map (1755).

https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/2976/page/4665/display?page=2

I found a village labelled as Norridgewaok along the Kennebec/Kenibege river near Schoogun Falls which looked similar to Nanrants-ak (A map of the British and French dominions in North America; 1755).

After searching google for French version of this name (Norridgewock in the modern English) I discovered that it is "Narrantsouac" and through this I found that the modern Algonquin spelling is "Nanrantsouak".

The French spelling appears similar enough in pronunciation to how I presume Nanrants-ak is pronounced to lead me to conclude that this is likely the settlement the author is referring to. Furthermore, the modern Algonquin spelling appears almost identical to the 18th century spelling but is missing the vowel "ou".

The author identifies the boundaries of the Abenaki nation as being the Kenibege/Kennebec river (separating them from the British-allied Haudenosaunee nation) and the Peggakki/Pigwaket River as well as the estuaries and islands which spring from this river.

The Abenaki also assert their right to regulate their border by commanding no Englishman to live within a league of the Peggakki River.

The author identifies the popular sovereignty of the entire Abenaki nation and their Christian Indigenous allies (presumably Catholic) and invokes it as the authority which legitimates their legal position in this letter.

Two things spring to mind from these sentences. Firstly, that these lands had never been permanently occupied by the British and the Wabanaki use this legal concept to justify their sovereingty. (i.e. de facto control and domestic sovereignty).

Secondly, a major difference is expressed by the Wabanaki in this text. They explicity deny swearing fealty to the King of France (Louis XV) which might very well be true even if they had sworn an oath of fealty to Louis XIV prior to 1715.

From my understanding, under French monarchical law subjects required a renewal of their oath of fealty upon the succession of each monarch. The office of the monarch was not considered a legal person in the way which this office is/was considered under British law at the time. The oath was not to the office of the French monarch but the monarch themselves.

Hence, the Wabanaki argue that they are not bound to the French monarchy even if they had sworn fealty to Louis XIV in the past. So the present King cannot justify the land transfer as he is not sovereign over the Wabanaki.

It is not clear from this letter alone which fort the Wabanaki are referring to, but based on the British map from Lesson 1.2 "A map of the British and French dominions in North America" (1755) it may be Fort Brunswick which is situated south-east from the Pegepscut Falls and across the river from Topsam settlement.

I conclude this since it is the only fort documented on the British map which is situated on the bank of the Androscoggin/Anm-kangan river.

At this moment I have not been able to figure out which river the "Matsih-an-ssis" is in contemporary terms but with the assistance of a museum in New Brunswick I was able to determine that "Kenibekki" refers to the Abenaki name for the Kennebec River while "Anmirkangan" & "Anm-kangan" both refer to the Androscoggin river in the same language.

https://www1.gnb.ca/0007/Culture/Heritage/VMC/english.asp

Appealing to European legal concepts, the Wabanaki argue that the peace treaty (Treaty of Utrecht 1713) protects their lands from annexation and asserts their sovereignty as an independent nation.

As mentioned in the preface to this document, the letter is addressed to the British Governor at Boston, Samuel Shute.

While the English "I have only joy to see" suggests that the French are presently establishing forts on the Abenaki rivers, I was suspicious of this conclusion so I reviewed the archival letter.

The original French text uses the term, "Je n'aurais que...je ne mettrais guéres", whose verbs are in the conditional mood and not the indicative.

So the Abenaki are really saying that they "would have only joy" and "would hardly be concerned" if the French would only establish forts on their rivers like they had in Mi'kma'ki.

It is to be seen whether the French Crown commits to this request by the Abenaki.

The Abenaki leader appear to be genuinely Catholic and to share genuine fidelity to the French Crown. It is possible that the words are either distorted by the French transcribers, or that the speaker is appealing to the French King's religious convictions but I am of the opinion that these might be genuine sentiments.

The Abenaki here directly appeal to the French Crown for support in their struggle against the British and express their faith that the British are lying about the Treaty of Utrecht.

Not only are the Abenaki perturbed by the contested annexation of their land by the British, but also the notion that they require an oath of fealty to the George I (Protestant) rather than that already sworn to Louis XIV (Catholic) and the French Crown.

Port Royal is situated in the Mi'kmaw land of Kespukwitk and was formerly an Acadien-French settlement before being occupied and annexed by the English/British.

Given the Abenaki argument here, I would presume that their land was not occupied by the British during the War of the Spanish Succession. But it would appear that Mi'kmaq land was in fact occupied by the British during the war.

Due to prior English expansionism, the Abenaki's traditional lands had been limited to what is presumably a rump state. But even this diminished territory is at risk of annexation by the British after the Treaty of Utrecht.

The author also expresses incredulity at the fact that a treaty was signed without their knowledge or consent. Given that he states that the English informed him of this would suggest that the French did not inform the Abenaki of these diplomatic and political events.

This suggests that the Abenaki have adopted Catholicism and have an active relationship with both the French Crown and the Gallican Church (i.e. French branch of the Catholic Church).

After reviewing the archival version of the original letter it appears that it was addressed to Louis XIV although he would die in September of this year.

Judging by the language used here, the Abenaki may have sworn fealty to Louis XIV and expect the reciprocal relationship to persist even if a peace treaty was signed between the French and British.

Based on the title, it would appear that this letter is written for the purpose of gaining the support of the French King (either Louis the XIV or XV depending on the month this was written) against the English/British (led by George I) who are apparently seizing the land of the Abenaki.

This seizure is likely due to the Treaty of Utrecht signed two years earlier (1713) and given the narrative in the text it seems that they were not informed by the French of this peace treaty but by the English.

It appears as if the British had sent delegates to negotiate peace with the Mi'kmaq at Port Royal and that the nation had protected the delegates from harm.

The Mi'kmaw leaders also mention that they are characterised as if they were defying the entire world (i.e. everyone) which would suggest that the French are also expressing public dissatisfaction with the Mi'kmaq in British-controlled Mi'kma'ki.

The Mi'kmaw leaders mention that they have taken some British captive and assert that they have been taken hostage in reaction to the British claiming the island of Canceau and Aldin.

The former of which is situated between Unama'kik (Isle Royale/Cape Breton) and Eskikewa'kik (North-Eastern Nova Scotia).

Aldon has been taken by the French at an indeterminate time. These Mi'kmaw leaders make a point to both differentiate themselves from the French and to insist that neither themselves nor the French are involved in each other's decision-making or in determining each other's interests in the region.

Mines is the name by which Sipekne'katik is known by the British and French. The settlement of Mines is North-East from Halifax/Kjipuktuk on the opposite coast of Mi'kma'ki/Acadie.

Wishing for the lands to be freed from British occupation, they claim that their livelihood and ability to reside on their lands are endangered by British settlements.

As the preface indicates, they are speaking of Sipekne'katik 29 years prior to the establishment of Fort Halifax in Kjipuktuk by the British. This would suggest that displacement of Mi'kmaq by British settlement preceded the establishment of Halifax.

The Mi'kmaw leaders, Antoine and Pierre Couaret, predicate their argument similary to that of the Mi'kmaw leaders in Kjipuktuk.

Namely, the Mi'kmaq have inhabited these lands since time immemorial and that God has granted them this land.

The Mi'kmaw leaders emphasise the central importance of Kjipuktuk (as discussed in our introductory video) and the fact that the British are driving their nation from all portions of Mi'kma'ki. This is used to justify Mi'kmaw resistance to both the British presence in Mi'kma'ki and to British expansion in this region.

The Mi'kmaw leaders are referring to the partition of Mi'kma'ki under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) by the British and French Crowns.

They are also asserting their opposition to this partition and the fact that the Mi'kmaq were not involved in these negotiations.

The Mi'kmaw leaders are beginning to use similar rhetoric as the Europeans in their land claims. By appealing to a God-given right, in Catholic terminology, they are actively contesting the European narrative using the coloniser's own internal logic.

This statement also appeals to a primordial event which the colonisers cannot adequately contest if they accept either providence or occassionalism as philosophical/theological concepts.

Kjipuktuk is the Mi'kmaw name for the newly christened settlement of Halifax. This British fort was established on the Mi'kmaw land known as Sɨpekne'katik.

The governor the letter is addressed to is named Edward Cornwallis (b. 1712-1776) and he held this position from 1749-1752.

Given the references to New York and Martinique in the previous documents, we may assume that Acadie serves as a nexus point between the Métropole (France) and the Periphery (Caribbean) of the French colonial/imperial system.

This is likely why Louisbourg (a major port and fort) is a primary location for engaging in the Atlantic Slave Trade as far as Acadie as a region is concerned.

Religious figures also participate directly in the Slave trade of Acadie. Which reinforces the notion that this trade is predicated on race rather than religion (given that Catholics are allowed to purchase and own enslaved people while Catholic Black and Indigenous people are also not protected by their religious affiliation from being enslaved).

Converting to Catholicism does not protect Indigenous peoples from being enslaved by the French colonisers. This would suggest that the slave trade is predicated on race rather than religion.

These sentences refute my earlier suggestion that Louisbourg is the only legal premise for engaging in slavery for French controlled colonies.

Matter of fact, the author describes Indigenous Canadians as being subject to slavery which would suggest that this a practice which the French colonisers frequently engage in.

Again, Louisbourg appears to be the central location of the slave trade in Acadie. Is it possible that this is the only settlement in French controlled territories of Turtle Island where engaging in the slave trade is legal? Martinique in the Caribbean is mentioned but to my understanding no other French settlements in the North have been mentioned.

Louise is specified as being an enslaved Indigenous person here. This corroborates my earlier thesis that the French colonisers enslave people of several different races and must specify their race in legal documents.

Given that no White persons have been recorded as enslaved in these documents would suggest to me that only certain races are legal to be enslaved by the colonists.

It is specified here that Catherine is not literate and is dictated the text (allegedly) with the consent of the men participating in the purchase of her emancipation.

Given that Jean Baptiste Cupidon is not specified as illiterate suggest that he is in fact literate and signs for himself. This is evidence that he either learned literacy after his emancipation or possibly during his former period of enslavement.

I think it is important to note that even if people are emancipated from slavery they are still at risk of becoming enslaved again. Both Cupidon and Catherine require the mortgaging of themselves as credit in order to ensure her emancipation.

As snaccarato mentions in a later annotation, despite being emancipated from enslavement it appears that this emancipation is still contingent on the will of a man.

This would suggest that there is an intersection between race, gender, and economic class within this colonial society.

Jean Baptiste Cupidon is an emancipated Black man who appears to exercise the right to participate in the slave trade. This would suggest a system of racial hierarchy wherein emancipated peoples exercise limited rights.

The fact that the auction is specified as legal would suggest that there are certain regulations put in place by the colonial authorities regarding the sale of enslaved persons.

While Sierra.nishimura rightfully points out the dehumanisation of enslaved peoples by the slave traders in the case of Tousaint here, his name and the fact that he is labelled being problematic reminds me of the similarly named Toussaint Louverture (1743-1803) who would go on to lead the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804).

Many enslaved peoples resisted the system which oppressed them and would go on to be labelled as either "troubled" or "difficult". I imagine that with the urgency that these slave traders push the sale of Tousaint would suggest that he is an example of one of the enslaved peoples who actively resisted his enslavement.

The term "Creole" can have several meanings depending on the context and time period but given the fact that Jacques is specified as being both Black and born in Martinique I would presume it means a person of either African or mixed-descent born in the Caribbean.

Jean of the previous document was born in New York, and now Jacques is born of Martinique which would suggest that the settlement of Louisbourg sources enslaved people from throughout the trade routes of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

The settlement of Louisbourg appears to be a centre of the Atlantic Slave Trade given that this is the second document situated here.

Jean does not sign the document confirming his sale as an enslaved person. This is evidence (of what should be intuitive) that chattel slavery in the colonies do not require the consent of the enslaved.

Given that Jean is specified to be a native of New York, and is in fact an enslaved person in this colony of Isle Royale, would suggest that the French colonisers possibly source enslaved peoples from the Thirteen Colonies of Britain.

The fact that the legal document needs to specify the race of the enslaved person would suggest that French colonial society enslaves several different races of people.

If only peoples of African descent can be legally enslaved, I would presume that they would not need to specify the race of the person being sold in a legal document.

It is also possible, that enslaving people of a certain race, or races, is illegal in French colonial society thus justifying the specification of race in a legal document regarding the sale of an enslaved person.

John concludes this excerpt by invoking God again and expresses the theological idea of occasionalism again.

I think it is important to consider the differences between John and Mary's religious practices when evaluating their perceptions of Indigenous peoples. Mary appears to be much more zealous than John in her application of faith, and with her direct references to the text, while John has a much more relaxed religiosity and invokes his personal relationship with God.

Both are Protestant in character, and are thus both distinct from the religiosity of the Catholic missionaries in the previous lesson, but even within their denomination they are distinct from one another.

I am under the impression that Mary's anti-Indigenous attitudes might be amplified by her religious zeal while John's more relaxed religiosity might give more space for his comparatively respectful interactions with his Indigenous captors.

By virtue of John's account, we can assume that this Indigenous nation does not have legal customs which evaluate guilt on racial terms. John is treated equally under the law as other members of the Indigenous community. Something, I imagine, is not the case in the English settlement which John once called home.

This episode of John's account is evidence that not all of the Indigenous peoples were willing to show mercy to their European captives. Given the words of the Indigenous man, we can assume that there has been animosity festering between the Indigenous and the English settlers for quite some time now.

This is in stark contrast to the accounts of the relations between Mi'kmaq and Acadian/French settlers from our previous sources. However, one of the missionary's had mentioned the increased animosity between the English and the Wabenaki Confederation during this period.

John's ignorance does not seem to be considered as a barrier by his Indigenous captors. They in fact are reported as more than willing to share their knowledge/training with John.

I presume they do so as a consequence of John's willingness to work alongside them and his apparent tolerance towards his captors.

Mary, on the other hand, did not appear to be willing to work alongside her captors and frequently expressed attitutdes of racial and moral supremacy in her captivity account.

John continues to provide evidence of the knowledge and technology which his Indigenous captors have. These are technologies, medicines, and knowledges which John (and presumably his settler community) appear to be ignorant of up to this point in his narration.

John parrots here an attitude which Mary also holds, although the latter applies it much more liberally than John. Namely, the good fortune that John experiences is not a result of his Indigenous captor's agency but that of an occassion of God's goodwill.

At this point I would presume that John is also closer to the Protestant end of the Anglican spectrum than that of Catholic end. Although, he is much less so than Mary. He similarly erases the agency of the Indigenous peoples in his account but to a lesser extent than that of Mary.

John provides more evidence for the technology which his Indigenous captor's nations have developed to overcome the obstacles found in their land.

Although he thanks God in the previous sentence, he appears to acknowledge the agency of his Indigenous captors to a far greater degree than our previous author, Mary. John also continues to describe a situation wherein he is treated equitably by his captors.

John reports that the Indigenous provided him with medical aide which is later confirmed by John as successfully treating his injury. This shows both knowledge of medicine in the Indigenous nation as well a social custom wherein prisoners of war receive medical aide.

This should be contrasted with later account of the experience of prisioners and/or enslaved peoples under European captivity and European social customs/knowledge.

John notes that he is referred to as a "Captive" by his Indigenous captors. Assuming they spoke in English (or that the word that they used in fact translates into "Captive") would suggest that they do not view him as a chattel slave but as a prisoner of war.

John's account would suggest that his Indigenous captors employ him similarly to their own people and he does not mention any particular hierarchy beyond noting later that his clothing is poorer than that of his Indigenous Companion.

We can presume that Indigenous societies in this region treat their Prisoners of War (and/or enslaved peoples) fairly equitably compared to enslaved peoples living under European Chattel Slavery or otherwise under colonial captivity.

Within the first sentence, if not the first four words, I noticed a tonal shift between the text of Gyles and that of Mary.

John Gyles uses the pronoun "we" to describe not only himself but his Indigenous captors. This is constrasted with Mary Rowlandson's belief that she is completely distinct, if not superior, to her Indigenous captors.

Either their Indigenous captors vary in their treatment of Prisoners of War (which I am sceptical of given that Mary herself provides accounts of their attempts to integrate her equitably into their community) or that our writers have distinct attitudes informing their perceptions of their Indigenous captors.

If we are to presume that she is not exagerrating, we can assume based on her account that the Indigenous peoples living in the forested areas of the region are much more populous than those living close to the English settlements.

Given my assumption that English colonialism was more aggressive than French colonialism (which itself is not yet substantiated) I assume that this Indigenous nation requires the resources which the forest provides in order to thrive. I also assume that the English settlements effectively clear the forest which undermines the economy of the Indigenous nations nearby.

Mary again connects her struggle to biblical characters as she compares her temptation to wish she was home (which is against God's will in this moment if we take her stance) to that of the biblical character of Lot's Wife who is punished for doing so.

At this point of reading the text, I am under the impression that it is much less about her struggle with captivity by the Indigenous nation per se but rather that of a struggle with her own faith in God.

This makes me question the accounts she provides of the Indigenous captors as she is likely highlighting their actions in the context of her own moralistic narrative.

Mary continues to rationalise her suffering as a produce of God's will. She also continues to identify her struggle with those of the Jewish nation during their biblical exile in Babylon insofar as she cites Psalm 81.

The line she cites also indicates a belief that either herself or her English compatriots are erring in following God's word or will. She does not believe that the Indigenous are in fact outmanoeuvring the English, but that they are succeeding over the English because the latter are morally corrupt/imperfect.

Again, Mary erases the agency of the Indigenous nation in rationalising their good fortune as being a product of God's will, and God's will alone (i.e. occasionalism).

She proceeds to provide an account of how they were able to traverse the river (using their knowledge, technology, and organisation) but neglects to consider this agency as the source of their success.

Based upon this reported exchange of Mary, and her use of the term "Heathen" which follows these sentences, we can assume that this Indigenous nation is neither Christian nor in the process of becoming Christian at this point.

I would read this in contrast to the Indigenous nations of Mi'kma'ki who have been actively proselytised by the Catholic settlers/colonial power. Either English/British colonialism does not prioritise the conversion of Indigenous nations to Anglicanism/Protestantism or this nation in question has been resistant to proselytisation.

Despite the fact that her captors are providing her with the same food they themselves are eating (i.e. broth from horse soup) Mary neglects to acknowledge this in favour of expressing her disdain for their food. I presume this is rooted in a belief of racial and theological supremacy on Mary's part.

On a more quotidian note, she provides evidence that this Indigenous nation eats horse and maximises the yield of meat by producing broth from it. Presumably to ensure that everyone is fed equitably including prisoners of war like Mary.

Mary attributes her good fortune to God rather than her captors. This rationalisation of her condition contributes to, or is otherwise the basis of, the erasure of positive Indigenous agency (or good will) in her text.

Mary Rowlandson has elected to cite a passage from the Book of Isaiah which itself is a reflection of struggle with the Exile of the Jewish peoples from Jerusalem in Babylon.

She uses her faith to rationalise her suffering, and in doing so attempts to connect her struggle with that of theological-biblical struggles. This should be read in contrast to the use of faith and theology by the Catholic missionaries of the previous lesson.

Her particular interpretation of Christianity and application of her faith is an example of the Protestant practice as distinct from the Catholic in the French, Acadian, and Mi'kmaq communities of the region.

LeLoutre mentions that he is planning on living in Acadie for the foreseeable future and that this land will be his Pathmos (Patmos).

I cross-referenced the original French letter but it appears to also be spelled as Pathmos there. I am under the assumption that he means "Patmos" by this phrase which would allude to the island where the author of the Biblical "Book of Revelations" received his visions informing the text.

If I am correct, and LeLoutre is alluding to Patmos and John of Patmos, then he may believe that he has been sent to Acadie by divine grace and is fulfilling his destiny by being there.

The first mention of a Celtic nation in these texts which tend to be overlooked by the application of either English or French monikors. There were Irish, Highlanders, and Welsh among the English colonists as well as Bretons among the French presumably.

Jean-Louis LeLoutre is a Breton and believes that there are similarities between the Breton language and the language of the Mi'kmaq.

The paternalism of the French missions have matured into the views expressed by Jean-Louis LeLoutre. Many of these ideas were either implicit or planted by the previous missionaries over the course of the century.

But here, LeLoutre explicitly mentions that the Mi'kmaq are viewed as children by the French. That the missionaries intend on educating the Mi'kmaq not only in Catholicism but in French customs (such as a literary culture, and agricultural production or feudalism).

Jean-Louis LeLoutre notes, implicitly, that the Mi'kmaq have never had a priest from their own nation. It appears that the priests have always come from the French nation and by appointment from the French Monarch.

Pierre Biard's idea, that the nomadic nature of the Mi'kmaq would make Catholic practice difficult, is repeated by Jean-Louis LeLoutre's in suggesting that settling them would make them more conducive to "virtue".

The principle that settled agricultural production is the most virtuous, and thus most Catholic, system to the French is that which underpins their method of colonisation and conversion of the Mi'kmaq in Mi'kma'ki/Acadie.

While still tinged with prejudice (insofar as he refers to them as lazy) Jean-Louis LeLoutre characterises the deficiencies of the Mi'kmaq as not being due to a prescribed nature (of inferiority) but due to the deficiencies in the French adminstration (which is still a paternalisation).

He notes in this passage that not only do the missionaries lack the infrastructure necessary to practice Catholicism (i.e. the physical Church and the instruments necessary to perform Sacraments) but that the settlers actively defy the law and provide the Mi'kmaq with brandy.

Jean-Louis Le Loutre explicitly mentions that he learns from Mr Maillard (Pierre) the language of the Mi'kmaq and of their customs. At this point of French colonialism, education in the Mi'kmaq language and culture appear to be the norm for the missionaries.

Though Pierre Maillard does not mention it directly by name, I believe (given the date of the letter and his references to Mr. LeLoutre) that he is referring to Mr. LeLoutre's guerrilla war against the English alongside Mi'kmaq and Acadians.

The allusions to arming the Mi'kmaq, to their benefit in resisting the English, and the faith the missionaries have in the solidarity between French and Mi'kmaq, seem to have come to fruition at this period of time.

Though Pierre Maillard does not mention it explicitly, I believe that he is referring to knowledge of the Mi'kmaq that Mr. Manach has acquired by spending time with Maillard.

The knowledge that he would've acquired from Pierre Maillard, which would make progress with the Mi'kmaq nation more efficient, would likely have been the knowledge of their language, customs, and geography.

It appears that the Mi'kmaq of Isle St. Jean, and others throughout Acadie/Mi'kma'ki, have grown more discontent than those described by the missionaries of the 17th Century.

I would imagine that this would have something to do with the competition and wars between the French and British since this letter was written in 1738 and thus after the Treaty of Utrecht (1713).

Pierre Maillard notes here that he has very little knowledge of the language of the Mi'kmaq (Mi'kmawi'simk). However, he notes that Mr. LeLoutre (who he is training to replace Mr de St. Poncy) has taken a great interest in their language and customs at the expense of the Scripture itself.

This lack of knowledge of Mi'kmawi'simk is a stark contrast to the missionaries of the 17th Century in the previous texts.

Pierre Biard's scepticism towards their conversion appears to be consigned to history here. Sieur de Thury is explicitly mentioning both the construction of a church specifically for Mi'kmaq but also a permanent Mi'kmaq settlement in Chibouctou.

There is a shift in focus from the proselytisation of the Indigenous to their benefits in competition with other European Great Powers (such as the English).

The French are no longer merely establishing their presence in Mi'kma'ki or proselytising the Mi'kmaq but actively co-ordinating with the Indigenous to entrench their position and compete with their colonial rivals.

At this stage of colonialism there appears to be a greater degree of mutual organisation between the French and their Indigenous allies given that they actually agreed to settle in Chibouctou.

Chrestien LeClercq appears to be manipulating the situation to encourage increased submission by the Gaspesians. This is in contrast to stories like those told by André Richard of Mi'kmaq who have independently had religious experiences and applied Catholic teachings.

While the examples provided by the previous authors appear to be genuine instances of cultural exchange, the acts described by Chrestien LeClercq appear to be those of cultural appropriation used to force the submission of the Gaspesians.

LeClercq exhibits knowledge of both the Gaspesiens' language and of their customs (be they syncretic Catholic or traditional).

From my perspective, ChrestienLeClercq is the first of the authors we have read to express the idea that the Indigenous are inherently inferior to the French/Catholics.

He is actively using language which suggests that the Indigenous are naturally "poor" in either spirit or intellect. The previous missionaries seemed to hold them in higher esteem and believed that any fault in them lay not in their "nature" but in the fact that they were "misguided".

While the latter is still a paternalistic attitude which enables colonialism, the former is a much more hostile colonialism which suggests that the Indigenous are inferior by "nature" and not by nurture.

Chrestien LeClercq is the first of our authors to refer to the Indigenous peoples as "Indians" rather than "Sauvages" or "Sylvestres/Habitants des Bois".

I do not have sufficient data to conclude anything by this, but it may have to do with the fact that this was written nearly 80 years after our first text and approximately 40 years after the text of Ignace de Paris.

As I mentioned earlier, the English at this time are not the moderate Anglicans of the post-Restoration but are led by Protestant extremists under Cromwell.

Ignace de Paris is genuinely afraid that the Cromwellians will severely persecute the French and Abenaki Catholics here and urges the French King (Louis XIV) to protect them.

Apart from their fears of persecution by the Cromwellian English, this expresses the French paternalistic attitude towards the Indigenous they have allied with as well as their model of settler colonialism predicated on cultural assimilation.

A significant difference in attitude between the author, Ignace de Paris, and that of Pierre Biard is expressed here.

Namely, Pierre Biard believes that the nomadic way of life of the Indigenous is a barrier to their adoption of "proper" Catholicism. Igance de Paris, on the other hand, documents that the Indigenous who, as their exonym suggests, still live "in the forest" are considered to be "true" Catholics and are received as such in heaven.

This suggests one of either two things to me: Firstly, that the attitudes of the missionaries towards the Mi'kmaq or Abenaki ways of life have shifted or, secondly, that the missionaries have decided to adopt Pierre Biard's suggestion to Catechise prior to Baptise and that the Church considers this to be a successful manoeuvre.

Igance de Paris describes two missionaries as being able to speak the Abenaki's language and in doing so are better able to convert and catechise them.

It is important to note that this is evidence that the French missionaries appear to adopt a strategy of cultural exchange in their proselytising and that this is not exclusive to the Mi'kmaq.

In the region of Mi'kma'ki/Acadie, the English in comparison to the French are documented as being much more vicious in their methods of colonialism. While this is not necessarily the intent of the author (i.e. to point out the differences between French and English colonialism) this document may be a window into both the attitudes of the peoples living in this region and the seeds for revolt which soon begin to grow under British dominion in later years.

This is the first mention of the English in any of the texts reviewed so far. I think it is important to note that England at this time had become a shortlived Republican Dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell who was also a Protestant extremist.

Massacres of Catholics by this regime antagonised relations between France and England which might have led to the determination of Catholic Mi'kmaq to resist English rule even after the Restoration and the subsequent moderation of English Anglicanism.

Again, similar to Father Perrault's text, there is an interest from the author given to a geographic and/or economic description of the area to the audience.

This might suggest a developed interest in the region for political, economic, and military purposes which might have been absent in the earliest phases of contact.

Our author ends the text with reiterating his method of proselytising (i.e. Catechising prior to Baptising), that the trade of liquor not the consumption of liquor itself is the cause of disorder among the community, and that the success of the colony appears to hinge on the assimilation of Mi'kmaq to Catholic orthodoxy.

André Richard mentions here that they have been actively translating prayers into the language of the Mi'kmaq. This decision to adopt the language of the Indigenous appears to have made proselytising easier for the missionaries and increased the openness of some Mi'kmaq to Catholicism.

Pierre Biard's suggestion to catechise prior to baptising the Mi'kmaq appears to have been adopted by the missions in Acadie/Mi'kma'ki.

Earlier in the paragraph, the author mentions that the Indigenous are still unbaptised (i.e. infidels) yet ask for the baptism of their sick and dying. This reflects two things on the part of the Mi'kmaq asking for this: Namely, that they are aware that baptism is necessary in Catholicism for entry into heaven (hence the urgency of baptising the sick) and secondly that the priests could help heal the ill through the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick which can only be performed after one has been baptised.

This suggests to me (assuming this is the reason the Mi'kmaq are asking for the baptisms for their sick rather than for themselves) that the missionaries are indeed waiting to teach the Indigenous of the Catechism prior to Baptism and that they are successfully doing so.

Again, the Mi'kmaq mention to the missionaries that the alcohol they use is provided to them by the French Habitants. There appears to be a difference in attitudes regarding alcohol between the missionaries and the settlers.

While those prejudiced against the Mi'kmaq blame them for addiction to alcohol, such as Pierre Biard, André Richard (who appears more inclined to defend the Mi'kmaq) argues that the trade of alcohol is the primary source of "sin" and disorder among the Mi'kmaq.

According to André Richard, these Mi'kmaq are increasingly adopting Catholic practices and actively seeking confirmation or guidance from the religious colonial authorities.

Father Perrault expresses the idea that his mission is divinely providential and that it is God's will that the Mi'kmaq are made so virtuous and "ready" to receive the message of the Gospels.

Herein lies a significant difference in attitude between Pierre Biard and Father Perrault. The former hyperfocuses on the vices of the Mi'kmaq and the "failures" of Jesuits in building Catholicism in Peru and Mexico.

One can say that he is very cynical of the Indigenous peoples themselves but has hope that with proper "guidance" by the Church that they could become Catholic.

Father Perrault, on the other hand, appears to approach proselytising the Mi'kmaq with an optimism informed by providential will of God. He thinks that they are well suited, naturally and by the will of God in creation, to adopt Catholicism and need only be taught its laws.

Both are focused on establishing Catholicism in Mi'kmaq communities and both have faith that this is possible. However, Pierre Biard seems to have a more negative impression of Mi'kmaq than Father Perrault does.

Again, Father Perrault expresses the idea of the "Noble Sauvage" which conceives of the Mi'kmaq as inherently virtuous but "imperfect" through their lack of knowledge of Christianity/Catholicism.

One can see the roots of many of our contemporary and historical racial stereotypes about Indigenous peoples from the records of these early encounters.