The Reason of our Inquiring into this is that we may be able to tell itright when We come home to the tribes
Language differences certainly pose a difficulty in securing a treaty, though this demonstrates a genuine want for clear communication and understanding
We have good deeds in our hands therefor which We are ready to show you And We areinstructed to assure you, that if a Peace be concluded and a Trade agreed upon Those Houses atRichmond and St Georges, will not then be used for offence but may be used as Trading Houses forcarrying on a good and safe comerce between us and you
While not what the Penobscot asked for, by offering the fort and garrison as trading posts this is still a concession on behalf of the British
As you have read over to us several of the former Treaties with our Forefathers, We think itwould be better to come wholly upon a new Footing, for all those former
This to me suggests that the Penobscot's value the stability of a treaty and the promises to uphold it- by acknowledging that previous treaties have been broken due to hidden ill intentions this demonstrates that they .take the premise of a new treaty very seriously and do not wish for it to be an empty promise
By what has been read to you, you must be sensible That there is Care taken to secure to you yourLands, as well as the English Lands to them, and our Design therein is bothto do Justice to you and also to prevent contention for the time to come.
This to me still reinforces my interpretation (of the second treaty at least) that the genuine motive was for peace- as this speaks to a reciprocal benefit
We hope Jo: N ebons not returning, and our not being able to make particular Answer as tothe restoring the English Lad, will be no Hindrance to the Treaty. If the Lad had been with ourTribe We should have brought him with us. —
This suggests a genuine want for peace- as though there are sensitive aspects left unaccounted for the Penobscot's insist that if they could solve them themselves they would
Inds :— (Loron) I take God to Witness, I never saw any person burnt at Penobscot, and I have livedthere from little Boy (nor ever heard of any)— The Clause in the Jesuits Letter was read and interpreted to them. —Inds” We dont know of just three Vessels taken at any time, there was Seven taken at one time andtwo at another, but we know of no men that were killed after they were taken, but if there were anywounded they were always taken care of
This is an example of language/cultural challenges, as well as the issue of "he said she said" I have previously mentioned
Sachem
meaning paramount chief
first day of October Yearly, so long as they shall Continue inFriendship, Receive Presents of Blankets, Tobacco, and some Powder & Shot; and the saidIndians promise once every Year, upon the first of October to come by themselves or theirDelegates and Receive the said Presents and Renew their Friendship and Submissions.7. That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any PeopleShipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifaxwith their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.8. That all Disputes whatsoever that may happen to arise between the Indians now at Peace,and others His Majesty's Subjects in this Province shall be tryed in His Majesty's Courts of CivilJudicature, where the Indians shall have the same benefit, Advantages and Priviledges, as anyothers of His Majesty's Subjects.
This treaty seems to be equally beneficial for both sides, not only in terms of aid and provisions but in promoting general peace. It is one thing to use the allure of presents and provisions to ensure compliance, though number 7 for example actually suggests the fostering of genuine goodwill between the people
That a Quantity of Bread, Flour, & such other Provisions as can be procured, necessary for theFamilys, and proportionable to the number of the said Indians, shall be given them half yearlyfor the time to come; and the same regard shall be had to the other Tribes that shall hereafteragree to Renew and Ratify the Peace upon the Terms and Conditions now Stipulated.
A promise of provisions is certainly an enticement to signing and agreeing to these terms
and on the other hand if any of the Indians refusing to ratify this Peace, shall make Warupon the Tribe who have now confirmed the same; they shall upon Application have such aidand Assistance from the Government for their Defence, as the case may require.
Interesting, in this regard the previous treaty only went as far as discussion Wabanaki obligations to diplomatically enforce peace- and while this does reiterate that it showcases that that is to be expected reciprocally via Government aid and assistance
2. That all Transactions during the late War shall on both sides be buried in Oblivion with theHatchet, and that the said Indians shall have all favour, Friendship & Protection shewn themfrom this His Majesty's Government.
The language of this treaty is far warmer than the previous
1. It is agreed that the Articles of Submission and Agreement, made at Boston in New Englandby the Delegates of the Penobscot Norridgwolk & St. John's Indians, in the year 1725 Ratified &Confirmed by all the Nova Scotia Tribes, at Annapolis Royal, in the month of June 1726, & latelyrenewed with Governor Cornwallis at Halifax, & Ratified at St. John's River, now read over,Explained and Interpreted, shall be and are hereby from this time forward Renewed, Reiterated,and forever Confirmed by them and their Tribe; and the said Indians for themselves and theirTribe and their Heirs aforesaid Do make & Renew the same Solemn Submissions and promissesfor the Strickt observance of all the Articles therein contained as at any time heretofore hathbeen done
The term submission suggests a surrender by the Wabanaki, however by renewing the previous treaty I agree with Thomas in his assessment of this being a compromise by the British as well, as the terms of said treaty were not fully restrictive and still prove to be of some benefit to the Wabanaki
said Penobscot tribe shall joyn their young menwith the English in reducing them to reason.
I agree with what others have said about the wording here leaning more towards diplomatic rather than militaristic. The Penobscot are not obliged to fight for/alongside the British but are agreeing to quell hostility via dialogue
That all Trade and Commerce which hereafter may be allowed betwixt the English and Indiansshall be under Management and Regulation, as the government of the Massachusetts Provinceshall direct.
Definitely restrictive language here- though upon a first glance not necessarily negative per say. There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulating trade though there can be an issue by placing it in the hands of a Government under the control of the crown.
Penobscot, Narridgewalk, St. Johns, CapeSables and other Tribes
All members of the Wabanaki Confederacy
econciliation between our savages
an assertion of the belief of catholic conversion= french subjects
Yes, I judge, it is God who has given it to me, as my country, in perpetuity.
I agree with Thomas' point, and would like to draw back to an annotation of mine in the previous document that highlights the irony- The European justification is incredibly flawed and deep seated in religion, by means of colonization and conversion European settlers have given the Mi'kmaw and other Indigenous leaders the ability to see through the farce of the occupation of their land.
My land which I received from God alone, my land of which no king nor foreign power hasbeen allowed or is allowed to dispose against my will
I find this interesting given the fact that one justification for colonialism by Europeans is God and religion, I am in another class where we read a document by John Cotton who likened expansion to God's promise to David. By introducing religion to Indigenous people the Europeans essentially gave them tools to witness the hypocrisy of the Europeans (beyond of course the obvious factors, this is just an interesting irony)
never have those of your nation had leave from us to allow you the freedom of ourcountry, as you want.
An interesting and satisfying dig by Antoine and Pierre, though incredibly true! The actions of both the English and the French (not only in the matter of the treaty of Ultrecht) show a disregard for the Indigenous people of the land who have not even given them the freedom to consciously do so
Do not believe that we do not regard you as a great man; but put us all before God: if wewanted to go to England to live there, what would we be told, if not to have us removed, andwe for the same reason we do not want the English to live in ours we hold only from God andthat we will dispute with all the men who want to live there without our consent
It is clear the Mi'kmaq are aware of the prejudice towards them by the British, and they use that to reverse the situation for perspective, it is clever, and draws on the hypocrisy considering England n(like many other European countries) have had their land encroached on in the past...
The second is for the inhabitants our brothers whom we have been told that they several wereaccused of having taken part in the capture of Aldon. We say that it is not true and that wehave nothing to do with the opinion of the French to do what we believe is necessary to bedone in his time
Interesting, unlike the Abenaki the Mi'kmaq appear to be acting independently nor do they appeal to the French for help.
What extent of my Lands has he not already seized after almost entirely destroyingme there, and now he wants to become master of what remains, where the smallnumber of us who escaped his fury have remained. According to the English, you havelet him do this
acknowledgement of the treaty that they were not present for
[For almost as long as I can remember, I have been at war with the English. Howmany times have they defeated me? Without your majesty’s help and protection, wewould have almost certainly been destroyed.
Highlights the relationship between the French and the Abenaki well, and suggests they have allied to fight the English in the past
[But this made me much better when he inspired in your majesty these sentiments ofgreat compassion for me, that he seems well disposed to facilitate the enjoyment ofthis happiness in so many ways.
Interesting choice of words here, certainly seems as though it could be an insinuation for fighting against the English with "so many ways"
[I feel incapable of saying to you a single word, as small as I am, how dare I speak tosomeone with a majesty as grand as yours.]
I have to agree with Sierra's annotation. To draw back, this could be aligned with my previous annotation, and they could truly view him as their king. However, it is likely this is an appeasement in an attempt to draw the English from their lands
My king, my Father,
We have discussed in previous weeks how a drive for religious conversion went twofold with obtaining French subjects. By referring to the King as "My king, my father" suggects that the abenaquis do see themselves as French subjects
I sent him before me, took up myBurden of Wood, & came to the Indians and told them the whole Truth; and theycommended me: And I don't remember that ever he offered me the least Abuseafterward; tho' he was big enough to have dispatched two of me. I pray GOD! I maynever be forgetful of his wonderful Goodness! and that these Instances may exciteothers in their Adversities to make their Addresses to the Almighty; and put theirConfidence in Him in the use of proper Means.
Again, John attributes his goodwill to God, though he is certainly less devout in his beliefs than Mary. John's narrative offers a glimpse into his captors way of life that Mary's lacks, though this is due to Mary's unwillingness to truly see them apart from her preconceived beliefs.
And thro' GOD's goodness,
John still attributes goodness to God, though unlike Mary he actually views it as aid from his captors rather than God alone
we
John's choice of language displays an immediate tone shift in the way Mary views her experience versus John's. I mentioned in my final annotation of Mary's captivity narrative that she displays an incredibly singular way of thinking; that she and her captors are almost different species. John, however, seems to (perhaps subconsciously) view them as one in contrast with Mary's them vs me attitude.
no Christian Soul nearme, and yet how hath Lord preserved me in Safety ? Oh the experience that I have hadof the goodness of to me and mine!
It is almost remarkable how unwilling Mary is to admit that her safety and survival has come from her captors rather than God. It certainly sheds light on the ingrained European beliefs of the Indigenous people, and Mary displays an entirely homogeneous way of thinking; I am kind because I am a Christian, so how am I being treated kindly by non-Christians? Though she does not say it explicitly it can be inferred that Mary associates civilization entirely with God.
we were not ready for so great a mercyas victory and deliverance; if we had been, God would have found out a way for theEnglish to have passed this River, as well as for the Indians with their Squaws andChildren, and all their Luggage.
It is interesting to see how many things Mary chalks up to being God's will and God's will only, though it is not surprising. I am in other courses this semester where similar themes surrounding Christianity have been discussed (within the same century of Mary's captivity as well), particularly the dependance on it.
and yet it was very hard to get down their filthytrash;
It is understandable given the circumstances and time period that Mary would favour what we now understand to be a racist ideology, though this does show that despite being a captive Mary was provided with the basic needs, in this case, food.
I was not before acquainted with such kind of doings, or dangers.When thou passest thorough the waters I will be with thee, and thorough the Rivers they shall notoverflow thee. Isai. 43. 2.
I agree with other annotations being made that this shows a glimpse into the kindness of Indigenous people, though by Mary's own mention of the "favour of God" and her quoting of the bible, it is far more apparent that Mary attributes this to God rather than it being simply the kindness of her captors.
In the circumstances in which theSauvages are, if we abandon them,they will unquestionably have the occasionto surrender to the english whoexpect that moment every day.
Suggests that as much as some view the Indigenous people as a possible force against the English they may be used by them as well
By this means we will be able toinstruct them and turn theminto Christians, this will also ensurethis part of l’acadie againstenemy attacks, as allthese sauvages could stormat the right time onthose who would dare.
A nod to both the Empirical message in the etext and to LeLoutre's words regarding the Mi'kmaq a few weeks ago, viewing them as possible fighting power against the English
As I have sought in this little formulary only the good of my Indians, and the readiestand easiest method for instructing them, I have used it always with so much the morepleasure because several persons of merit and virtue have been pleased, both orally and byletters, to exhort me to persevere. And they have even obliged me to send examples to themin France, in order to exhibit to the curious a new method of learning to read, and the wayGod makes use of the smallest things in order to manifest the glory of his holy name tothese peoples of Gaspesia.
LeClercq is another missionary in the list of readings who seems to apply more importance on actual teaching
How can we prevent such a great misfortune? We must urge again the mostChristian king, Louis XIV, to claim from Cromwell, protector of England, the three places inthe baie française which were occupied by his order in 1654. I say "again" because the RR.PP Capuchins of the Province of Paris, administrators of this mission, have alreadypresented themselves before the very Christian king, and begged him to claim the places inquestion. The claim, was made, as seen by the peace treaty...
Once again religion closely entwined with expansion
six in the extremity of illness, who nearly all died shortly afterward.
I have to wonder the intent here... and I keep thinking of Biard and his concerns, are they truly embracing Christianity or being manipulated in their most vulnerable moments?
What they do lack is the knowledge of God
Similar to Biard's issue.
Perrault's writing already is more focused on the area rather than strictly missionary-Indigenous relations and issues.
Now, encountering some of these new converts, theytried to find out the extent of their knowledge, and for all found out that they did not knoweven how to make the sign of the Cross; some did not know their Baptismal names, andwhen asked if they were Christians, they made signs to show that they had never heard theword. They did not know any prayers, nor articles of faith, and gave no evidence of anychange from the past, always retaining the same old sorceries, coming to Church moreover,only as the unbaptized, that is, occasionally, for company's sake, or through curiosity, andnot in a devotional spirit. Indeed some of our countrymen tell us, that when they were bythemselves, they insolently made sport of our ceremonies, and that really, when they werewell sounded, it was learned that they had accepted Baptism solely as a sign of friendshipwith the Normans, for thus they call us.
This definitely aligns with the lesson in the etext pertaining to the broader mission of Empirical expansion, as through baptism alone they became French subjects, definitely a deterrent to British cooperation and alliance.
They observed the appointed saints' days, but it was while carrying on theirancient sacrifices, dances, and superstitions; they went to holy Communion, if it was desired,but without knowing either the Creed or Confession, and emerging from there, they went off toget drunk and to sing to the Devil their usual sorceries.
hmmm, I do find this slightly ironic given that early Christianity had many pagan influences due to their attempt to sway pagans.
For these who weretoo soon Baptized willingly came to Church, but it was to mutter there their ancientidolatries.
I find it very interesting that Biard is concerned with the proper "Christianizing" so to speak of the Indigenous people rather than simply converting them too quickly. I have read excerpts from the Jesuit Relations before for other classes, and one excerpt specifically is sticking with me while I read Biard's concerns. I do not remember it perfectly- though one missionary wrote of his time spent in an Indigenous village during a devastating medical outbreak.. I think that it might have been tuberculosis. I remember the missionaries wishing to baptize sick children so that they may die as Christians, and I believe there was a female elder (who had been baptized previously) who had blamed the devastation on her being baptized in the first place, and that she still followed her own traditions anyways. It's interesting to see Biard's concerns after I have read them come into manifestation!
Commiffioners v/ere nominated, yet nothing deter-mined ; but it is worthy of Obfervation, that fome Time afterthe Englijh Court granted an Indemnification to the Sufferersfor the Effefts carried off by the faid Ship.
This suggests that despite the ambiguity surrounding borders the condemning of the intruders leads to the island being within French Borders.
Country oi Nova Scotia or Acadia^
It is interesting to see the word "or" used here, given that the two maps differ. The British map aligns with the assumption that Nova Scotia and Acadia refer to the same land, whereas the French map makes no mention of Nova Scotia
I shall tomorrow publish a Declaration of War against the Cape Sable and St. John'sIndians, who have join'd with the French in assaulting his Majesty's Garrison at Annapolis Royaland shall propose to the Assembly to give a Bounty of Scalp-money for every Indian of either ofthose Tribes, that shall be kill'd, which if obtained, and the Garrison should not be taken by aSea Armament from Louisbourg, seems to promise a good Effect, as there is now at Annapolisa considerable party of Indians, under the command of a very good Officer from this provincewho with such Encouragement would in all probability rid the Government of Annapolis Royalof the Cape Sable Indians at least
It is clear through Shirely's words and LeLoutre's in last week's reading that the English and French viewed the Mi'kmaq as pawns in a greater disagreement amongst themselves.