THE OHIO VALLEY-GREAT LAKES ETHNOHISTORY
ARCHIVES: THE MIAMI COLLECTION
It is noted that the following work from the Miami Archives should be read and
considered within the historical context in which it was composed and printed.
The opinions expressed and the language used do not reflect the opinions or
standards of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, but are, rather,
indicative of thought in that historical moment during which the document was
published.
Letter to Cadillac
(July 23, 1702)
Mermet, Jacques Jean in: Michigan Historical
Collections, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 126-129.
|
pp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This 14th letter is from Father Maret. It will be seen that it is in answer to one which M. de Lamothe wrote to him, dated the 2nd of May, 1702, a copy of which he is sending to the Court, which relates to the councils held at Detroit by the savages on the 30th Oct. and 4th Dec. 1701.
It is as well to know that all that this Father writes does not originate with him; that these letters are all in the style of Father de Carheil who has indeed much intellect and is also very learned; but he goes astray and it appears from all his conduct that it would be well for him if his knowledge and wit had a seasoning of good sense and of a little more judgment. It is only necessary to read the letter from M. de Lamothe of the 2nd of May 1701 as to which this Father has returned to the charge in this fourteenth [letter], in which he says that the condition is wanting, and proves nothing. It should be observed [that] M de Lamothe trusts (page 127, I) [to this] that the contents of his letter rests on an "If," whereby his judgment was conditional and is not decisive.
This Father also places himself in a difficulty in the 5th paragraph of his letter in which he says that he knows well that Quarante Sous could not have accused him, since he does not know him nor understand him; but that he knows that if he did not complain at Detroit, he complained very loudly to the Miamis.
There is a confession already. What! Quarante Sous only complained to the Miamis! Why then does this Father accuse M. de La Mothe, in the 2nd paragraph of his 11th letter, of listening to the complaints of him who complains so loudly, that is to say of the same Quarante Sous, since he admits that he knows this chief has not complained against them at Detroit.
M. de Lamothe has explained that they have confused matters, that they have taken one Quarante Sous for another man of the same name; he pointed this out to these fathers, but as they had taken the first step and claim to be infallible in all things, like the Pope in his council, they have censured this poor man in an unbridled manner, and also impute to him, without any consideration, that he had separated himself from his people in order to go and join the enemy. Where was his dwelling? They must either be asleep or dreaming, not to know that it was in the village of the Miamis; is this tribe hostile to us? He is accused of going with his story prepared, to Montreal to inveigh against all the missionaries; but M. de Calliere knows that he was very silent and did not even open his mouth against them, and he was so pleased with his conduct that he proclaimed him chief of all his tribe, which approved him as such; but the missionaries, not having found this choice to their minds, have roused the malcontents against him.
In his 6th paragraph he replies to the 1st of M. de Lamothe's letter. He does not dare to deny entirely that Detroit is a good country, because he knows that (page 128, I) Father de Carheil and Father Anjalran had good opinions of it; but he throws it on the savages. And yet it appears from the statements which all the tribes made to M. de Calliere by the mouth of Jean le Blanc, otherwise [called] Otoutagan, at the general assembly which was summoned at Montreal on the 6th of August, 1701, that they had resolved to come and settle there. Here are the very phrases of this chief in the 3rd paragraph of the replies.
"We ask you [that we may] set out tomorrow, and that we may return in good health because otherwise we should not be able to go to Detroit as you wish, and as we [also] desire" which proves that it is only the mischievous talk addressed to the savages when they arrived at Missilimakinak which made them change their intention.
This Father continues his letter by saying that M. De Lamothe dwells on the will of the king, that he says that the King wishes this settlement [formed], that he has no other am but his service. But, to these words, this arrogant and bold Father answers him like a master and treats him as an inferior. We know, says he, what the real will of the King is; that is to say, in plain French, that M. de Lamothe does not know it, nor the Governor-Genl. either who, in his instructions, ordered him to invite all the tribes to come and settle at Detroit. This is the copy: M. de Lamothe will send to give notice to all the tribes of the upper countries who are our allies, of the post we have had formed at Detroit, in order to invite them to come there for goods which they will find reasonable in price, as well as to settle there, making them understand that the object of this post is only to obtain for them their commodities, and abundance for their subsistence both by means of hunting and by the fertility of the soil there, [which is] much more fruitful than the land they occupy.
This Father goes on to say that they do not in any way oppose what the King wishes; that as long as people only serve him there will be no dispute.
This expression is insulting to their commandant, signifying that if there are disputes between them and M. de Lamothe it is because he does not serve the King. They set themselves up as judges and condemn him, while his Governor-Genl. does him the honor to approve of his proceedings in all the letters he has written him, and the consultations he has had with him.
Finally he complains that M. de Lamothe, after having dealt all the blows he could against them, makes them fine promises, especially after having sent his letter and accusers to Montreal; as if he could have helped giving the Governor-General an account of what goes on at his post, and sending him a copy of the statements of the savages. If he acted otherwise he might be reprimanded for it; but he did not treat them in an underhand manner, for he gave them notice of it in his letter of the 2nd of May. The statement that he sent accusers against them to Montreal deserves a reprimand, he [?M. de Lamothe] refers that matter to MM de Calliere, de Champigny and de Vaudreuil. Finally, he concludes this beautiful letter by saying that they have laid their resentments at the foot of the crucifix. That may be true; but as they no doubt, often go to it, they can find them there again when they want them; and it would appear that he went there, to take up the postscript of this very letter.
At Missilimakinak this 23d of July, 1702.
Fourteenth f.
Sir,
The first words of your letter inform me that you wish me to answer it point by point. I will do so, to content you.
It reduces itself to five or six points. The first concerns your pretended correspondent; the 2nd, your conditional judgment; the 3rd, the person of Quarante Solz; the 4th the place of your settlement, its cause, its object and the manner of it; the 5th the scheme of Mikinak, and, finally, the sixth of promises.
On the first point which refers to our pretended correspondent, I reply that this faithful correspondent, but ill-informed- you say- as to the memoranda of which you have written to us, is you yourself; these memoranda are the letters you have written to our Fathers with the Miamis, and the one you did me the honor to write to me. There has been no need for us to seek any other, could we be better informed of (page 127, II) your opinions than by yourself, than by your own evidence?
As to the 2nd point on which you say there is no occurrence on your part, but a conditional judgment, I answer that the condition is lacking. In regard to the 3rd- where Quarante Solz is in question, I know that he could not accuse me since he does not know me nor understand me, But I also know that if he has not been at Detroit he has complained very loudly to the Miamis against the Revd. Father de Carheil, attributing to this Father what he ought to attribute to himself,- I mean the division in the tribe. He complained loudly that Father de Carheil had prevented his people from following him. But he ought not to call them his people since he separated himself from them to go and join the enemy; and he should have come and rejoined them as they had agreed last autumn before going down to Montreal, at a council held for that purpose in the presence of M. de Courtemanche, who committed it to writing in order to report upon it to M. de Calliere. It was at this council that Quarante Solz solemnly pledged himself to return here to put an end to the question of their settlement; but his failing [to keep] his word was the reason why all his tribe did not settle at Detroit. But although he had complained very loudly to the Miamis against Father de Carheil, we were informed also that he went down [the river] with* his story prepared against this Father. Ought we not to have believed that what he told the Miamis, and what he went declaiming on the way down to Montreal, was only expressing what he had said at Detroit? As to the accusation which has been made against him, if it is false, it is not we who have accused him, it is not we who should be blamed, but the Savages who reported it to our Fathers with the Miamis. We had expressly told you that we had no knowledge of it except what had been given us from the (page 128, II) Miamis, where the Frenchmen could not help reproaching him about it in public; and it is this apparently, which caused his design to miscarry because he found he was discovered. In your 4th paragraph you say that the land of Detroit has always been regarded as a land of promise. If that is so, and the savages make false statements as to the quality of the land at Detroit, as they are not willing to go and settle there, that should show you their disinclination for that place. This false reason which they bring forward, indicates true ones which they do not say, or at least a great opposition in their will. You dwell upon the will of the King; you say that the King wills it, that you have had no aim but his service. We know what the real will of the King is, we do not oppose anything that he wishes; when people will serve him only, there will be no dispute. Also do not think that we took the useless trouble of examining into the utility or the drawbacks of your settlement. It was the savages who examined it; we did nothing more than listen to them without coming to any conclusion in a matter of which we had no knowledge except from their report.
I wish you were speaking truly in your fifth paragraph, and that Mikinak were on the watch* to become indeed my hero; he would have to become a true Christian, that is the only way in which he could be so.
Finally, after having done us all the harm you could do on this present occasion, after having dealt us all the blows you could both at Detroit and with the Miamis, and at Montreal by sending there by your letters and your accusers, you make us fine promises and tell us you will bury your just resentments. Is that burying resentments, to (page 129, II) publish them everywhere you could, and in terms as outrageous as you have done? On what do you base the justice of your resentments? Do you base it on the accusation against us by the savages? There is no just foundation; you ought to have heard the defence and convicted it of falsehood. It is indeed for us to say, with much more reason, that we bury, or to speak in a more Christian spirit, that we lay at the foot of the crucifix- as indeed we do- all our just resentments; for I can assure you that I am, with all possible sincerity and profound respect, Sir, yr. very humble and very obedt. servant
|
|
[Signed] |
|
|
|
|
J. J. Marest. |
You will be good enough to permit me to
present my compliments to Madame de Lamothe; I know that, as a Jesuit, I shall
be neither unknown, nor indifferent to her.
_________________
* Literally, "with a ball in his mouth."
* "Were on the watch to"- the word in the text is "veille," if "veuille" is intended- which seems possible from other passages in these letters- "were desirous of" or "wished to" would have to be substituted.]- G. R.
Return
to TOC, p. 6
Continue
to next part of Miami Collection
[return to Miami
Collection Menu]
[return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology List of Publications]
[return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology Home]
Last updated: 30 October 2000
URL: http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/home.html
Comments: webmaster@www.gbl.indiana.edu
Copyright 1996, Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University