|
|
A somewhat thorough examination of the documents and histories
relating to French dominion in Canada and Louisiana fails to reveal
any settled or regularly defined policy in regard to the
extinguishment of the Indian title to land. Nevertheless, it is fair
to assume that there was some policy in their proceedings in this
respect, but it does not appear to have been set forth by legal
enactments or clearly made known by ordinances. ' It seems, in
truth, to have been a question kept in the background in their
dealings with Indians, and brought to the front only in their
contests with other powers in regard to territory. It would seem,
although riot clearly announced as a theory or policy, that it was
assumed, when a nation or tribe agreed to come under French
dominion, that this agreement carried with it the title to their
lands.
In the letters patent given by Louis XV to the "Western Company"
in August 1717, the following rights and privileges are granted:1
| SEC. V. With a view to
give the said Western Company the means of forming a
firm establishment, and enable her to execute all the
speculations she may under take, we have given, granted,
and conceded, do give, grant, and concede to her, these
present letters and forever, all the lands, coasts,.
ports, havens, and islands which compose our province of
Louisiana, in the same way and extent as we have granted
them to M. Crozat by our letters patent of 14th
September 1712, to enjoy the same in full property,
seigniory, and jurisdiction, keeping to ourselves no
other rights or duties than the fealty and liege homage
the said company shall be bound, to pay us and to the
kings our successors at every new reign, with a golden
crown of the weight of thirty marks.
SEC. VI. The said company
shall be free, in the said granted lands, to negotiate
and make alliance in our name with all the nations of
the land, except those which are dependent on the other
powers of Europe; she may agree with them on such
conditions as she may think fit, to settle among them,
and trade freely with them, and in case they insult her
she may declare war against them, attack them or defend
herself y means of arms, and negotiate with them for
peace or for a truce. |
By section 8 authority is given to .the company "to sell and give
away the lands granted to her for whatever quit or ground rent she
may think fit, and even to grant them in freehold, without
jurisdiction or seigniory."
In section 53 it is declared:
| Whereas in the
settlement of the lands granted to the said company y
these present letters we have chiefly in view the glory
of God by procuring the salvation of the Indian savage
and Negro inhabitants whom we wish to be instructed in
the true religion, the said company shall be bound to
build churches at her expense in the places of her
settlements, as likewise to maintain there as many
approved clergymen as may be necessary. |
Substantially the same privileges, powers, and requirements were
provided for in the grant made ninety years before (April, 1627),
through Cardinal Richelieu's influence, to the Company of One
Hundred Associates, while France was struggling, through the
leadership of Champlain, to obtain a permanent settlement on the St
Lawrence.2
Although these are the strongest passages having any bearing on
the point indicated which have been found in the early grants, it
must be admitted that reference to the Indian title is only to be
inferred. The policy both in Louisiana and Canada seems to have been
to take possession, at first, of those points at which they desired
to make settlements by peaceable measures if possible, though
without any pretense of purchase, thus obtaining a foothold. Either
preceding or following such settlement, a treaty was made with the
tribe, obtaining their consent to come under the dominion of the
King of France and acknowledging him as the only rightful ruler over
themselves and their territory.
As an illustration of this statement, attention is called to the
following paragraph:3
| What is more authentic
in this matter is the entry into possession of all those
Countries made y Mr. Talon, Intendant of New France, who
in 1671, sent Sieur de St. Lusson, his Subdelegate, into
the country of the Stauas, who invited the Deputies of
all the tribes within a circumference of more than a
hundred leagues to meet at St. Mary of the Sault. On the
4t5 of June, of the same year, fourteen tribes by their
ambassadors repaired thither, and in their presence and
that of a number of Frenchmen, Sieur de St. Lusson
erected there a post to which he affixed the King's
arms, and declared to all those people that he bad
convoked them in order to receive them into the King's
protection, and in his name to take possession of all
their lands, so that henceforth ours and theirs should
be but one; which all those tribes very readily
accepted. The commission of said Subdelegate contained
these very words, viz, That he was sent to take
possession of the countries lying between the East and
West, from Montreal to the South Sea, as much and as far
as was in his power. This entry into possession was made
with all those formalities, as is to be seen in the
Relation of 1671, and more expressly in the record of
the entry into possession, drawn up by the said
Subdelegate. |
Although this is used by Denonville in this place as an evidence
of the title of France as against that of England, yet it shows the
French custom of taking possession of new countries. Although not
differing materially from the method adopted in similar cases by
other governments, yet it would seem from their dealings with the
Indians that the French considered this ceremony, where the Indians
were persuaded to join in it, as absolutely passing to the Crown
their possessory right.
The commission to Marquis de Tracy (November 19, 1663), bestowing on
him the government of Canada, contains the following passage,4
which indicates reliance on the power of arms rather than in
peaceful measures:
| These and other
considerations Us moving, We have constituted, ordained
and established, and by these Presents signed by our
hands, do constitute, ordain and establish the said
Sieur de Prouville Tracy Our Lieutenant General in the
entire extent of territory under Our obedience situate
in South and North America, the continent and islands,
rivers, ports, harbors and coasts discovered and to be
discovered by Our subjects, for, and in the absence of,
said Count D'Estrades, Viceroy, to have command over all
the Governors, Lieutenant Generals by Us established, in
all the said Islands, Continent of Canada, Acadie,
Newfoundland, the, Antilles etc. likewise, over all the
Officers and Sovereign Councils established in all the
said Islands and over the French Vessels which will sail
to the said Country, whether of War to Us belonging, or
of Merchants, to tender a new oath of fidelity as well
to the Governors and Sovereign Councils as to the three
orders of the said Islands; enjoining said Governors,
Officers and Sovereign Councils and others to recognize
the said Sieur de Prouville Tray and to obey him in all
that he shall order them; to assemble the commonalty
when necessary; cause them to take up arms; to take
cognizance of, settle and arrange all differences which
have arisen or may arise in the said Country, either
between Seigniors and their Superiors, or between
private inhabitants; to besiege and capture places and
castles according to the necessity of the case; to cause
pieces of artillery to be dispatched and discharged
against them; to establish garrisons where the
importance of the place shall demand them; to conclude
peace or truces according to circumstances either with
other Nations of Europe established in said Country, or
with the barbarians; to invade either the continent or
the Islands for the purpose of seizing New Countries or
establishing New Colonies, and for this purpose to give
battle and make use of other means he shall deem proper
for such undertaking; to command the people of said
Country as well as all our other Subjects,
Ecclesiastics, Nobles, Military and others of what
condition soever there residing; to cause our boundaries
and our name to be extended as far as he can, with full
power to establish our authority there, to subdue,
subject and exact obedience from all the people of said
Countries, inviting them y all the most lenient means
possible to the knowledge of God, and the light of the
Faith and of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Religion,
and to establish its exercise to the exclusion of all
others; to defend the said Countries with all his power;
to maintain and preserve the said people in peace,
repose and tranquility, and to command both on sea and
land; to order and cause to be executed all that he, or
those he will appoint, shall judge fit and proper to be
done, to extend and preserve said places under Our
authority and obedience. |
It will be seen from this that the King's reliance in
accomplishing the end he had in view was on force rather than on
fair dealing with the natives. Nowhere in this commission or in any
of the grants is there ally direct recognition of the Indians'
possessory title, or an expressed desire that they be secured in
possession of the Iands they occupy, or that are necessary for their
use. It is well known to all who are familiar with the history of
French dominion in Louisiana and Canada, that resort was often made
to the policy of secretly fomenting quarrels between Indian tribes,
and thus, by wars between themselves, so weaken them as to render it
less difficult to bring them under control.
That no idea of purchasing or pretending to purchase the possessory
right of the natives had been entertained by the French up to 1686,
is evident from a passage in the letter of M. de Denonville to M. de
Seignelay, May 8, 1686,1 where he states: "The mode observed by the
English with the Iroquois, when desirous to form an establishment in
their neighborhood, has been, to make them presents for the purchase
of the fee and property of the land they would occupy. What I
consider most certain is, that whether we do so, or have war or
peace with them, they will not suffer, except most unwillingly, the
construction of a fort at Niagara." That the war policy was the
course adopted is a matter of history.
How, then, are we to account for the fact that the relations of the
French with the Indians under their control were, as a general rule,
more intimate and satisfactory to both parties than those of other
nations? Parkman has remarked that The power of the priest
established, that of the temporal ruler was secure. Spanish
civilization crushed the Indian; English civilization scorned. and
neglected him; French civilization embraced and cherished him."
Although this can not be accepted as strictly correct in every
respect, yet it is true that intimate, friendly relations existed
between the French and their Indian subjects, which did not exist
between the Spanish or English and the native population. However,
this can not be attributed to the legal enactments or defined policy
of the French, but rather to their practical methods.
Instead of holding the natives at arm's length and treating them
only as distinct and inferior people and quasi independent nations,
the French policy was to make them one with their own people, at
least in Canada. This is expressly declared in the following
extracts:
Colbert, writing to Talon, April 6, 1666, says:
| In order to strengthen
the Colony in the manner you propose, by bringing the
isolated settlements into parishes, it appears to me,
without waiting to depend on the new colonists who may
be sent from France, nothing would contribute more to it
than to endeavor to civilize the Algonquins, the Huron
and other Indians who have embraced Christianity, and to
induce them to come and settle in common with the
French, to live with them and raise their children
according to our manners and customs. |
In his reply, some seven months later, M. Talon informs Colbert
that he has endeavored to put his suggestions into practical
operation under police regulations.
In another letter, dated April 6, 1667, Colbert writes to Talon5
as follows:
| Recommendation to mould
the Indians, settled near us, after our manners and
language. I confess
that I agreed with you that very little regard has been
paid, up to the present time, in New France, to the
police and civilization of the Algonquins and Huron (who
were a long time ago subjected to the King's
domination,) through our neglect to detach them from
their savage customs and to oblige them to adopt ours,
especially to become acquainted with our language. On
the contrary, to carry on some traffic with them, our
French have been necessitated to attract those people,
especially such as have embraced Christianity, to the
vicinity of our settlements, if possible to mingle there
with them, in order that through course of time, having
only but one law and one master, they might like wise
constitute only one people and one race. |
That this was the policy favored by the King is expressly stated
by Du Chesneau in his letter to M. de Seignelay, November 10, 1679.
"I communicated," he says, "to the Religious communities, both male
and female, and even to private persons, the King's and your
intentions regarding the Frenchification of the Indians, They all
promised me to use their best efforts to execute them, and I hope to
let you have some news thereof next year. I shall begin by setting
the example, and will take some young Indians to have them
instructed."6
In another letter to the same person, dated November 13, 1681, he
says: "Amidst all the plans presented to me to attract the Indians
among us and to accustom them to our manners, that from which most
success may be anticipated, without fearing the inconveniences
common to all the others, is to establish Villages of those people
in our midst."7
That the same policy was in vogue as late as 1704 is shown by the
fact that at this time the Abnaki were taken under French protection
and placed, as the records say, "In the center of the colony."
1 B. F. French, Historical Collection of
Louisiana, pt. 3, 1851, pp. 50-51
2 J. G. Shea, Charlevoix's Hist. New France, vol.
II, p. 39. .
3 Denonville, Memoir on the French Limits in North
America, New York Colonial Documents, vol.
Ix, p. 383.
4 New York Colonial Documents, vol. Ix, p. 43. 3
Ibid., p.136.
5 New York Colonial Documents, vol. Ix, p. 43.
6 Ibid., p. 59. 4 Ibid., p. 150.
7 Ibid., p.136.
This site includes some historical
materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture
or language of a particular period or place. These items are
presented as part of the historical record and should not be
interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the
stereotypes implied
First annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1879-80
Indian
Land Cessions in the United States
 |
