Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Adam Shortt - Страница 17

Table of Contents

When Montreal capitulated the British considered themselves secure in their oversea empire. Naval victories had given them control of the ocean; France was in a bankrupt condition and could not transport an army to the St Lawrence even if she had been able to raise and equip one for the recovery of New France. From the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico the English flag flew over every important fort. In the hinterland the French flag was still flying at isolated spots, but by the terms of Vaudreuil's capitulation all the territory as far west as the Mississippi passed under British control. It was deemed necessary to send only small bodies of troops to the forts along the Great Lakes and in the Ohio valley and the Illinois country. With no civilized foe opposing, the home government and the British commander-in-chief in North America considered the Indians, who, save for a few traders and settlers, occupied this territory, as a negligible quantity. The armies which had driven the French from Canada were disbanded, only enough soldiers being retained to man in a feeble way the forts in Great Britain's new possessions.

For this over-confidence the conquerors were to pay a heavy price. Hundreds of lives were to be sacrificed, and the western trade and settlement was to be retarded for years before British rule could be firmly established in the vast hinterland of Canada. Although the French armies had been shattered and French power ended along the region drained by the St Lawrence and its tributaries, French influence was still at work in North America. Louisbourg, Quebec and Montreal had fallen, but the French officials at remote western posts could not, or would not, believe that France was hopelessly beaten, and used every means in their power to keep the Indians inimical to the British. Even when the fort commanders realized that it was vain to hope for the arrival of a French army in the St Lawrence, the traders and settlers at the western posts kept the Indians antagonistic to the invaders. At any price the hated foe must be kept out of the region around the Great Lakes and from the territory west of Pennsylvania and Virginia. Otherwise the fur trade, on which they depended, would pass into other hands. For the time being the trade of the St Lawrence was gone, but the Mississippi route was still open and the trade of the West might yet be directed that way, to their benefit and to the benefit of the French colony at New Orleans. Sir William Johnson, whose evidence is always reliable, was well informed, shortly after Pontiac's War began, that 'the Mississagas and Chippewas had been greatly encouraged by officials sent among them from the governor of New Orleans.'

It was not difficult to keep the savages hostile to the British. They looked upon the French as their brothers. They had always been treated kindly by them. Missionaries, coureurs de bois, traders and settlers had won their confidence. The traders and coureurs de bois had in many instances taken Indian wives. Again, the Indians had fought side by side with the French in notable victories against the British. Pontiac at Duquesne had led the Ottawas at the time of Braddock's defeat, had won the esteem of Montcalm and gloried in gifts received from that heroic leader. At the forts, where the Indians delighted to loiter in time of peace, they were welcome guests, never subject to insult. They had been loaded with presents, so lavishly indeed that gifts to the Indians had for years proved a heavy tax on the revenue of New France.

It was otherwise when the British took over the forts. While the French held half the continent English officials had vied with French officials in bestowing presents on the savages to win them to their cause or to keep them at least neutral; but when the French were driven out the services of the Indians were no longer required, and it was thought that they were no longer to be dreaded. The gifts ceased; at the settlements and forts the savages met with insult where they had been accustomed to kind treatment, and too often blows where they had been wont to receive a generous welcome. According to Johnson, a report went abroad that the English 'proposed their entire extirpation.' Major Gladwyn, in April 1763, writing from Detroit said: 'They say we mean to make Slaves of them by Taking so many Posts in the Country, and that they had better attempt something now to Recover their liberty than to wait until we are better established.' This was believed, and in self-defence the Indians determined to strike the first blow, and to strike hard. While Pontiac's War was to be exclusively an Indian war, behind the Indians was an insidious force rousing them to battle. Pontiac and his confederates were in a large measure tools in the hands of French officials and traders, particularly those of the Mississippi.

Sir William Johnson was thoroughly awake to the situation. In November 1763 he informed the Lords of Trade that the Indians had concluded that the British 'had designs against their liberties, which opinion had been first instilled into them by the French, and since promoted by the traders of that nation, and others who retired among them on the surrender of Canada and are still there.' The French expected through the rupture to 'draw the valuable furs down that river [the Mississippi] to the advantage of their colony and the destruction of our Trade.' A year later Johnson wrote to the Lords of Trade in the same tenor:

It now appears from the very best authorities, and can be proved by the oaths of several respectable persons, prisoners at the Illinois and amongst the Indians, as also from the accounts of the Indians themselves, that not only many French traders, but also French officers came amongst the Indians, as they said, fully authorized to assure them that the French King was determined to support them to the utmost, and not only invited them to the Illinois, where they were plentifully supplied with ammunition and other necessaries.... That in an especial manner the French promoted the interests of Pontiac.

Johnson knew, too, that with good reason the hearts of the Indians were with the French. He wrote:

The French (be their motive what it will) loaded them with favors, and continued to do so, accompanied with all the outward marks of esteem and an address peculiarly adapted to their manners, which infallibly gains upon all Indians, who judge by extremes only, and with all their acquaintance with us upon the frontiers, have never found anything like it, but, on the contrary, harsh treatment, angry words, and in short anything which can be thought of to inspire them with a dislike to our manners and a jealousy of our views.

According to Johnson, the French traders were 'men of abilities, honor and honesty'; the English 'for the most part men of no zeal or capacity; men who often sacrificed the credit of the nation to the basest purposes.' He adds: 'What then can be expected but loss of trade, robbery, murder of traders, and frequent general ruptures.'

Johnson was not the only one who deplored the English treatment of the red man. In 1786 there appeared in London a somewhat remarkable tragedy entitled Ponteach: or the Savages of America. Parkman is of the opinion that Major Robert Rogers had a hand in its composition. It is a sweeping condemnation of the attitude of the English traders towards the savages and to a large extent justifies the Indian rising of 1763. According to one of the characters (a trader) in this drama:

Our fundamental maxim then is this,

That it's no crime to cheat and gull an Indian.

Nor was it a crime to murder the savages and make off with their packs

But as they live like Beasts, like Beasts they die.

The traders from the British colonies were in many instances guilty of murder and robbery; all debauched the Indians with rum, and with few exceptions cheated and overcharged them. The loss of life and the destruction of property along the frontier during the years 1763-64 were largely in the nature of a judgment for sins committed against the destroyers.

The French desire for vengeance on the conquerors, the French traders' hope of retaining control of the fur trade, and the attitude of English officials and traders and settlers towards the savages were the true causes of Pontiac's War.