Le 13 septembre 1759, la Conquête and so on

[August1991]

They say that a civilization obsessed with memorials and anniversary dates is a civilization in its final days. Maybe.

I recall walking around the Borodino Battlefield outside of Moscow. The stone markers make it plain who was where. They were installed in 1912 as part of the centenary. The Soviets later changed the plaques but it was evident that Tsar Nicholas and royalty placed the original markers.

Wilfrid Laurier made the Plains of Abraham a federal park in 1909, as part of the 150th anniversary of the battle there. The plaques still help in understanding what happened where. The reserved space turned out to be a godsend to Quebec City. It became an undergound water reservoir and then a prison. (The prison is now the Quebec National Art Gallery, thanks to Bernard Landry who decided to add the word "national" to every Quebec institution.)

In the pre-World War I world, I guess people had time to commemorate the past. Some 100 years later, people now once again have the time to do the same.

I recall a wonderful speech of Pierre Bourgault at Laval University in 1980 during the First Referendum. (I voted yes.) Bourgault described Wolfe's attack in 1759. Wolfe went up and down the river during the summer, burning what he could, unable to find a place to land near the city. Then, an informer indicated a landing spot and a way to climb up the cliffs.

Today, the spot is indicated with a plaque stating that George VI was the first reigning British monarch to put his foot on Canadian soil there in 1939. Nearby, there's a plaque layed in 1909 indicating that Wolfe's troops used this way up the cliff to arrive at the Plains.

-----

Don Macpherson has written an article or two about this. I don't disagree with his basic premise. Wolfe is overrated, except....

I lived in Quebec City for about 10 years and I still consider the city to be the true love of my life. Away from the city, I feel like a disloyal sleepmate.

The fact is that the battle (skirmish) on the plains on 13 September 1759 did not decide the fate of New France (anymore, as it turns out, the Battle of Borodino decided Russia's fate - read Tolstoy).

The French returned in the spring of 1760 and defeated the English in what is now known as the Parc des Braves. (The Official Residence of the Quebec PM, since Parizeau, is on the avenue des Braves which starts at the corner of the park with the same name, indicating according to the 1909 Commission where the Battle occurred.) I think Bourlamaque was the French general who defeated the British general Murray in 1760. (I lived on Bourlamaque and I had a friend on Murray. When I visited her apartment, I used to chide her boyfriend for such an address.)

So by 1760, Quebec (New France) was back in French hands. But then, the first ship to arrive that summer of 1760 was British. And then finally, in 1763, in the treaty of Paris ending the Seven Years War, New France (quelques arpents de neige) became a British Colony in exchange for parts of Belgium or Guadeloupe.

The 1763 Treaty of Paris was like the 1919 Treaty of Versailles - States tried to impose order. Ultimately, New France fell under British control but not because of a battle in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. Quebec became a British conquest because of a Treaty in Paris.

[Confused? I know the history of Newfoundland at this time and it suffers from similar confusion. Thankfully for Newfoundland history students, European treaties always gave eastern Newfoundland back to the British.]

Was the Conquest traumatic?

First of all, during the summer of 1759, Wolfe burned everything in sight up and down the St Lawrence River. The best evidence is that there isn't much remaining in Quebec from the French era. Wolfe destroyed most of it. So called Olde Quebec is mostly of British construction and dates from the early 19th century. The architecture of Quebec City is almost identical to Kingston Ontario.

Secondly, no French ship arrived in Quebec between 1760 and 1850. For almost 100 years, Quebec was cut off from France.

In 1763 or so, when the British obtained a new colony, there were about 60,000 French people living in New France (Quebec, Canada, whatever). About 13,000 French people had crossed the ocean, or about 7,000 men. From these 60,000 people, there are now some 7 million Quebecers. Not surprisingly, if you look through a Quebec phone book, you will find many common family names. (There were only 7000 men in 1760.)

Everyone in Quebec knows that if people speak French today, if Quebec or New France exists, it is not because of the benevolence of the British or their Queen. It is because Quebec women had children. Lots of them.

----

Last point. The revolutionary Americans invaded Quebec City on 31 December 1775. They expected New France to be the 14th colony to revolt. That story is interesting and involved Benedict Arnold. There are several plaques in Quebec City indicating this invasion. It failed.

Edited September 13, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Everyone in Quebec knows that if people speak French today, if Quebec or New France exists, it is not because of the benevolence of the British or their Queen. It is because Quebec women had children. Lots of them.

I don't think that you can say that the British had nothing to do with it...or Canada. We have the type of country that we do because of choices made in the past leading up to today. That includes choices made by the British...and their Queen...and our Queen.

[g_bambino]

Wilfrid Laurier made the Plains of Abraham a federal park in 1909

It was Governor General The Earl Grey who initiated the plans to save the battlefield from encroaching development. Laurier agreed with the idea and suggested it to the Mayor of Quebec City, who was looking for a way to celebrate the tercentenary of Quebec’s founding.

Today, the spot is indicated with a plaque stating that George VI was the first reigning British monarch to put his foot on Canadian soil there in 1939.

Either you or the plaque must be wrong, then; George VI was the first reigning Canadian monarch to put his foot on Canadian soil; Mackenzie King went to great lengths to make sure everyone knew that fact.

Everyone in Quebec knows that if people speak French today, if Quebec or New France exists, it is not because of the benevolence of the British or their Queen. It is because Quebec women had children. Lots of them.

You've made this claim before, but it's a bit too simple to overpower the other eventualities of history. The number of kids born to Quebec women would have had zero effect on the desire of the population to remain under the British Crown through the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the War of 1812, and then to join Confederation under Queen Victoria. Methinks you'd just rather commit some logistical acrobatics in order to avoid admitting to be true what you personally find distasteful.

And then finally, in 1763, in the treaty of Paris ending the Seven Years War, New France (quelques arpents de neige) became a British Colony in exchange for parts of Belgium or Guadeloupe. Ultimately, New France fell under British control but not because of a battle in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. Quebec became a British conquest because of a Treaty in Paris

This much, however, is correct. A piece in the most recent Literary Review of Canada alluded to the discrepancy between reality and fable that has emerged over the last two and a half centuries:

Inevitably, therefore, Wolfe and Montcalm were immortalized and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham passed from the realm of history into the realm of myth, both for French-speaking Canadians and (soon enough) for English-speaking Canadians, as a tangible symbol of the Conquest (seen, naturally, from opposite points of view). In Quebec the myth is alive and well; sober analysis (Sainte-Foy, naval power, Treaty of Paris, etc.) has little traction. In English-speaking Canada, as interest in Canadian history itself has declined, myth-based triumphalism has happily abated, but, as the books under review show, the battle itself has lost none of its inherent epic appeal.

A loaded anniversary

_[+]

Edited September 13, 2009 by g_bambino

[Argus]

The fact is that the battle (skirmish) on the plains on 13 September 1759 did not decide the fate of New France (anymore, as it turns out, the Battle of Borodino decided Russia's fate - read Tolstoy).

Peter Shawn Taylor has a better perspective in the Post, pointing out that the French, regardless of the battle, had no chance of winning, and no support and little interest from France anyway.

In 1755, at the opening of the Seven Years War, British colonies along the eastern coast of America were 1.5 million people strong and growing. New France, scattered along the shores of the St. Lawrence and its tributaries, had just 70,000 people, and little growth. At times, British North America boasted nearly as many men in arms as New France had men, women and children.

The French Were Never Going to Win

[August1991]

Peter Shawn Taylor has a better perspective in the Post, pointing out that the French, regardless of the battle, had no chance of winning, and no support and little interest from France anyway.

The National Post journalist plays an old and familiar card:

Britain enjoyed one enormous advantage: Parliament. Representative government under King George II required British political leadership to be practical and flexible, in sharp contrast to the autocratic court of French King Louis XV.

...

To Wolfe's campaign alone, Pitt committed one quarter of the entire Royal Navy --over 50 warships and 150 transports.

In defence Montcalm had 5,000 regular and colonial troops, 13,000 Canadian militia (although many were young boys and old men) and a handful of ships. To make matters worse, he was locked in a power struggle with the governor of New France and beset by corruption among government contractors.

Peter Shawn Taylor adds some exaggeration:

Montcalm pleaded for more troops from France and ships to defend the St. Lawrence.

WTF? Did Montcalm send an email?

The National Post calls it the Battle of Ste. Foy. Whatever. The French defeated the remnants of the British in 1760 and then a British ship first arrived in port.

As in Newfoundland at the time, a few hundred men decided what Monarch controlled what. (Moreover, most of the soldiers were mercenaries or indentured men. I suggest renting Barry Lyndon. Many on both sides spoke German.)

The Post has a point however. In 1760, France was an autocracy and Britain under George III was on the cusp of a democracy. These were revolutionary times. America and France soon became republics with many commoners turned into free citizens. The world became a better place.

----

September 1759? A treaty in 1763 decided the ultimate fate of New France. The Treaty of Paris mattered. The Treaty of Versailles didn't. Years ago, I met and spoke to Margaret McMillan. She struck me as an ambitious women intent on making a name for herself. When I saw that later she wrote about Paris 1919, I smiled wryly. The 19th century and the Treaty of Versailles decided nothing. This was all decided in 1945 - but McMillan's specialty was 19th century so to her credit she and her publisher made lemonade with the lemons they had.

OTOH, some one should write a thick giftable book with an enticing cover about the Treaty of Paris. I think the Americans call this the French and Indian Wars. In comparison to the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Paris mattered and changed history.

Last point. Rent or buy the DVD New France. It's good fun. Here's my review of the movie.

Edited September 13, 2009 by August1991

[Wilber]

The Plains of Abraham was a victory. It cemented Britain's control of the St. Laurence and sealed New France's fate. St. Foy was a tactical victory for France but a strategic failure. The British still held Quebec. They held it for the same reason the British Empire grew to the size it did. Sea power. Unlike the Continental countries with their huge armies, the British understood what they didn't seem to. Control the worlds oceans and you go where you want, when you want and no one can stop you. You can stop them however. The biggest threat to Britain's maritime ambitions actually came from the Dutch during the 17th century.

Whether Wolfe was overrated or not is immaterial. He was good enough.

[Argus]

The National Post journalist plays an old and familiar card:

Peter Shawn Taylor adds some exaggeration:WTF? Did Montcalm send an email?

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that it was not possible for New France to communicate with France in any way?

The National Post calls it the Battle of Ste. Foy. Whatever. The French defeated the remnants of the British in 1760 and then a British ship first arrived in port.

Well, defeated in the field. But the British held the walls, not being as dumb as Montcalm, who threw everything away by trying to meet the British in the field.

I think the point Taylor had which is most easily recognized was that the British had more soldiers here than the French had people. If they hadn't won in that battle, they'd have won the next few and swept the small number of French away.

[Guy M]

The Plains of Abraham was a victory. It cemented Britain's control of the St. Laurence and sealed New France's fate. St. Foy was a tactical victory for France but a strategic failure. The British still held Quebec. They held it for the same reason the British Empire grew to the size it did. Sea power. Unlike the Continental countries with their huge armies, the British understood what they didn't seem to. Control the worlds oceans and you go where you want, when you want and no one can stop you. You can stop them however. The biggest threat to Britain's maritime ambitions actually came from the Dutch during the 17th century.

Whether Wolfe was overrated or not is immaterial. He was good enough.

That's mostly true. However I think most countries in europe did understand sea power, but were also exposed to prolongued landwars with their neighbors which tied down most of their ressources. This was certainly the case during what is known in continental Europe as the War of the Austrian succession

New France was a strategic writeoff in the french war plan. Tactical victories were achieved by the french, in part because of their planned fortifications, in part because their militias and indian allies knew the terrain well and understood the climate and challenges thereof. However the difficulties of fighting such a large force (~40,000 men), the massive logistical effort required to deploy sufficient troops overseas, and the poor prospects against the Royal navy caused the french to think "euro-centrically". If sufficient progress could be made against Britains allies such as Prussia, lost colonies would be regained by treaty, as had happened in Louisbourg before.

[Radsickle]

Everyone in Quebec knows that if people speak French today, if Quebec or New France exists, it is not because of the benevolence of the British or their Queen. It is because Quebec women had children. Lots of them.

----

Well said, monsieur! Well said!

[Radsickle]

Either you or the plaque must be wrong, then; George VI was the first reigning Canadian monarch to put his foot on Canadian soil; Mackenzie King went to great lengths to make sure everyone knew that fact.

"Canadian" Monarch? My Canada doesn't have Monarchs.

Wouldn't the `monarch' be more respected if they'd had their feet on their soil before becoming the `monarch', by definition?

[g_bambino]

My Canada doesn't have Monarchs.

Who gives a shit about your Canada but you?

If you cared about the real Canada, you'd know all its sovereigns since Edward VII had their feet on "their" soil - Canadian soil, even! - before becoming monarch. Silly boy.

_[+]

Edited September 15, 2009 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

"Canadian" Monarch? My Canada doesn't have Monarchs.

Yours may not. The real one does.

[Radsickle]

Who gives a crap about your version of history except you?

[g_bambino]

The real one does.

Yes, it sure does.

[g_bambino]

Who gives a crap about your version of history except you?

Who? Well, generally people with at least half a brain in their head and a modicrum of maturity. So sorry that rules you out.

[Radsickle]

Who gives a shit about your Canada but you?

If you cared about the real Canada, you'd know all its sovereigns since Edward VII had their feet on "their" soil - Canadian soil, even! - before becoming monarch. Silly boy.

_[+]

It wasn't Canadian soil back then, it was Colonial Soil.

When will your version of our country be old enough to leave home?

[Radsickle]

Yes, it sure does.

Yes, lets post a 34 MegaByte PDF file to prove our point. That'll fix 'em!

[g_bambino]

Yes, lets post a 34 MegaByte PDF file to prove our point. That'll fix 'em!

It does have lots of pretty pictures; and you can even try reading some of the big words! Come on, give it a go: cons-ti-tution-al mon-ar-chy. There's a big boy!

[g_bambino]

When will your version of our country be old enough to leave home?

Er, the same time you're old enough to leave home?

[Radsickle]

Who? Well, generally people with at least half a brain in their head and a modicrum of maturity. So sorry that rules you out.

I sure hope you actually have an audience for your `corrections' to August 1991's version of events; that you're an expert of history and not just a troll. Right now you smell like a troll...

[g_bambino]

I sure hope you actually have an audience for your `corrections' to August 1991's version of events; that you're an expert of history and not just a troll. Right now you smell like a troll...

Sad that you think those who strive for accurate history are akin to trolls. Also sad that you're a hypocrite. Sad, but not surprising.

[August1991]

The Plains of Abraham was a victory. It cemented Britain's control of the St. Laurence and sealed New France's fate. St. Foy was a tactical victory for France but a strategic failure. The British still held Quebec. They held it for the same reason the British Empire grew to the size it did. Sea power. Unlike the Continental countries with their huge armies, the British understood what they didn't seem to. Control the worlds oceans and you go where you want, when you want and no one can stop you. You can stop them however. The biggest threat to Britain's maritime ambitions actually came from the Dutch during the 17th century.

Wilber, idon't know if I want to get into a debate about your broader point of oceans.

The battle on the Plains of Abraham was important but hardly decisive. St. John's (Nfld) fell several times to the French in almost similar manner. The battle in Spring 1760 was just as decisive, or the arbitrary fact that a British ship first arrived that summer.

In fact, the Treaty of 1763 was the decisive fact. Canada (New France, Quebec, whatever) was a colony. Wilber, do you know what a colony is?

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that it was not possible for New France to communicate with France in any way?

Argus, you claimed that Montcalm asked for more troops from the metropole. Of course such communication was possible in the mid-1750s, but it was slower than the Post Office.

Well, defeated in the field. But the British held the walls, not being as dumb as Montcalm, who threw everything away by trying to meet the British in the field.

That in fact is false. The British (the remnants of Wolfe's army) stepped out of the "walls" and were defeated at the Parc des Braves.

BTW, the remparts de Québec are entirely English. They were built roughly at the same time as the forts in Prescott and Kingston Ontario. (A wonderful and genuinely French fortress is the Fort Chambly on the Richelieu River. I amy be wrong but the British never captured it but the Americans did in 1775.)

In 1759-60, the walls of Quebec City were earthen and didn't even follow the path now marked.

It was Governor General The Earl Grey who initiated the plans to save the battlefield from encroaching development. Laurier agreed with the idea and suggested it to the Mayor of Quebec City, who was looking for a way to celebrate the tercentenary of Quebec’s founding.

Whatever you say, Bambino. Given that Laurier's riding was in Quebec City and he was PM, I think that I'll go with my version of events. Liberal PMs have a tendency to create National Parks in (or near) their ridings.

You do have a point however. Lord Dufferin, a GG, created the wonderful promenade overlooking the river and, more important for moderrn tourism, ensured that Quebec City would keep its British military walls. (At the time, the city wanted to remove the walls to allow tramways to travel on city streets. Lord Dufferin suggested that the Gates of the walls be widened to accommodate street rails. As a result, none of Quebec City's gates are original. One dates from the 1980s. But Quebec City shares with Mexico City the claim to being the only two walled cities of North America.)

Old Montreal, OTOH, lost its simpler walls in the 19th century. It still has cobble stone streets though.

And come to think of it, how much better a continent with cities without walls.

Edited September 18, 2009 by August1991

[seabee]

In 1759-60, the walls of Quebec City were earthen and didn't even follow the path now marked.

The information I have is that the designs of the stone wals of the fortification were made by Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry around 1745 and completed around 1752-5.

After 13 sept. 1759, the Brits under Townshend did not fire a single canon shot at it because a) he had too few large canons (the two brought by Wolfe were field canon, which could do, using grapeshot. do human damage, but even with full balls (6 pounders) would barely affect a fortification, and the batteries intended to receive the canons were not finished when on 17 sept. 1759, Québec"s governor De Ramezay, made a surprise offer of capitulation, which was accepted in spite that its main demands were barely acceptable by the Brits.

After tje capitulation of 1759. then the one of 1760, and the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the Brits made a few improvements and changes to the fortification, but as far as I know nothing of major importance . It would not have been worth it, considering they had no serious reason to do so and spend a lot of money that was better spent on preventing a separatist revolution in their original 13 British colonies in America, which started brewing as early as 1763. in which England conceded that the colony of Canada, now renamed province of Québec, as a catholic "papist" colony. It was made worse by the royal proclamation which, among other things, gave, as promised, the Indians the control of the Ohio and the Mississipi valleys, which was what the colonials wanted in the first place and had fought for, now all for naught. English money was more needed to reinforce its army in the 13 colonies than to make improved fortifications for Québec, the city.

As for Lord Dufferin's role, not only do I entirely agree, but just about everybody in Québec, the city and the province, is still grateful to him. He was a visionary man, who at a time when tourism was a new enterprise, a consequence of the growing train industry. he made excellent previsions of what would interest tourists at least a century later. He cannot, and is not portrayed in Québec as a "big bad english", quite the contrary.

I would appreciate any information you could give me which could update this post.

Edited September 18, 2009 by seabee

[seabee]

Sorry, but I could not find a way to delete the emoticon which has no business there or anywhere else in the rest of my posting;

[August1991]

The information I have is that the designs of the stone wals of the fortification were made by Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry around 1745 and completed around 1752-5.

I think the key word is "design". In fact, the pre-1760 French "wall", route of de Léry (I'm going from memory) varies significantly from the early 19th century British wall (which varies slightly from the modern wall).

Seabee, the current Quebec City wall is typical of British 19th century military construction, from India to Jamaica to Malta. Have you heard of Martello Towers? The British fortifications of Quebec City once had four. I think that only two remain. One is prominent on the plains. The other is on La Tourelle, in St-Jean-Baptiste. (Hence the street's name.)

Edited September 18, 2009 by August1991