NO WAY, EH?

Although i go to T.O. whenever i can, i have scrupulously avoided Halifax all of my life.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You need to read further--your "once and for all" is chimerical. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 18, 1748, ending the War of the Austrian Succession, returned to France the fortress of Louisbourg, Isle Royale (Cape Breton Island), and Nova Scotia. The English kept Halifax and Annapolis, and there certainly was constant strife thereafter as a result.

Actually, you're the one who needs to read further, in this case. Louisbourg in Nova Scotia, not Louisbourg and Nova Scota, was returned to France in 1748 (and recaptured by the British in 1758). In fact, the islands of Ile Royale (Cape Breton) and St. Jean (now PEI) were returned. But not mainland Nova Scotia, where the Acadians in question were living. France surrendered its claim to mainland Nova Scotia (although not the aforementioned two islands) in 1713. Mainland Nova Scotia became British and remained so without interruption until at least 1867 when the province of Nova Scotia entered Confederation. From 1713, the Acadians in Annapolis were British subjects and owed allegience to the British Crown. Those who swore to maintain it, at least to the point of neutrality, remained there. Those who did not were deported. All of that stands.

And, incidentally, it would have been a little bit hard for the British to, as you tell us, keep Halifax in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, "concluded October 18, 1748", since Halifax was founded in 1749. This was to counter the influence of Louisbourg, which, as we've agreed, was in fact given back. Had the British returned mainland Nova Scotia to the French in 1748, it's highly unlikely they would have turned around and founded a fortress there the following year, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

I had simplified the narrative because the specific articles of the Treaties of Utrecht (1713) and of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) are not likely to interest anyone.

That was kind of you, but... maybe you should go into a little more detail next time... if only for your own sake. Smile

0 Replies

this post is out of order, I was triggered to post on it re the name Halifax -

hmmm, before wwwII here, and maybe even there, my dad met friend in Ottowa and Halifax, over various matters; the friend was a brit naval commander name of Farrow, whom I now know more of. (they both knew about film.) I have some artifacts from that period. All I know of it personally is I liked my mother's coat, a simple brown wool plaid with zippered lining she wore when they were in Ottowa, a few years before I was born.

0 Replies

Halifax was founded at the point at which the British had already established a military encampment. General Edward Cornwallis decided to found a settlement there in 1749 to oppose the influence of the French at Louisbourg, and the parish priests, about whom the English were paranoid. The same is true of Annapolis--there was a military encampment but no settlement. It does not seem to occur to you that the English had not yet overrun Acadie in 1713 if they were founding settlements in 1749. That is why i used the language which i originally used in the post with which you first took issue.

I wrote:

After the English overran Acadia in the French and Indian War (Seven Years War in Europe) the Acadians were shipped out, as being potential insurgents.

This is a reasonable statement on my part. As you have noted yourself, the English did not begin settlement on Nova Scotia until 1749. Note the word overran--and read Parkman's description of military operations. Given that the treaty of Utrectht leaves the francophone population in situ, and guarantees their religious rights, it is rather difficult to see why you object to the above language. It was not until the Seven Years War/French and Indian War that the English took any active steps against the resident population--burning homesteads beginning in 1755 on claims of insurgency by the owners. At that time, they began to level charges against parish priests for instigating resistance, and incarcerated, deported or declared outlaw those priests so accused. As the point was to indicate when the acadiens removed to Louisana, your discursus in pointless, because it does not contradict that portion of the statement.

Maybe you should lighten up next time people are playing around, if only for your own sake.

0 Replies

OK, now sumbody summarize what youve been arguin about. I was fishin near Gran Manaan a few hours there yesterday eh?

hAlifax has got one of the greatest harbours of refuge around. You could be outrunning some of the worst weather around and, if you get to Halifax youre safe. The areas around Sydney or Louisburg, less so.
Evereat a Cian Groppe?

0 Replies

These are the plain facts, without any dancing around.

In 1713, mainland Nova Scotia was ceded by France to Britain. At no time after that was it ever returned to France in whole or in part (in fact, British claims as to what "Acadia" was were much more substantial, matching the French definition prior to the Treaty of Utrecht). After 1713, Acadians in Nova Scotia were British subjects. Far from having to "overrun" the Acadians, the British maintained garrisons at Port Royal and Canso.

In 1745, the British captured Louisbourg. It, the rest of Cape Breton Island, and what became Prince Edward Island, were returned to France by treaty in 1748. (Louisbourg was captured again in 1758, and never returned to France thereafter.)

Halifax was founded the following year, in 1749.

In 1750, France constructed a fort at Beausejour on the north side of the Missaguash River. This was the approximate boundary between Nova Scotia and what became New Brunswick. The French in British Acadia frequently aided this fort. The British attacked it in 1755, and conquered it. Thereafter, the administration began deporting Acadians who would not renew their allegiance.

The Seven Years War began in 1756. When it ended in 1763, it did so with the assumption by the British of the entire French Empire in North America, with the exceptions of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which remain French territory to this day.

If you want to "lighten up", then feel free to impugn your own history.

0 Replies

I said that the British had overrun Acadia in the French and Indian War, not after the treaty of Utrecht--you seem to be the one doing the dancing. The point is significant because i was writing about the acadiens who left, and that occurred in the 1750's, when the British began burning homesteads and deporting the population--therefore, the term "overran" is approriate. That's a plain fact. In 1745, American colonists, acting on behalf of the British, captured Louisbourg, if you're going to insist upon the plain facts.

In 1753, Dinwiddie sent George Washington to the Ohio valley to warn off the French. In the following year, Washington lead Virginia militia to Great Meadows, with an attached company of Royal Americans, and they there built Fort Necessity. It was when Washington was lead by an Indian known as the Half King to a hidden French party in the forest that le Sieur de Joumonville was killed. After the foolish surrender of Fort Necessity, Washington signed a surrender instrument which acknowledged "l'assassinat" of Joumonville, and acknowledged his status as an ambassador--because of a bad translation in which he simply believed he was acknowledging having killed Joumonvile, rather than "murdered him," and he was unaware that he was acknowledging Joumonville to have been an ambassador. This is the start of the French and Indian War--1754, not 1756 when the Seven Years War began on the Continent. In 1755, the Brits in Acadia began burning homesteads, alledging an insurgency, and began expelling priests. In 1755, Braddock lead his doomed expedition to a debacle at Turtle Creek, the year before the Seven Years War began. Those are plain facts.

Wolfe died in the field before Québec, and Montcalm in the care of the Ursulines, in 1759. Thereafter, St. Foy attempted to retake Québec, but failed, and so, when a relief expedition reached the city in 1760, the French and Indian War was over for all practical purposes. The run of that war, 1754 to 1760, does not coincide with the run of the Seven Years War. That's a plain fact.

Why don't you lighten up by impugning your own history?

Why don't you recall what i've already told, that this thread never was about hitory. Of course, if you're just a putz, intent on proving that someone else is wrong, and you are right, i can see why you don't lighten up.