French and British in North America
RedGLBT
colonial period?
pet...@ms.com
The French were not so much concerns with
permanent settlements as with establishing
trading companies. So more trappers and
hunters (men) entered the French territories.
Forts were built but not, at first, cities,
And farming was not emphasized.
The British were more concerned with estab-
lishing permanent settlements. Men and women
entered the British areas, cities were built
which included churches, and there was an
emphasis on farming instead of trapping.
One theory explains this partly because of
the river and lake system in the (northern)
French territories (the Great Lakes and the
interconnecting rivers) which allowed for
more movement into the interior. There was
not a corresponding navicable rivier system
where the British tended to settle - in the
mid-eastern states. There, most rivers
flow north and south.
hth
Pjk
lishing permanent settlements
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
CG Luxford
On 24 Aug 1999, RedGLBT wrote:
> How did the French and British strategies differ in North America during the
> colonial period?
You might want to ask this on soc.history.early-modern.
Is it a homework question perchance?
Chris,
CG Luxford
> > How did the French and British strategies differ in North America
> during the
> > colonial period?
>
> permanent settlements as with establishing
> trading companies. So more trappers and
> hunters (men) entered the French territories.
> Forts were built but not, at first, cities,
> And farming was not emphasized.
>
> The British were more concerned with estab-
> lishing permanent settlements. Men and women
> entered the British areas, cities were built
> which included churches, and there was an
> emphasis on farming instead of trapping.
>
purposes. Virginia certainly was, and I think Newfoundland.
Different colonies were founded for different reasons. Some were founded
by religious groups who were either persecuted back home, or they
thought the regime was too liberal back home, or both.
(eg. The Puritans of Massacheussetts and the Quakers of Pennsylvania)
Georgia was founded as a penal colony.
> One theory explains this partly because of
> the river and lake system in the (northern)
> French territories (the Great Lakes and the
> interconnecting rivers) which allowed for
> more movement into the interior. There was
> not a corresponding navicable rivier system
> where the British tended to settle - in the
> mid-eastern states. There, most rivers
> flow north and south.
>
Louisiana, Missouri etc were French colonies, definitely a North South
river.
And I would have thought (just a guess mind) that the rivers of the
Estern Seaboard mostly flow Eastwards from the Appalachian Mountains
into the Atlantic.
Though I would question whether this was a deliberate policy so much as
a reaction to the circumstances in which they found themselves.
And we should also look at circumstances at home, and what drove tthe
colonial aspirations of the various countries (the Dutch had colonies in
what is now the US as well of course, as did the Spanish)
Chris,
John Wilson
CG Luxford wrote in message ...
>
> >Though some of the British colonies were founded for purely economic
>purposes. Virginia certainly was, and I think Newfoundland.
>
the British colonies, too.
Cheers
John GW
pet...@ms.com
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 pet...@ms.com wrote:
> > In article <19990824000232...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
> > red...@aol.com (RedGLBT) wrote:
> > > How did the French and British strategies differ in North America
> > during the
> > > colonial period?
> >
> > The French were not so much concerns with
> > permanent settlements as with establishing
> > trading companies. So more trappers and
> > hunters (men) entered the French territories.
> > Forts were built but not, at first, cities,
> > And farming was not emphasized.
> >
> > The British were more concerned with estab-
> > lishing permanent settlements. Men and women
> > entered the British areas, cities were built
> > which included churches, and there was an
> > emphasis on farming instead of trapping.
> >
> purposes. Virginia certainly was, and I think Newfoundland.
>
agricultural in nature - tobacco and cotton -
and required the establishment of a home and farm
or plantation.
I think the difference with the French to the
north and the Spanish to the South, was that
farms were not established to pursue economic
ends, forts were. And farms had greater potential
to become permanent, whereas forts were not.
(Certainly Fort Pitt did, but there were others
which did not)
> Different colonies were founded for diff
erent reasons. Some were
founded
> by religious groups who were either persecuted back home, or they
> thought the regime was too liberal back home, or both.
> (eg. The Puritans of Massacheussetts and the Quakers of Pennsylvania)
>
I agree again, but, to a great extent, this did
not seem to be true of the French or Spanish. IMO
in general, the non-British were pretty much
interested in "getting in, exploiting, and getting
out."
> Georgia was founded as a penal colony.
>
> > One theory explains this partly because of
> > the river and lake system in the (northern)
> > French territories (the Great Lakes and the
> > interconnecting rivers) which allowed for
> > more movement into the interior. There was
> > not a corresponding navicable rivier system
> > where the British tended to settle - in the
> > mid-eastern states. There, most rivers
> > flow north and south.
> >
> Louisiana, Missouri etc were French colonies, definitely a North South
> river.
(I can't remember this exactly and I don't have a map...)
The route was the St Lawrence to the Great Lakes,
then southward through ???? Lake Chitauqua ??? then a
slight overland section to another lake or river,
then to the Misouri and then the Mississippi (unless I
have these reversed) I'll try to find out tonight, but
basiclly, you could enter the continent at the St
Lawrence and sail to New Orleans. The Spanish had it
even easier. They simply followed the coast - from, say,
Georgia south and then west to Texas.
>
> And I would have thought (just a guess mind) that the rivers of the
> Estern Seaboard mostly flow Eastwards from the Appalachian Mountains
> into the Atlantic.
The big one is the Delaware which goes N-S, and the
Appalachans and Blue Ridge form a pretty good
barrier to overland travel.
>
> Though I would question whether this was a deliberate policy so much
as
> a reaction to the circumstances in which they found themselves.
>
To a great extent I think it was deliberate decision by
the people who were investing in the New World and the
people who were actually travelling to the New World.
> And we should also look at circumstances at home, and what drove tthe
> colonial aspirations of the various countries (the Dutch had colonies
in
> what is now the US as well of course, as did the Spanish)
>
> Chris,
>
Thanks
Pjk
Mark D. Lew
> The route was the St Lawrence to the Great Lakes,
> then southward through ???? Lake Chitauqua ??? then a
> slight overland section to another lake or river,
> then to the Misouri and then the Mississippi (unless I
> have these reversed)
That's close, but I think you meant to say "Ohio" rather than "Missouri".
There were a variety of routes connecting lakes Erie and Ontario to the
tributaries of the Ohio. One leads from Lake Erie through Lake Chautauqua
and the Allegheny River. Another leads from Lake Ontario up the Gennessee
and down the Allegheny. Others make use of various north-south rivers in
what is now the state of Ohio.
All of these routes were established by indigenous nations (ie Iroquois)
before the French arrives.
There were also a variety of routes connecting Lake Ontario to Erie (the
Niagara River obviously was not entirely navigable) and Ontario to Huron.
mdl
John Wilson
pet...@ms.com wrote in message <7q1i7m$bd8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... (snip)
>
>The route was the St Lawrence to the Great Lakes,
>then southward through ???? Lake Chitauqua ??? then a
>slight overland section to another lake or river,
>then to the Misouri and then the Mississippi (unless I
>basiclly, you could enter the continent at the St
>Lawrence and sail to New Orleans. The Spanish had it
>even easier. They simply followed the coast - from, say,
>Georgia south and then west to Texas.
>
>>
Yeah, without intending to demand you be perfect in geography , I
doubt if the French did much on the Missouri, before Canada became an
English colony. Though St. Louis was largely French at the time of the
Louisiana Purchase, and New Orleans had a considerable French population,
IIRC.
>> And I would have thought (just a guess mind) that the rivers of the
>> Estern Seaboard mostly flow Eastwards from the Appalachian Mountains
>> into the Atlantic.
>
>The big one is the Delaware which goes N-S, and the
>Appalachans and Blue Ridge form a pretty good
>barrier to overland travel.
>
>>
Also, the Potomac, which leads to the Shenadoah Valley, Chesapeake,
and the Susquehanna and the Hudson. Suppose the area covered can't really
compare with that made available by the Great Lakes system. Perhaps one
consideration was the difference in climate between Canada and the english
colonies. I know the beaver fur wasn't so good in the Southwest of the
present day USA area, except in the wintertime (off topic, of course,) so I
wonder how furs were in New England. Bradford and the Pilgrims used furs
to pay the vigorish to the loan sharks who had financed the settlement of
the Plymouth colony. However, the climate allowed them to grow their own
food to keep from going further into debt.
Cheers
John GW
Paul J Gans
The problem with regard to the British colonies spreading
westward was the mountains. While quite scenic today
and easy to drive through, they were very difficult back
then. The ranges run generally north-east to south-west
in ridge lines. Going west means finding away over
line after line.
When folks in New York penetrated into the mountains,
they found it much easier to follow the valleys south-west
than to go straight west. This resulted in the early
population of Appalachia, until lately a remnamt
population in which much old language and custom
remained.
There were two basic routes west. One was pioneered
by Daniel Boone, and it made him famous. The other
was north up the Hudson to Albany, then to go west
along the Mohawk River. One could make it to
present-day Buffalo this way without encountering
serious mountains. Buffalo is on Lake Erie, *above*
Niagra Falls. From there one can sail anywhere
along the Great Lakes.
This led, shortly after the War of Independence, to
the settling of Ohio and the opening of that part
of the west.
None of the other rivers did this. They were (and
are) mighty rivers, but eventually they rose in
the mountains -- even the Delaware that spectacularly
cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
was flowing before the mountains rose.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John Wilson
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7q277p$iov$1...@news.panix.com>...
>
>
>The problem with regard to the British colonies spreading
>westward was the mountains. While quite scenic today
>and easy to drive through, they were very difficult back
>then. The ranges run generally north-east to south-west
>in ridge lines. Going west means finding away over
>line after line.
>
Not to mention heavy undergrowth which made the Great Smokies hard
going until recently. Also, it wasn't just a question of getting there.
It was a question of being able to sell enough produce to pay for necessary
manufactured items. One way was to make whiskey from the corn, or drive
stock back across the mountains. Another was to go on down the Ohio to the
Mississippi and sell the goods in New Orleans and come back on the Natchez
Trace. (Aren't there falls at Louisville, though?) Fertile ground for
growing quarrels with the government controlling New Orleans.
Cheers
John GW
Paul J Gans
> John GW
Oh yes. And it was almost impossible to get goods from the
west back over the mountains directly to the southern
coastal cities. On the other hand the northern route
worked.
One thing this did was to lead to the heavy industrialization
of the north while the south remained largely rural. And
we all know what the result of all *that* was.
It was not until the building of the Interstate Road System
that it became (relatively) easy to move around in the
areas to the west of the old southern colonies. Even
the railroads that ran east-west avoided going over
the mountains as much as possible.
For instance, if one wanted to go from New York to
New Orleans by train, one went through Chicago or
St. Louis and *then* south.
There's a lot of history in those tracks...
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
who may be one of the last folks around to have
taken a full cross-country train trip -- Pennsylvania
Railroad to Chicago and then the Southern Pacific to
Los Angeles. It was a lot of years ago and I'll never
forget it. Over 3000 miles by rail.
Mark D. Lew
> [...] the mountains -- even the Delaware that spectacularly
> cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
> as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
> was flowing before the mountains rose.
This is headed off-topic, perhaps, but I don't see how that proves that the
river was flowing before the mountains arose. What is the logic for this?
mdl
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Also, it wasn't just a question of getting there.
> It was a question of being able to sell enough produce to pay for necessary
> manufactured items.
A second challenge was the hostile natives. Existing treaties only
provided for settlement east of the mountains, settlement west of the
mountains being discouraged or even illegal prior to American
independence, and the governments placed the protection of squatters
setting up across the mountains low on their priority list. Thus, for
example, in western PA, settlements took the form of houses and fields
all withing running distance of a common blockhouse. In cases of
attack, the farmers would run for the blockhouse, and hold out until
militia arrived from surrounding settlements, sometimes days later. It
usually resulted in few casualties, but occasionally entire settlements
were surprised and killed/kidnapped. This obviously put additional
limitations on the pattern of settlement across the mountains.
taf
John Wilson
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7q29rq$iov$2...@news.panix.com>...
>
. On the other hand the northern route
>worked.
>One thing this did was to lead to the heavy industrialization
>of the north while the south remained largely rural. And
>we all know what the result of all *that* was.
>
>It was not until the building of the Interstate Road System
>that it became (relatively) easy to move around in the
>areas to the west of the old southern colonies. Even
>the railroads that ran east-west avoided going over
>the mountains as much as possible.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>
>who may be one of the last folks around to have
>taken a full cross-country train trip -- Pennsylvania
>Railroad to Chicago and then the Southern Pacific to
>Los Angeles. It was a lot of years ago and I'll never
>forget it. Over 3000 miles by rail.
>
>
Believe a common way to go from New Orleans to NY or New England was
by ship. Thomas Bailey Aldrich speaks of this.
Off topic, but Erie Canal was possible in NY. Driving from WV to
South Carolina isn't too hard by car now, but even yet, rather slow with a
semi.
Reference to a cross-continental train trip - was tiring, wasn't it?
I made the trip from Olympia to Boston several times.
Cheers
John GW
John Wilson
Todd A. Farmerie wrote in message <37C55E...@po.cwru.edu>...
>
>A second challenge was the hostile natives. Existing treaties only
>provided for settlement east of the mountains, settlement west of the
>mountains being discouraged or even illegal prior to American
>independence, and the governments placed the protection of squatters
>setting up across the mountains low on their priority list.
That's true, and, which you didn't note, was difference between Canada
and the British colonies. Later (off topic, of course) when Americans
entered the fur trade, they did their own trapping, where the Hudson Bay
just traded with natives, and of course that was a source of friction.
Does anyone know what the policy of fur trade was around, say, 1700, in the
British colonies?
Cheers
John GW
T.J. Tallie
Drake actually claimed the California coast in the 1580s as "New
England" (Nova Albion) What if this had become the Puritan-New England
region today instead of currently? Just an off-topic musing.
T.J.
pet...@ms.com
> are) mighty rivers, but eventually they rose in
> cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
> as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
> was flowing before the mountains rose.
>
Yes, absolutely with all of the above. And I
have been walking and canoing along the
Delaware River for the past couple of summers
and it doesn't take long before you realize how
shallow and rock-strewn it is. It will get
so low sometimes that a conoe will scrape
bottom in the middle of the river, and I
doubt this has changed in the last 200 years.
So much so that a canal system was dug along
both sides, and the canal in New Jersey has
been preserved into a state park. There are
several mills and warehouses still standing
that must have been used to grind, and then
store, grain from the local farms prior to
being towed along the canals. I would guess
that any hunting that was done in this area
was for personal consuption and use of the
skins.
pet...@ms.com
mark...@earthlink.newt (Mark D. Lew) wrote:
> In article <7q1i7m$bd8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pet...@ms.com wrote:
>
> > then southward through ???? Lake Chitauqua ??? then a
> > slight overland section to another lake or river,
> > then to the Misouri and then the Mississippi (unless I
> > have these reversed)
>
"Missouri".
> There were a variety of routes connecting lakes Erie and Ontario to
the
> tributaries of the Ohio. One leads from Lake Erie through Lake
Chautauqua
> and the Allegheny River. Another leads from Lake Ontario up the
Gennessee
> and down the Allegheny. Others make use of various north-south rivers
in
> what is now the state of Ohio.
>
> All of these routes were established by indigenous nations (ie
Iroquois)
> before the French arrives.
>
> There were also a variety of routes connecting Lake Ontario to Erie
(the
> Niagara River obviously was not entirely navigable) and Ontario to
Huron.
>
> mdl
>
>
Thanks!! Allan Eckard has a good discussion of
the routes that were possible in his book
That Dark and Bloody River - a history of the
Ohio River Valley. I recall he says that
"chautaqua" is a Native American name used
to describe a sack tied around the middle with
string. The Lake had this general shape and
thus was so named.
Angela Gottfred
Later (off topic, of course) when Americans
> entered the fur trade, they did their own trapping, where the Hudson Bay
> just traded with natives, and of course that was a source of friction.
> Does anyone know what the policy of fur trade was around, say, 1700, in the
> British colonies?
The Hudson's Bay Company's policy, from 1670 until at least 1821, was
always one of trading with Natives; they didn't have enough manpower to
do their own trapping.
Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
Paul J Gans
>In article <7q277p$iov$1...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> [...] the mountains -- even the Delaware that spectacularly
>> cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
>> as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
>> was flowing before the mountains rose.
>This is headed off-topic, perhaps, but I don't see how that proves that the
>river was flowing before the mountains arose. What is the logic for this?
>mdl
What you have is a river flowing right toward a ridge line.
What one expects is that the river would turn and flow
downstream along the bottom of the ridge line.
What happens here is that the river flows right through
the ridge. These ridges do not have breaks in the middle,
they are long, continuous ridges running 40 to 50 miles or
more. There is no evidence of an earthquake splitting
the ridge. The geologists have concluded that the river
was there before the ground began to rise, and cut through
the strata as it rose.
The Delaware water gap is not unique, but such gaps are
rare.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John Wilson
Angela Gottfred wrote in message <37C6B7...@telusplanet.net>...
>John Wilson wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the policy of fur trade was around, say, 1700, in
the
>> British colonies?
>
>The Hudson's Bay Company's policy, from 1670 until at least 1821, was
>always one of trading with Natives; they didn't have enough manpower to
>do their own trapping.
Guess my question wasn't clear, at that. What was the policy in the
Atlantic colonies? Incidentally, do you mean 1760?
Cheers
John GW
Paul J Gans
>In article <7q277p$iov$1...@news.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> None of the other rivers did this. They were (and
>> are) mighty rivers, but eventually they rose in
>> cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
>> as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
>> was flowing before the mountains rose.
>>
>Yes, absolutely with all of the above. And I
>have been walking and canoing along the
>Delaware River for the past couple of summers
>and it doesn't take long before you realize how
>shallow and rock-strewn it is. It will get
>so low sometimes that a conoe will scrape
>bottom in the middle of the river, and I
>doubt this has changed in the last 200 years.
>So much so that a canal system was dug along
>both sides, and the canal in New Jersey has
>been preserved into a state park. There are
>several mills and warehouses still standing
>that must have been used to grind, and then
>store, grain from the local farms prior to
>being towed along the canals. I would guess
>that any hunting that was done in this area
>was for personal consuption and use of the
>skins.
>Thanks
>Pjk
Well, it doesn't help that New York City
sucks a fair amount of water out of the
Delaware watershed, and has for over 100
years.
Todd A. Farmerie
I don't know that they had one. I recall instances where the trading of
guns and/or liquor came to be questioned by local administration, but
regarding the trade in furs, there was no central commercial authority
that would have developed such a policy. In addition to concerns about
trading guns, the only policies I recall regarding interactions with the
natives were policies of some of the colonies (i.e. New Amsterdam,
Pennsylvania) that legal title was to be obtained for the land occupied,
even if they didn't pay fair market value.
taf
John Wilson
John Wilson wrote in message ...
>
>Angela Gottfred wrote in message <37C6B7...@telusplanet.net>...
>>John Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone know what the policy of fur trade was around, say, 1700, in
>the
>>> British colonies?
>>
>>The Hudson's Bay Company's policy, from 1670 until at least 1821, was
>>always one of trading with Natives; they didn't have enough manpower to
>>do their own trapping.
> Guess my question wasn't clear, at that. What was the policy in the
Comment on my own post - i see Angela is right about HBC existing in
the 17th century. The French had to send an expedition to eliminate the
English forts on Hudson's Bay in 1684. My source is Parkman, while I
suppose, Angela, that you have more extensive references? And likely more
up to date.
I do know the Plains Indians welcomed the Americans originally,
until it became clear that the Americans intended to do their own trapping,
rather than trading for furs.
cheers
John GW
John Wilson
Cheryl L. Perkins wrote in message <7q95gk$33v$2...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>...
>John Wilson (jgi...@gte.net) wrote:
>
>: Guess my question wasn't clear, at that. What was the policy in the
>: Atlantic colonies
>
>What do you mean by 'Atlantic Colonies'? In modern terms that includes
>Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Brunswick,
>Further west, the early French settlers in what is now Quebec are said to
>have had a profitable fur-trading business in which the Natives trapped
>the animals, and the French sold them at a profit to European businessmen.
>
Yes, but southern colonies would imply Maryland and points south.
So let me try again. Later American policy was to send out trappers,
while HBC simply traded with the Amerinds. I wondered what the policy was
in those English colonies which later became the USA. I know that the
early New England colonies did collect furs.
Actually, the real profit wan't in trapping, but in trading (Astor,
e.g.) However, perhaps a greater volume of furs could be obtained by
using European trappers at the expense of creating a good deal of native
hostility.
cheers
John GW
Angela Gottfred
> Comment on my own post - i see Angela is right about HBC existing in
> the 17th century.
In Canada, it is sometimes said that the initials HBC actually stand for
"Here Before Christ"--because they were! It took about 150 years for
missionaries to follow them.
>The French had to send an expedition to eliminate the
> English forts on Hudson's Bay in 1684. My source is Parkman, while I
> suppose, Angela, that you have more extensive references? And likely more
> up to date.
In 1686, the Chevalier de Troyes led an overland expedition from Montreal
and captured the Bayside posts of Moose Fort, Rupert House, and Albany,
as well as the Hudson Bay Company's supply ship _Craven_. For more info,
see Peter C. Newman's book _Company of Adventurers_ (Viking Press :
Markham, Ontario, 1985. ISBN 0-670-80379-0), which is the first of his
three-volume series on the history of the HBC (Hudson's Bay Company). The
French repeated their conquest almost a hundred years later, in 1782,
when Admiral La Perouse sailed a ship-of-the-line and two frigates into
Hudson's Bay and destroyed the HBC's two posts (Prince of Wales Fort and
York Factory) and captured their ship and all their employees.
> I do know the Plains Indians welcomed the Americans originally,
> until it became clear that the Americans intended to do their own trapping,
> rather than trading for furs.
Very true! In fact, when the Blackfoot attacked & killed American
trappers in the early 19th century, the furs sometimes made their way to
Canada where they were sold to fur traders who were very keen to remain
on good terms with the Natives-- even though it was pretty clear where
the furs had come from originally.
Mark D. Lew
Thanks for the explanation.
> The Delaware water gap is not unique, but such gaps are
> rare.
Is the "Iron Gate" of the Danube due to a similar phenomenon?
mdl
John Wilson
Angela Gottfred wrote in message <37C85F...@telusplanet.net>...
For more info,
>see Peter C. Newman's book _Company of Adventurers_ (Viking Press :
>Markham, Ontario, 1985. ISBN 0-670-80379-0), which is the first of his
>three-volume series on the history of the HBC (Hudson's Bay Company).
Noted, thanks. I'm currently reading about the SW fur trade, plus
the history of Goths in Spain, so it might be a while before I get to this,
but does sound interesting.
Regards
John GW
Michael Baker
: Paul J Gans wrote in message <7q29rq$iov$2...@news.panix.com>...
: >
: . On the other hand the northern route
: >worked.
: >One thing this did was to lead to the heavy industrialization
: >of the north while the south remained largely rural. And
: >we all know what the result of all *that* was.
: >
: >It was not until the building of the Interstate Road System
: >that it became (relatively) easy to move around in the
: >areas to the west of the old southern colonies. Even
: >the railroads that ran east-west avoided going over
: >the mountains as much as possible.
: >
: > ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
: >
: >who may be one of the last folks around to have
: >taken a full cross-country train trip -- Pennsylvania
: >Railroad to Chicago and then the Southern Pacific to
: >Los Angeles. It was a lot of years ago and I'll never
: >forget it. Over 3000 miles by rail.
: >
: >
: Believe a common way to go from New Orleans to NY or New England was
: by ship. Thomas Bailey Aldrich speaks of this.
: Off topic, but Erie Canal was possible in NY. Driving from WV to
: South Carolina isn't too hard by car now, but even yet, rather slow with a
: semi.
: Reference to a cross-continental train trip - was tiring, wasn't it?
: I made the trip from Olympia to Boston several times.
: Cheers
: John GW
try a diesel bus from albany to boise...whew
Felix Alton Marz
deferences between the French and English colonies, is that France had
an inherent disadvantage. The disadvantage being that France was being
drawn into wars on the continent of Europe. I know that the French
revolution cost her Haiti and Louisiana directly. However, was there any
wars before that, on the continent, that would have drained resources
and manpower?
-Felix Alton Marz-
Chris Buchanan
The English were drawn into those same wars (remember that King
George I through III [1] were also kings of Hanover, and
large numbers of British troops were used to protect Hanover every
time one of those little continental wars broke out).
[1] At least if memory serves me correctly. BTW, I assume I'm correct
in my belief that George III was the last king of both Hanover and
Britain?
--
Chris Buchanan, BMath
http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~csbuchan
Felix Alton Marz
a very peculiar natural advantage of the English Channel as a defence.
The nobles and peasants had to devote less time for defences and could
be on the offensive most of the time. However in order to prove this
point it would take quite a considerable amount of time of research on
my part which I do not have.
My theory would be based on the phenomena culture centers such as Rome,
Greece, Britain, Japan and The United Sates of America and some extent
Ancient Egypt in which there natural defenses allowed them to invest
more resources in other areas and developing their cultures then
defending their borders.
Moreover, it should have been stated that Britain had to devout less
time and energy defending and more on the offensive. Anyway we will se
how that discussion goes.
*note: as soon as I figure out the edit mode on this damm box I will
include original text=/:-(
-Felix Alton Marz-
dspe...@earthlink.net
>How did the French and British strategies differ in North America during the
>colonial period?
I assume you mean in terms of military strategy, but just to cover the
other base, neither country had a "strategy" in terms of patterns of
settlement. What happened was more of a race to claim territory
first, with the French the winner, then a subsequent period of trying
to figure out how to exploit that territory which was not really
driven by anything we would recognize as a national strategy.
Patterns of settlement were therefore a reflection of the vagaries of
that first rush to plant the flag and the subsequent rather chaotic
attempts to make a profit from the land.
In terms of military strategy in the colonial period, the French were
oriented around the maintenance of a series of forts designed to
control river traffic on the St. Lawrence and Mississippi trade
routes. They did this by leveraging Indian allies, which were gained
by bribing the triibes with guns, blankets and contracts for animal
furs, as well as direct military action against enemy tribes.
The English strategy depended upon two arms, the navy which protected
the North Atlantic trade, and mostly colonial militia designed to
defend the agricultural settlements of the interior. The English from
an early date competed with the French for the services of the
Indians, a competition that the British continued against the new
American state until it led to the virtual genocide of the eastern
tribes especially during and shortly after the War of 1812, in which
the Indians heavily and mistakenly sided with the British.
In terms of actual troop investment in North America, it was minor
until the American Revolution, at which point both powers sent
substantial expeditionary forces to the area.
It doesn't do a lot of good to try to understand national "strategies"
when nation states didn't really have one, at least in this area. The
British settled in different ways in different areas, in some they
acted more like the "French" model, in others more like what they
taught you in high school.
The French more closely follow the stereotype of mostly male
hunter/trapper/trader/mountain man, but not because the French
government wanted it that way. There were many subscriptions in
metropolitan France in the 18th century designed to recruit farmers
and merchants and families. The fact is that they failed, perhaps
because ot the notorious reluctance of the French to live anyplace
other than France, perhaps because the experience of those that went
to America did not provide a sterling example.
English settlement was largely driven by the disturbances in 17th
century England. I would strongly advise a close read of _Albion's
Seed_, David Hackett Fischer, Oxford University Press, 1989, for a
good picture of how far from a "strategy" Britain had in terms of her
American colonies.
dan
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>> In soc.history.early-modern Mark D. Lew <mark...@earthlink.newt> wrote:
>>
>> >> [...] the mountains -- even the Delaware that spectacularly
>> >> cuts through a major ridge line to form what is known
>> >> as the Delaware Water Gap -- and proof that the river
>> >> was flowing before the mountains rose.
>>
>> >river was flowing before the mountains arose. What is the logic for this?
>>
>> >mdl
>>
>> What you have is a river flowing right toward a ridge line.
>> What one expects is that the river would turn and flow
>> downstream along the bottom of the ridge line.
>>
>> What happens here is that the river flows right through
>> the ridge. These ridges do not have breaks in the middle,
>> they are long, continuous ridges running 40 to 50 miles or
>> more. There is no evidence of an earthquake splitting
>> the ridge. The geologists have concluded that the river
>> was there before the ground began to rise, and cut through
>> the strata as it rose.
>>
>> rare.
>A more dramatic example, though the geological dynamics *are* different,
>is the Columbia River Gorge. Ridge line? How about cutting through a
>full-fledged mountain range (the Cascades)!
>--Mike; living in Washington State, raised at the mouth of said Gorge.
Likely the same thing. Check a local geology book.
The proof of what I said is simply this: if the
ridge had been their first, the Delaware would have
had to flow uphill on one side before flowing downhill
on the other in order to erode a channel.
Paul J Gans
>Thanks for the explanation.
>> The Delaware water gap is not unique, but such gaps are
>> rare.
>Is the "Iron Gate" of the Danube due to a similar phenomenon?
Don't know. But it might be.
Paul J Gans
Mike Dana
>
> In soc.history.early-modern Mike Dana <mike...@nospamboeing.com> wrote:
> >A more dramatic example, though the geological dynamics *are* different,
> >is the Columbia River Gorge. Ridge line? How about cutting through a
> >full-fledged mountain range (the Cascades)!
>
> >--Mike; living in Washington State, raised at the mouth of said Gorge.
>
> Likely the same thing. Check a local geology book.
>
> The proof of what I said is simply this: if the
> ridge had been their first, the Delaware would have
> had to flow uphill on one side before flowing downhill
> on the other in order to erode a channel.
As I said, the dynamics for the Columbia are different, though the
results are similar. The Cascades are a reletively "young" mountain
range, with a *lot* of volcanic and quake activity. Additionally, the
Columbia is a *much* larger river, in terms of volume: a force to be
reconned with, and quite a history of breaking through various barriers
that have been "placed" in its way (landslides have dammed it at least
twice, with colorful Indian legends growing up around the events).
--Mike
John Wilson
Mike Dana wrote in message <37CBDE...@nospamboeing.com>...
>As I said, the dynamics for the Columbia are different, though the
>results are similar. The Cascades are a reletively "young" mountain
>range, with a *lot* of volcanic and quake activity. Additionally, the
>Columbia is a *much* larger river, in terms of volume: a force to be
>reconned with, and quite a history of breaking through various barriers
>that have been "placed" in its way (landslides have dammed it at least
>twice, with colorful Indian legends growing up around the events).
Well, this is off topic, because it's way too early, but about ten
thousand years ago, there was a lake in western Montana, with a glacier
across its mouth. Every fifty years or so, the dam would break and a wall
of water 1000 feet high would rage fifty mph through Eastern Washington.
Can you imagine a group of Paleoindians seeing something like that coming at
them, when they didn't even know the Lord's Prayer?
But the Cascades antedated that by quite a bit.
John GW
(Was going to write 'cheers' but the story isn't a real cheery one.)
postor...@my-deja.com
high ground near the lake that you could view it and realize it was
shaped like a sack tied around the middle with string?
Rick Post
In article <7q68l0$l26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I've never been to Lake Chautaqua but I'm curious, is there sufficient
> high ground near the lake that you could view it and realize it was
> shaped like a sack tied around the middle with string?
While I don't think there is any point from which you can see the whole
lake, the narrowing at the middle is quite obvious, with the shore
projecting inwards to a point (rather than in a gradual curve like a
peanut). I suspect that from the area of the point, either on land or
on the water, the shape would have been evident (the Lake is not that
big, after all), while from the higher ground overlooking the lake, you
would see little more than one half at any time, but by looking on both
sides you would figure out the shape pretty fast. Now there is a bridge
across the narrow center, blocking what the original view might have
been, but perhaps augmenting the metaphor.
taf
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>> In soc.history.early-modern Mike Dana <mike...@nospamboeing.com> wrote:
>> >A more dramatic example, though the geological dynamics *are* different,
>> >is the Columbia River Gorge. Ridge line? How about cutting through a
>> >full-fledged mountain range (the Cascades)!
>>
>> >--Mike; living in Washington State, raised at the mouth of said Gorge.
>>
>> Likely the same thing. Check a local geology book.
>>
>> The proof of what I said is simply this: if the
>> ridge had been their first, the Delaware would have
>> had to flow uphill on one side before flowing downhill
>> on the other in order to erode a channel.
>As I said, the dynamics for the Columbia are different, though the
>results are similar. The Cascades are a reletively "young" mountain
>range, with a *lot* of volcanic and quake activity. Additionally, the
>Columbia is a *much* larger river, in terms of volume: a force to be
>reconned with, and quite a history of breaking through various barriers
>that have been "placed" in its way (landslides have dammed it at least
>twice, with colorful Indian legends growing up around the events).
Is it the Columbia that is associated with the scablands?
John Wilson
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7qhv91$d50$1...@news.panix.com>...
>
>Is it the Columbia that is associated with the scablands?
>
JGW
Mike Dana
>
> In soc.history.early-modern Mike Dana <mike...@nospamboeing.com> wrote:
>
> >As I said, the dynamics for the Columbia are different, though the
> >results are similar. The Cascades are a reletively "young" mountain
> >range, with a *lot* of volcanic and quake activity. Additionally, the
> >Columbia is a *much* larger river, in terms of volume: a force to be
> >reconned with, and quite a history of breaking through various barriers
> >that have been "placed" in its way (landslides have dammed it at least
> >twice, with colorful Indian legends growing up around the events).
>
I've studied the River and its history a fair amount; it's almost
unavoidable when you grow up next to it & love history, but I don't
recall hearing that particular term in association with it. I suppose
that term *could* be used to describe some of the high desert areas of
Eastern Oregon & Washington that are drained by it and its tributaries,
but to the best of my knowledge no one who lives in the region uses it.
In fact, most of the geographic features upstream of the Cascades still
have Indian names (or their English or French translations). Areas like
Grand Coulee, the Palouse, the Horse Heaven Hills, or the Okanogan.
Downstream from the Cascades is a pretty good mix of Indian, British,
and American names; the latter two catagories being a hodge-podge of
names applied by Robert Grey, George Vancouver, Lewis & Clark, John
McGloughlan, and the Oregon Trail's survivors. There was competition
between the two nations, and some of the British names "took" (Mt. Hood
& Mt. St. Helens, for instance) and some of the American ones endured
(Mt. Adams & the Columbia itself, for example).
--Mike
Mike Dana
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
>
> I've studied the River and its history a fair amount; it's almost
> unavoidable when you grow up next to it & love history, but I don't
> recall hearing that particular term in association with it. I suppose
> that term *could* be used to describe some of the high desert areas of
> Eastern Oregon & Washington that are drained by it and its tributaries,
> but to the best of my knowledge no one who lives in the region uses it.
<snip>
OK, a friend just pointed me to this site:
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/schwert/geosci/g495/g495link.htm
"Scablands" or "Channelled Scablands" appears to be a geological name
(as opposed to a "local" or "historic" one) for a part of the Columbia
Plateau in Eastern Washington; so the answer to your question would be
"yes".
--Mike
Mark D. Lew
> The proof of what I said is simply this: if the
> ridge had been their first, the Delaware would have
> had to flow uphill on one side before flowing downhill
> on the other in order to erode a channel.
I was under the impression that there are cases where a river may have
originally been two rivers flowing down opposite sides of the ridge. As
both rivers erode the ridge, a channel is dug. Gradually the watershed
moves as high tributaries find their way down the other side instead.
Eventually, somehow, one river ends up reversing course and flowing out the
other way.
I'm sure I've read about this with respect to certain segments of the
Niger, in Africa. I'm not certain what my source was, nor if it's
reliable. Upon reflection, I can see that this seems rather implausible.
Certainly the river which "reverses" would have to be fairly level to begin
with. Also, it seems like there would be evidence of some sort of former
inland sea at what was once the bottom and is now the top of the river that
reversed course.
mdl
John Wilson
Mark D. Lew wrote in message ...
>Eventually, somehow, one river ends up reversing course and flowing out
the
>other way.
>
>I'm sure I've read about this with respect to certain segments of the
>Niger, in Africa. I'm not certain what my source was, nor if it's
>reliable. Upon reflection, I can see that this seems rather implausible.
>Certainly the river which "reverses" would have to be fairly level to begin
>with. Also, it seems like there would be evidence of some sort of former
>inland sea at what was once the bottom and is now the top of the river that
>reversed course.
Alexander Humboldt found one in South America that reverses its flow.
One of the tributaries of the Orinoco? Or the Orinoco itself. Not sure
of Humboldt's date.
Cheers
John GW
John Wilson
>Mark D. Lew wrote in message ...
> >Eventually, somehow, one river ends up reversing course and flowing out
>the
>>other way.
>One of the tributaries of the Orinoco?
Add to my previous post. Flows into the Rio Negro at times, into the
Orinoco at others. Casiquiare, if I read my atlas right. Only example
known, I think.
JGW
Paul J Gans
>> The proof of what I said is simply this: if the
>> ridge had been their first, the Delaware would have
>> had to flow uphill on one side before flowing downhill
>> on the other in order to erode a channel.
>I was under the impression that there are cases where a river may have
>originally been two rivers flowing down opposite sides of the ridge. As
>both rivers erode the ridge, a channel is dug. Gradually the watershed
>moves as high tributaries find their way down the other side instead.
>Eventually, somehow, one river ends up reversing course and flowing out the
>other way.
>I'm sure I've read about this with respect to certain segments of the
>Niger, in Africa. I'm not certain what my source was, nor if it's
>reliable. Upon reflection, I can see that this seems rather implausible.
>Certainly the river which "reverses" would have to be fairly level to begin
>with. Also, it seems like there would be evidence of some sort of former
>inland sea at what was once the bottom and is now the top of the river that
>reversed course.
Yes. I think that process is called "capture". But
it is not the case here. The ridge is now rather thin.
But I do not know what the situation would have been when
the mountains rose. As has been pointed out, these are very
old mountains. The river flow has doubtless changed many times
since.
Brett K. Heath
I can't recall where but there was something about the current height of
the appalachians being a relatively recent geologic event. The original
mountains are indeed very old but all that remain of them are the granitic
plutons which have recently "risen again", possibly due to elastic rebound
after the departure of the ice sheets?
I'll try to chase the reference down but am not optimistic about being
able to find it.
Brett K. Heath
Paul J Gans
And if I recall correctly, there were two mountain building
episodes in the region. The entire mountain system is
evidently complex.
Mike Dana
> Mike Dana wrote in message <37CBDE...@nospamboeing.com>...
> >As I said, the dynamics for the Columbia are different, though the
> >results are similar. The Cascades are a reletively "young" mountain
> >range, with a *lot* of volcanic and quake activity. Additionally, the
> >Columbia is a *much* larger river, in terms of volume: a force to be
> >reconned with, and quite a history of breaking through various barriers
> >that have been "placed" in its way (landslides have dammed it at least
> >twice, with colorful Indian legends growing up around the events).
>
> Well, this is off topic, because it's way too early, but about ten
> thousand years ago, there was a lake in western Montana, with a glacier
> across its mouth. Every fifty years or so, the dam would break and a wall
> of water 1000 feet high would rage fifty mph through Eastern Washington.
> Can you imagine a group of Paleoindians seeing something like that coming at
> them, when they didn't even know the Lord's Prayer?
> But the Cascades antedated that by quite a bit.
> John GW
> (Was going to write 'cheers' but the story isn't a real cheery one.)
Yes, I knew about Lake Missoula (despite my ignorance regarding the term
"scablands"), but the legends I was thinking of were those regarding "The Bridge
of the Gods".
Volcanic/quake activity caused a *huge* landslide where the river cuts through
the mountains. This landslide blocked the river completely, and to some depth.
Eventually, the river managed to eat a hole in the dam, leaving (according to
legend) a huge natural bridge. More volcanic/quake activity eventually
collapsed the bridge, blocking the river again. Over time, the river eroded the
blockage into rubble, leaving "The Cascades"; a large series of rapids from
which the mountain range was eventually to take its name (Lewis dubbed them "The
Presidents Range"; I forget what Vancouver called them). These rapids are now
submerged under the lake formed by Bonneville Dam.
The actual legend of "The Bridge of the Gods" is much more colorful, of course,
and well worth looking into. It's even "on topic" for s.h.e-m, at least with
regard to when it was transmitted/translated into English.
--
Mike Dana
Everett, Washington, U. S. A.
"The irrelevance of your location is neither here nor there."
--Mike Dana, 29 July, 1997
John Wilson
Mike Dana wrote in message <37DECD9F...@NOSPAMgte.net>...
>
>The actual legend of "The Bridge of the Gods" is much more colorful, of
course,
>and well worth looking into. It's even "on topic" for s.h.e-m, at least
with
>regard to when it was transmitted/translated into English.
>--
Regards
JGW
Mike Dana
Most of the stuff I have on this is in a couple of books that I don't
currently have access to (my parents have them, about 600 miles away in
Montana -- still packed away from a move 3 years ago :-( ).
However...
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/msh/llc/hr/hrho/nam.html
...gives a brief account of the various "flavors" of the legend.
I'll see if I can come up with the titles (etc.) on those books.