Girouard/Giroir Acadian family history
Brian G. Comeaux
The Acadian Girouard or Giroir family is one of the most ancient
European families in North America. Francois Girouard was born in 1621
at La Chausée near Martaizé on the feudal estate of the d`Aulnay
family. La Chausée and Martaizé are in the northeast corner of the
Poitou region of France. Francois Girouard came to Acadia with Jacques
Bourgeois, a French military surgeon, at the behest of Charles de Menou,
sieur d`Aulnay-Charnisay, who was governor of a part of Acadia during
this period. This d`Aulnay, who tended the feudal estate with his
mother, recruited a number of the first Acadians to leave France for
the New World.
Francois Girouard married Jeanne Aucoin, the daughter of Martin Aucoin
and Marie Sallé, at Port-Royal in 1647. Jeanne was also a first
generation Acadian. She was born at La Rochelle, France in 1631 and
came to Acadia in 1631 with her mother and several members of the Landry
family into which her mother had married following the death of Martin
Aucoin.
Francois Girouard settled his family on the northern bank of the
Dauphin River (Annapolis River today), practically directly across from
the fort at Port-Royal. This place came to be known later as Village La
Montagne in honor Francois` nephew, Julien Lort, who took the name La
Montagne as his nom de guerre. Francois` concession of land measured
about fifteen arpents and extended inland into the forest. The Acadians
cultivated primarily lowlands that they reclaimed from the sea at low
tides by building a series of dikes called aboiteaux. This system of
dikes, already known in parts of Europe, created extremely fertile land
for cultivation and pasture after a fallow period of desalinization.
Building these dikes required the labor of many men, however. It
therefore became the custom for sons and sons-in-laws to build small
homes on the land of the Acadian patriarch, from which more and more
marshland could be reclaimed as the family and labor pool grew. This
was the case with the Girouard family. The Acadian census of 1671
showed that the oldest son of Francois Girouard and Jeanne Aucoin,
Jacques dit La Varenne, and his wife, Marguerite Gauterot (Gautreaux)
were living on the small Girouard estate. The daughter of Jacques and
Marguerite, Marie Girouard and her husband, Jacques Belou, were living
there as well. Another daughter, Marie-Magdelaine, was also married by
this time to Thomas Cormier, a carpenter at Port-Royal.
Francois and Jeanne had two other children, Germain (b. 1657, m. 1681
Marguerite Bourgeois, widow of Pierre Cyr (Suire)), and Anne Charlotte,
(b. 1660, m. 1675 Julien Lort dit La Montagne).
Germain Girouard and his sisters, Marie-Magdeleine and Marie, along with
their families, left the family estate before 1686 and went to live at
the new Acadian settlement of Beaubassin. They were no doubt influenced
by Germain`s father in law, Jacques Bourgeois, who founded Beaubassin.
Germain`s only daughter, Agnès Girouard married Abraham Gaudet and
apparently moved to Québec following the fall of Acadia to the English
in 1713. Germain`s son, also named Germain, stayed at Beaubassin and
married Jeanne Barrillot (Barrilleaux).
Jacques dit La Varenne and his wife Marguerite Gauterot (daughter of
Francois Gauterot and Edmée Lejeune) stayed in the Port-Royal area to
raise their family, but eventually left the family farm for a piece of
land about 7 miles to the east and across the Dauphin River from
Jacques` father`s land. At this time, the banks of the Dauphin river
were lined with Acadian families well known in Louisiana today,
including Blanchard, Martin, Breau, Jeansomme, Bourgeois, Comeau,
Vincent, Hébert, Dupuis and of course, Girouard.
Jacques and Marguerite had fourteen children, ten boys and four girls.
The ten boys were Alexandre (b. 1670, m. 1684 Marie Le Borgne), Pierre
(b. 1672, m. 1695 Marie Comeau, m. 1709 Marie Douaron (Doiron)),
Jacques (b. 1674, m. 1704 Anne Petitpas, m. 1725 Jeanne Amirault), Jean
(b. 1676, disappears from census after 1700), Francois (b. 1680 m. 1708
Anne Bourgeois, m. 1737 Marie Guilbaut (Guilbeau)), Claude (b. 1683 m.
1709 Élisabeth Blanchard), Guillaume (b. 1686 m. 1713 Marie Bernard),
Denis (b. 1688, m. 1709 Marie Barrilot), Charles (b. 1689, m. 1713 Anne
Bastarache, m. 1744 Marie-Joseph Pitre), Germain (b. 1691, m. 1711 Marie
Doucet). The four girls were Marie (b. 1678, m. Louis-Jacques Granger),
Marguerite (b. 1682 m. 1702 Louis Doucet), Magdelaine (b. 1695 m. 1712
Pierre Richard), Anne-Marie (b. 1698 m. but husband unknown).
At least one line of the Louisiana Girouard or Giroir family is
descended from Jacques and Marguerite`s second son, Pierre. Pierre
established himself at Pigiguit in the Bassin des Mines, not far from
Grand Pré. Pierre had a son with his second wife, Marie Douaron, named
Honoré, born in 1714. Honoré in turn married Marie-Josephe Thériault
(Thériot), and their son, Prosper Honoré Girouard, was deported from
Acadia and ended up in France. He married Marie Dugas in France during
his years of exile. He and his wife and six children came to Louisiana
in 1785 from Nantes on the ship, La Bergère.
The eldest son of Prosper Honoré Girouard and Marie Dugas, Jean
Baptiste, married Élisabeth Landry, and their family started a line of
the Girouard/Giroir family in St. Mary Parish. The south central part
of the state is the center of the concentration of the Girouard/Giroir
family in Louisiana. There are also concentrations of the family in
Québec and the Canadian Maritime Provinces.
Girouard/Giroir will be just one of the sixty plus families reuniting at
the Congrès Mondial Acadien-Louisiane 1999. If you would like to attend
or help with the Girouard/Giroir family reunion, please contact James
Girouard; 132 Woodoak Dr.; Lafayette, LA 70506; (318)984-5481.
If you would like to help host an Acadian family reunion for the Congrès
Mondial Acadien- Louisiane 1999 or if you would like to serve as a
CMA-Louisiane 1999 volunteer, please call (318)234-6166, toll free
(888)526-1999 or write to C.P. 3804, Lafayette, LA 70502-3804. You may
also provide genealogical and/or historical information about the
Doiron and Guilbeau(x) Acadian family names to the same address for
future publication.
This Acadian family history is brought to you by the CONGRÈS MONDIAL
ACADIEN- LOUISIANE 1999 and its sponsors, OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, LOUISIANA LOTTERY
CORPORATION, TERREBONNE PARISH GOVERNMENT, ACADIAN AMBULANCE AND AIRMED
SERVICES, and the FONDATION CODOFIL.
Denis Beauregard
"Brian G. Comeaux" <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>GIROUARD/GIROIR
>
> The Acadian Girouard or Giroir family is one of the most ancient
>European families in North America. Francois Girouard was born in 1621
>at La Chausée near Martaizé on the feudal estate of the d`Aulnay
A very wild guess... Actually, d'Aulnay was not in Aulnay during
the Acadian migration. It seems that the guess of Matignon is
because many Acadian names are very common in West of
France. But if you check Amities genealogiques canadiennes-francaises
number 4 I think, there is an analysis of another place (Bourgneuf?).
[...] other guesses skipped...
>Jacques and Marguerite had fourteen children, ten boys and four girls.
>The ten boys were Alexandre (b. 1670, m. 1684 Marie Le Borgne), Pierre
14 years old is too young for a boy to be married...
Most years are proximate and some are guesses...
[...]
It is a nice idea to present the early Acadian families. But you
should pay attention to guesses. Don't try to present as true
something that is a guess. This will generate a lot of questions
like "Where can I find the birth record of XXX" while that XXX has
no known birth record. And in some cases, you will even find later
that Arsenault and Bergeron (and Gaudet or White) are presenting
conflictual data.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Le genealogiste en action
|\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
/ | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
BRIAN COMEAUX
>
> "Brian G. Comeaux" <bcom...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> "Brian G. Comeaux" <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>
> >
> > The Acadian Girouard or Giroir family is one of the most ancient
> >European families in North America. Francois Girouard was born in 1621
> >at La Chausée near Martaizé on the feudal estate of the d`Aulnay
>
> the Acadian migration. It seems that the guess of Matignon is
> because many Acadian names are very common in West of
> France. But if you check Amities genealogiques canadiennes-francaises
> number 4 I think, there is an analysis of another place (Bourgneuf?).
>
> [...] other guesses skipped...
>
> >The ten boys were Alexandre (b. 1670, m. 1684 Marie Le Borgne), Pierre
>
>
> Most years are proximate and some are guesses...
>
> [...]
>
> It is a nice idea to present the early Acadian families. But you
> should pay attention to guesses. Don't try to present as true
> something that is a guess. This will generate a lot of questions
> like "Where can I find the birth record of XXX" while that XXX has
> no known birth record. And in some cases, you will even find later
> that Arsenault and Bergeron (and Gaudet or White) are presenting
> conflictual data.
>
> Denis
>
> --
> 0 Denis Beauregard
> /\/ Le genealogiste en action
> |\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
> / | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
> oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and West,
Atlas of Louisiana French and Spanish Surnames.
BGC
nationaliste acadienne/acadian nationalist
http://www.cma-la99.com
site officiel du Congrès mondial acadien-Louisiane 1999
Denis Beauregard
BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and West,
You must be kidding !!!! Lanctot is the less reliable source I
have seen about Acadian genealogy... Oups, I mean about fictive
genealogy...
>Atlas of Louisiana French and Spanish Surnames.
Denis
Richard Bishop
anyone submitted a listing of the sources on Acadians
that may be considered to be the most reliable?
There seems to be a great deal of material, both published
and on the internet, that conflict, or at least, do not seem
to agree with each other.
I am not in an area that offers much in the line of original
research, so I find myself relying on others and the work
that they do - a compiler as opposed to a researcher. I would,
however, like to be able to identify some sources as SUSPECT or
GOOD up front. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Dick Bishop
Newport News, VA
Denis Beauregard <be...@cam.org> wrote in article
<35ccb370....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
Larry Cullen
"KING OF THE CAJUNS"?
You mean to tell us, that all the stuff BRIAN's been releasing is pure
crap? What kind of a lawyer does that make Mr. Comeaux ?,
he doesn't double check his facts.
What are we going to do now? we though that Brian was quoting the bible.
And now we find out he's quoting some second rate source.
I'm so disappointed in BRIAN, he let his ego get in the way of good
reseach and didn't double check his sources.
BRAIN COMEAUX is a FRAUD, now so many cajuns have gone to their graves
not knowing their true origin. A sad day for all of cajun decent.
Larry
Denis Beauregard wrote:
>
> BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>
> >Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and West,
Denis Beauregard
>Denis how could you do this to the guy who is self appointed,
>"KING OF THE CAJUNS"?
>
>You mean to tell us, that all the stuff BRIAN's been releasing is pure
>crap? What kind of a lawyer does that make Mr. Comeaux ?,
>he doesn't double check his facts.
I don't say that. I said his sources are not reliable. Lanctot is
the less reliable of all.
>What are we going to do now? we though that Brian was quoting the bible.
>And now we find out he's quoting some second rate source.
Perhaps, he shall avoid mixing genealogy with politics or tourism :o)
There are ways to present something that meets his purposes and that
doesn't look like genealogy. As a genealogist, I consider myself a
purist, and as an Acadian genealogist (not only I have Acadian
ancestors but I have an Acadian genealogy in my site), I know what
sources are available.
For example, saying many Acadian families are from La Chaussée and
Martaizé will drive searches in that area, without any results
since the works of Genevieve Matignon in the 1960s. Saying some of
them can be from that area, but including also that many other places
are also possible, this will give a better clue. And there are
searches made in other area. For example, there are good chances
the COMEAU (and COMO, COMMEAU, COMEAUX etc.) are from Franche Comte.
There are 2 reasons for that: there are COMEAU in that area and there
are some known Acadians from that area (LeGODELIER and MOTIN for
example). But for SIRE, GIROUARD, BRAULT, etc., we have names that
are common in Poitou, not only Martaizé, but many other places.
>I'm so disappointed in BRIAN, he let his ego get in the way of good
>reseach and didn't double check his sources.
I don't think we should consider Brian as a genealogist. He is
using genealogy, which is something else. However, he should try
to get feedback BEFORE publishing material that would be
controversial. I am not the only Acadian expert on the net. So
a lot of them may rise their hand to help Brian.
>BRAIN COMEAUX is a FRAUD, now so many cajuns have gone to their graves
>not knowing their true origin. A sad day for all of cajun decent.
Please don't say that.
1- Fraud means Brian did that on purpose, which is not true
2- Until now, we only have guesses about roots of many Acadians. What
Brian said can't change that. But many other Acadians have known
roots. It is not obvious to say this is true while that is a
guess. It would be part 3 of my series about origins of French
in North America (GDO) that would bring in some light on that.
Part 1 (already published) covers Quebec 1600-1730 while part 2 (I
will try to publish it in August) will cover Quebec 1731-1799. As for
part 3 (Acadians), I am afraid my bank account will be too low
and I will have to go back to a job except if I can find some
subsides for the next year. So, the 3rd volume will need more
time before giving some results. I can't be in sabbatical year
continuously :-)
Tim & Martha Hebert
inform him of the problem with Lanctot's work. I'm sure Brian has a lot
to do and was trying to get by with two sources to summarize each family
from Acadian times (Lanctot) to Louisiana (West). I think West's work
is quite reliable, but I don't even bother with Lanctot any more; he
seems to pull facts from thin air with no documentation.
I do think the idea of creating short articles giving the basics on
Acadian surnames is a good one. I was going to do it myself when I get
a chance. But perhaps Brian might want to run the articles past a few
scholars (and maybe even this newsgroup) before submitting them for
publication in the newspaper. It really isn't fair to print information
as factual when it hasn't been thoroughly checked. A lot of people out
there think it has to be true if it's in a genealogy column, so they'll
be out there chasing bad leads and wasting their time.
Agape,
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me ... Phil. 4:13
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of my WebSites ...
ACADIAN-CAJUN GENEALOGY
http://www.geocities.com/~timhebert/
THE HEBERT FAMILY
http://www.geocities.com/~timhebert/hebert.htm
TERREBONNE PARISH, LA - HISTORY & GENEALOGY
http://www.rootsweb.com/~laterreb/
LOUISIANA CONFERENCE - UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/louisiana-conference/
ARCHIVES & HISTORY - LA CONF - UM CHURCH
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/history/
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - HOUMA, LA
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/houma/
Martha or Charles M. Cook
> This may be an old question and I apologize, but has
> anyone submitted a listing of the sources on Acadians
> that may be considered to be the most reliable?
>
> There seems to be a great deal of material, both published
> and on the internet, that conflict, or at least, do not seem
> to agree with each other.
>
> I am not in an area that offers much in the line of original
> research, so I find myself relying on others and the work
> that they do - a compiler as opposed to a researcher. I would,
> however, like to be able to identify some sources as SUSPECT or
> GOOD up front. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Dick Bishop
> Newport News, VA
>
> Denis Beauregard <be...@cam.org> wrote in article
> <35ccb370....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
> > BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> > BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
> >
> > >Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and
> West,
> >
> > You must be kidding !!!! Lanctot is the less reliable source I
> > have seen about Acadian genealogy... Oups, I mean about fictive
> > genealogy...
> >
> > >Atlas of Louisiana French and Spanish Surnames.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > --
> > 0 Denis Beauregard
> > /\/ Le genealogiste en action
> > |\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
> > / | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
> > oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
> >
I am not Cajun by blood, only by naturalization. I am a genealogist,
with years of experience. Unless published material regarding any
family line includes accurate documentation, they should be used as a
guide line only while you research the original records yourself. In
fact, I recommend that the authority stated be substantiated by our
follow up research. Just because someone said it, doesn't mean that
they were correct. Go to the repository of the original records, by
mail, by telephone, if necessary, hire a researcher on site...whatever.
Unless you have the original document in hand, you are taking someone
else's word about who you ggggggggg grandfather wuz. Don do it, chere.
Demand proof...documentation.
Charlie in Houma....Bayou Country
Martha or Charles M. Cook
Martha or Charles M. Cook
Martha or Charles M. Cook
Martha or Charles M. Cook
Martha or Charles M. Cook
Denis Beauregard
"Martha or Charles M. Cook" <coo...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>Richard Bishop wrote:
>
>> This may be an old question and I apologize, but has
>> anyone submitted a listing of the sources on Acadians
>> that may be considered to be the most reliable?
See my Acadian page : http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/acadie-e.html
>> There seems to be a great deal of material, both published
>> and on the internet, that conflict, or at least, do not seem
>> to agree with each other.
Usually because they are guesses and the author don't want
to say that. My solution: for each bit of data, giving the
source. See my DGAA.
In other word: after each birth, death or marriage, what is the
source, like that:
1. Joseph, born 12-03-1704 Mytown [AFG 32 143], married 12-03-1740
ThatPlace: Mary LEE [AFG 67 098], died before 1766 [GHGJH 12]
With a list of codes at the end. And it is always possible to
publish both versions with all and with no source, like this
1. Joseph, born 12-03-1704 Mytown, married 12-03-1740
ThatPlace: Mary LEE, died before 1766
BRIAN COMEAUX
>
> BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>
> >Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and West,
>
> You must be kidding !!!! Lanctot is the less reliable source I
> have seen about Acadian genealogy... Oups, I mean about fictive
> genealogy...
>
> >Atlas of Louisiana French and Spanish Surnames.
>
>
> --
> 0 Denis Beauregard
> /\/ Le genealogiste en action
> |\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
> / | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
> oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
I don`t pretend that the articles are perfect in any way. Whenever
someone sends me a correction, I always see to it that the correction is
published as an addendum to the next article, as I will do with Tim
Hébert`s corrections to the Hébert history in my continuation of the
Martin article in August.
If you would like, I would gladly email you the articles prior to
publication for your review. I am not a genealogist, and I don`t
pretend to be.......my interest is more in the history of the families
and their travails......perhaps i will start printing a disclaimer that
nothing in the articles should substitute for individual research..
I have gradually become aware of problems with Lanctôt`s work, and now
whenever I see his work contradicted in another source I use, I usually
shy away from using the Lanctôt version.
BGC
nationaliste acadien/acadian nationalist
BRIAN COMEAUX
>
> Denis how could you do this to the guy who is self appointed,
> "KING OF THE CAJUNS"?
>
> You mean to tell us, that all the stuff BRIAN's been releasing is pure
> crap? What kind of a lawyer does that make Mr. Comeaux ?,
> he doesn't double check his facts.
>
> And now we find out he's quoting some second rate source.
>
> reseach and didn't double check his sources.
>
> not knowing their true origin. A sad day for all of cajun decent.
>
>
> Denis Beauregard wrote:
> >
> > BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> > BRIAN COMEAUX <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
> >
> > >Primary sources are Lactôt, Familles Acadiennes, Tomes I& II and West,
> > You must be kidding !!!! Lanctot is the less reliable source I
> > have seen about Acadian genealogy... Oups, I mean about fictive
> > genealogy...
> >
> > >Atlas of Louisiana French and Spanish Surnames.
> >
> > Denis
> >
Mais cher, that is pretty strong stuff for a person with more phony
e-mail addresses and phony personas than Sybil had personalities, yeah!
Et puis, you spell my name just like my late grandmother, of course she
only had a second-grade education......it was endearing when she did
it.....
I`m gonna have to kick you out of my government, cher.....or is it
chère.......
cwa (Choupique)
Denis ,
find your pages most informative , am sure your work provides much help and
will provide much more help to people seeking family history , just a shame
that past church / state records do not show the family ties between the
Mik'maq and the Acadians prior to select dates , i would like to mention in
refrence to your page
http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/amerin-e.html the comment "Contrary to
popular belief, there were few marriages between Natives and the French in
the early days of the colony.
i feel this page a bit misleading since u neglect to express the depth of
relationships between the Acadians and the Mi'kmaq and that marriages
between the two were not performed or recorded by priests due to prejudices
just because "church records" do not acknowledge marriages does not mean
that many did not occur either in the "early days of the colony" or before
in New France, many marriages occured that were not accepted by the
"church" in those days, tribal marriages or mutual agreements between 2
people , many were not recorded acknowledged or accepted based on one person
being a "unbaptised savage",
as a result "Exiled Kindred"
200 + years of contact listed below and more than just a few marriages
between the aboriginal and the Europeans occured before ,during , and after
the "early days of the colony" that were never recorded or accepted by the
church
1534 - Jacques Carter entered the Bay of Chaleur and met with Mi'kmaq people
in the area (present day New Brunswick). Furs were exchanged.
1599 - Samuel de Champlain set foot in the New World and was followed by
Catholic missionaries.
1605-1607 - The French built a permanent settlement at Port Royal (later to
be named Annapolis Royal by the British). The Europeans were welcomed by
Mi'kmaq Grand Chief Membertou.
1610 - Grand Chief Membertou and 21 family members were baptized by Abbe
Fleche, a European Roman Catholic Priest.
1621 - The name Nova Scotia was given to trerritory that had been the home
of the Mi'kmaq people for thousands of years.
1630 - The Mi'kmaq people adopted Saint Anne as their patron saint.
1713 - The Treaty of Utrecht temporarily ended the fighting between the
British and the French. The French gave up Mi'kmaq territory to the British
through this treaty, and Mi'kmaq land claims were ignored. The first in a
series of British treaties involving the Mi'kmaq people, the Treaty of
Portsmouth New Hampshire was signed.
1725 - The Mi'kmaq were involved with the signing of the Treaty of Boston.
This treaty was supposed to end the fighting between the English and Indian
Nations and recognize indigenous hunting, fishing and fowling rights, but
fell short of these goals.
1726 - The 1725 treaty was ratified and confirmed by all Nova Scotia tribes.
1749 - Halifax was established on Mi'kmaq territory by Protestant Govenor
Edward Cornwallis.
1752 - The Royal Proclaimation was recognized on November 22 by several
chiefs including Grand Chief Cope. In the treaty, Mi'kmaq lands and way of
life were to be protected.
1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British.
1758 - The french fortress of Louisbourg fell to the British.
1761 - After the defeat of New France, the British issued deveral
proclaimations to prevent unreast with the Mi'kmaq people, including the
1761 proclaimation. This proclaimation was issued to protect Indian rights
and to ensure further grants or settlements on Mi'kmaq land would be
prohibited.
*******************
an excellent site for understanding
the struggles of many 'exiled kindred' is below
*******************
By: Dr. John J. Williams ,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9196/histories.htm
(this is not the rock n roll singer "Dr. John" & Mary)
The struggle for public and government recognition has preoccupied many
Metis for over 250 years. From the earliest Metis who emerged from the
unions of Acadian and Mikmaq men and women in the 17th century to the Metis
influence on the Manitoba Act in 180, the Metis have struggled against
discrimination, indifference and ignorance to achieve recognition as a
distinct aboriginal nation. Their efforts were not wasted. With the
recognition in the Constitution Act of 1982 as a member of Canada's
aboriginal people, Metis' aboriginal rights are now constitutionally
guaranteed and protected. ( and it is now time to unite, organise and assert
these rights ! )
The history of the Metis peoples is the history of Canada . It began with
the landing of the first explorers and continues today. The Metis Nation has
made tremendous contributions to every aspect of Canada as we know it today,
yet continues to be a forgotten people .
We have to go back to the year 1000 when the Norse men made contact with
the peoples of the North American continent, where they were attacked by the
natives of Newfoundland and forced to leave the area.( archeologists have
unearthed Nordic ruins which contains signs of attacks by the Aboriginals
from that era )
The next record of foreigners visiting North America comes in 1497 when
the British explorer John Cabot sailed from Bristol, England to find a new
route to Asia but landed in either Cape Breton ( Nova Scotia ) or
Newfoundland where he was met by members of the Mi'kmaq native band who
tried to trade with his crew. ( Cabot misunderstood this meeting and fired
the ship's cannon over the head of the Mi'kmaq who quickly fled the scene,
only to return the next day . )
Historically the Mi'kmaq territory covered what is today Nova Scotia, Prince
Edward island, eastern and northern New Brunswick, excluding the Saint John
River Valley and the southern and eastern shores of the Gaspe Peninsula of
Quebec. The territory was divided into the seven districts noted below,
suggesting a complex socio-political organization.
Unama'ki - Cape Breton Island
Epegoitnag ag Pigtogeoag - Prince Edward Island and Pictou County, Nova
Scotia
Esgigeoag - Guysborough and Halifax Counties, Nova Scotia
Segepenegatig - Halifax, Colchester, Kings, Hants and Lunenburg Counties,
Nova Scotia
Gespogoitnag - Queens, Shelburne, Annapolis, Yarmouth and Digby Counties
Sigenigteoag - Cumberland Co. N.S., and Westmoreland, Albert, Kent, St.
John, Kings and Queens Co. N.B.
Gespegeoag - north of Richibucto River New Brunswick and into the Gaspe
region of Quebec
.
In the year 1534 - Jacques Carter entered the Bay of Chaleur and met with
Mi'kmaq people in the area (present day New Brunswick). Furs were exchanged
and early ties were established between the French and the Mi'kmaqs that
would last until present day .
Jacques Cartier's successful visit was followed in 1599 by Samuel de
Champlain who set foot in the New World and was followed by Catholic
missionaries and the conversion to Catholicism of the native Americans began
. ( at first the missionaries met with some resistance from the native
population, but soon began to covert from their traditional spiritual
beliefs to christianity . )
Traditionally, the Mi'kmaq people believed in one supreme creator - the
Great Spirit, who delegated authority through his mediators the sun, moon,
earth and stars. The Mi'kmaq never considered themselves better than anyone
else, as people and animals were considered equal. As a result, there was
respect for animals that were hunted for food and clothing, including
prayers given in respect for their lives.
By the year 1605-1607 - The French had built a permanent settlement at Port
Royal (later to be named Annapolis Royal by the British) in what is now Nova
Scotia . The Europeans were welcomed by Mi'kmaq Grand Chief Membertou who
oversaw the 7 main Mi'kmaq tribes in the area and trading ties were firmly
established . .
Three years later ! In 1610 - Grand Chief Membertou and 21 family members
were baptized by Abbe Fleche, a European Roman Catholic Priest and a wampum
belt was created to record an agreement between Memberto and the Pope, which
still exists today . ( The wampum belt was used as a way for Mi'kmaqs to
record important incidents in their history. )
In the year 1621 - The name Nova Scotia ( New Scotland ) was given to part
of a territory that had been the home of the Mi'kmaq people for thousands of
years and increased battles between the French and British involved the
various native tribes who had formed strong bonds with the French due to the
many interracial marriages that were a common occurrence at that time due to
the shortage of French females . ( it was around that time that the terms
" Metis" and " Metesse" were first used in Canada .)
For instance, some studies of Canadian Metis populations and history suggest
that while both French and Scottish traders developed relationships with
Native women, the children of Native-Scot marriages were more often brought
up more Anglo/Euro than the children of Native/ French relationships, who
often ended up being full participants in continuing Native cultures. So,
both were openminded in terms of the time.
Also, the difference between the British and everyone else was a matter of
their culture and a matter of demographics as well. The English were said
to not marry out of their _culture_, and felt that Native people had to be
fully accultuated/assimilated and converted before intermarriage was
acceptable. The Dutch on the other hand were said not to care so much about
culture as long as Native spouses were converted and of the same religion.
There's also the fact that not every Euro group was composed of the same
kind of people. French and Scottish often came by themselves as traders or
in neo-settler situations, men vastly outnumbered women. To go forth and
multiply, they took Native wives. Gender differentials for British
populations were not so great, and that, along with with culturalbarriers,
seems to have made for fewer intermarriages.
Although the signing, in 1713, of the Treaty of Utrecht ( This was a treaty
signed in Europe between England and France ) temporarily ended the
fighting between the British and the French. The French gave up Mi'kmaq
territory to the British through this treaty, and Mi'kmaq land claims were
ignored. The first in a series of British treaties involving the Mi'kmaq
people, the Treaty of Portsmouth New Hampshire was signed.
The fighting between the British and the French continued and the Acadian
population ( including the Metis) and their native allies were deeply
involved in this struggle .
In 1725 - The Mi'kmaq and Metis were involved with the signing of the
Treaty of Boston. This treaty was supposed to end the fighting between the
English and Indian Nations and recognize indigenous hunting, fishing and
fowling rights, but fell short of these goals.
By 1725, the Metis were deeply involved in the affairs of both the French
acadians and the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Algonquins from Maine and were highly
respected by all these groups for their ability to act as a medium between
them .
In 1726 - The 1725 treaty was ratified and confirmed by all Nova Scotia
tribes. ( although the various tribes refused to join the Americans in their
war effort.) and the Acadian Metis were involved to help protect the rights
of the French Acadians .
In the year 1749, the port of Halifax was established as a British
stronghold on Mi'kmaq territory by Protestant Governor Edward
ornwallis.( This displaced the Mi'kmaqs from this part of their land and
increased the fighting between them and the British .)
1752 - The Royal Proclamation was recognized on November 22 by several
chiefs including Grand Chief Cope. In the treaty, Mi'kmaq lands and way of
life were to be protected.( although a fierce civil war was well underway
involving the natives who were urged on by the French supported missionaries
who saw the prolongation of the war as a positive benefits for the interests
of France .)
1753 - The Acadians along with the Metis and Algonquins refused to join
forces with the British against the French and given an ultimatum to either
join forces with the British or face deportation . But the Acadians refused
and drew much hatred from the British who saw them and their allies as a
real threat to stability in the region.
1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British. ( Over 7000
Acadians were rounded-up and loaded on British ships bound for parts of the
USA and other parts of the world .( over 3000 went into hiding or agreed to
cooperate with the British )
The Metis along the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and other Algonquins, joined the few
Acadians who decided to engage in a gorrilla war against the British . ( So
fierce was this fighting that the British rarely wandered too far away from
the safety of their forts . )
1756 - The British started to offer cash bounties for the scalps of Natives
( but, many of the scalps that were sold were of european origins, being
those of the Metis fighters . )
1758 - The french fortress of Louisbourg fell to the British.
1758 - Some of the deported Acadians returned to Acadia. ( Few returned to
their homesteads, being that many had been taken-over by the invading
British )
The return of the Acadians was net with harsh conditions and strict British
controls .
1759 - The British still offered a cash bounty for the scalps of micmac men,
women and children and the returning Acadians began to isolate themselves
from their Metis relatives to prevent persecution.( To be a Metis during the
years that followed meant to be considered an enemy of Britain, and could
result in death or detention, so, the Acasian Metis went into hiding or
joined the trek west with the expanding fur trade )
********************
Choupique
www.cajunwebads.com/circle
Denis Beauregard wrote in message <35b89d96....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
>"Martha or Charles M. Cook" <coo...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>"Martha or Charles M. Cook" <coo...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>
>>Richard Bishop wrote:
>>
>>> This may be an old question and I apologize, but has
>>> anyone submitted a listing of the sources on Acadians
>>> that may be considered to be the most reliable?
>
>See my Acadian page : http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/acadie-e.html
>
>>> There seems to be a great deal of material, both published
>>> and on the internet, that conflict, or at least, do not seem
>>> to agree with each other.
>
>Usually because they are guesses and the author don't want
>to say that. My solution: for each bit of data, giving the
>source. See my DGAA.
>
>In other word: after each birth, death or marriage, what is the
>source, like that:
>
>1. Joseph, born 12-03-1704 Mytown [AFG 32 143], married 12-03-1740
>ThatPlace: Mary LEE [AFG 67 098], died before 1766 [GHGJH 12]
>
>With a list of codes at the end. And it is always possible to
>publish both versions with all and with no source, like this
>1. Joseph, born 12-03-1704 Mytown, married 12-03-1740
>ThatPlace: Mary LEE, died before 1766
>
>
Denis Beauregard
"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net> écrivait:
>find your pages most informative , am sure your work provides much help and
>will provide much more help to people seeking family history , just a shame
>that past church / state records do not show the family ties between the
>Mik'maq and the Acadians prior to select dates , i would like to mention in
>refrence to your page
>
>http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/amerin-e.html the comment "Contrary to
>popular belief, there were few marriages between Natives and the French in
>the early days of the colony.
This page should be read in the context of Quebec genealogy. Chances
are there are more metis marriages in Acadia, but one problem is to
prove them. There are sources other than the missing records, that is
the La Rochette declarations. They were written to prove a French
lineage for those Acadians that went to France, and I don't remember
I have seen any Metis line in those declarations while I didn't check
all of them.
>i feel this page a bit misleading since u neglect to express the depth of
>relationships between the Acadians and the Mi'kmaq and that marriages
>between the two were not performed or recorded by priests due to prejudices
My guess, and this is a guess, is that some French intermixed with
Natives, but they join them, not the contrary, and also that Micmacs
took French names. In other words, those Acadians that were exiled
were likely not mixed blood, and those who were mixed blood were also
living together with natives and were not exiled.
Also, it is a matter of genetics to say that most Acadians are
mixed blood. Suppose 1% of them were metis and living with the French
in 1700, suppose no immigration at all and generations of 25 years.
So, in 1725, 2% are metis (i.e. is assimilated to French, they
marry with French men/women), in 1750 4%, in 1775 8%, 1800 16%
and 1840's you get 50%. So, from a very few number of Metis in
1700, you get that nearly all Acadians living today are Metis too.
However, like I said last year in a private email, the major problem
with that question of Acadian Metis is to prove something. Yes, there
are metis marriages, yes there are natives having French names, yes
there are many native-native marriages recorded so you can't say
all the metis marriages vanished because natives won't become
catholics. But no, you can't presume how many metis records were
recorded or performed without records. Acadia is perfect for
historians, but a pitfall for genealogists.
>just because "church records" do not acknowledge marriages does not mean
>that many did not occur either in the "early days of the colony" or before
>in New France, many marriages occured that were not accepted by the
>"church" in those days, tribal marriages or mutual agreements between 2
>people , many were not recorded acknowledged or accepted based on one person
>being a "unbaptised savage", as a result "Exiled Kindred"
>
>200 + years of contact listed below and more than just a few marriages
>between the aboriginal and the Europeans occured before ,during , and after
>the "early days of the colony" that were never recorded or accepted by the
>church
But, recorded or not, mixed relations should be provable by the next
generations, i.e. when children marry. This is how we know that
Charles de La Tour had children by an Indian, and d'Abbadie too.
So, while there are much more early metis in Acadia than in Quebec,
they are much less frequent than we think.
>1534 - Jacques Carter entered the Bay of Chaleur and met with Mi'kmaq people
>in the area (present day New Brunswick). Furs were exchanged.
>
>1599 - Samuel de Champlain set foot in the New World and was followed by
>Catholic missionaries.
You forget the many basque, breton and other fishermen in the area.
You would be surprised by their number. For example, in one case, the
colonists were saved by running in the woods and reaching a fishing
boat.
>1605-1607 - The French built a permanent settlement at Port Royal (later to
>be named Annapolis Royal by the British). The Europeans were welcomed by
>Mi'kmaq Grand Chief Membertou.
[...]
>In the year 1621 - The name Nova Scotia ( New Scotland ) was given to part
>of a territory that had been the home of the Mi'kmaq people for thousands of
>years and increased battles between the French and British involved the
>various native tribes who had formed strong bonds with the French due to the
>many interracial marriages that were a common occurrence at that time due to
>the shortage of French females . ( it was around that time that the terms
>" Metis" and " Metesse" were first used in Canada .)
The French settlement of Acadia was nearly totally reset in 1632.
Except for La Tour, there is no known line before 1632, while they
are probable. "common occurrence" is a funny expression in this
context. This saves the author to have to prove any thing, i.e.
were they 1% or 10% of marriages ? We know there are more Metis in
Acadia than in Quebec. We know the English colonists hated the
Indians, so much less marriages in that area. However, compared to
Manitoba, the Acadian Metis were much less common.
If put on a scale, the lower/higher rates of Metis would give
something like that:
(lower rate)
early New Englanders
early Quebec/St.Lawrence Valley
early Acadia
early Manitoba (which means before 1870)
(higher rate)
>For instance, some studies of Canadian Metis populations and history suggest
>that while both French and Scottish traders developed relationships with
>Native women, the children of Native-Scot marriages were more often brought
>up more Anglo/Euro than the children of Native/ French relationships, who
>often ended up being full participants in continuing Native cultures. So,
>both were openminded in terms of the time.
This sounds like Manitoba Metis. Much more scot-metis in that area.
The Nova Scotia was named in the 1620's by a Scot noble who got the
lands, but when it was definitively run by the English in 1713, those
Scotch were not frequent, and anyway, most British settlement is from
the 1760's with a lot of people in a very few years (lands stolen to
Acadians were rapidly given to British settlers).
It is a shame to pretend those British of the 1760's are early
settlers, but this is quite common in Canadian history. And mixing
years, giving the same status to French who were present in the
1600's and to Ukrainians who get by rail in the 1890's is also a
common practice in Canadian history. So, always be very careful
about those studies, in particular when they have a political
purpose. Best thing is not to merge genealogy and history or
politics.
>By 1725, the Metis were deeply involved in the affairs of both the French
>acadians and the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Algonquins from Maine and were highly
>respected by all these groups for their ability to act as a medium between
>them .
Algonquins from Maine ? Abenakis were in Maine I think...
For those who speaks French or want to read books in French on the
subject: Mi'kmaq are Micmacs, and Maliseet are Malecite.
>1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British. ( Over 7000
>Acadians were rounded-up and loaded on British ships bound for parts of the
>USA and other parts of the world .( over 3000 went into hiding or agreed to
>cooperate with the British )
And there are 20 000 more Acadians that are omitted... One thing
I find impressive is that Acadians knew where was their family in
the La Rochette papers, that is despite the exile, news were
transmitted very fast, even if they had no Internet at that time :-)
This text is quite funny, but I don't like that mix of proven data
with dates, etc., and many unsupported claims, some of them being
false. This looks like cheap politics (the kind we have re: Canadian
constitution since the 1980's), and like I said about Brian's posts, I
would like to avoid mixing politics and genealogy in genealogy
newsgroups. Genealogy should be first a matter of facts. History
is a matter of interpretation of facts. And politics is hum anything
to get more votes, true or not.
cwa (Choupique)
yes there is a large loss for many that are unable to trace family history
back to aboriginal relations , many unrecorded because people were
not affiliated with the church (i.e that is if one was not baptised that
one's family did not make it in the books), many of us understand these
relations and accept even without written documentaion , it is difficult to
explain to many about this "emotional knowledge" for many people need
"written proof" , it is what we have been taught "if its written its truth /
if not then no truth" , if it is not recorded within a select set of books
it did not exist or occur or is false.
Denis Beauregard wrote in message <35c8edf3....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
as mentioned a guess ....
should be , providing the peole marry within the church
>>1534 - Jacques Carter entered the Bay of Chaleur and met with Mi'kmaq
people
>>in the area (present day New Brunswick). Furs were exchanged.
>>
>>1599 - Samuel de Champlain set foot in the New World and was followed by
>>Catholic missionaries.
>
>You forget the many basque, breton and other fishermen in the area.
>You would be surprised by their number. For example, in one case, the
>colonists were saved by running in the woods and reaching a fishing
>boat.
>
yes much support came from others nations peoples and it is good to keep
them in mind as well
understand .... very well especially considering the first settlements in
the area were by the Mi'kmaq and their lands renamed by colonialist to New
France , , the first "colonialist settlement" was no doubt French this could
be political/historical considering the Norse were in the area around 986
>>By 1725, the Metis were deeply involved in the affairs of both the French
>>acadians and the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Algonquins from Maine and were
highly
>>respected by all these groups for their ability to act as a medium between
>>them .
>
>Algonquins from Maine ? Abenakis were in Maine I think...
>For those who speaks French or want to read books in French on the
>subject: Mi'kmaq are Micmacs, and Maliseet are Malecite.
>
Alonquins = a language group "families" (i.e Passmaaquoddys ,Penobscots,
Mi'kmaq,Wanpanoags, Pequots, Narragansets, Shawnees, Delewares,Maliseet and
a whole bunch more )
Alonquins are the largest language group of aboriginals on this continent
Abnaki Confedercy in Maine originally consisted of 20 or more tribes
a few existing today are the Malacites, Passmaaquoddys , Penobscots
>>1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British. ( Over 7000
>>Acadians were rounded-up and loaded on British ships bound for parts of
the
>>USA and other parts of the world .( over 3000 went into hiding or agreed
to
>>cooperate with the British )
>
>And there are 20 000 more Acadians that are omitted... One thing
>I find impressive is that Acadians knew where was their family in
>the La Rochette papers, that is despite the exile, news were
>transmitted very fast, even if they had no Internet at that time :-)
>
approximante count of Exiled people would be 27,000 ?
>This text is quite funny, but I don't like that mix of proven data
>with dates, etc., and many unsupported claims, some of them being
>false. This looks like cheap politics
above is an opinion .... , please define unsupported claims which are
false
>(the kind we have re: Canadian
>constitution since the 1980's), and like I said about Brian's posts, I
>would like to avoid mixing politics and genealogy in genealogy
>newsgroups. Genealogy should be first a matter of facts. History
>is a matter of interpretation of facts. And politics is hum anything
>to get more votes, true or not.
how can one find the "written facts" when ledgers , pages of ledgers, etc
have been discarded or ruined or discarded for genocide reasons .... just
becasue one can not show the next something in writing does not make it
false ....
written history on this continent is laid on a medium that looks like
rotted honeycomb .... with each hole representing an un_truth that is trying
to be filled in with his-story. lies recorded in history .... not much
different i am finding with genealogical information
>
>Denis
>
>--
> 0 Denis Beauregard
> /\/ Le genealogiste en action
> |\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
> / | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
> oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
Choupique
www.cajunwebads.com/circle
Denis Beauregard
are tied to mailing lists, so many persons receive all the content of
those posts.
"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net> wrote:
>yes there is a large loss for many that are unable to trace family history
>back to aboriginal relations , many unrecorded because people were
>not affiliated with the church (i.e that is if one was not baptised that
>one's family did not make it in the books), many of us understand these
>relations and accept even without written documentaion , it is difficult to
>explain to many about this "emotional knowledge" for many people need
>"written proof" , it is what we have been taught "if its written its truth /
>if not then no truth" , if it is not recorded within a select set of books
>it did not exist or occur or is false.
It is as easy to invent. Some examples were it pays (actual money):
in noble Europe: one with noble roots was not paying taxes; in Canada,
one with native roots (6th degree or less I think, and I am 8th
degree) may not pay taxes (I don't know the exact rules).
So, in some cases, it is necessary to proove claims.
In some cases, something written is not true; in some cases, something
looking like true or false is actually false or true. It is a matter
of having enough skill to decide what to take or not and what is
right or not. But human memory is not reliable. One day, I asked to
an aunt who were her grand-parents. This was 20 years ago, when I
was a new genealogist. She mixed the names of her grand-mother and
her sister (Adele and Sarah). So, you can claim what you want. But
as a genealogist, I want at least something to support claims.
>Denis Beauregard wrote in message <35c8edf3....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
>>"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net> wrote:
>>"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net> écrivait:
>>
>>But, recorded or not, mixed relations should be provable by the next
>>generations, i.e. when children marry. This is how we know that
>>Charles de La Tour had children by an Indian, and d'Abbadie too.
>>So, while there are much more early metis in Acadia than in Quebec,
>>they are much less frequent than we think.
>
>should be , providing the peole marry within the church
No. If you want to prove that many persons were Metis, i.e.
many (and not very few) French and Indians were married, that you
should have a lot of traces.
Example: Acadian Church Record vol. 3, Port-Royal from 1702. In the
100 first entries, 1 baptism with both parents being natives, all
other identified as French (i.e. they may have an indian grand-parent,
but none is shown as having father or mother tagged as Indian or
"Sauvage" to use the term found on the records.
So, if you want to prove that there were many Metis in Acadia,
you have to find some of them...
>understand .... very well especially considering the first settlements in
>the area were by the Mi'kmaq and their lands renamed by colonialist to New
>France , , the first "colonialist settlement" was no doubt French this could
>be political/historical considering the Norse were in the area around 986
Norse traces were found in Saguenay county area...
>>>By 1725, the Metis were deeply involved in the affairs of both the French
>>>acadians and the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Algonquins from Maine and were
>highly
>>>respected by all these groups for their ability to act as a medium between
>>>them .
>>
>>Algonquins from Maine ? Abenakis were in Maine I think...
>>For those who speaks French or want to read books in French on the
>>subject: Mi'kmaq are Micmacs, and Maliseet are Malecite.
>>
>
>Alonquins = a language group "families" (i.e Passmaaquoddys ,Penobscots,
>Mi'kmaq,Wanpanoags, Pequots, Narragansets, Shawnees, Delewares,Maliseet and
>a whole bunch more )
Algonquian. Just like there are Iroquois and Iroquoian. Ethnologists
made a difference between the main tribe and the linguistic groups.
>>>1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British. ( Over 7000
>>>Acadians were rounded-up and loaded on British ships bound for parts of
>the
>>>USA and other parts of the world .( over 3000 went into hiding or agreed
>to
>>>cooperate with the British )
>>
>>And there are 20 000 more Acadians that are omitted... One thing
>>I find impressive is that Acadians knew where was their family in
>>the La Rochette papers, that is despite the exile, news were
>>transmitted very fast, even if they had no Internet at that time :-)
>
>approximante count of Exiled people would be 27,000 ?
I think the total estimated population of Acadians at that time
was 30,000. I don't believe 10% agreed to cooperate, much less
than that. We know how many were "shipped" that is put on a ship.
But otherwise, there are estimates and I don't have the total
population near me.
From an article I wrote for a genealogy newspaper:
Exile
In 1755, the last chapter begun. While the English troops invaded
Fort Beausejour and Rivière St-Jean area, governor Lawrence commanded
to clean the area from all Acadians. Without being informed about the
goal, the Acadian men were gathered together in forts or churches,
barns were burned, and about 7,000 Acadians were moved to American
colonies. It was «Le Grand Dérangement» and some authors estimate
that half of those Acadians did not survive to exile. The same thing
was repeated in 1758 with 2,000 Acadians of cap Sable, and in 1760
with 4,000 from Cap-Breton and 3,500 from Île St-Jean, so the total of
exiled is around 17,000.
Fortunately, other Acadians evaded to Louisbourg, Île St-Jean or
through the woods to Canada (now province of Québec). In 1758,
Louisbourg was finally invaded and some Acadians were carried to
France, other to New France. Some colonies shipped their Acadians to
England from where some left for France in 1763. Of those in the
American colonies, only few were remaining there after a few years.
Most were either back to Acadia or chosen as a new land Québec,
Louisiana, Antilles or France, sometimes after a transit in England.
>>This text is quite funny, but I don't like that mix of proven data
>>with dates, etc., and many unsupported claims, some of them being
>>false. This looks like cheap politics
>
>above is an opinion .... , please define unsupported claims which are
>false
From your long article:
> We have to go back to the year 1000 when the Norse men made contact with
>the peoples of the North American continent, where they were attacked by the
>natives of Newfoundland and forced to leave the area.( archeologists have
>unearthed Nordic ruins which contains signs of attacks by the Aboriginals
>from that era )
forced to leave... Norse were probably all killed or integrated to
native tribes.
> Jacques Cartier's successful visit was followed in 1599 by Samuel de
>Champlain who set foot in the New World and was followed by Catholic
>missionaries and the conversion to Catholicism of the native Americans began
Between Cartier and Champlain, there was an attempt to settle some
island near Nova Scotia with prisoners.
>various native tribes who had formed strong bonds with the French due to the
>many interracial marriages that were a common occurrence at that time due to
>the shortage of French females . ( it was around that time that the terms
>" Metis" and " Metesse" were first used in Canada .)
Nearly no trace of those numerous marriages. Except for La Tour and
one record found in France. But there are hundreds of hired men
contracts that were found.
>For instance, some studies of Canadian Metis populations and history suggest
>that while both French and Scottish traders developed relationships with
>Native women, the children of Native-Scot marriages were more often brought
>up more Anglo/Euro than the children of Native/ French relationships, who
>often ended up being full participants in continuing Native cultures. So,
>both were openminded in terms of the time.
Scottish traders mean those studies are about Manitoba or Western
Metis. % of metis marriages are obviously more numerous when there
were more white men and very few or no white women. By the 1760s,
when the British replaced the exiled Acadians by british population,
you had not that status of many Scot men and few Scot women. Just
check the figures about post 1760 british or colonial migration.
>acceptable. The Dutch on the other hand were said not to care so much about
>culture as long as Native spouses were converted and of the same religion.
>There's also the fact that not every Euro group was composed of the same
You mix the West scots (1800's) and the NY dutches (1600's)...
>1755 - The French were expelled from Acadia by the British. ( Over 7000
>Acadians were rounded-up and loaded on British ships bound for parts of the
>USA and other parts of the world .( over 3000 went into hiding or agreed to
>cooperate with the British )
summary is too short. See above for how many were exiled and when...
> The Metis along the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and other Algonquins, joined the few
>Acadians who decided to engage in a gorrilla war against the British . ( So
>fierce was this fighting that the British rarely wandered too far away from
>the safety of their forts . )
guerilla war maybe ? Anyway, is there any proof for that claim ? You
will find stories about defence of French forts at that time, like
Fort Beausejour and Louisbourg, but for guerilla, do you have
something to support that ?
>1756 - The British started to offer cash bounties for the scalps of Natives
>( but, many of the scalps that were sold were of european origins, being
>those of the Metis fighters . )
That scalp story looks like 100 years too late...
>1758 - Some of the deported Acadians returned to Acadia. ( Few returned to
>their homesteads, being that many had been taken-over by the invading
>British )
> The return of the Acadians was net with harsh conditions and strict British
>controls .
Return of Acadians was after that. 1758 is the end of departures.
>1759 - The British still offered a cash bounty for the scalps of micmac men,
>women and children and the returning Acadians began to isolate themselves
>from their Metis relatives to prevent persecution.( To be a Metis during the
>years that followed meant to be considered an enemy of Britain, and could
>result in death or detention, so, the Acasian Metis went into hiding or
>joined the trek west with the expanding fur trade )
What do you have to support that claim ?
Back to this reply...
>>(the kind we have re: Canadian
>>constitution since the 1980's), and like I said about Brian's posts, I
>>would like to avoid mixing politics and genealogy in genealogy
>>newsgroups. Genealogy should be first a matter of facts. History
>>is a matter of interpretation of facts. And politics is hum anything
>>to get more votes, true or not.
>
>
>how can one find the "written facts" when ledgers , pages of ledgers, etc
>have been discarded or ruined or discarded for genocide reasons .... just
>becasue one can not show the next something in writing does not make it
>false ....
There is a lot of papers that survived. For example, about how
Acadians were considered as slaves in some British colonies.
Someone shown me an extract from Mass. archives.
cwa (Choupique)
just trying to express much of the information left over relative to many
ancestrial links is "gone" or was never recorded because people were not
affiliated with church , that many children were born with aboriginal ties ,
whether the church recognised the marriages or not they still occured and
children were born of the couples
>
>guerilla war maybe ? Anyway, is there any proof for that claim ? You
>will find stories about defence of French forts at that time, like
>Fort Beausejour and Louisbourg, but for guerilla, do you have
>something to support that ?
>
i would not think many men hiding out in the woods kept diray's of their day
to day activities ...
By: Dr. John J. Williams ,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9196/histories.htm
is the link of the writings ,
i would think the writer did quite a bit of research , you imply his
writings are based on political motives.
(i.e cheap politics) , maybe he is trying to bring awareness of relations
with hopes of reducing social tensions
proof , of occurance as you state based on memory is invalid , this to me
seyz even an elders words from any of the peoples stories passed on is
bogus to you , you seek proof / fact through "writings" and will base
decision over an Elders words
>>1759 - The British still offered a cash bounty for the scalps of micmac
men,
>>women and children and the returning Acadians began to isolate themselves
>>from their Metis relatives to prevent persecution.( To be a Metis during
the
>>years that followed meant to be considered an enemy of Britain, and could
>>result in death or detention, so, the Acasian Metis went into hiding or
>>joined the trek west with the expanding fur trade )
>
>What do you have to support that claim ?
>
bounties for scalps for aboriginal pplz started from the first day that no
other means of anihilation was successful , knowing history of what has
occured in so many other instances with First Nations of this continent i
have a tendency to believe the writers statements. and also believe the
English of those dayz would do anything to reduce threat to protect their
posession of stolen properties, i mean conquered holdings ....
>
>
>
>Back to this reply...
>
>>>(the kind we have re: Canadian
>>>constitution since the 1980's), and like I said about Brian's posts, I
>>>would like to avoid mixing politics and genealogy in genealogy
>>>newsgroups. Genealogy should be first a matter of facts. History
>>>is a matter of interpretation of facts. And politics is hum anything
>>>to get more votes, true or not.
>>
>>
>>how can one find the "written facts" when ledgers , pages of ledgers, etc
>>have been discarded or ruined or discarded for genocide reasons .... just
>>becasue one can not show the next something in writing does not make it
>>false ....
>
>There is a lot of papers that survived. For example, about how
>Acadians were considered as slaves in some British colonies.
>Someone shown me an extract from Mass. archives.
>
in refrence to ancestrial links , the amount of "evidance" gone due to
destruction or simply not being recorded i would think is fairly high ...
and the slavery thing i am told by another writer "Families were divided,
and teenaged males were bound out to planters as indentured farm laborers
(thereby giving rise to
the unfounded legend that Acadians here were sold into slavery) , still in
all "its" slavery , even if one can not find written documentation of monies
changing hands .... i would believe it occured
again in short
written history on this continent is laid on a medium that looks like
rotted honeycomb .... with each hole representing an un_truth that is trying
to be filled in with his-story. lies recorded in history .... not much
different i am finding with genealogical information
another prime example of modern day honey comb writings is the issue on
"JFK"
>Denis
>
>--
> 0 Denis Beauregard
> /\/ Le genealogiste en action
> |\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
> / | New release: Genealogical Dictionary of our Origins
> oo oo http://www.cam.org/~beaur/dgo/welcome.html
Choupique
www.cajunwebads.com/circle
lou...@hotmail.com
cwa (Choupique)
Choupique
www.cajunwebads.com/circle
Check_@_the_.SIG wrote in message <35b95051...@news.thezone.net>...
>"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net>, posted the following:
>
>>just trying to express much of the information left over relative to many
>>ancestrial links is "gone" or was never recorded because people were not
>>affiliated with church , that many children were born with aboriginal ties
,
>>whether the church recognised the marriages or not they still occured and
>>children were born of the couples
>
>That's tough.
>
>What are you suggesting?
>
>That we should just take the word of anyone who decides that they'd like to
>claim aboriginal roots?
>
>And, based on our recognition of that claim, that they're also entitled to
>claim that we're living in their country?
>
>Forget it. A claim to being a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, police officer
>etc., without credentials to back it up, is quite rightly ignored. A claim
>by an individual to a nationality, without certain specific proofs to
>support that claim, also isn't recognised.
>
>By all means, trace your lines back as far as you can. It doesn't really
>matter if those lines are documented or not, so long as you're only using
>what you find for your own personal satisfaction. You can make yourself a
>nice family tree to hang on your wall. And, if not too many of the folks
>you claim as ancestors were hanged.... you may even be proud.
>
>Just don't expect use it to gain yourself any advantage.
>
>Campfire stories from long ago don't carry much weight.
>
>Especially the bits about those gorillas....
>
>JJ Sr. - dad...@thezone.net
>
>
>
Denis Beauregard
Check_@_the_.SIG écrivait:
>"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net>, posted the following:
>
>>what are you so fearful of ?
>>Choupique
>
>
> You so greatly overestimate the importance of whatever it is you're trying to
>say that you are delusional.
>
>There's a world of difference between vigilance and fear.
As a purist genealogist, I would say that there is a lot of unproven
claims. You can say you descend from a lot of noble families, for
example. Just take some noble who has the same first and last name
than an ancestor (someone did so for COMEAU by the way), and pretend
it is the same person. And bingo, you discover you have a lot more
ancestors.
At least, a claim should be "likely". That is, when building the
family tree, you may presume missing ancestors did like some others.
So, if you find only one native ancestor among 1000 records, then
you just can't presume this one is typical.
Brian G. Comeaux
Comme me l'a dit Stephen White concernant les prétensions 'nobles' des
Comeau, <<les fils de nobles français de l'époque ne faisaient pas des
tonneaux pour faire leur vie>>.
Stephen White once told me concerning noble pretensions of the Comeau
family in North America, "the sons of French nobles did not make barrels
for a living."
cwa (Choupique)
"listen closely now" the below links contain what some people consider
"vulgar language"
the below points of view from the Real Audio Clips apply to "all of us" and
refer to many topics aside from the ones spoken on .... if ya cant play real
audio clips save the links and find a means to "listen" ....
The media thinks that by focusing on skinheads it can let the rest of white
American--more subtly racist--off the hook. It doesn't work that way.
Produced by Joey Manley.
http://www.freespeech.org/ramfiles/skinheadaudio.ram
It's a deliberate genocide. It's a deliberate genocide. It's a deliberate
genocide." Produced by DIVA-TV
what some people consider "Vulgar Language" is in the Real Audio Clip below
http://www.freespeech.org/ramfiles/kramer.ram
bes to ya ....
Choupique
www.cajunwebads.com/circle
Check_@_the_.SIG wrote in message <35bae11...@news.thezone.net>...
>"cwa (Choupique)" <lc...@eatel.net>, posted the following:
>
>>what are you so fearful of ?
>>Choupique
>
>
> You so greatly overestimate the importance of whatever it is you're trying
to
>say that you are delusional.
>
>There's a world of difference between vigilance and fear.
>
>JJ Sr. - dad...@thezone.net
> "Vigilantibus, non dormientibus,
> jura subveniunt."
> --------------------------------
> (The laws assist the vigilant, not
> those who sleep over their rights.)
Richard Hébert
by Tim Hebert and Denis beauregard
Now he is riding again with the GIROUARD/GIROIR and getting slapped by
Denis Beauregard!!!!
Poor Brian, you are citing an "AUTHOR", father Yvon Lanctot who wrote
his three books for the eyes of his personnal family ONLY.
His brother beeing a recognized historian...some publisher
saw an opportunity to make a BUCK!!!!
For your information, a year and a half ago,
Father Yvon Lanctot TOLD ME HIMSELF
that the books(2 more have been added) he has published were writen
for his own family and were not supposed to be PUBLIC...
and asked "what were his sources", he told ME he had in the 1930's
COPIED the notes of Placide Gaudet in Ottawa and that he could not
evedently prove any of his writen words. This encounter was one
of many verifications I did on "facts" that were and are still
writen as "thruths".
CHER BRIAN YOU WILL HAVE TO DROP THIS
AND GET OUT OF HISTORICAL TEACHING,
OR STUDY A LITTLE BIT LONGER
Richard Hebert
Montreal
Your Professional Genealogist in Montreal
http://www.cam.org/~hebertr/index-en-pr.html
Your Genealogy Parchment
http://www.cam.org/~hebertr/index-en.html
The Franco-Americans
http://www.cam.org/~hebertr/index-en-fa.html
PROUD OF MY NAME FIER DE MON NOM
PROUD OF MY ROOTS FIER DE MES RACINES
BRIAN COMEAUX
As I have told both Denis Beauregard and Tim Hébert, factual criticisms
of these articles are welcomed, indeed it is one of the reasons I post
them. If you have any factual criticisms, they are also welcomed. You
may post them here or send them to me at this email address.
Denis Beauregard
"Brian G. Comeaux" <bcom...@iamerica.net> écrivait:
>Denis Beauregard wrote:
>>
>> As a purist genealogist, I would say that there is a lot of unproven
>> claims. You can say you descend from a lot of noble families, for
>> example. Just take some noble who has the same first and last name
>> than an ancestor (someone did so for COMEAU by the way), and pretend
>> it is the same person. And bingo, you discover you have a lot more
>> ancestors.
>>
>> At least, a claim should be "likely". That is, when building the
>> family tree, you may presume missing ancestors did like some others.
>> So, if you find only one native ancestor among 1000 records, then
>> you just can't presume this one is typical.
>>
>Comme me l'a dit Stephen White concernant les prétensions 'nobles' des
>Comeau, <<les fils de nobles français de l'époque ne faisaient pas des
>tonneaux pour faire leur vie>>.
>
>Stephen White once told me concerning noble pretensions of the Comeau
>family in North America, "the sons of French nobles did not make barrels
>for a living."
Pour la noblesse et en général, c'est ce qu'on appelle de la
vraisemblance. Je ne sais pas quel est le terme anglais le
plus approprié.
La noblesse, ca monte et ca descend. Dans certain cas, le 20e fils
d'un noble appauvri n'a pas les moyens financiers d'avoir les
apparences de la noblesse.
Nobility may go up and down. In some cases, the 20th son of a
noble who had no money just can't look like noble.
Concerning the Comeau, the noble Pierre Comeau was shown as
living while his homonymous was in Acadia.