|
Chapter 6
We Were Not the Savages - Flawed Peace and the Treaty of 1749
By the end of 1726, most Mi’kmaq Districts had, without being properly
informed about the consequences, ratified the Treaty of 1725. The assertion
that they had signed the treaty without first being properly informed is
supported by the military actions they took afterwards to protect their territory
from British appropriation. Being sensible people, it makes no sense that they
would fight so hard to keep something they had given away willingly. It can
be further concluded from their military actions that, if the treaty’s complex
terminology had been interpreted in their own language so they could have
realized that it would deprive their proud Nation of its self-respect, dignity and
territorial rights, they would not have signed. The fact that the Mi’kmaq were
uninformed about the full meaning of the treaty was enough to assure that the
peace would not last, but the British made its failure more certain by continuing
to treat the Mi’kmaq with insincerity and contempt.
A perfect example of English insincerity is found in the minutes of a Council
meeting held at Annapolis on December 9, 1725, which detail the dishonourable
way the Council disposed of criminal charges against three French prisoners
from Quebec who had been charged with murdering and robbing two Mi’kmaq.
Lt.-Governor Doucett relayed the following information about the case to the
councillors in their capacity as judges:
That three French strangers had come from Quebec seeking refuge, and
later, safe passage out of the Province. That they were not in possession
of a Quebec Governor’s Passport. That they had killed and robbed two
Indians. The Board did not believe that they had come as refugees, but
rather as spies, in order to discover the state of the Town and Garrison, or
to entice the desertion of the Troops.
Whereupon, in order to ascertain the truth of their designs and statements,
the Board judged it necessary that they should be put into custody
and examined separately. The Lt. Governor informed the Board that he
had already made them prisoners, it was then agreed that they should be
examined.
The three men, Paul Francois Dupont de Veillein, Saint Joyly de Pardeithan
and Alexander Poupart de Babour, were then brought separately
before the Board to give testimony. The first gentleman testified: that he
was a former Officer of the French Army, that he had done time in the
Bastille, for he knew not what. And, as further punishment, by order of the
authorities, was transported out of France to Quebec. The second Gentleman
related that he also was a former Officer in the French Army: that he
had been apprehended by the authorities in France for fighting an illegal
|
