Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in the West, 1749–1763 ed. by Theodore Calvin Pease (review)

436 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in theWest,1749-1763. Editedwith introduction and notes by T}mODORE CA•.WN PEASe. (Collectionsof the Illinois State Historical Library, XXVII, Frenchseries,II.) Springfield,I11.:Illinois State Historical Library. 1936. Pp. clxxii, 607. As a collectionof documentsillustrative of the various attempts of England and France to arrive at a boundary in the Mississippivalley, this book is extremelyvaluable. The Mississippi valley, however,wasonlyonesmallsegment of a conflict of colonial titans that was world-wide, and the most severe criticism that canbemadeof Mr. Pease's bookisthat the selection fromany givendocument of a paragraphor two bearinguponthe Mississippi valley resultsin a distortion of perspective. The student reading through this volume would find little to indicate to him that there was anything involved in the struggleexcept the Mississippivalley. The historianof the Canadian boundary,for example,seeks in vain for the materials in thesedocumentsbearing upon the boundary of Nova Scotia,or of the regionssouthof the St. Lawrence. Oneis left largelyin the dark on such important considerations as the proposed"swap" of Nova Scotia for St. Lucia,althoughmoreisgiven,naturally, that bearsuponthe "swap"of eastern Louisianafor that sameisland. One fails, here,to seethat the Mississippi valley wasa small,relativelyunimportantaspectof a contestthat juggledthe Mississippi valley againstAcadiaor St. Lucia, North Americaagainstthe West Indies,Cape Breton againstGor•e, the colonies againstEuropeanconsiderations. And yet the historyof thesefactsis in the unpublishedpartsof the very documents Mr. Pease has printed. This, of course,is not to blame Mr. Pease. He is interestedin the Mississippivalley, and he is prevented,by the limitationsof spacealone,from presentingmorethan he hasdone. Mr. Pease's longintroduction (171pp.) isa valuableandaccurate, if somewhat pedestrian,surveyof the diplomatichistoryof the Mississippi valley from 1749 to 1763, giving the connected story of the diplomaticeventsthat producedthe documents. In general,it presentsfour major diplomaticattempts to settle the questionof where the Anglo-Frenchboundary shouldbe. In 1749, the most acuteboundaryquestionwasraisedin Acadia,and thisquestionwasplacedin the handsof the joint commission that met in Parisin 1750. This commission never discussed the boundaryof the Mississippivalley. Shortly thereafter, the Lake Georgeand Lake Champlainboundaryre-appearedin diplomacy,and to this was quickly added diplomaticexchanges over the boundarysouthof Lake Ontario. The battle of Fort Necessityunderlined the Ohio valley as another region for boundarysettlement. But by this time (1754) the joint commission had been practically abandoned,and the great boundary questionwas taken out of its hands and negotiateddirectly through the regular diplomatic channels. This direct negotiationwas the secondeffort at a peacefulsettlementof the North American boundaryquestion;and, while recognizingthe cynicalunwillingness of both sidesto compromise, the historiancannot escapethe impression of genuine desirein the diplomats,individually,to avoidwar. Both sideswereat thistime willing to accepta line which,roughly,wouldhavemadethe Alleghenymountains the boundary of Englishpenetration;the negotiation failed over the various questions relative to what should be done with the lands betweenthe mountains and the Wabash,includingthe Ohio river. These first two effortsto settle the boundaryby peacefulmeanshaving failed, the great contentionwas submitted to trial by war. The third major exchangeof ideas as to the boundary was made, in REVIEWS OF BOOKS 437 Mr. Pitt's hectic negotiationof 1761, in the courseof which the boundary of "Canada", now English,waspushedto the Wabashriver and the heightof land betweenLake Michiganandthe Mississippiasdrawnon the so-called "Vaudreuil map", and a never-defined line southof the Ohio. Pitt's efforthavingfailed, and Spainhavingcometo the aid of France,the fourth and final diplomaticexchange over the Mississippiboundary became, in 1762, a three-cornerednegotiation between England, France, and Spain which finally carried "Canada" to the Mississippiand left Spainin possession of Louisianabeyond. The contrastbetweenthe Frenchpositionin 1749and that in 1762isa notable .one. For, in the formercase,the movingspirit in French colonialdiplomacywas the Marquis de la Galissoni•re,who, while recognizingthat France's North Americancolonies had alwaysbeena deadloss,wasinflexiblyconvincedthat they must never fall to England to increasethat nation'salready too great mercantile and maritime power. If Englishambitionswereto be confined,the only suitable Americanboundarywas the Alleghenywatershed,from the gulf of St. Lawrence to thegulfof Mexico. The SevenYears'War wasfoughtto maintainthisprinciple. The year 1762, however,foundat the helm of French affairs the Duc de Choiseul, who, as he expressed it, was "l'ennemijur• du sysi}me del'Am•rique". Choiseul found it easyto give away the two great colonies that had neverbeenanything but a lossto France,whereGalissoni•re had foundit impossible...