France and New France: Two Perspectives on Colonial Security

DONALD G. PILGRIM France and ./YewFrance: Two Perspectives onColonial Security T•WCAtYSWS of France's inconsistent andoftenspottysupportof her Laurentian colonyin the later seventeenth centuryhavearousedlittle interest amonghistorians of NewFrance.Thisapparentlackof curiosity isparticularlyevidentwhenoneconsiders theproblemof security. Howisit thatthe superpower of the era, whosenavyhad recentlydestroyedDutch naval hegemony in the Mediterranean andwhosearmieshadadvanced France's frontiersin thefaceof massive opposition, couldnotor wouldnotrespond effectively tothechallenges posed byafewthousand Iroquoiswarriors orby the intrusionsof the recentlyformed Hudson'sBay Companyinto the choicest Frenchfur-tradingpreserves? WhydidtheFrenchgovernment not profitfrom theostensible lull between theTreaty of Nijmegenin 1678and theoutbreakofamajorwarinthefallof 1688andspringof 1689toestablish thesecurity ofNewFranceonceandforall?Whatisourpresentunderstanding of thesequestions andto whatdegreeisthisunderstanding in needof revision? WilliamJ. Eccles, oneof themostableandprolifichistorians of theOld R•gimein Canada,stands alonein discussing thesecurity of NewFrancein termsof the larger metropolitancontext.In two booksof fundamental importance, Canada under Louisxxv,•663-•7o • andFrontenac: TheCourtier Governor, hehasdeveloped a devastating critiqueof Frenchcolonial policy and particularlyof the Marine Secretariat whichwaschargedwith the defenceof France'soverseas possessions? Particularlyscathingare his The research andwritingof thispaperwasmadepossible bytravelgrantsfromBrown University andtheCanada Council andasummer stipend fromGlendon College. Thisaidis gratefully acknowledged. I should also liketothankmycolleague andgoodfriend,Arthur Silver,forhisadvice andforhisprovocative andsometimes unanswerable questions. i w.J. Eccles, Canada under Louis x•v, •6o3-•7o• (Toronto 1964)andFrontenac: TheCourtier Vol. LvNo 4 December1974 382 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW judgmentsconcerningthe administrationof the Marquis de Seignelay, secretaryof statefor the marine and coloniesfrom •683 until •69o and son of the more illustriousJean-BaptisteColbert under whom he had apprenticed since•67• andwithwhomhehassooftenbeenunfavourably compared.Seignelay's administrationis of particularimportancein the history of NewFrancebecause itcoincided withaperiodof Louisxxv's reign when the possibility of securingthe colonyfrom externalthreat seemed especially strong.Althoughthe decadeiscustomarily described asoneof intense diplomatic activity andonewhichsawtheemergence of anti-French coalitions raisonndes, ithasalso beencharacterized byLouisAndr• andGaston Zellerasa militarylull betweenthe greatEuropeanwarsof the •67osand •69os. 2Presumably, therefore,if oneaccepts thatinterpretation, theargumentthatFrancehadto divertmilitaryresources to a Europeantheatreof operations wouldnotaccount for thelackof supportwhichEccles believes typifiedtheperiod.How thendoesheexplainFrance'sseeming inabilityto dealeffectively withthepincersof Iroquoisand Hudson'sBayCompany? Eccles' argumentissimpleand unequivocal. It ishiscontentionthat the lack of achievement of the •68os (itself a debatable conclusion)wasa functionof governmental mismanagement at Versailles and moreespecially of the personal inadequacies of the Marquisde Seignelay. Confrontedwith a military challengeof major proportions,Seignelayrespondedhalfheartedly .La Barre and Denonvillereceivedonly a fractionof the reinforcements theybelieved necessary tosustain thecolony?Butwhyhadthe Marineresponded withsuchlittlevigour,particularly if it wasa question of theverysurvival of thecolony? AgainEccles provides a straightforward explanation. If Canadawaspermittedtolanguish ,heargues,suchneglectcanbeattributedtotheMarquis de Seignelay. The secretary of state'... wasnotthe man that hisfather had been ....,4 New France sufferedbecauseof Seignelay's ignoranceof its interests andbecause helackedboththecharacter andadministrative capacitytoprovidethedirection needed. Morespecifically, Seignelay isportrayed asbeingcareless, superficial, self-satisfied, andgenerally cavalier regarding Governor (Toronto •962).Oneshouldnotethatthetermsministerandsecretary ofstateare notsynonymous asEccles, E.E.Rich,L. Rothkrug,andothersimply.A minister in the governmentof Louisx•v wasanyindividualinvitedtositin theConseil d'enHaut. The MarquisdeSeignelay, secretary of statefor themarineafter •683, wasnotcalledtothe Conseil d'en Haut until •689.SeeM. Marion,Dictionnaire des institutions delaFrance auxxvxxe et xvxxxe sikcles (Paris•969), 38 L. Andr&,L0u/sxxvetl'Europe (Paris•95o), partIX,chap.3andpart IXI,chaps. G.Zeller,Histoire des relations internationales, vol.3;Les Temps modernes: deLouis xxvti •789 (Paris•955), 5•-7 • Eccles, Courtier Governor, •6o, •62 andCanadaunder Louis xxv,•27, •58-9 Eccles, Canada under Louis xxv, • •9 FRANCE AND NEW FRANCE 383 the responsibilities of his office.The results,in Eccles'estimation,were disastrous: '...afterColbert's deathpolicies cametobeframedanddecisions madein averyhaphazardmanner? What is at issue here is not the overall merit of Eccles' books. As a European historian, I amnotqualified eventoattemptsuch acritique.But histhesis does seem tometorequirerevision inthreeimportantways. In the firstplace,I wouldarguethathe hasexaggerated thedegreeof neglect which was supposedly thehallmark oftheSeignelay administration. Second, hehas notpresented abalanced portrait ofthesecretary ofstate himself nor, moreimportant, hasheevaluated correctly thefreedomandpowerwhich Seignelay purportedly possessed. Third, andmostfundamental of all,Eccles ' analysis isincomplete, since itisbased onaconceptual framework which does not take into account the multitude of factors and considerations which determinedFrenchforeignpolicyduringthe •68os.Seignelay's strengths and weaknesses account only partiallyfor developments in the area of colonial security. It isthe contention of thispaperthat Franceand New Francedid notin factsharea commonperspective regardingthe requirementsof imperialsecurity, althoughat thetimeofficials bothat Versailles and in New Franceassumed quiteunderstandably thattheir interests were synonymous. SinceEccles' pointof viewis fundamentally that of the beleagueredgovernors of New France,he hashelpedto perpetuatea misunderstanding whichoriginated in theseventeenth century.Hisinterpretation tendsto overemphasize New France's isolationfrom the metropolisandto supportthe notionthat survivance had little to do with the effortsof the mothercountry. Ministerialincompetence andnegligence asthe determiningfactorsaccountingfor the chronicsecurity...