Talk:New France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Old talk

See: (cur) (last) . . 02:40, 23 Sep 2003 . . Adam Bishop (Some massive expansion) --- I deleted some things that are not correct:

"Louisiana remained off-limits to settlement from the American colonies, which helped contribute to the American Revolution over a decade later."

For clarification: Louisiana was under Spanish control until Napoleon and had zero to do with the American Revolution. Angelique 00:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't always under Spanish control...they got it from the French after the Seven Years' War, didn't they? (NO ! Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)) Anyway, I guess I meant the French territory in the Ohio Valley, (WHAT FRENCH TERRITORY - There was only one, the Louisiana Territory] Angelique) where Americans weren't allowed to settle, since that did contribute to the Revolution. (My God! Where do you dream up this stuff that you are inserting as fact into Wikipedia? You went to what University? And studied what?)Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By the way, are you going to answer the questions that Mathieu and I have asked you elsewhere, or am I going to have to repeat them on every page you edit? I wish you would stop being so contentious (even your language here could be much more pleasant). Adam Bishop 00:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have deleted the External links because they have no merit in an encyclopedia reference:

  1. New France: 1524-1763 is the personal website of Patrick Couture and has no credibilty
  2. Lists of Governors, Intendants, and Bishops is a site that provides no statement of ownership but refers to three individuals, one of which leads to Claude Routhier, an employee of the the cable TV company, Videotron. Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) (And this is interesting because Videotron is owned Quebecor which also owns Sun Media.) Angelique
Okay, if there was only one French territory called the Louisiana Territory, then the Americans weren't allowed to settle in Louisiana, were they? What is so hard to understand about that? And yes, the Spanish did get it from the French in the mid-eighteenth century. I have issues with your removal of the external links, but I suppose that's not as bad as everything else you're doing...

Now, you have changed what you were stating as fact: Please explain how this had to do with the American Revolution? Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you please be more willing to work with other people here? Your actions are very un-Wiki-like. Adam Bishop 01:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. Apologize first and before opening mouth or typing assertions into articles or belittling others (me), check your facts first. Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) -- Please check your facts. I don't want to have to recheck all your additions to all the articles you have inserted information into based on your profound knowledge of history. Angelique 01:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Adam Bishop 01:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just because u dont like the external links, doesnt mean they wont be of interest to the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Angelique, I obviously do not want to get into an edit war with you, so I wish you would be more cooperative. Removing an external link because it is four times removed from a media conglomerate is very strange - the link is just a list! As for the personal website, if it is imformative and useful, so what if it is a personal site? Why don't you replace them with something better, if you know of any? Adam Bishop 01:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not wish to impose my views, only to work to make Wikipedia a valuable and reliable encyclopedia. As such, I placed my thoughts on this matter on the Village Pump page. Was that proper? If not, where should it be to discuss such a vital issue as Wikipedia's credibility? Angelique 02:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ahem, may I?

It seems to me that most of these things should be in the History of Quebec or in the History of Canada. But then again 1763 is not a perfect cut off point.

In all your discussions you are both right, in a way. The special case of Louisiana is tricky because there was a crucial boundary change in this period. On November 3rd 1762 France transferred Louisiana to Spain in a secret treaty which was revealed only in 1764. The formal transfer to Spain occured only in 1769.

During that relatively short period the boundaries of Louisiana were redrawn in a radical way: By a treaty co-signed in Paris in February of 1763 by representatives of France, Portugal, Spain and Great Britain all of the parts of Louisiana which were East of the Mississippi river (and also East of the Iberville river, and lake Maurepas and lake Pontchartrain, to be precise) were ceded to Great Britain.

This is the territory (East of the Mississippi and West of the Appalachians) which Great Britain decided to join to what was formerly New France. By the Quebec act which Parliament passed in London in 1774 this territory was subjected to rule from a British governor, normally located in Quebec city. By this same Quebec Act of 1774 all this vast territory was considered as being both under a localized version of french civil law (the codified "coutume de Paris") and British or English criminal law. Again within this territory, the Roman catholic church was granted all the legal privileges it had known in New France while under the french crown. The inhabitants of the 13 colonies were mostly protestants used to some form of self-rule by locally elected assemblies. They were technically not forbidden to colonize the area West of the Appalachians, but to move there would have meant that they would have to abandon any form of self-government and abide by what was to them an alien form of law. Added to this was the fact that the colonials had for several generations fought (as subjects of the British crown but also as defenders of their farms and families) many bitter wars and skirmishes against the French of New France. In the continuing heat of these conflicts much hatred was generated against everything which was French and/or catholic. Moving to a territory were the Catholic church had legal privileges which were unknown in the 13 colonies was thus very far from attractive! In addition vast stretches of the territory were considered as Indian lands.

This is why the Quebec act of 1774 and the presence of a bit of what had been once Louisiana is often considered as one of the causes of the rebellion of the 13 colonies (soon to be known as the USA) against the Crown.

Do what you wish with what I write, but I would be most pleased if you took the care to check up my facts in something else than the 1961 edition of the Britannica, which I consulted to compose the above. A long time ago I did an honours BA in History and had the great fortune to study under some wise specialists in the History of Canada and New France. They taught me that there is no such thing as a perfect source. Always check things in many sources. All of the text is mine: I have taken only the facts from the 1961 EB. The EB was necessary because my memory fails me and I could not have easily sorted out all those treaties and changes of boundaries whose intricacies I vaguely remembered.2003-12-08, 23:35

Thanks for that, I hope it can help us here. Adam Bishop 16:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article has nothing about Louisiana. Volunteers? Angelique 14:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not yet know how to edit or simply male a remark about the validity of some of the statements yet on this website, but two notions in the following article suscited my attention. Firstly i do not agree with this sentence :

"These years of peace are often referred to by the French as New France's "Golden Age" but the aboriginal peoples regarded it as the continued decimation of their nations."

I dont think that New France's "Golden age" is directly linked with a continued decimation ofthe aboriginal nations of north america and by putting these two in the same sentence, it is clear that the author is trying to create somekind of association. It is a known fact that the french had strong trade alliances with many amerindian tribes from the st. lawrence plains such as the Montagnais, Hurons and Algonquins especially during this so-called "golden age". Otherwise the french tried to associate themselves with the natives as much as possible and had only remote usage of these people as slaves compared to the english or spanish colonies. So i think that by making this notion of continuous decimation of the north american native tribes a direct causal result of "nouvelle-france's" golden age is purely un-factual, deliberate and grossly exagerated.

Secondly there is repeated reference to the huguenot population in North America being the fruit of intolerance by the catholic hegemonical kingdom of france and the source of their demise in North america. I've recently found out the existence of this belief in american culture of the importance of the huguenot presence in the 7 year war and the independance war. Fact is, it is gravely exagerated and hyperbolized.

For instance, this is the first sentence following the title Fall of New France:

"New France now had over 50,000 inhabitants, a vast increase from earlier in the century, but the British American colonies greatly outnumbered them with over one million people (including a substantial number of French Huguenots)."

Firstly, most of the fighting baring any definite instance over the results of the war came from the ohio regions and northward. It is also a fact that most Huguenots established themselves in the southern states, mainly in Virginia and South Carolina. I therefore do not see the importance of the huguenot population in the capitulation of such towns as Quebec, or Ville-Marie.

Finally, i agree that intolerance was directly the cause of the decimation and exodus of the huguenots demographic in France, but i do not agree that because a few thousands(because it wasnt much more) were constrained to move to the english settlements in north america that american protestants should elevate the martyrs to national heroes and at the same time justify their actions. And by the way, most huguenots moved to neighboring protestants nations for the sake of urgency and pragmatical accessibility.

This is what ive been able to decipher quickly. Other remarks or updates may follow.

I agree with your comments. The first paragraph is the work of a now banned user (Angelique/DW/JillandJack/A. Lafontaine) who used to write all kinds of anti-Catholic, anti-French, and anti-Quebec remarks all over Wikipedia. The policy of Wikipedia regarding banned user is that all of what they inputted should be removed. The second paragraph you mentionned has the very common reference to the French Huguenot which in a number of articles would be perfectly valid and useful but here doesn't add anything of substance. -- Mathieugp 22:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Founding of New France

--209.226.250.147 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Throughout the rest of the 16th century the European fishing fleets continued to make almost annual visits to the eastern shores of Canada. Chiefly as a sideline of the fishing industry, there continued an unorganized traffic in furs. At home in Europe new methods of processing furs were developed and beaver hats in particular grew very fashionable. Thus new encouragement was given to the infant fur trade in Canada. In 1598 Troilus de Mesgouez, marquis de la Roche, set out for Canada armed with a new kind of authority--a royal monopoly which gave him the exclusive right to trade in furs. La Roche established a small colony on Sable Island, an isolated Atlantic sandbar southeast of Nova Scotia. The settlement, which proved a dismal failure, was the first of a series of efforts by France to persuade various leaders to set up colonies in Canada in return for an official monopoly of the fur trade. Pierre Chauvin in 1600 established a trading post at Tadoussac, on the St. Lawrence River. This post survived for about three years. In 1604 the fur monopoly was granted to Pierre du Guast, sieur de Monts. He led his first colonizing expedition to an island located near the mouth of the St. Croix River. This in time was to mark the international boundary between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. Among his lieutenants was a geographer named Samuel de Champlain, who promptly carried out a major exploration of the northeastern coastline of what is now the United States (see Champlain). In the spring the St. Croix settlement was moved to a new site across the Bay of Fundy, on the shore of the Annapolis Basin, an inlet in western Nova Scotia. Here at Port Royal in 1605 a settlement Champlain described as the Habitation was established. It was France's most successful colony to date. The land came to be known as Acadia--209.226.250.147 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French settlement North of Mexico

http://habitant.org/franco.htm

Make a tour around Me, NH, VT.

Takima 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose new Navbox

PROTOTYPE NAVBOX DELETED

The main problem with WP's coverage of New France is that there is little continuity between the different locales. Americans editors have made the Louisiana page very good, but much of it duplicates the main page. Meanwhile the main page concentrates way too much on Canada, and neglects Acadia, Louisiana, etc. There is a separate page for the colony of Canada but it is mostly unused. To help readers, and editors get a better understanding of how New France was organized. I am proposing creating this new Navbox template. The first section I am committed to and eventually I want to see it on this page regardless. The rest is open to debate and change.

What do you think? Is it too broad, too narrow? Would a list of topics be better? Thanks for the imput. Kevlar67 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This template suits the article (and related ones) well. Topics can be added or dropped as and when necessary. Go ahead with it dude.--Victor 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1655?

I am confused with this date. What happened in 1655? Isn't it supposed to be 1663 if we are to select the creation of the royal province as a start date? -- Mathieugp 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map cleanup

The captions on the 1750 map need to be translated into English. -- Beland 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to commons and asked the uploader. Dread Pirate Westley•Aargh 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I took a crack at translating it, let me know if you see any mistakes. Kmusser 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A better version is available on Commons: Image:Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg. I asked to the atelier graphique to translate the map in english. I hope it won't be long... JF Lepage 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lousiana

In the text, it is writen that "The Louisiana Territory, under Spanish control since the end of the Seven Year's War, remained off-limits to settlement from the thirteen American colonies". I would like here a reference for this assumption and proof of this obscure Fontainebleau Treaty. If a serious source cannot be provided, this information might then be false and should be removed. (Laurentien 22:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

There is nothing obscure about the Treaty of Fontainebleau centuries after the fact. Even Wikipedia has an article on it right here: Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762). -- Mathieugp 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It is only on Wikipedia (which is not a serious reference and cannot be taken as one) where I saw it. Can you provide an outside reference. Remember that everything that is written should be referenced for verification reasons.

(Laurentien 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Err, even a cursory Google search for "Treaty of Fontainebleau 1792 -Wikipedia" [1] reveals quite a lot of bona fide references to the treaty. And you did see the References section in the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) article, right? And the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which while perhaps not completely unbiased, is a reasonably reliable source for some historical information. Granted, the reference could do with a page number to help readers. See p 380 for a description on the treaty. Here are a few other references, gleaned from just a few moments of searching: [2] [3] [4] [5] Cheers. older ≠ wiser 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey I got something on this Louisianne thing. Why is there so little reference to the region in this article? It seems like even with the separate article on area, there should still be a little more about it here. Leodmacleod 9:15 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question about UserBoxes for this page

Hey. I'm pretty inexperienced to wikipedia coding and i was wondering if someone could make a userbox which:

has a picture of the {{flag of new france|image:Pavillon_royal_de_France.svg}} on the left side and the {{Image:Flag_of_Quebec.svg}} on the other and writing saying "This user is interested in the history of {{New france}} and colonial {{Québec}}"

This would be greatly appreciated as it is a part of history i'm interested in and it is not propely represented on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/History page.

Thanks, -1348- (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)