History is tough. We Canadians don't like talking about the wars with the Americans from 1775 to 1845. I am sure that Americans may still be a little ticklish about the Civil War in some parts. And no one likes to talk about the fall of the eastern half of New France 250 years ago right about now, especially apparently the separatists in Quebec:
The Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and Impératif Français said they have nothing against recognizing historic events, but take exception to having the federal government organize activities and a re-enactment around the event. "It's certain that we think to have the federal government, controlled by an English-Canadian majority, come celebrate the defeat on the Plains of Abraham is a provocation, pure and simple," said Mario Beaulieu, the president of the society...
These things are touchy. We just had the 250th anniversary of the establishment of English control of Ontario pass without a blip in 2008. And the fall of Quebec did not immediately cause the fall of St. Louis, Detroit or New Orleans. The French fact in North American continued in the hinterland in one form or another for decades or centuries more - not to mention in the Maritimes still today. Oddly, there is a good argument that the way Quebec fell provided for its preservation. Had they remained what would have happened during the French Revolution? Wouldn't Napoleon have just sold it off, too? Had the Americans taken it in 1775, there wouldn't have been a continuation of civil law and land speculators would likely have done there what they soon did in western New York and the Ohio Valley, negating the need for the Erie Canal. Heck, the preservation of the French civil law and religious freedom was one of complaints that caused the American Revolution in the first place.
So what am I allowed to wave a flag for in relation to the actual establishment of my country that can be managed by the politicians of these days? Has the time not come when we can make fun of or even celebrate the last years of the collapsing, bankrupt but pre-guillotine French Royalist government? Do people in Delaware have similar issues with their Swedish past? Let me know so I can make sure I have the correctly coloured streamers and balloons.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - February 11, 2009 9:42 AM
Bah.
I say that you should go around singing "The Maple Leaf Forever" with the original words.
"In days of yore, from Britain's shore,
Wolfe the dauntless hero came..."
Alan - February 11, 2009 10:32 AM
Well, Wolfe was a bit of a wishy-washy person in the summer in question as far as my reading goes. Wanted to pour troops into a known death trap down river from town. I think we need to examine 1750s history not through the lens of 1880s history.
Hans - February 11, 2009 12:04 PM
The Gallic People have an Achilles Heel on this: "Alesia!?!? Nobody even knows where Alesia is!" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix_and_the_Chieftain's_Shield)
Alan - February 11, 2009 12:08 PM
So is the real question: "what was so hot about Montcalm anyway?"
Chris Taylor - February 11, 2009 1:38 PM
Wolfe was originally just employing the tactics that had worked so well for him at Louisbourg. Of the Plains of Abraham, he gambled hugely and won, because Montcalm threw away all his tactical advantages (superior numbers, superior fortifications, better logistics/supply) and fought at the place and time of Wolfe's desiring.
History frequently forgives those who dare too much too soon—as long as they finish with a win.
Alan - February 11, 2009 2:12 PM
The reading I have done indicated he was a bit of a dawdler (at Quebec) in that he did not go for the Plains as too much too soon but spent most of the summer looking for another angle. Note the seven weeks that passed from the Battle of Beauport and the Plains. More here.
Alan - February 11, 2009 2:51 PM
Whether he was zippy or tardy, does not Wolfe's Manifesto have some culturally unifying resonance at this present point in history?
Chris Taylor - February 11, 2009 4:03 PM
I didn't think this required spelling out, but...
"Too much too soon" as in:
- Committing the bulk of his invasion force to a location which could easily be surrounded by the enemy (Montcalm's forces in front of the Brits, Bougainville's to the rear)
- Choosing a battlefield from which a fighting withdrawal is a logistical impossibility.
All without knowing whether Montcalm was disposed to fight or simply wait out the siege until the British supplies ran out and they had to go home.
As far as dawdling goes, Wolfe had an initial plan and then had to revise it several times as Montcalm altered his deployments and the Brits discovered the weakness of his supply lines. I think it would be fair to say that he was indecisive and agonised over his plans until he was taken ill.
His staff were no less committed to suicidal death traps, as they had favoured frontal assaults on the city walls—they were all for attacking the city itself, whereas Wolfe wanted to fight Montcalm's army in a non-garrisoned situation. That is by far a sounder plan, and the reason for the "dawdling". Dawdling implies sitting aboard ship doing largely nothing; and the invasion force did do a lot of siegework in the months prior to the actual battle.
When his commanders subsequently examined the strategic situation during Wolfe's illness, the outline of the eventual battle plan came into being.
Alan - February 11, 2009 4:22 PM
Fair enough. Feeling under the weather myself today, I have every sympathy.
But I wonder why they did not attempt an expulsion in whole or in part seeing as they were still expelling from the Maritimes just the year before.
Alan - February 11, 2009 4:27 PM
Surely Rangers were not worse.
Chris Taylor - February 11, 2009 4:42 PM
The scale of the thing was probably the deterrent. 11,000 Acadians out east vs. 55,000+ Quebecois. The sealift required to get everybody out of there would be just massive. Wolfe's force was around 8,500 guys, and that took 1/4 of the Royal Navy to get there—49 men-of-war and over 200 merchants. Moving six times that number of people would probably tie up British shipping for ages; they wouldn't have anything left to shuttle reinforcements to the Continent.
Alan - February 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Yes, that is likely it. I think I just read somewhere that after the first 6,000 Nova Scotian Acadians in 1755, the next @6,000 were over years.