WESTBROOK LETTER 1722 - Response
My Response
I will begin my response with Ms. Lecompte's comments. I thought that with the amount of Native Americans mentioned in this letter that although I may not be able to find more accounts of this particular situation in the "United States" History, I would be able to find it in the Native American History and definitely be able to identify the exact "regiment?" participating in this event. I did not know that any of the Native Americans might be missing their written history or worse yet their oral histories. While I didn't exactly expect this battle to come jumping out of history waiting for me to find it, I thought with some digging I would be able to find more information on this exact battle. I have been very naive on Native American issues. I find it disheartening that the current Wabanaki histories are not written by Wabanaki people either. I hope that there is soon to be such a history produced.
I do understand people searching archives for their own topic, that is exactly what I'm doing but I cannot understand how someone could not include the Native American perspective in a book entitled "The History of Maine". It doesn't even make sense. It's reminds me of the other minorities in the United States missing from history and school books, like the African-Americans and the Mexican Americans. I totally agree with Ms. Lecompte that the title "History of Maine" is inappropriate for a work that doesn't include the Native American perspective.
In regard to her reference to the 1721 letter giving insight as to the Native issues of the time,
Abenaki Letter to Gov. Shute
Obviously, we are reading the words of people thoroughly fed up with others stealing their lands, lying to them, taking the words of a few people whom they have plied with liquor to be those of an entire people, backing out on their promises, and different and unequal treatment. Obviously, we are reading the words of a people who will not tolerate anymore. Think about it, here you are (1998) sitting in your back yard, and someone comes along and says, "Hey, I live here now, get out. It doesn't matter if you agree because your neighbor (your cousin, someone you don't even know) told me I could have this house and everything in it, so beat it." I'm sure none of us would put up with it. Yet, this is exactly what happened. We feel we have a right to our property due to purchase and title transfers etc. The colonial Indians felt they had a right to their land because of God, a much higher authority, and because it's not anyone else's, who else's could it be?
In regard to Dummer's war Ms. Lecompte asks, "Was it the beginning of the end?", and answers "possibly." She points out that this was the first time the English had been the aggressor and that the Indians were tired of warfare, that many had become friends with their "enemy", learned their "enemy's" language, intermarried and experienced that warfare was futile. Wars had brought starvation, due to the warriors not being able to hunt for their families, which also was a cause of malnutrition. Wars caused people to relocate to lands that were not agriculturally productive, compounding these problems. Wars had caused too many deaths both on the "battle field" and by the more rapid spread of disease among malnourished people. As a final offense, the treaties that resulted from war were never worthwhile, and we know from history, usually not honored.
She also fervently points out that they were NEVER DEFEATED in these wars. Although I would like to agree with her, I guess (like our president) I would have to say that depends on the definition of the word defeat. It should be noted that the Abenaki retained their place in Maine where they have a voice in the Legislature in American Tribal affairs, they have state tribal lands and in 1981 were court awarded $80,000,000 due to an ancient agreement. This does not appear to be defeat, yet the loss of so many people, so many lands and so much of their history does appear to be defeat. Sultzman states boldly that the Abenaki were defeated in Dummer's War and the Insiders Guide states they were more or less defeated, but I do not know if these are Native Americans making that claim. I am not a Native American. I cannot say they were defeated, I also cannot say they were not defeated.
My sources indicate that the French were less interested in changing and conquering the Native Americans as they were in trading and christianizing them. Their lack of ethnocentrism, other than religious, allowed them to treat the Natives as equals and intermarry with them. Yet their lack of support during English confrontations is deplorable in relation to the fact that they claimed the land for France and urged the Natives to war with England. Was this more deplorable than England? I don't think so. The English also tricked and stole from the Indians, but historically they never really acted (as opposed to spoke) as though, overall, they were interested in anything else but the land. In a way, I feel that while certainly more humane than the English, the French, by building an honest trust relationship, were more culpable than the English in this one aspect.
I found Ms. Lecompte's account of the death of Father Rales very revealing. I did not find this insight in any of the other sources I checked. Father Rasles himself wrote to his brother, "As for what concerns me personally, I assure you that I see, that I hear, that I speak, only as a savage." Does this mean that he considered Abanaki and himself as savages? Does it mean that he considered himself an Abenaki? According to Colin Calloway, "New Worlds For All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America", the English hated the missionary because they feared that he used his influence to incite attacks on English settlements and therefore put a just price on his head. He says that the English mutilated his body but does not mention that the mutilators had previously been captives of the Abenaki.
Ms. Lecompte's insights into the Westbrook letter came as a major surprise to me in several ways. First, I would never have expected that the figure of 500 to 600 Indians to mean anything more than a numerical figure. Yet, her interpretation of the significance of the number of Indians makes more sense than not. First, she has the knowledge about the number that would likely be gathered and states that the number may be inflated. The reason for the inflation could be to motivate those receiving the letter to send more money since the soldiers have such a large contingency to face. Another possibility is that these are not a people determined for warfare but families harvesting food which would then severely lessen their threat factor. I don't know if it's my inability to see below the writing, or if it's my lack of Indian history or if it's that I'm not a Native American but I just never thought of these insights.
Second, in the part of the letter where the siege at Fort George is mentioned there is also a statement the Indians are being led by a friar and two French men. When I first read this, my interpretation was that the two French men were traders (possibly missionaries) who knew the way to where they were headed and all three were acting as interpreters for the Indians. It didn't occur to me that the term "lead" was meant to be literal. After reading Ms. Lecompte's views, my first thought was, "How could you be so stupid as to think the Abenaki, who had occupied this land for many years, would need French men to show them the way?" My second thought was, "I'm so glad Ms. Lecompte addressed these issues because her view really opens up my eyes." Again, I just never thought the term "lead" could be a political statement about the French influence over the Natives but this viewpoint is supported in other sources.
I too was impressed by the description of Fort Pentagoet, but again, I didn't look past the description. Ms. Lecompte notes since there is no mention of the attacks disrupting the harvest, the corn mentioned has already been harvested. She also points out that the food resources are seasonal. Her insights have begun to teach me to think more globally, read deeper.
The next part of my response has to do with the other resources. I found some sources suspiciously lacking in certain information. For example, in "Handbook of North American Indians" there are only a few sentences about Father Rasles. He established a mission, he had considerable influence on the Kennebec, and he died in Dummer's War. If this man was as influential as it appears he was, more about him should be included in the Abenaki history. In contrast, Calloways' work, which doesn't claim to be an Abenaki history, tells how Rasles' influence induced Abenaki to take French saint's names, to wear crucifixes, to speak French, to hang wampum belts on saints statues and of how the Abenaki would dance to rattles instead of drums to both keep their tradition of dance alive and to appease the Father's who frowned on the drums.
Similarly, the history by Sultzman states, "During the next 50 years, as the Abenaki probably watched in amazement, English and French fought several wars over who owned the Abenaki homeland." The period he is referring to began about 1620 and ended about 1670. He does not mention that during this time period the Abenaki were already being tricked out of their lands. To say they watched in amazement while others fought over their land indicates they had no active part. To suggest that being surrounded by war could occur without any emotion save amazement is unrealistic.
There really are many more issues I could point to, but at some point, this paper HAS to end. This is that point. I started out trying to find people, places and events in history and getting both sides of the story to be able to know what really happened. It was a naive expectation. I ended up learning far more than I expected to in regard to the way histories are written and the meaning of words. I did not learn what I expected to, exactly who were these people and what was their side of this conflict, but did come as close as I could get. Finally I ended up having way more questions than what I started out with. I could probably study this one letter for years and maybe never learn the answer to my original questions but learn far more in the process.
NEXT PAGE..........Westbrook Menu
