USA > Maine > The beginnings of colonial Maine, 1602-1658 > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
1 Relations, III, 263.
2 The Kenduskeag river enters the Penobscot at Bangor; and Kenduskeag is evidently a corruption for Kadesquit, the junction of the two rivers being the site of the Indian village, the proposed site of the colony.
8 Ib., III, 265.
4 John Gilmary Shea (History of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes) writes carelessly concerning locations mentioned in Father Biard's Relation. For example, he tells us that la Saussaye "sailed for Mt. Desert,
106
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
This port, on the eastern shore of Mount Desert, is easily iden- tified with that of the present Bar Harbor. But Saint Sauveur was not Kadesquit, and a dispute soon arose between the sailors and the leaders of the colony, because of a difference in interpret- ing the contract drawn up in France concerning the voyage. The sailors held that the period of three months, for which they were holden after the arrival of the vessel at a port of Acadia, should commence with the arrival at Mount Desert. When it was explained to them that Kadesquit was the designated place, not Saint Sauveur, and that the three months would not be counted until they were there, the pilot, who was in agreement with the sailors, maintained "that a ship had never gone so far as Kades- quit, and that he had no intention of becoming the discoverer of new routes". "Nothing but argument", wrote Father Biard, "a bad augury for the future."1 So it seemed.
But more favorable omens were discovered. During this wrang- ling, a party of Indians signaled to the vessel, and in the confer- ence that followed the Indians learned that the Port Royal fathers were on the ship. They asked to see Father Biard, whom they had met at Pentegoet. Father Biard came on shore, and when in the conversation that followed he asked the Indians the way to Kadesquit, they replied, "If you wish to stay in these regions, why not remain with us?" affirming that they had as good and beautiful a location for the colony as Kadesquit. Father Biard records that he was not moved by these appeals, for "he knew that the savages did not lack that with which almost everyone is abundantly provided, namely, the ability to praise his own wares";2 but when the Indians informed him that their chief,
at the mouth of the Kennebec", and he locates the colony on "the east side of the island". He is also exceedingly free in his use of Father Biard's Relation, when he writes, "Their pilot, by some mistake, carried them to the east side of the island" [Mount Desert]. The Relation has no hint even of a mistake on the part of the pilot, but clearly states the circumstances con- nected with the approach to Mount Desert.
1 Jesuit Relations, III, 267.
2 Ib., III, 269.
107
THE FRENCH COLONY AT MOUNT DESERT.
Asticou, was sick unto death and wished to be baptized, saying that if the chief did not receive baptism before death he would not go to heaven, Father Biard yielded to an argument "so naively deduced", and with two of his associates started in a canoe for Asticou's camp. On their arrival they found the chief sick, but with a cold only; and having assured themselves of Asticou's favorable condition, and finding they had plenty of leisure for a visit to the promised better location for a settlement, Father Biard and his associates made their way thither. The Indians had not overpraised the location. Nothing more desirable could be expected ; and on their return to the ship Father Biard confirmed the statement of the Indians. The other members of the colony were asked to examine the location; they did so, and on their return it was an unanimous agreement that the colonists ought not to look for anything better, and all thought of proceeding to Kadesquit was at once abandoned. The following is Father Biard's description of the accepted location of the Jesuit colony :
"This place is a beautiful hill, rising gently from the sea, its sides bathed by two springs ; the land is cleared for twenty or twenty-five acres, and in some places is covered with grass almost as high as a man. Its aspect is to the south and east, like that at the mouth of the Pentegoet,1 and looking to where several attrac- tive brooks, abounding in fish, discharge themselves. The soil is dark, rich and fertile. The port and harbor are as fine as can be seen, and are in a position favorable to command the entire coast. The harbor especially is as safe as a pond. For besides being sheltered 2 by the great island of Mount Desert, it is still more pro-
1 The reference apparently is to the situation of Castine.
2 Father Biard says : "Car outre qu'il est reparé de la grande Isle des Mots deserts il l'est encores de certaines petites Islettes, qui rompent les flots & les vents, & fortifient son entrée." The translation, as given in connection with the text, is as follows : "For besides being strengthened by the great island of Mount desert, it is still more protected by certain small Islands which break the currents and the winds, and fortify the entrance" (Jesuit Rela- tions, III, 270, 271). The word strengthened evidently misses the meaning of reparé. It is the sheltered, protected situation of the location that the
108
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
tected by certain small islands which break the currents and the winds and fortify the entrance. There is not a fleet which it is not capable of sheltering, nor a ship so deep that could not approach within a cable's length of the shore to unload. It is situated in latitude forty-four and one third degrees, a position still less northerly than that of Bordeaux."
This careful description clearly indicates the location. It was on the western side of Somes Sound, about a mile from the open sea, and near where the eastern and western mountains on the ocean front of the island are divided by the waters of the sound. The place is now known as Fernald's Point, and its beautiful slope is as attractive in these days as it was when Father Biard and his associates looked upon its green, grass-grown acres. The harbor, too, has all the advantages indicated in the descrip- tion ; and the claim in our time has been made, perhaps somewhat boastfully, that it is "the third for majestic amplitude in all the world".1 Moreover the two springs are as noteworthy to-day as then.
But Father Biard, in his description of thelocation, had in view something more than a favorable spot for a mission. The real significance of Saint Sauveur he grasped and proclaimed when he made mention of its position as "favorable to command the entire coast". It could be made of national use in extending the bound- aries of New France. Moreover, Father Biard's statement con- cerning the latitude of the place establishes the fact that he knew
writer plainly has in view. Parkman (Pioneers of New France, 304) has separé for reparé in this passage, and adds that Father Biard "was evidently mistaken in this (that he could go from the eastern part of the island to St. Sauveur and return in an afternoon). St. Sauveur being on the east side of Mount Desert, there is no place separated from it, and answering to his description, which he could have reached within the time mentioned". Parkman was misled by his wrong text. He fails also in the passage to notice that two locations are mentioned in Father Biard's Relation, the St. Sauveur of the landing on the east side of the island and the St. Sauveur of the settlement on Somes Sound.
1 Biard's Relation of 1616 and St. Sauveur, by Rev. E. C. Cummings, Me. Hist. Society's Coll., Series II, 5, 99.
109
THE FRENCH COLONY AT MOUNT DESERT.
the location was within the limits of the English claim, which was to latitude forty-five north.
La Saussaye, having brought his vessel to the accepted location, landed the colonists and the work of establishing them there was commenced. But this was all, for also commenced "the quarrels, a second sign and augury of our ill-luck", says Father Biard. The occasion of this new outbreak of dissension was attributed to la Saussaye, who is said to have "amused himself too much in culti- vating the land, while all the chiefs of the enterprise were urging him not to employ the laborers for that purpose, but to get to work without delay upon the houses and fortifications, which he did not wish to do."1 The French commander seems not to have had even a dream of insecurity for himself and his colony, and was in no wise moved by the appeals of Father Biard and his associates. How long la Saussaye was left to his enjoyment in the cultivation of the rich, fertile soil of this delightful location is unknown.2 It may have been several weeks, and perhaps months. But the day for which la Saussaye had not looked, and for which he was wholly unprepared, at length came.
Captain Samuel Argall,3 connected with the Virginia colony at
1 Jesuit Relations, III, 273.
2 The dates are wholly lacking in Father Biard's Relation.
3 Captain Samuel Argall, though a young man, was an experienced navi- gator in 1609, when he was selected to find a direct passage to Virginia. He accomplished the task assigned to him, and in the following year he con- ducted Lord de la Warr to the Jamestown colony. In the same year also he made a voyage to the New England coast (Brown, Genesis of the United States, I, 428-439), where he engaged in fishing, thus making the beginning of the fishing voyages from Virginia to this vicinity. He returned to Eng- land in 1611, and was again in Virginia in 1612, with a commission to remain in Virginia and to drive out foreign intruders from the country granted to Englishmen by the three patents of James I. (Genesis of the United States, II, 815.) He returned to England in 1614, and to Virginia in 1615. In 1617, he was made deputy governor and admiral of Virginia. In the distribution of "the land of New England by lots in 1622", Cape Cod fell to him. The date of his death is unknown, but it was probably in 1633. His mother was married (a second marriage) to Lawrence Washington, an ancestor of George Washington. Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, II, 309.
110
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
Jamestown, and described as "an ingenious, active, forward young gentleman",1 arrived one day on the coast. He had come hither for the purpose of supplying the Virginia colonists with fish; but having in view the possibility of French encroachments within the limits of England's claims, Sir Thomas Dale, governor of Vir- ginia, had given Argall orders,2 when starting north, to expel the French from any settlements they might have made within the limits of King James' patent of 1606. Because of the return of the Popham colonists in 1608, Governor Dale evidently deemed it incumbent on him, as England's representative on the American coast, to protect the nation's interests in northern Virginia, as well as in the territory under his immediate command; and he saw to it that Argall's vessel, before proceeding northward, was properly armed and equipped. Accordingly, when Argall, hav- ing reached the vicinity of Mount Desert, learned from some Indians that there were white colonists in the neighborhood- Frenchmen, as he surmised from their use of the word "Norman- dia" which the Indians had caught up, as well as from certain reported acts of courtesy which Argall and his company "recog- nized as French ceremonies of civility and politeness",-he at once prepared for action ; and guided by one of the Indians, who supposed he was doing the French colonists a favor in bringing
1 Howe's Chronicles in Brown's Genesis of the United States, II, 751.
2 The Virginia council, in response to a request from the privy council in England for a statement of the affair, wrote : "It is true Capt. Argall did take a French ship within the limits of our colony, who were about to plant contrary to the extent and privilege of his majesty's letters patent to us granted. That he did it by the command of the governor of our colony by his commission to him given under the seal of the colony, and by virtue of such authority as is to him derived from his majesty's great seal of Eng- land". Brown, Genesis of the United States, II, 731. As to Governor Dale's authority for his orders to Argall, it should be said that the Virginia charter of 1606 conferred upon the two colonies power to "encounter, expulse, repel, and resist, as well by sea as by land, by all ways and means whatsoever, all and every such person and persons, as without the especial license of the said several colonies and plantations, shall attempt to inhabit within the said several precincts and limits of the said several colonies and plantations, or any of them". Genesis of the United States, I, 59.
111
THE FRENCH COLONY AT MOUNT DESERT.
the ship in, Argall, with all sails set to a propitious breeze, entered Somes Sound with "the banners of England flying and three trumpets and two drums making a horrible din", and opened fire upon everything French in sight.
La Saussaye was on shore, and disappeared when the attack upon the settlement was made, showing no signs of fitness for leadership. The captain of the French ship was as unprepared for the attack as were the colonists on the land, his sails even having been arranged as awnings for the deck; and when, as a response to Argall's terrific volley, he cried to his men, "Fire!" the cannoneer was not at his post. Gilbert du Thet, a lay brother, obeyed the command, however, but "unfortunately", says Father Biard, "he did not take aim"; and his associate, who was on shore at the time, naively adds, "if he had, perhaps there might have been something worse than mere noise." 1
Moving rapidly, having fired a single volley only, Argall sought to place his vessel alongside of the French ship; but Captain Flory, making no sign of surrender, the English commander renewed the attack at close quarters. The lay brother was one of those struck down at this time. His wound was a mortal one, and he died the next day. Captain Flory, also, was wounded, and three of his men. Two young men, who had leaped from a boat in order to swim to the shore, were drowned, possibly hav- ing first been wounded. The French now surrendered.2
Argall at once landed and sought for la Saussaye, but he was not to be found. Then, the locks of the French commander hav- ing been skilfully picked, a search was made for his commission and other papers. Having found the commission, Argall care- fully returned the papers, leaving the trunks as if they had not been opened. On the following day, la Saussaye came out of his hiding-place and gave himself up. First of all, Argall asked to see his commission. Not suspecting from the appearance of his trunks that they had been opened, la Saussaye turned to them
1 Jesuit Relations, III, 281.
2Ib., III, 283.
112
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
confidently ; but the papers he sought could not be found. Argall at once assumed an appearance of indignation and exclaimed, "You give us to understand that you have a commission from your king, and you cannot produce any evidence of it", adding that he regarded him and his company as "outlaws".1
It was harsh treatment, but not as severe as Father Biard and his associates anticipated. "We expected only death or at least slavery", he wrote, having in mind the hard experiences of others in the international conflicts of that time. Argall took down the cross that had been erected at Saint Sauveur, and removed the French armament and stores to his own ship; but he seems to have acted discreetly, for Father Biard, while designating him as "a very shrewd and cunning captain", added that nevertheless he was "a gentleman of truly noble courage; nor were his men inhuman or cruel to any of us."2 In fact, Father Biard has only words of commendation for the personal bearing of the English commander so far as the French colonists were concerned.
In various ways, and after many mishaps, two-thirds of the French company captured at Saint Sauveur were enabled to make their way back to France in French vessels farther up the coast.3 Those remaining with Argall, including Father Biard, were dis- tributed among the vessels of Argall's fleet, namely, Argall's own ship, la Saussaye's captured vessel and a bark of twelve tons, also taken from the French. Argall, with his party of the French colonists, returned to Virginia, where he received a hearty greet- ing from the governor, who, pleased with the results of Argall's work at Saint Sauveur, directed him to return and complete the work of removing every landmark of France "along the entire coast as far as Cape Breton". Argall was prompt in his response ; and sailing northward with his own and the captured vessels, having with him also Father Biard and other French captives, he soon reached Saint Sauveur, where he destroyed the French fortifi-
1 Jesuit Relations, IV, 11.
2 Ib., IV, 17.
3 Ib., IV, 27.
1 1 1
113
THE FRENCH COLONY AT MOUNT DESERT.
cations and raised another cross, carving upon it the name of James I as a sign of English dominion on American soil. Then he made his way to St. Croix island in the St. Croix river, where he destroyed all traces of "the name and claims of France" left by de Monts' company when they withdrew to Port Royal in 1605. Argall had difficulty in finding St. Croix island, but he was in far greater straits in his search for Port Royal. At length, "by dint of much running about, lying in ambush, inquiring and skilful maneuvering", he captured an Indian chief, "a very experienced man and well-acquainted with the country", who guided the Eng- lish commander safely to his desired port. No one was found at Port Royal when Argall landed, and taking possession of the French stores and other property at the fort without opposition of any kind, he set the buildings on fire and destroyed all "monu- ments and evidences" of French dominion at the place.1
Having thus accomplished the task assigned to him by the gov- ernor of Virginia, Argall, with his three vessels, set sail for the return voyage, November 9, 1613. His own vessel reached the James river in about three weeks, but la Saussaye's vessel, under the direction of Captain Turnel, Argall's second in command, was driven by a storm far out of her course; and Turnel, losing all hope of being able to reach Virginia, decided to make the Azore islands and await more favorable conditions. At Fayal, however, where Turnel remained three weeks, all further effort to return to the American coast was abandoned. The vessel then proceeded to England, and arrived at Milford Haven in Wales on an unknown date, but probably in February, 1614. After a short delay, Father Biard and the other Frenchmen on board were released and returned to France. The French ambassador at Lon- don commenced negotiations for the surrender of la Saussaye's vessel, and reparation for the losses sustained by the French at Saint Sauveur. The vessel was given up, but the claim for repara- tion was denied, the privy council stating in a communication
1 Jesuit Relations, IV, 35-39.
8
114
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
addressed to the ambassador, "As to Madame the Marchioness of Guercheville she has no reason to complain, nor to hope for any reparation, seeing that her ship entered by force the territory of said colony to settle there, and to trade without their permission, to the prejudice of our treaties and of the good understanding there is between our kings".1
The governor of Virginia based his action in this affair on the following facts. In the charter of 1606, granted by King James to the southern and northern colonies of Virginia, that part of North America between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of north latitude was plainly recognized as belonging to Great Britain. The grant was in response to a petition for royal permis- sion "to make habitation, plantation, and deduce a colony of sun- dry of our people into that part of America, commonly called Virginia, and other parts and territories in America, either apper- taining unto us, or which are not now actually possessed by any Christian prince or people, situate, lying and being all along the sea coasts, between four and thirty degrees of northerly latitude from the equinoctial line, and five and forty degrees of the same latitude". The king agreed to these "humble and well-intended desires", and granted to the two colonies the territory indicated in the petition.2
It has been claimed by some writers3 that the clause "not now actually possessed by any Christian prince or people" was vio- lated in Argall's destruction of the Saint Sauveur colony; that the
1 Brown, Genesis of the United States, II, 734.
2 Ib., I, 52, 53.
3 For example : "It [the South Virginia colony] was able in 1613 to fit out an armed vessel, commanded by Capt. Argall, which broke up the French settlements at Port Royal, Mount Desert, etc., and compelled their inhabi- itants to retire towards Canada ; protesting all the while that whatever abstract rights Great Britain might possess, if any there were, the Virginia charter expressly excepted in its grants regions already occupied by any Christian prince or people, they [the French] being a Christian people." History of Grants under the Great Council for New England, by Samuel F. Haven, in Early History of Massachusetts. Lectures before the Lowell Institute in Boston by members of the Mass. Hist. Society, 142.
1 t
1 1 1 1
I
115
THE FRENCH COLONY AT MOUNT DESERT.
French on the shores of Somes Sound, being a Christian people, were, by the charter of 1606, expressly declared to be in rightful possession, although they had located within the territorial limits mentioned in the charter. It should be noticed, however, that the words of the petition, "not now actually possessed by any Christian prince or people", are not repeated in the king's grant ; moreover, even if they had been repeated, no appeal in behalf of the Saint Sauveur colony could be made to this clause inasmuch as it had reference to the time when the charter was granted-" not now actually possessed"-and not to a subsequent occupation, as was the case at Saint Sauveur.
England's claim to territory in North America, however, was not based primarily on King James' charter of 1606, but on Cabot's discovery in 1497. This fact was recognized in the charter which Queen Elizabeth bestowed on Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578, in accordance with which, in 1583, he took formal possession of Newfoundland in the name of the queen. Continuous possession in that locality did not follow, it is true. At that early period matters pertaining to territorial rights on this side of the sea were in an unsettled state. But the English claim within certain defi- nite limits was renewed in the charter of 1606, which virtually was a public announcement that the portion of North America between thirty-four and forty-five degrees north latitude, under the name Virginia, was territory belonging to the English crown. Sir Thomas Dale, therefore, was entirely within what he regarded the rights of the mother country when he gave Argall a well- armed vessel and directed him, properly commissioned, to destroy any French settlements on the Atlantic coast as far as the forty- fifth degree north latitude. Saint Sauveur, St. Croix island and Port Royal were within the limits laid down by the crown, and though no word of command had come to the governor from the king, he evidently deemed that he needed no such word of command. To call him a "self-constituted champion of British rights"1 does him injustice. He was the acknowledged represen-
1 Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World, 313.
E
E
116
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
tative of English sovereignty on American soil; and recognizing this fact, having in view the just requirements of his office, he doubtless considered that he would fail in his allegiance to the crown if he allowed any encroachment upon territory within the limits established by the charter of 1606.1
So far as English interests in the new world were concerned, the importance of Argall's mission to our coast in 1613 can hardly be overestimated. As has well been said, "New England was reserved for the English by Argall's decisive action".2 England's privy council not only refused to disavow that action by the pun- ishment of Argall, but continued him in higher and higher com- mands. Here, at Somes Sound, was the beginning of that long struggle between England and France for dominion on American soil. Grand tactics later were displayed on both sides. The prize to be won was an alluring one. Nothing is clearer than that from this early period the determination was strong, and ever stronger in English minds and hearts, to maintain at any cost the English claim to American territory. Naturally there was con- flict, and the conflict was long continued. In the course of time the right of discovery was exchanged for the right of conquest, until in 1763, by treaty, New France disappeared from the map of North America, and the whole of England's claim to territory on this side of the sea was finally established.8
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.