Canadians are a bit dumbfounded by the convoluted process involved in grappling with the current US debt ceiling crisis. Americans are being told “your government will run out of money if we don’t solve this problem” (raising the debt ceiling). So what results is brinkmanship and potential paralysis if the two (three?) sides can’t agree before some magical deadline.

In the Canadian parliamentary system a party governing with a clear majority in the House of Commons would just pass legislation to get the job done. That would be that. Given the weak structure of our Senate there is very little anybody could do about it.

I’ve read commentaries that say this demonstrates the superiority of the Canadian system. But I think exactly the opposite is the case. If you know anything about British constitutional history you will know that the supreme power of parliament has devolved from the supreme power of the monarch. Four or five hundred years ago a British monarch could more or less do what he or she wanted (levy taxes, wage wars, raise armies, create nobles, build castles, etc., etc.) That power was gradually wrested away from the monarch and vested in Parliament.

This demonstrates both some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses of an evolved system of government like that of Britain (and by extension, Canada). On the plus side such a system retains continuity with the past and knows what has worked and what has not. On the negative side it is very difficult to modify or get rid of traditions or assumptions (the absolute power of the ruler, for example) that may not fit current conditions, or are no longer morally justifiable.

The founders of the American system obviously worked within British traditions, but they were intent on rejecting the arbitrary power of the monarch. Given that starting point they gave themselves a more or less blank slate. If you know a little bit about American history you know that the balance of opposing powers was viewed as a critical component of the system – necessary for not letting any one branch or section of the government become too powerful.

The current debt ceiling crisis demonstrates the way these counter-balancing elements within the U.S. government work. The President does not have the power to simply do what he pleases (unlike the Canadian PM in a majority situation). There must be agreement between the President and Congress.

But getting the approval of Congress requires satisfying two different “houses”, which, in this case, are controlled by different parties with what seem to be radically different points of view. And even more confusing, one of those houses – the House of Representatives – is controlled by a party (the Republicans) that is seriously split between traditionalists and a more radical “change” oriented group.

What we have seen over the last few weeks is how the American democracy works. A relatively small group of radicals (The Tea Party Republicans) have tried to stand by their principles – the ones they were elected to promote – and in so doing have thwarted the apparent will of the majority.

But not really, since ultimately the majority has gotten its way. Furthermore, the compromise that has emerged is probably fairly close to what what most Americans can agree to.

Unless you are died-in-the-wool “majority rules” true believer, a compromise like this seems like a pretty democratic result. The dissenters (elected by “the people”) have had their views taken seriously. The Republicans have made a strong case for their position and clearly defined their “bottom line”. And the Democrats have put forward the kind of compromise that can get enough support from moderate Republicans to get passed.

All in all, I’d say a pretty “democratic” process.

The federal Liberals under Michael Ignatieff have issued a big chunk of their election platform. It is being called the “Liberal Family Pack” because it contains many “family-friendly” goodies: help for families with college-bound kids, more child care spaces, time off for family caregivers, pumped up CPP payments, and help for people wanting to make their homes “greener” by adding insulation, etc.

As John Ivison reports in the National Post – Liberal ‘Family Pack’ no bargain the new red book proposals are not all they seem. Many have been recycled from previous campaigns or lifted from the other parties.

As Ivison says, paying for the goodies in the Liberal plan will come from increased revenues due to the Liberal pledge to increase the corporate tax rate. That rate has been steadily reduced by Harper. It now stands at 16.5% and is slated to move down to 15% next year. Ignatieff wants to move it back to 18%.

But the expected revenue from this increase is far from a slam dunk. Increasing the corporate tax rate will have a difficult to predict impact on corporate investment. The negative impact could be as much as $50 billion according to Jack Mintz of the School of Policy Studies at the University of Calgary. And you can be sure that if the overall Canadian economy grows less because of the tax increase than it otherwise would have, the net cost of the Liberal program will be greater than predicted.

I suspect that most Canadians have heard the phrase coureurs de bois and at least some of us have a vague idea who they were and what they did.

But I also suspect that very few of us know how truly unique these people were and what an important role they played in Canada’s early history.

When I was in school we learned of the coureurs de bois as sort of minor explorers and fur traders. They travelled the wilderness of eastern Canada across the great lakes and eventually down through the Mississippi valley in search of trade with the natives.

In the process they were the first white men to lay their eyes on much of this area.

More than explorers

But they were much more than explorers. In effect they were cultural ambassadors for the unique way of life that was taking shape in New France. In the British colonies to the south the primary objective was settlement and taming of the “wilderness”. This defined the relationship between the new settlers, the land they lusted after and the Indians who were its original occupants. In other words, it led to the inevitable seizure of Indian lands.

In New France things were different. It is true that Samuel de Champlain – the “Father of New France” strove for years to establish a French colony at Quebec and elsewhere along the St. Lawrence River. But the objective of Champlain’s sponsors back in France was primarily commercial. They were first and foremost interested in cashing in on the lucrative fur trade with the Indians of the area.

Champlain himself had a vision for the new French colony, but it was not one of occupation and domination. Over four decades starting from the early 1600s he was amazingly effective in establishing good relations with Indian nations right from Acadia (in Nova Scotia) to Huronia (in Ontario) and everywhere in between.

Champlain envisioned a society in which settlers and natives could live side by side in cooperation and harmony for the mutual benefit of both. Later in his mission to New France, Catholic missionaries played a larger role, attempting to convert Indians to Christianity. But there continued to be a general respect for native customs and language.

The contrast with how the Spanish treated Indians in Mexico and South and Central America is quite stunning. There it was clearly a question of conquest, with Indians treated as sub-human and often exploited as slaves – even by mission priests in many places.

Origins of the coureurs de bois

This never happened in New France. In fact Champlain negotiated with friendly tribes to have hand-picked bright and adverturous young men live with them for a year or two. The object was to learn their customs and language while building understanding and mutual respect between Europeans and natives.

These young men were later to serve as translators. Champlain called them truchements, and there were dozens of arrangements like this made in the first few decades of New France – the early 1600s.

Many of these young men became fully adjusted to the ways of the Indians, often becoming free agent fur traders, plying their trade along wilderness rivers never before visited by Europeans.

They would be away from “civilization” for years at a time, and often took an Indian wife. This way of life became so attractive to young Frenchmen that by the year 1680 it is estimated there were more than 800 coureurs de bois – out of a total population of just 9,700 in New France.

As the number of coureurs de bois grew, the French authorities in Quebec began losing control of the lucrative fur trade. In 1681 they instituted a sytem of licensing which forced independent fur traders to trade their goods through Montreal. Many coureurs de bois were thus converted into voyageurs – who were forced to give up their independence and become hired labourers for one of the established Montreal companies.

Many coureurs de bois remained stubbornly independent, but the writing was on the wall. It became increasingly difficult for them to operate in an environment controlled by a few large companies. Eventually they were displaced by licensed voyageurs.

Nevertheless, it was the young coureurs de bois of the 1600s who formed the defining spirit of a new culture that developed in the northern part of North America. These people were attracted to the wilderness, cherished their freedom, loved adventure, had an independent entrepreneurial spirit, and were tolerant of others who were different, as long as they shared their “live and let live” attitude.

“The Last Spike” that’s Donald Smith at Craigellachie, B.C., 1885

I was in the local Chapters book store a few days ago looking for something interesting to read and two things about their selection of Canadian books stuck out.

First there is the aggravating use of the cute term “Canadiana” to classify books about Canada. At least that is what I think “Canadiana” is supposed to designate, since I refuse to look in this section.

I think it is about time to retire this term. Doesn’t it just emphasize how weak and paltry is the selection of books about Canada – that we need a nice little section with a cutesy name to tell people “this is where you find books about Canada.” Can you imagine going into a bookstore in, say, Ireland or Israel and seeing a section for “Irelandiana” or “Israeliana”. I didn’t think so.

The second thing that struck me was when I eventually found the section about Canadian history. No, for some reason this was not a sub-section of the “Canadiana” section. It was a small section fairly close to all the books about American history, and the new releases by such notables as Glen Beck, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Can you guess which books were most prominent in the Canadian history section? Come on… you know that guy who wrote all kinds of popular books about Canadian history 20 or 30 years ago and died in 2004 at the age of 84.

Still can’t guess? OK, it was Pierre Berton.

Yes, that’s right. Pierre Berton.

Now I have nothing against PB, but it seems odd to me that there haven’t been a few noteworthy books about Canadian history written in the last 5 years by Canadian historians. A couple of weeks ago I did manage to find Champlain’s Dream, by David Hackett Fischer. This is a great book about one of Canada’s most important founding personalities. But Fischer is not a Canadian, as far as I can tell. Odd that such an important book would not be written by a Canadian.

Anyway, back to Pierre Berton for a minute. Berton was not only an author (he wrote 50 books) but he was also a story teller and a television personality involved in game shows (Front Page Challenge, The Great Debate), interviews and public affairs (The Pierre Berton Show), documentaries (The Golden Trail – about the Klondike golf rush), and at least one TV miniseries about Canadian history called The National Dream which was based on excerpts from a couple of his books and which he narrated himself.

I can still remember seeing the episode about the driving of the “last spike” of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I’m sure Berton did more to publicize this event than any other Canadian before or since. It took place at a whistle stop in the Canadian Rockies called Craigellachie – named after the anscetral home in Scotland of George Stephen, the first president of the CPR.

More than once I’ve asked someone “Do you know where the last spike of the CPR was driven in 1885?” Expecting them to say, “Sure it was at Craigellachie in the Rocky Mountains. I remember hearing Pierre Berton tell the story.” But to my surprise, no one I’ve talked to knows the answer.

I even remember a few years back driving through the original Craigellachie in Scotland thinking “Hey, this is the place where they got the name for the little town in British Columbia where Donald Smith drove the last spike of the CPR.”

So yes, I am an admirer of the late Mr. Berton. But even granting Pierre Berton his due, it still seems odd to me that there are so few recent books about Canadian history written by Canadians. Am I missing something?

P.S., By the way Sean, it was Berton who admitted to experimenting with marijuana for 40 years.

A few years ago it was not unusual to hear that leading conservative politicians in Canada were taking advice from U.S. Republican strategists – as though it was a big brother/little brother type of arrangement between conservatives in Canada and Republicans in the U.S.

This was especially the case near the end of Preston Manning’s run as leader of the Reform party – back in the days when conservatives in Canada were trying to break the lock the Liberal party had on federal power. That was before the Reform and Alliance parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

One of the things Manning admired about the Republicans and the “conservative” movement in general in the U.S. was how they had built a powerful set of “think tanks” and academic research groups to raise the profile of conservative ideas in the media, gain respectability for those ideas among intellectuals and elites, and develop strategies for getting politicians elected who identified with those ideas. They had, in other words, made conservatism both respectable and strategically effective.

After his retirement from party politics Manning went on to develop his own institute called the Manning Centre with a clear focus on promoting “conservative solutions to the challenges of our times.”

Conservative success in the U.S.

While this strategy worked remarkably well in the U.S., it did not fare so well in Canada. While it is true that the Conservative party of Canada has held onto power for the last five years, it is not as though this represents a revolution in Canadian attitudes. The population is split between left and right, liberal and conservative much as it has been since the mid 1960s.

Ironically, Canadians are more “conservative” than their American cousins, and less prone to jump on ideological bandwagons. So the rush to the right that took place over the last few decades in the U.S. was not replicated in Canada.

What is “conservativism”?

This demonstrates the confusion that exists over the term “conservative” and the differences between the Canadian and American use of the term. Many Americans (both pundits and ordinary citizens) have given the term “conservative” a hard, very definite edge, and act as though their own definition is both obvious and self-evidently rooted in historical usage.

The fact is, the term “conservative” has been used to describe many different political and social tendencies both in America and other countries including Canada, the U.K., the rest of Europe, Japan, China, and virtually everywhere else. In the U.S. the current crop of reactionary conservatives focus on a limited role for government in the affairs of individual citizens, a laissez-faire attitude to business, and the promotion of traditional “family values”, which in many cases includes specific religious values.

But this understanding of “conservatism” has not always been so dominant in American history. As Patrick Allitt says in his book The Conservatives – Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History,

Writers about American conservatism have often argued that the word itself has meant different things at different times and that there is no consistency in conservatives’ beliefs about what should be conserved… Arguments for the free market, for example, seemed radical in the era of the American Revolution, but arguments for the free market since 1917, when Soviet communism proposed a fully planned and centrally directed economy, have had a strongly conservative flavor.” (p.3)

In fact, reactionary right wing American conservatives of the last few decades have done a considerable amount of revisionism to make their ideology fit their interpretation of history.

Things are different in Canada

Certainly in Canada “conservatism” is understood differently. Partly because it stems from different historical roots, and partly because the rigid fundamentalism of reactionary American conservatism simply does not fit the Canadian social and political realities.

For example, I suspect most Canadians are like me when they try listening to the details of the recently passed “Obamacare” health care legislation. The convoluted gymnastics this new system goes through to appease business interests (insurance, pharmaceutical, etc. companies) is a wonder to behold.

The vast majority of Canadians simply accept that there are some things better managed by government agencies. This is not because we are in love with government. Rather, it is because we fear the alternatives are so much worse.

In that regard we are more “conservative” than our American cousins. Yes we have heard the ideological arguments for privatizing some or all of our health care system. But we are hesitant, for good reasons, to buy into them. We know that behind many ideological arguments there are people who stand to gain something at the expense of the rest of us – banks, insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, medical services companies, doctors, lawyers. They are all there lobbying for a bigger piece of the pie.

Of course it would be too much to ask of doctrinaire freedom loving Americans to actually look at how our health care system works. They are too busy feeling sorry for us.

The Canadian Royal Family – Sorry, no Canadians allowed.

There are a couple interesting articles in the National Post today (Jan 21, 2011) about the rightful place of the British monarchy in Canada’s future. As I have expressed elsewhere a few times, I think the fact that our Canadian head of state is, according to our own Constitution and tradition, chosen from the British royal family is an insult to what it means to be Canadian.

Historian Michael Bliss argues in his article It’s time to retire the royals that the monarchy is a relic of the past and an “absurdity”. As he says,

It’s an absurdity that in 21st century Canada, no Canadian can aspire to be head of state of Canada. The head of state of Canada has to be not just of British descent, but actually a member of the hereditary royal family of Great Britain. Our head of state will be the person who by accident of birth, not for any other reason, happens to be King or Queen of Great Britain. That person must also be a member of the Church of England. No Catholics, atheists, Confucians, Muslims, Jews, or Canadians need apply.

Bliss goes beyond arguing just that we should replace a British monarch with a Canadian one (Can you imagine choosing which family would become the Canadian “royal family”?) He argues (as almost everyone will agree) that the Prime Minister has too much power in our system, and that the Governor-General has been de-fanged by tradition – much moreso than even the Queen herself. What we need, he says, is “a second head of state — an impartial referee — to blow the whistle.”

As to the monarchist contribution to the National Post debate, that one is contributed by John Fraser, Master of Massey College at the University of Toronto, in his article called The crown is part of us all.

According to Fraser not only has the monarchy served us well, but it is so intrinsically woven into every aspect of our culture, traditions and formal constitution that it would be impossible to extricate it without doing serious damage to the very fabric of our nation.

This is an amalgam of at least two different standard conservative arguments. The first is a simplistic version of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The monarchy works, so why should we change it.

The second is the argument from deep tradition: We are who we are. Just accept it and get on with life.

If you are convinced by these arguments then I guess you’re glad we have the Royal Family to keep us going. If not, it may be time to start thinking about alternatives.

We’ve recently been bombarded with news of the upcoming British royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton, and there is suddenly renewed interest in the British monarchy. The CBC, for example ran a phone-in last Sunday in which people were asked “Will the royal wedding renew interest in the monarchy in Canada?” (or something to that effect.)

Personally I think this is unfortunate. As I have written elsewhere – Who will be the next King of Canada – our consitutional attachment to the British monarchy is an embarrasment indicating our unwillingness to grow up as a country.

Fellow Canadians, in case you haven’t noticed, our head of state lives in Britain, and all these “royals” are residents of Britain, not Canada. Yes, they occasionally stoop to visit “the colonies” and we swoon over them. But what else have they done for us lately?

To those who argue that the importance of the monarchy for Canada is in the institution rather than the person, I say… that’s fine. But let’s establish our own institution. If you must have a monarch because you think constitutional monarchy is such a great system, then at least let’s make it our own monarch!

To those who argue that the British monarchy is an integral part of our history and that we should celebrate those historical ties, I say… fine, celebrate that history if you like. But please recognize that

1. Canadian history did not begin when the British defeated the French in Quebec
2. Before the northern part of North America was a British colony it was mostly a French colony
3. Before we were a French colony we were the homeland of the First Nations people

Which means that far from being our “parents” the British were at best our step-step parents, and not by our own choice, but by imperial conquest.

Is Canada really “British”?

When the conquest of the French took place in the 1760s the majority of people living in what eventually became Canada were French and First Nations. We may think of Ontario, for example, as being settled and developed by English and Scottish immigrants, but the fact is until 1760 there were virtually no British people living in what is now Ontario.

What we now know of as Quebec was occupied by descendants of French settlers. And what eventually became the rest of Canada was occupied by First Nations, a few French fur traders, and gradually by mixed-bloods or Metis. The first European settlement on the site of Toronto was not established until 1750 – and that was a French fur trading fort.

The earliest Euro-settlers after 1760 into much of “British North America” were not British either – at least not directly. They came from the newly formed United States after the end of the Revolutionary War, mostly  in the 1783 and 1784. These were the “United Empire Loyalists” most of whom had sided with the British in the War.

But by no means were most of the UELs British. They had settled in the U.S. from various places in Europe. My own family, for instance, had German roots, as did the Mennonites who settled in what is now the Waterloo Region. The Six Nations who settled along the Grand River in Ontario were “British” only to the extent that they had sided with them in the war. Many UELs were also freed slaves – not exactly your typical British subject.

Imperial colonization
It was not until after the basic structure of the colony had taken shape in the 1790s that English, Scottish and Irish immigration took place on any large scale. This was the beginning of the ”modern” British Empire that lasted through the 1800s until it was essentially dismembered by World War I.

This was the period during which Canada became a British colony – the period of British exploitation –  a source of raw materials for British factories, a market for British goods, and a source of soldiers and sailors for British imperial exploits around the world. It was these very attachments to Britain that Canada’s leaders fought for more than a hundred years to break during the long climb to independence.

From the Canadian point of view the absurdity of “loyalty to King and Empire” became most vivid during WWI when thousands of Canadians were sent by British (and Canadian) commanders to be slaughtered in a pointless war that established nothing. We “celebrate” these sacrifices every year because we honour the deaths of the innocent heros prepared to give their lives for what they were told was a vital national cause. But we can no longer honour the cause, because we know better.

It is these attachments to imperial “glory” and class structure and our own subservient colonial status that the British monarchy represents more than anything else.  It is high time to stop celebrating this dubious past and push on to our own Canadian future.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, May 3, 1915

John McCrae, 1912

The poem “In Flanders Fields” was written after John McCrae witnessed the death, and presided over the funeral, of a friend, Lt. Alexis Helmer during World War I. McCrae was born in Guelph, Ontario in 1872, attended the University of Toronto from 1892-93, and served as resident master in English and Mathematics in 1894 at the Ontario Agricultural College in Guelph. He returned to the University of Toronto in 1984 to complete his B.A. and then attended medical school.

He was appointed as a pathologist at Montreal General Hospital in 1902 and then served at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal during 1904. In 1905 he set up his own private practice and continued to work as a lecturer at several hospitals in the Montreal area.

In 1911 he served in the Boer War as an artilleryman, and in 1915 he was appointed a field surgeon in the Canadian artillery. It was during the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915 that his friend Alexis Helmer was killed in battle. It was Helmer’s death that inspired In Flanders Fields.

The poem was an almost instant hit in Canada, Europe and even in the United States before that country entered the war. It was used, as we would say today, for propaganda purposes, during fund-raising campaigns and pro-war rallies.

McRae died of pneumonia in 1918 while serving in Boulogne, in northern France along the English Channel coast. He was buried in Wimereux Cemetery just up the coast from Boulogne.

In Part 1 called How Conestogo Got Its Name – Part 1 I offered some background into the relationship between Conestogo Ontario and an area in southeastern Pennsylvania where the name originated.

Actually it is not correct to suggest that Conestogo Ontario was named after the town called Conestoga in Lancaster Pennsylvania. As I mentioned in the Part 1, “Conestoga Indian Town” was the Indian village where the remnants of the Susquehannock nation resided from roughly the early 1700s till the few remaining members (then called “Conestogas” were slaughtered by white vigilantes called the Paxton Boys.

Some historians suggest that the natives commonly referred to as “Susquehannocks” may have referred to themselves as “Conestoga” because this is the name they chose when they migrated back to form their ancestral village on the banks of the Conestoga River.

It is commonly accepted that the name “Conestoga” is derived from the Iroquoian word “Kanastoge” meaning “at the place of the immersed pole”. The name “Susquehannock” on the other hand was a term used by an Algonquian interpreter (from another tribe) to describe the tribe. That term means “People of the Falls” or “People of the Muddy River” – a reference to the significant falls at a point in the Susquehanna River.

There is some controversy as to the exact location of the Indian village called “Conestoga”. But in any event, the early Pennsylvania Mennonite settlers of Waterloo County (in Ontario) did not name the village of Conestogo after the Indian village in Pennsylvania. It was the river in Waterloo County that was first called the Conestoga River. The village of Conestoga came later. And the change of spelling to Conestogo came even later.

The story (taken from Ezra Eby’s A Biographic History of Waterloo Township) took place in 1806. This was just a few years after the first Mennonite settlers started arriving in the Waterloo region from Lancaster County. Two men from the Lancaster Mennonite community were scoping out the northern part of the Waterloo area. Their purpose was to see for themselves what potential lay there for themselves and others back in Lancaster County. Here is how it is described by Ezra Eby (local residents of Woolwich township will recognize many of these names):

“Benjamin Eby and Henry Brubacher, two young men from Lancaster County, arrived at George Eby’s, who had settled on the old J. Y. Shantz farm a little to the south-east of Berlin on the 24th day of May, 1806. They came on horseback. The object of their coming was to make a thorough inspection of the nature of the country in which their relatives had so largely invested.

During the first week in June [1806] these two parties in company with George Eby made a trip through the northern part of this Township and Woolwich. They left old Abraham Erb’s place early in the morning and made a trip through the dense forest northward, crossing what are now the farms of Joseph M. Weber, Menno S. Weber and Moses Shantz.

They crossed into Woolwich a little west of Martins Meeting House and made their way straight across the farms of Aaron S. Shantz, Paul Martin and Levi Cress, arriving on the south side of the Conestogo River about fifteen rods below where now is the St. Jacobs Bridge and E. W. B. Snider’s Roller mills.

Here Benjamin Eby made the remark that this stream with its beautiful rising on the north side, bears a strong resemblance to their Conestogo in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to which George Eby replied, “Then this stream shall be called ‘The Conestogo,’” which name it has borne ever since.”

Just a note on the use of the spelling “Conestogo” (with an “o”). I believe this is probably a mistake on the part of Ezra Eby. In fact the original spelling was “Conestoga” (with an “a”) until it was changed in 1865 by the Conestoga(o) Postmaster of the day. Since Eby was writing in 1895-1896 he would have been familiar with the “o” version of the name.

The village of Conestogo(a) came somewhat later, in roughly 1830. It was established by its founder David Musselman who purchased the land where the original village now stands, and built the first sawmill in Woolwich on Spring Creek (in roughly 1840). Then in 1844 he dammed the Conestoga River and built the first flour mill in Woolwich.

“Conestoga” was an appropriate name for the village because it is located where the Conestoga(o) River flows into the Grand.

I believe remnants of both of Musselman’s mills still remain. Perhaps sometime in the future I will post some photographs of historic buildings and points of interest in present day Conestogo.

I also hope to do more research into the pre-white settlement of the area around Conestogo. This land was passed in the late 1700s and early 1800s to the Pennsylvania Mennonites through a transfer from Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant the leader of the Six Nation Grand River settlement.

The lands along the Grand River had been granted to the Six Nations by the British Crown after the American Revolutionary War. The Crown had purchased them from the Mississaugas. Hopefully I will be able to find out more about the Mississaugas and any settlements they or other native tribes may have had in the area of Conestogo.

A 400-year-old book described as “the first written history of Canada”, and containing one of the earliest and most treasured maps of the country is scheduled to be sold this month at a British auction of rare volumes and historic manuscripts.

Marc Lescarbot spent two years in New France shortly after the first settlement in Acadia (Nova Scotia) was established in 1604 at Port-Royal. His first edition of the Histoire de la Nouvelle-France came out in 1609. The one on sale is the 3rd edition from 1612.

Samuel de Champlain is generally considered the “father of New France” (and therefore, of Canada), but Lescarbot beat him to the punch as far as recording the earliest history of the colony is concerned.

The latter part of Lescarbot’s Histoire is devoted to a description of the natives who lived in what became known as New France – in particular the Micmaq (Migmaw or Souriquois). According to Wikipedia, “he judged them more civilized and virtuous than Europeans, but, like a good Frenchman, he pitied them for their ignorance of the pleasures of wine and love!”

Lescarbot was a poet and a lawyer, and therefore a man of letters. He staged the first outdoor play performed in Acadia called “The Theatre of Neptune” with natives playing some of the roles.


Port-Royal, New France