Expulsion of the Acadians, or the Great Upheaval | STUFF YOU MISSED IN HISTORY CLASS

Expulsion of the Acadians, or the Great Upheaval | STUFF YOU MISSED IN HISTORY CLASS

Starting in 1755, the French-speaking Acadians were expelled from what’s now the Maritime provinces of Canada and northern Maine, with many of them eventually winding up in Louisiana. But there's much more nuance to the story.

Original Air Date: August 11, 2021

✨ KEEP IN TOUCH WITH :

Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.

New episodes Monday and Wednesday on iHeartRadio.

#StuffYouMissedInHistoryClass #StuffYouMissedInHistoryClassPodcast #TracyWilson #HollyFrey #StuffYouMissedInHistoryClassPod #HollyFreyPodcast #TracyWilsonPodcast

[EdinburghFive]

Excellent video. You do bring out some of the nuance and context.

A few comments:

Verrazzano never used the term Arcadia for the region of Nova Scotia and region. He used the term to describe an area in what is today Virginia. Not too many French colonists arriving in the 1620s as the colony at that time was controlled by the English (under the Scot Sir William Alexander). It was not until the return of the colony to France in the early 1630s that a new wave of French colonists arrived. Furthermore, these colonists were not fleeing France due to unrest. Most of the colonists, coming as family units, arriving in the 1630s wave of settlement were seigneurial tenants on the lands in France of Isaac de Razilly and Charles de Menou d'Aulnay. They remained seigneurial tenant farmers in Acadia. They were not indentured workers.

By 1755 the Acadians had cleared and used areas of the forested uplands that was nearly equal to the farmed dyked marshlands. The dyked marshes at the time totaled nearly 85, 000 acres. By 1755 it is calculated just to supply firewood to heat homes about the equivalent of 2300 acres per year was felled

The idea that Acadians were not "encroaching" on Mi'kmaq lands is a myth.

The Mi'kmaq in fact for the most part abandoned the southern half of Nova Scotia, leaving it primarily to the Acadians. There were several reasons for the abandonment, with the main reason being the Mi'kmaq wanted to be closed to their allies the French. I make a distinction between the Acadians and the French because although the Mi'kmaq were in friendly terms with the Acadian colonists, they allied with the French, being those colonial administrators, soldiers, and Priests who primarily resided at Louisbourg and Quebec. The supplies of weapons, gunpowder, food, and other trade items, other gift giving, etc., not to mention logistical information and military guidance during times of war was supplied by the French. The Mi'kmaq became dependant on all this for survival.

It is interesting that many people say "that Mi'kmaq customs and knowledge" influenced the Acadians but they never define exactly how and to what extent. There was influence clearly, how could there not be given the interaction of the two peoples. The influence though was not particularly heavy as the French still largely lived under a European style agrarian lifestyle.

There was no discussion of English control of Acadia from 1654 - 1667.

During King Williams War, Massachusetts implemented plans and actions to attack the Wabanaki Confederation. The confederation included the Mi'kmaq. Some listening may inadvertently be misinformed into thinking the actions were specifically to do with the Mi'kmaq.

Under the Treaty of Utrecht France ceded old Acadia to the British. France retained control of the major island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence including Île-Royale. As for the lands in present day New Brunswick and Maine, the French and British continued to disagree as to whether this was ceded. They held negotiations from time to time but the area was largely neglected by both nations until the 1740s.

As for the Acadians who did move out of Acadia after the 1713 Treaty, most returned within a few years. They were not able to replicate their farming lifestyle in Île-Royale and family ties were too strong to keep them at a distance and across a colonial border. The right to leave Nova Scotia under the Treaty of Utrecht was for a limited time. Afterward, the taking of an oath of loyalty did not provide this right into the future. It should also be noted that oaths of loyalty were not unique to the British. The Acadians provided similar oaths when they were French subjects.

The tension in the early 1720 was primarily between the British in New England the Wabanaki there. The war was not sparked by tensions between the Mi'kmaq as such but with the Wabanaki groups in New England. Much of the conflict took place in New England. Nova Scotia was really a on the periphery. The British garrison at Annapolis Royal was largely stuck behind their fort walls. The Mi'kmaq did attack the fort as well as traders and fishermen.

Yes, you are correct the idea of neutrality was not formalized in writing. The Acadians provided the oath under an "understanding" of neutrality. During the times of peace, you are correct the neutrality stood. Why wouldn't it, there was nothing happening to test the promise. The Acadians showed their hypocrisy starting in the 1740s as many Acadians aided and abetted the French.

Prior to 1749 there were no English settlers in Nova Scotia for the Acadians to outnumber. From 1713 the British had only maintained their town at Annapolis Royal and garrisoned Canso.

In 1749 the main impetuous for the British to establish Halifax was as a counter Louisbourg. The video should have spent a few minutes in the fact region was strategically important to both France and Britain. France needed to secure Louisbourg so that it in turn could protect its greater asset of New France. The British needed to shore up Nova Scotia to protect New England. As a borderland/marchland region, the Acadians were stuck between the two conflicting powers. I content France actually cared little for the Acadians. They were just people to be exploited to further France's larger plan to protect Quebec.

Most of the Acadians who left Nova Scotia in the 1750s went to the marshland area at Chignecto. Other did go to Ile St Jean which was forested but did have good soils.


It is a modern idea that Cornwallis violated the Treaties of the 1720s. When Cornwallis and the settlers first arrived, the Mi'kmaq were on friendly terms with the British. They agreed together that Truck houses would be established to promote trade, the British took part in traditional gift giving, and as in the past the British offered better prices for the Mi'kmaq trade goods. When the French found out what was happening that convinced the Mi'kmaq to attack the British. Again, like the Acadians, the Mi'kmaq were exploited to further France's larger plan. This was all part of France's meddling in Nova Scotia after the War of the Austrian Secession, where they constantly engaged in actions to destabilize the region.


The Scots in Nova Scotia in 1749! There weren't any. The clearances in Scotland mostly take place later, with Scots coming to Nova Scotia well after Cornwallis' time. So, they are not "kinda connected".


I should have been noted that when the British attempted to establish Fort Lawrence in British territory, the French burned the Acadian village on the British side, moved the Acadians across the border and then these same Acadians along with some French troops and Mi'kmaq attached the British. Also, not the French had moved troops to the border region prior to the British sending troops to establish a fort to protect this region of their colony. This was all at a time when the two nations were at peace officially.

Please put the scalping proclamation in context and also reference the fact that France had issued scalping bounties for the Mi'kmaq to kill the British settlers. Cornwallis' bounty was issued in an effort to try to stop the Mi'kmaq from attacking the civilian settlers.


The Seven Years War did not start until 1756. The French and Indian War did start in 1754, and was subsumed into the larger Seven Years War.


The Acadians continued to outnumber the British in Nova Scotia right up until the deportations in 1755 and afterward. The British population in Nova Scotia only exceeded the old levels of the pre-deportation Acadians in the 1760s with the arrival of the New England Planters.


John Winslow did not head up the attack against Fort Beauséjour. He was only one of the officers under Robert Monckton. The idea that Acadians at Fort Beauséjour had fought for the French under duress was an idea cooked up by the French commander to try to protect the Acadians who supported him. The Acadians had well demonstrated, since the attempt and then establishment by Fort Lawrence by the British, that they apposed the British. The British were not fooled. New research is revealing just how embedded the Acadians of Chignecto were supportive of French actions in the region. The Acadians were clearly demonstrating they were rebels.


When Lawrence decided on the deportations, he already had the New England troops in Nova Scotia because of the attack on Fort Beauséjour. I was thus opportune to initiate the deportations at that time.


The first deportations were not at Grand Pré but at Chignecto after the capture of Fort Beauséjour.


There was no need of Winslow's troops to "surround churches". After the Acadian men and boys were called to the church at Grand Pré they were first keep captive in the church, later some were moved to ships to relieve overcrowding. All the women and younger and old men were compliant as they were required to bring in the harvest and feed the men and boys held captive. The deportation proclamation was issued in September and the deportations did not occur in the area until late fall and early in the New Year.


As stated above the farms continued to operate so the idea there was no food "...to feed themselves..." and that they were "malnourished" is baseless. These are modern ideas put forward by uninformed writer to demonize the British. These very same people never mention all the actions of the French in the region. You mention the importance of context at the beginning of your video yet appear to have thrown this oy the door at this stage. The British did burn some of the farms but this took place as the Acadians were being loaded on the ships transported and later. They did not burn everything. The Acadians who escaped later burned farms to stop the British from using them as shelter. When the New England Planters arrived in the 1760s there were still some Acadian barns and homes standing.