Doctorate Tom Matthews
McMaster University
Report: France in America
1987
France in America is a comprehensive survey of early Canadian history from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the welcoming of the Québec Act of 1774. William J. Eccles, the author, has managed to portray this vast subject from a French perspective rather than relaying the traditional English side of the story. However, this type of a representation evokes a sympathetic mood. Eccles continuously argues, being his thesis, that the fall of New France was not inevitable; leaving the blame on but who else - the French Authorities. One of the most disliked public figures is Montcalm and his "disastrous tactics."1 Aside from incompetent members of political office, William J. Eccles takes a daring stand by stating that Canada was a theocracy that lacked daring tactics for defence and attack.2
France is deeply condemned for one main and important reason. The lack of support coming from the French government during the greater part of the colonization movement. This could have been diverted to a certain degree, making New France less vulnerable to foreign invaders. The British in New England, the Dutch, and the Spanish all wanted part of this new founded gold mine, "the fur trade." As correctly suggested by Eccles, the French should have protected their investments with greater insistence by strengthening its military in Canada, or perhaps by introducing new and stable policies and agreements with local colonials and natives. However, France's incompetency continued. Then again, can the mother country be really blamed, for it did indeed have various problems of its own during New France's history? No. Louis XIII, for example, was faced with the great lords. Despite the internal problems that France was having, and history proves this, and the other fact that most of North America could only be navigated during the summer months, all in all made New France very helpless for the greater part of the year due to a lack of re-enforcements. At the time, the two countries of the motherland and the colony stood far apart. Not to mention that it would have taken almost all of France's military to protect the vast lands claimed by the new French Canadians.
The author's account about the missionaries "Certainly no other European colonizing power advanced such a civilised concept." is very well supported.3 Notice the word "concept." The movement did not have a great significance. Indeed, pagan souls were converted as they had claimed; however, most Hurons turned to Christianity minutes before their death, and those who lived were far from many. On the other side of the coin, the church did its due management: to obtain little more than a quarter of the conceded land, to be the central focus of social gatherings among the communities, to be a moral figure for the French, to provide necessities such as medical care and education. Did all these acquirements and services lead to a French-Canadian theocracy? No. Eccles never mentions a bishop of Québec, or for that matter a religious body representing the colonial governments. Governor Generals and Lieutenants were appointed by the Crown. Also, after the reorganization of the French colonial empire by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the church had little or no influence on the province. At this point in the book, William J. Eccles seems to stand on his own two feet. The daring assumption that New France is not a total theocracy has been met. "The civil and the religious authorities were quickly at complete loggerheads."4
Eccles draws great attention to one man, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. It is he, in Eccles' eyes, who could have made the difference. If France had produced more people like him to manage the affairs of French Cardinals, then the conquest could have been prevented. The mother country did not need insubordinate superiors like Montcalm. Despite the fact that the author has devoted an entre chapter to Colbert, the hypothesis that J-B. could have made a difference, is supported on page 69 where the government of 1663-1685 had reorganised: "In short, the French colonial administration was a well-organised bureaucracy, a model for the other powers." Of course, this administrative change took place under Colbert's rule.
On a different note, it is ironic that he who reads France in America will notice that most of Eccles' points of view are based on French material. For example, the chapter "The Long Peace" contains 36 French reference readings and 25 English reference readings - a substantial difference. It is of no wonder that the author is sympathetic towards the French. In addition to the pathos, words such as "pathetically," "unfortunately," "inexpediently," and many others of this type are mentioned throughout the book. The French are looked down upon as little pathetic creatures. This form of literature, however, does not effectively coincide with Eccles main thesis. The conquest's inevitability is really shot to pieces with comments like "pathetically small French population."5 If the French were so small as a people and so unfortunate, then how could they have ever prevented a conquest by the British. Historical facts all promote a French defeat. Although it is true that the French-Canadian government at times was mismanaged, Eccles should have taken a more traditional view, like that of Francis Parkman's, rather than making "measured generalizations."
Disappointing to a certain degree, the author mentions little about the English in the Canadian north. It would have been important for the reader to know certain social facts about the English of that era. A better non-biased perception of the French colonials could have been achieved if Eccles had devoted a little more time to the English - a "compare/contrast" methodology as it were. Also, the chapter called "Aftermath" is dealt in the same way. This chapter deals with James Murray until the Québec Act, and that is all. Although Eccles tells us that the French "had now to reconcile themselves to remaining British subjects," he does not mention the complete aftermath of the Québec Act, and how it affected the French colonials, which were "vibrant, dynamic, and successful colonies."6 He merely touched upon it and leaves it at that, nothing more said. At this point, we encounter a different author, an author who corners his readers opinion - read what is said; believe in it and no more.
Overall, France in America is a very entertaining and educational book. To some, it might seem like a text. The book is biased in favour of the French, who Eccles was obviously sympathetic; school texts rarely contain such overuse of bias, or at least they shouldn't. His thesis tends to overlook one basic element of history - no one person can say that the conquest is not a part of history - knowledgeable truth. Since truth cannot be changed, neither can the British victories of 1749-1763. Let us not attempt to re-write past events, Mr Eccles. On a happier note, France in America is a well written book that should be in every library of those who are interested in various opinions of the shape of French-Canadian colonialism.
B-
Notes
1 W.J. Eccles, France in America (Toronto, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, 1972), p. 196.
2 Ibid, p. 72.
3 Ibid, p. 40.
4 Ibid, p. 56.
5 Ibid, p. 241.
6 Professor Tom Matthews' notes on "Report: France in America" June 13th, 1987.
Bibliography
Eccles, W.J. France in America. Toronto, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, 1972.
Finlay, J.L. and Sprague, D.N. The Structure of Canadian History. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1984.
Matthews, Professor Tom. Lectures: "New France, 1600-1760." McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, May 12-26, 1987.