ANCHORS OF EMPIRE: DETROIT, MONTREAL AND THE CONTINENTAL INTERIOR, 1760–1775

NOTES

• Jack Sosin, Whitehall and Wilderness: The Middle West in British Colonial Policy, 1760–75 (1961), 25. For security as a cause of the war see also, Sosin, Whitehall, 3–26; Vincent Harlow, Founding of the Second British Empire, Vol. I, 165; John Shy, Toward Lexington; The Role of the British Army and the Coming of the American Revolution (1965), 55; Bernard Knollenberg, Origins of the American Revolution (1960), 22; Hilda Neatby, Quebec; The Revolutionary Years, 1760–91 (1966), 7; Guy Fregault, “La Guerre de Sept Ans et la civilisation canadienne,” Revue Historique de l'Amérique Française, VII (9/53), 185.
   Google Scholar
• Shy, Toward Lexington, 67, 81–82. There is some consideration that such a plan was designed to coerce the seaboard colonies by suggesting the need for Regulars to contain possible Indian or French attack, or at worst to have troops available in case of colonial defiance of British authority. Robin Humphreys, “Lord Shelburne and the Proclamation of 1763,” English Historical Review, XLIX (1934), Appendix; J. M. Bumsted, “Things in the Womb of Time; Ideas of American Independence, 1633–1763,” William and Mary Quarterly (10/74), 533–64; Knollenberg, Origins, 90.
   Google Scholar
• Neatby, Quebec, 7; Charles Ritcheson, British Politics and the American Revolution (1954), Ch. I; Sosin, Whitehall, 36. Little colonial opposition would be tolerated for this policy. As George Grenville noted, “Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America. America is bound to yield obedience,” quoted in George Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754–65 (1907) 6n.
   Google Scholar
• Harry Ward, Unite or Die: Intercolonial Relations. 1690–1763 (1974), 46, 80; Knollenberg, Origins, 92–94; Harlow, Founding, 167; see also Clarence Carter, “Office of the Commander-in-Chief” in R. Morris, Era of the American Revolution (1954). For the decision to enlarge the American army see Shy, Toward Lexington, 50; John Alden, The South in the Revolution (1957), 45, 57; Knollenberg, Origins, 18, 315; Michael Kammen, Empire and Interest; the American Colonies and the Politics of Mercantilism (1970), 116.
   Google Scholar
• Kammen, Empire and Interest, 6–8, 45–46; 48, see also Humphrey, “Lord Shelburne and the Proclamation,” 245; Neatby, Quebec, 2, 7; Ritcheson, British Politics, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Fernand Ouellet, Historie Économique et Sociale du Québec, 1760–1850 (1966), 2; Fregault, “Guerre de sept ans,” 185.
   Google Scholar
• Sosin, Whitehall, 250; Neatby, Quebec, 74–84.
   Google Scholar
• Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 73–79; see Shy, Toward Lexington, 66; Gage to Amherst, 3/20/62, Michigan Historical Collections, XIX, 14–20; Ward, Unite or Die, 156.
   Google Scholar
• Kammen, Empire and Interest, 50; Charles Glaab and A. T. Brown, History of Urban America (1967), 3–6; Bert Hoselitz, “Generative and Parasite Cities,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, III, (4/55), 278–94; Blake McKelvey, The City in American History (1969), 15–17; John Reps, Town Planning in Frontier America (1969); Joseph Ernst and H. R. Merrens, “Camden Turrets Pierce the Skies; The Urban Process in the Southern Colonies during the Eighteenth Century,” WMQ (10/73), 549–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bert Hoselitz, “Generative and Parasite Cities.” See also Harold Innis, The Fur Trade in Canada (1956); Donald Creighton, Empire of the St. Lawrence (1958); J. M. S. Careless, “Frontierism, Metropolitanism and Canadian History,” Canadian Historical Review, XXXV (3/54).
   Google Scholar
• J. M. Houston, “Founding of Colonial Towns in Hispanic America,” in Bechinsdale and Houston, Urbanization and its Problems (1968), 352; W. J. Eccles, “Social, Economic and Political Significance of the Military in New France,” Canadian Historical Review, LII (3/71), 1–22; Careless, “Frontierism, Metropolitanism,” 20–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hoselitz, “Generative and Parasite Cities”; Jacob Price, “Economic Function and the Growth of American Port Towns in the Eighteenth Century,” Perspectives in American History, VIII (1974), 123–89; Marc Engel and Joseph Ernst, “An Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution,” WMQ (1/71), 3–32; Zane Miller, Urbanization of Modern America (1973), 3–8.
   Google Scholar
• Kammen, Empire and Interest, 119; Sosin, Whitehall, 53.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, Unite or Die, 180; Neatby, Quebec, 4; Ouellet, Histoire Economique, 4–6; James Sterling to John Duncan, 7/8/1761, James Sterling Letterbook, Burton Historical Collections, Detroit Public Library; Michigan Historical Collections, XIX, 183.
   Google Scholar
• Shy, Toward Lexington, 124; Michel Brunet, Les Canadiens Après la Conquěte (1959), 35–50; Sir William Johnson Papers, XI 648; IV, 95; John Porteous, Diary of the Seige, Porteous Papers, Burton Historical Collections; Michigan Historical Collections, XXVII, 133. Standard accounts of the war include Howard Peckham, Pontiac and the Indian Uprising (1947); Wilbur Jacobs, Wilderness Politics and Indian Gifts (1953); Francis Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac (1951 edition).
   Google Scholar
• Quoted in Ward, Unite or Die, 168; for contemporary views on the war see Michigan Historical Collections, XIX, 211; New York Colonial Documents, VII, 647; John Bradstreet's Treaties at Detroit, 9/7/1764, Dartmount Papers, Burton Historical Collections; Johnson Papers, XI 49–92, 508; XI, 730. For criticism of Bradstreet see Johnson to Gage, 8/15/64, and Bouquet to Bradstreet, 9/6/64, Gage Papers, American Series, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan; William Godfrey, John Bradstreet; Irregular Regular (Ph.D. dissertation, Queen's University, 1974), Ch. 7.
   Google Scholar
• A. Shortt and A. G. Doughty, Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1759–91 (1918), 127 see Sosin, Whitehall, 60; Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 92; Humphrey, “Shelburne and Proclamation,” 245; Ward, Unite or Die, 134, 147; Peter Marshall, “Colonial Protection and Imperial Retrenchment; Indian Policy, 1764–68,” Journal of American Studies, v (1970) 1–17; New York Colonial Documents, VII; 487, 742.
   Google Scholar
• Michel Brunet, “Premiers réactions des vaincus de 1760 devant leurs vainqueurs,” Revue Historique de l'Amérique Française (3/53, 506–08; Neatby, Quebec, 9; see also Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 92–96; Mason Wade, The French Canadians (1948), I, 48–54; Robert Rummilly, Histoire de Montréal, II, 8–11, 25–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kamen, Empire and Interest, 118, 93; Ward, Unite or Die, 143–47; 247–49.
   Google Scholar
• Sosin, Whitehall, 40–51; 132, 136; see also New York Colonial Documents, VII, 637–41; Knollen-berg, Origins, 88, 315; Ward, Unite or Die, 93, 144; Kammen, Empire and Interest, 101.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Marshall, “Imperial Policy and the Government of Detroit; Prospects and Problems, 1760–74,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, II (1/74), 152–85; Illinois Historical Collections. XI, 226: see also, Bradstreet's Plan for settlement at Detroit, 1766; Dartmouth Papers, Burton Historical Collections.
   Google Scholar
• 0uellet, Histoire Économique, 73–74; Neatby feels that it was “inevitable” that Quebec be given preference, Quebec, 9; see Gage to Johnson, 1/25/67, Gage Papers, American Series, Clements Library; New York Colonial Documents, VIII, 55.
   Google Scholar
• Neatby, Quebec, 56–57; see also Shy, Toward Lexington, 260; Illinois Historical Collections, XVI, 183–204; Sosin, Whitehall, 125, 221; Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 73; Wayne Stevens, Northwest Fur Trade (1926), 92–93; Marjorie Reid, “Quebec Fur Trades and Western Policy, 1763–74,” Canadian Historical Review, (3/1932), 15–32; Ida Johnson, Michigan Fur Trade (1919); Report of the Trade of the Upper Country, 1761, Hardwicke Papers, Public Archives of Canada; Lawson, Fur, 71–72.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas Norton, The Fur Trade in Colonial New York, 1686–1776 (1974), 197–201; see also Neatby, Quebec, 20; Marshall, “Detroit, 1760–74,” 83–84; Innis, The Fur Trade in Canada, 166; Murray Lawson, Fur; A Study in English Mercantilism, 1700–75 (1943) Appendix E: Arthur Buffinton, “The Policy of Albany and English Westward Expansion,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, VIII (1922), 336–66; David Armour, The Merchants of Albany, New York, 1686–1760, (Ph.D. dissertation Northwestern University (1965).
   Google Scholar
• Louise Duchene, “La Croissance de Montréal au XVIIIe Siècle,” RHAF (9/73), 165; Rummilly, Montreal, II, 3; w. J. Eccles, France in America (1972), 167; Marcel Trudel, “Les Débuts d'une société: Montréal, 1642–63,” RHAF (9/69), 205.
   Google Scholar
• Duchene, “Croissance de Montréal,” 168; Eccles, France in America, 90–118; E. R. Adair, “Evolution of Montreal Under the French Regime,” Canadian Historical Association Report (1942), 20–32; Trudel, “Débuts d'une société, 205; Careless, “Frontierism and Metropolitanism,” 20.
   Google Scholar
• Innis, Fur Trade in Canada, 55–58; W. J. Eccles, The Canadian Frontier, 132, 136, 142; Alice Lunn, Economic Development in New France, 1713–60, (Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, 1942), 117–20, 38; Reps, Town Planning, 86; for Cadillac see MHC, XXXIII, 96–100, 136, 141, 170. For criticism of him see MHC, XXXIII, 312–14; Jean Delanglez, “The Genesis and Building of Detroit,” Mid-America, XXX (1948), 75–104 and “Cadillac at Detroit,” ibid., 152–76; Yves Zoltvany, Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil (1974), 39–41.
   Google Scholar
• John Richardson to John Porteous, 9/22/89, John Richardson Papers, Wisconsin State Historical Society; Information of a deserting sailor, 1795, Pickering Papers, Burton Historical Collections; Almon Parkins, Historical Geography of Detroit (1918), 231–41; Adair, “Evolution of Montreal,” 20–21.
   Google Scholar
• Eccles, France in America, 103; Yves Zoltvany, “New France and the West,” Canadian Historical Review, XLVI (12/65); Adair, “Evolution of Montreal,” 26–29; Anthony Wallace, “Origins of Iroquois Neutrality,” Pennsylvania History, XXIV (1957), 223–35.
   Google Scholar
• Roland Montaigne, La Galissionière et le Canada (1962), 18; Guy Fregault, La Civilisation de la Nouvelle France (1944), 39; Bougainville Memoir, Wisconsin Historical Collections, XVII, 167–94; Michigan Historical Collections, XXXIV, 67, 70, 73–77, 676; Eccles, “Significance of the Military,” 13.
   Google Scholar
• Duchene, “La Croissance de Montréal,” 170; Adair, “Evolution of Montreal,” 34; Innis, Fur Grade, 59; Trudel, “Les débuts d'une société” 205, 197. This situation suggests an interesting comparison with the staple-producing region of Chesapeake Bay, where the exportation of tobacco centered on a series of “gathering points” (Price, “Economic Function of American Port Towns,” 145–52). In this area where there was neither danger of external attack nor fear of Indian rebellion after the initial stages of colonization, economic functions were performed by a variety of regional “urban systems” with no distinct urban center rising to dominance until after the colonial period. Joseph Ernst and H. R. Merrens, “Camden Turrets,” 590–94.
   Google Scholar
• Jose Iguarta, “The Conquest and the Marchands of Montreal,” Canadian Historical Association Annual Report (1974), 115–17; see also Brunet, “Premiers reactions,” 508; Fregault, “La Guerre de sept ans,” 196–99; Lunn, Economic Development of New France, 46; 122, Rummilly, Montreal, II, 13–15, 33.
   Google Scholar
• For comparisons see Richard Wade, The Urban Frontier (1959), and Robert Dykstra, The Cattle Towns (1968).
   Google Scholar
• Sosin, Whitehall, 250; Neatby, Quebec, 141; Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 92; Kammen, Empire and Interest, 120–251.
   Google Scholar
• Sosin, Whitehall, 245; see Marshall, “Detroit, 1760–74,” 184.
   Google Scholar
• Neatby, Quebec, 125.
   Google Scholar
• Sosin, Whitehall, 238; Neatby, Quebec, 134; Ouellet, Histoire Économique, 92; Ritcheson, British Politics, 190.
   Google Scholar