Késsinnimek - Roots - Racines

All Sources Are Not Created Equal
Part 6
     Suzanne Boivin Sommerville

Author's note: these articles are still in progress. For full citations of my sources, see the previous part(s). Copyright is mine. These articles may not be copied except for personal use, with full citation of author and source. Since I am, at this stage, my only proof-reader, any comments or corrections will be graciously accepted.

All Sources Are Not Created Equal

Part 6
Interpreting Sources, Primary & Secondary

Suzanne Boivin Sommerville

I began Part 5 by saying that when I speak about Madame Montour, one of the first questions I am frequently asked is how many times Madame Montour was married. The answer that can be documented is three: to Germaneau, the man from France; to Tichenet, the French-Canadian; and to Carandowanna, the Oneida, but not necessarily to Outoutagan (Jean Leblanc), the Ottawa. Nor can Isabelle Couc / La Tichenette / Madame Montour be documented as the wife of Bourgmont. No evidence exists for this, despite what you will read on the web1 and in articles about Étienne Véniard, sieur de Bourgmont, accounts that fantasize or exaggerate their relationship, as I have already commented, or which show evidence of not having seen all the relevant citations.


One web site reads:

1706 Detroit, country marriage Veniard (Venyard) de Bourgmont (1680-1730) who went Coureurs [sic] de Bois to madame La Chenette aka Techenet alias Elisabeth Couc, they moved into Indian Country. Elisabeth later joined her brother Louis Couc dit Montour died 1709 in English colony and she took the name Madame Montour. She had a third marriage to Robert Hunter alias chief Onneiout Carlindawana died 1729. . . January Etienne Venyard, sieur de Bourgmont (1680-1730) arrived Detroit (maybe Michillimakinac?) taking command of the fort from Tonty. This is a conflict as Cadillac was in command from 1704 to 1710?2 Later Etienne deserted his post to become a Coureurs de Bois with other deserters and according to sieur d'Aigremont lived in the woods like a savage with a woman named La Chenette (Tichenet). Cadillac sent soldiers after the deserters, but they escaped, going farther west.. ." [as copied and pasted]3

I am sure this researcher did the best he could with the sources he had, but this excerpt presents several errors and misunderstandings, including a failure to mention that d'Aigremont, one source for Bourgmont living with "La Chenette", simply recounted what the Natives (or Cadillac) told him at least a year after the events reported had taken place. Note no citation of sources.

Others either state outright that she married Bourgmont or repeat the allegations she was his mistress. Another web site says, with my additions in brackets:

Elisabeth/Isabelle COUC b. c. 1667, Three Rivers [sic], Que,
m. (1) 26 Apr 1684, in contract- Notary Adhemar/, 30 Apr 1684, Sorel, Richelieu, Qc., CAN, separated, Pierre-Joachim [He is called Pierre only on son Michel's marriage record but Joachim on the marriage contract. He had been deceased since at least 1700, when Michel would have been about five years old.] GERMANO/GERMANEAU, b. 1636/56 [sic], St Maxim, Limoges, France, (son of Joachim GERMANEAU and Catherine CHOUFY [more probably CHOURY] ) occupation Carignan reg. soldier, d. bef. 5 Apr 1717, Louisville [sic], Qc., CAN, [Deceased by 1700. His place of death is unknown, and Louisville (actually Louiseville) did not exist in 1717, still being known then as Rivière-du-Loup until into the 19th century.]
m. (2) unknown, [??? I assume this "unknown" is to account for the child Marie-Anne, to be considered later.]
m. (3) separated, Jean LeBLANC, occupation Chippewa chief, [If the word separated suggests Germaneau was still alive when this alleged marriage took place, that is not necessarily true. Besides, only Cadillac says she "married" Jean Leblanc, who was an Ottawa du Sable, not a Chippewa. The French called the Chippewas Sauteurs.]
m. (4) separated, Pierre TECHENET/LaCHENETTE, [Tichenet died in 1706.]
and unknown, [possibly referring to the father of Andrew's "brother Lewis"]
and Etienne de VENIARD-de-BOURGMOND, occupation Commandant of Detroit [only for eight months, and then as Cadillac's temporary replacement],

Now, as I count them, that's a total of seven, "husbands" or paramours.

This researcher is unaware that Germaneau was certified dead by 1700 when his property was sold (10 December 1700 "Concession LeChasseur - De Lamirande, Normandin, notary, ANQ, photocopy); Isabelle did not necessarily "separate" from him when she married Tichenet. He seems equally unaware that the father of Isabelle's daughter, Marie-Anne Montour, is given as Jean-Baptiste Montour on her marriage contract and as "le nommé La Motte" - the man named La Motte - on the church record at Québec in 1730, at least 28 to 35 years after Marie-Anne's birth. We'll never know the reasons for the differences in her parents' names on her marriage records and on her brother's records. The reference to "le nommé La Motte" led Jetté to suggest that "peut-être", possibly, Antoine Laumet dit de Lamothe Cadillac, husband of Thérèse Guyon, fathered Marie-Anne Montour, an interesting speculation, but, nonetheless, speculation, one that I will explore subsequently. The "Lewis" of the English colonial records is said to be a brother of Andrew, definitely the child of Madame Montour and Carandowanna, but no identification survives for the "father" of "Lewis", whom Andrew did not meet until they were both adults.

As for Isabelle becoming the "wife" of Bourgmont, no original record or even report claims la femme de Tichenet "married" Bourgmont, only that she allegedly defected with him from Fort Pontchartrain, and together they joined her brother Montour and lived like sauvages, Indians, the best way to live in the wilds, it seems to me, although the English version translates the word sauvages as "savages". Only secondary sources speak of a "marriage" or an affair.

The MPHC English translation unfortunately also says Bourgmont "kept" her. This translation, commissioned by Clarence Burton more than one hundred years ago, interprets the French phrase "y entretient" as "whom he kept". The passage, in context, reads:

But M. de Tonty said to them [the Indians]: "the world must be turned upside down, they send me a private soldier [Bourgmont, just named an enseigne] to command me." These words redoubled their [the Indians'] uneasiness, of which the Sr. De Bourgmont was warned by a woman named Le [sic] Chenette whom he kept.4

In its modern sense, the word "kept" can suggest nothing less than that she is his mistress, and this is how writers in English have interpreted the phrase; but this is not the exclusive meaning in either eighteenth-century or modern French. The basic meaning, then and now, is to take care of, to see to the needs of someone, or to employ. Could it be Bourgmont was only "keeping" La Tichenet as his employee? Could he have hired her? Was she simply his interpreter? In another passage, she is said to have "warned" Bourgmont about the "uneasiness" of the Indians. She would have been the one who understood the Ottawa and Miami (both Algonkin) and the Huron (Iroquois) languages, having lived among them all her life.

I am sure Intendant Talon and Governor Frontenac would be amazed to learn that they "kept" - in the modern sense - young female Indians. A book published in 1863 but referring to events in the late seventeenth century reports:

M. Talon take[s] care of the little girl . . . as well as other Indian girls whom he looks after to be instructed in the faith [M. Talon . . . prendre soin de la petite fille . . . parmi d'autres filles sauvages qu'il y entretient pour êtes instruites en la foi]
M. le Comte de Frontenac has for some time taken care of little Indian girls [M. le Comte de Frontenac y entretient depuis quelque temps de petite filles sauvages]5

A faulty translation can certainly slant the meaning of a passage. What is more, it appears to be the Indians who informed D'Aigremont that Bourgmont "entretenoit" Lachenets.6 I have to wonder whether the Indians would have used the term "keeping" a mistress. Even the document about Native American mores attributed to Cadillac7 explains that unmarried Native women were mistresses of their own bodies and could engage in sexual relations at will. The concept of a "kept" woman seems to have been foreign to them.

The next sentence in the passage reads: "On the basis [of Lachenet's information] the said sieur Bourgmont called an assembly of these Indians [the Ottawa] and told them 'I have learned that you have talked with Mr. de Tonty about going to make war with the Sioux.' "8 Clearly, La Chenette was serving as an interpreter of the Indians' speeches and their mood, and Bourgmont acted as a result of her knowledge.

It is thus true that both Isabelle and Bourgmont can be documented in the same place at the same time, Fort Pontchartrain between 1704 and 1706. Bourgmont was hired as a voyageur in 1702 and then as a hunter to go to the fort in 1703, so he did not arrive there for the first time in January of 1706.9 Then he acted as temporary commandant at Détroit from January to August 1706 during Cadillac's absence, leaving the mother colony late in 1705 and having to travel part of the way over land because of the lateness of his departure. Bourgmont and Grandmesnil were commissioned to take an inventory at the fort in the presence of Tonty and Father Constantin "delhalle" (as he signed his name), missionaire, including all the "merchandise, fixtures, houses, stores, lands cleared, and generally everything which is at Détroit".10 Isabelle appears under the names Isabelle Couc, recorded as "Coup"11 when she served as godmother, and also as Élisabeth "Couk"12 when she was questioned in September of 1704 about events that had taken place at the fort earlier in the year. This interrogation, referenced earlier, in connection with a procès, or legal investigation about Cadillac's behaviour at the fort, had been commissioned by the intendent of New France, François de Beauharnois. It is from Fort Pontchartrain in 1707 that la femme de Tichenet, her brother Montour, and Bourgmont are alleged to have deserted, after which she and her brother are said to be planning to go to live among the English that summer.13

Note: the version reported by the soldier being interrogated in 1707, Pichon dit Larose, does not say they are going to live like sauvages, Indians. It is d'Aigremont's 1708 account that makes this allegation, one which has been distorted out of all proportion, particularly since the English word "savages" carries definite connotations not conveyed by the word Indians. The diverse attempts to merge the various accounts without considering the sources has led only to confusion and, I believe, fabrications in recording this incident.

Montour is cited in Albany by 1708, speaking with Lord Cornbury; and his sister, "Montours sister" [sic], is there along with Montour's wife by 1709 (sources for which will be considered in Part 7). Whether this "wife" was Jeanne, the Algonquinne, said to be thirty-two in 1688, or another woman cannot be determined, but a 29 August 1723 letter says:

Montour an Ind[ian]being sent by order of the Late Lord Viscount Cornbury when Gov[ernor] of this Province of N York in August 1708 to treat with the Ind[ian] affairs at Albany brought his Son Michell [sic] to ye Reverend Mr. Thomas Barclay Minister of ye [the] Church of England there & during his [Michell's] abode with the Rev Mr Barclay which was about five years and a half he has been taken care of as to his Dyet [sic] & Clothing but Especially in his Schooling and well Instructed in ye [the] principals of Christianity & good Morality for which Rev Mr. Barclay has disbursed the Sum of fifty five pounds as may appear by the Rec[eipts] & Vouchers ready to be produced and it is but Just that he should be Reimbursed by this Province out of some publick money in the Treasury Wherefore we humbly hope your Exc[ellency] will be pleased to take ye [the] Case of this Gentleman into your wise and personal Consideration . . . .14

Who "Michell's" mother is cannot be determined, nor is it stated how old he was in 1708. The other English records call him Michael. As I understand this passage, he stayed with Rev. Barclay for five and a half years, but the petition for payment was not written until 1723. I find it interesting that this "son" of Louis and the son of Isabelle and Joachim, Michel Germaneau, share the same first name, which just happens to be the name of their uncle, Michel Massé, but I am, of course, speculating.

Louis Montour's other sisters are accounted for elsewhere at this time, Angélique in Trois-Rivières;15 Marguerite in Détroit;16 and Madeleine in Boucherville.17 Bourgmont simply disappears from the records for several years.18 Whatever their relationship, no evidence of any marriage is now known to exist between Bourgmont and Isabelle.

When he appears again, Bourgmont is farther south in Illinois territory by 1713, well-after Madame Montour is cited as wife of the Oneida, and in Missouri country by 1714, although legend has it he was in Détroit in 1712 during the Fox War.19 Between 1712 and 1714, Bourgmont's appearances in the Jesuit Missions aroused "an avalanche of denunciations." There was "never a question of treason", however. According to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography: "The minister of the Marine appeased the critics by giving Lamothe [then in Louisiane] secret orders to have Bourgmond [sic] arrested, but it does not seem that the governor of Louisiane followed the orders.20 By 1713, Cadillac was at Fort Louis, Mobile, in Louisiane (actually modern-day Alabama), although he traveled to Kaskaskia on the Mississippi River in the summer of 1715 to check out a mine21 and left one of his sons there and some other men to work it.22 Bourgmont resumed exploration on the Missouri River in 1722. He returned to France in 1725 and was ennobled that same year.23

A Relevant Digression

In 1714, though, Bourgmont was associated with Michel Bisaillon in Illinois Indian territory, Bisaillon having married Marguerite Fafard dite Delorme at Fort Pontchartrain in June of 1710.24 Marguerite is the niece-by-marriage of Marguerite Couc, her first husband, Jean, being the brother of François Fafard dit Delorme, this Marguerite Fafard's father. Claude Ramezay, then serving as governor of New France during Vaudreuil's absence in France, writes:

I have learned, through Sieur de Liette, who commands among the Illinois, that Sieur de bourmont, and two men named bisaillon and bourdon, lead a life not only scandalous but even Criminal in many ways. In the first place they have opposed the project of Sieurs de Liette and de Vinsenne, which was to make peace between the illinois and the myamy [Miamis]. These gentlemen state that they would have succeeded in this but for the obstacles raised by these seditious men, who have fomented dissension between these two nations." 25

Jesuits Pierre-Gabriel Marest and Jean Marie de Villes had also reported these men caused disorder among the Illinois and that they had attempted to introduce the English from Carolina into the territory.

Michel Bisaillon himself, who had by then served seventeen years in the pays-d'en-haut, gives another version in "Justification de Michel Bizaillon",26 placing some of the blame for the "disorders" among the Natives on de Liette27 himself, although, regrettably, he does not mention Bourgmont.

Much of the standard history ignores the comments of "little" people like Michel Bisaillon, preferring to accept the word of the "leaders" of the colony. Ramezay was definitely not an eye-witness, simply recording the messages he had received. It is crucial to ask these questions: Who were his sources? What were their motivations? And what happened next? According the Michel Bisaillon:

Mr. Desliettes [sic] then arrived at the Illinois to bring them presents from Mr. le General [the governor-general of New France] but Mr. Desliettes, instead of attracting the sauvages to him, alienated them, first because he delayed 10 or 12 days to give them the presents from Mr le general; second, because he had no respect [f.100v] for the principal chiefs; third because he spoke to the Illinois against Bizaillon, being jealous of the affection these sauvages have for him. Bizaillon kept silent and let Mr. Desliettes do as he wished. If Mr. Desliettes had asked him to help him in the Service of the King, he would have done so with pleasure as he has always done and even without "interest" [expecting any gain or compensation in return] considering it a pleasure to serve his prince. The way Mr. Desliettes governed caused a division in the village of the Sauvages, who, not being happy, separated a year after Mr. Desliettes had arrived.
The English sent an envoy with a message and presents by means of Sauvages to the Illinois. Their presents were accepted and the principal chiefs, having left the council, asked Bizaillon what they should do. He replied that they could not accept two "words" [parolles, or statements of policy] from two opposing crowns, that they should uphold the first "parolle" [that received from the French] and that the English would finish by destroying them [the Illinois]. The Illinois chiefs told Bizaillon that they would be true to their first "parolle".28

Another letter from Ramezay, 28 October 1715, one year later, explains, first, why Ramezay had originally approved the proposition made by Charles Lemoyne, sieur de Longueuil (an emissary to the Iroquois) and Jesuit Father Vaillant (present at Le Détroit in 1701 and a missionary to the Iroquois) to send Bisaillon to the Illinois and then says Bisaillon is to obtain the pardon of de Liette and Father de Villes, two of his accusers (see above). This letter also mentions a reply from Hunter at Albany, and, of course, Madame Montour was interpreting for Hunter at this time.

In 1715, Ramezay's son Monnoir wrote that he stayed with Bisaillon at les Illinois du Rocher long enough to assemble 450 men, arriving at Chicago on 17 August and composing his letter from there 28 August.29 It is this Ramezay son who was killed in 1716 on a mission with d'Adoucourt, also killed, the son of Charles Lemoyne, sieur de Longueuil, these men having been sent to prevent the Illinois from accepting the offers of the English after the failed mission against the Fox (Renards / Mesquakie).

I would love to trace a strange message from a "French woman at Orange" (Madame Montour is consistently identified as a French woman) who speaks of these men to Charles Ruette d'Auteuil, sieur de Monceau. The two young men were then known only to be missing. This French woman does not wish to be identified as a source.30 Madame Montour used the identical language in speaking to James Letort, which I will cite from the United States colonial records in a later section. She later told Letort that she said what she did only in the hope that it would be reported. D'Auteuil, sieur de Monceaux, in 1722, was convicted of illegal trading in Orange more than once, although he had, in fact, been given permission to do so.31 He married Thérèse Catin,32 widow of Simon Réaume, interpreter for the governor, all of them very much involved in the fur trade, including the governor, according to some testimony. But I must end this digression.

Bisaillon was pardoned. Bourgmont was granted nobility. To cite only the complaints against them is just part of the story. I must add that Bourgmont returned to France with his son, born of a Native woman in Missouri about 1714, although this illegitimate child did not get in the way of his ennoblement. Bisaillon fathered two illegitimate children in Illinois country, one in 1704, well-before his marriage, and the other in 1712,33 which may have been enough to arouse the ire of the missionaries, although both children were baptized at Kaskaskia. Bisaillon's "Justification" nevertheless includes an interesting detail at the end of the document:

Bizaillon having stayed a year at the Illinois with Mr. Desliettes without saying the slightest thing [against him], speaking only good about him to the sauvages, returned to Michilimakina and took with him 50 Illinois because of the danger [of traveling at the time].
Bizaillon having arrived at Michili maKina, Mr. Du[????] wanting to establish himself at 8abache [Wabash], asked him whether he wished to accompany him since the French told him that he would be needed; but because he wished to go to see his wife, he [Bisaillon] told him he could not, unless Mr. le general [the governor-general, Vaudreuil] wished it for the service of the King. [end]

Once again, the "story" is not as unambiguously clear as some declare it to be. The same is true of the commonly accepted, published biography of Étienne Véniard, sieur de Bourgmont, and that of Madame Montour.

Madame Montour in French and English Language Sources,
both Primary and Secondary

More than anyone else in the Couc family, Isabelle / Madame Montour is maligned and misidentified in books and articles, old and new, particularly in the older English language works. Many writers even now refuse to admit this woman is Madame Montour, preferring other guesses, suppositions, and romantic fictions developed in the last century without any-or little-knowledge of New France records or customs.

Her first name used to be the stumbling block, as writer after writer insisted that she was named either Madeleine, after the presumed name of her "father's" (Montour's) wife; or Catherine, this assumption because a "granddaughter" was said to be named Catherine, so she must have been named after her grandmother! Beliefs about naming systems created more misidentifications because English language writers of the past also always assumed Madame Montour carried her father's or husband's name. (Can you see the traps one can fall into by applying customs used by one group to another?) Yet in New France, although a woman used her birth name throughout her life, it was not unusual for her to adopt a totally new dite name, sometimes one not related to her father's or husband's name(s).34 Married women were also called Dame or La Femme de, followed by their husband's surname or dit name.

The issue of the first name of Madame Montour "interpretress" should have been resolved recently by Alison Duncan Hirsch, who allowed me to refer to her find in my October 1999 article.35 Hirsch was able to consult documents I requested in the spring of 1999 but which, I was informed by the New York Historical Society, could not be accessed, unfortunately, without my going to see them in person, documents which give Madame Montour a first name, and the first name recorded is "Eysabelle". The payments for wampum belts are all made to "Mrs." or "Madame Montour," while the name of the "interpretress" is always listed as "EYSABELLE Montour."36

Those who reject Isabelle as Madame Montour are most often the ones who have never heard of her under the name of "la femme de Tichenet"; nor do they know the crucial role played by the events at Fort Pontchartrain when Lamothe Cadillac was commandant there. These political events definitely affected her and her brother's decision to go to New York. Those who do know that she and Cadillac were in the same places at the same times take his words37 about her as absolute truth, even though Cadillac is an acknowledged and documented liar.38 Here is the relevant passage from Cadillac's 1704 Mémoire, in my translation:

The wife of Tichenet is the daughter of a Frenchman and a female Indian ["Sauvagesse"]; after she was married with the blessings of the Church,39 at the end of a year, she left her husband and fled to English territory, where she married to a "sauvage" [male Indian] of the "Loups" [Wolf tribe or Mahicans], with whom she lived twelve years, having several children by him; during the last war, this woman was taken in English territory by our Iroquois of the Sault [Sault-St.-Louis, near Montréal]; she was ransomed by one of her brothers-in-law, a Frenchman named Maurice Ménard, who brought her to the Ottawas, where her first husband was, to whom she no longer wished to return; at Michilimackinac she lived a licentious life; as her brother-in-law wished to change her behavior, she accused him of wanting to seduce her in return for taking her back to the English; she complained to me and, having filed the charges, she was discovered to be lying; she then convinced two Canadians to change their allegiance to desert to the English and when she escaped with them, I had her followed; she was apprehended with these two young men, who confessed their deed. I sent her under escort to the chevalier de Callière [then at Montréal, not named governor until 1699, and deceased before 1704], who had her go down to Québec [City] to have her sent to France. Because no precautions were taken, the man named Jean Le Blanc [Outoutagan] . . . rescued her and returned her to Missilimakinak [sic] and married the woman, who left him to take another, and she had more than a hundred "mariages de Jean de Vignes" [illicit relationships].40

The MPHC published its English language translation of this passage in 1903. That translation has influenced those who have written about "La Tichenet" in English. Writers choosing to cite this passage seemingly enjoyed calling attention to the "scandalous" allegations made by Cadillac.41

Governor Callière was deceased when Cadillac wrote this mémoire and could not dispute it. No surviving records found as of this writing support the allegations. Isabelle could not have spent twelve years married to a Loup by whom she had several children after abandoning her first husband at the end of a year, as Cadillac alleges. Twelve years from April 1685 is April 1697, giving Cadillac only a few months to send her down to Callière, then Intendent in Montréal. Cadillac himself left Michilimackinac by the summer of 1697. In that same time span she was allegedly rescued by and "married" Jean Leblanc, deserted him for another, and had 100 lovers. Her son by Germaneau, Michel, is said to be twenty-two years old at his marriage in 1717, thus born about 1695-94.42 The math just does not compute. Perhaps the "twelve" years and "100" lovers were simply Cadillac's characteristic Gascon exaggeration (!), but many commentators have taken his word as gospel.

More seriously, though, I believe the point must be made that Cadillac's accusations against Isabelle, la femme de Tichenet, sister-in-law to Maurice Ménard, were made in 1704 when he himself was undergoing a legal trial, procès, that accused him of mismanagement at Fort Pontchartrain. His characterization of la femme de Tichenet as a "loose woman" (or what Moogk calls "a slut"; see my Part 5) is not an isolated ploy. In his own defense in his mémoire to Pontchartrain, he was slandering or accusing almost everyone involved, calling people bastards and lower class workers, even professing that the governor and intendant were incompetent to judge him. Jean Delanglez comments: "Perhaps the document should be turned over to psychologists or dramatists"; and, he adds, "one wonders about his [Cadillac's] sanity."43 Delanglez certainly demonstrates, without a doubt, Cadillac's other liberties with the truth.

In September of 1704, testimony concerning Cadillac's behavior at the fort earlier in the year was taken from several people at Fort Pontchartrain, as I have mentioned more than once earlier. The summary of the trial activities cite several persons, including "Élisabeth Couk [Couc], Chateleraud, Demeules [and, added above the line] Jacques Croquelois dit Laviolette, sworn witnesses deposed at the said Détroit by the said Sieur de Vincelotte in his said function". These men and "Élisabeth Couk" were "recused", their testimony considered inadmissible. That is to say a challenge was made, claiming these individuals were in some way biased or legally unable to testify. Which party recused them, Cadillac or the Company of the Colony, is not indicated. However, the document continues:

we declare inadmissable and badly founded the challenges and pretensions made against Pierre and Michel Leméé [Lemay]; Louis Juilliet; and Pierre Rivet; witnesses deposed by us [Beauharnois and the Superior Council], as well as those made against Sieur de Tonty; Father Chasle [Delhalle], Récollet missionary at Détroit; [several words crossed out] Claude Riviere [Rivard44 ] Lorangé; Jean Baptiste Morisseau; Jean Richard; and Pierre Gauvreau, [who] although they are employed by the said Company, [they are] witnesses necessary to this case [affaire]; and, having consideration for their depositions and that of Piere [sic] Tichenet, [who is] not recused [neither party, the Company nor Cadillac, attempted to have his testimony rejected], we will proceed to a final judgment of the suit in eight days [huitaine]45

I have found no further documents connected with this procès, although I would dearly love to read Isabelle's and Tichenet's testimony.

I believe I am the first to cite this document in connection with Madame Montour. It is a very interesting summary of the workings of the justice system in New France and refutes claims that Cadillac was treated unfairly or held "against his will" from returning to Detroit.46 His "will" had nothing to do with it. Cadillac was legitimately charged with a complaint by the Company of the Colony, at that time Cadillac's employer and responsible for all matters at the fort. The legal process was followed; and Cadillac was cleared of the charges after a year, in June of 1705, mainly because it became too much of a problem to try to convict him. He would have demanded to go to France to appeal, as he had planned to do in the Moreau and Durand case in 1698, to have the case judged there. Given the protection he was at that time receiving from Pontchartrain, the Minister of the Marine, he would have taken his case to France. Instead, he received word in 1705, one year after the fact, that the king had granted him full control of trade at Fort Pontchartrain, the order arriving a year late because the 1704 message was lost when the English pirated the ship La Seine carrying the original decree.47

In the fall of 1705, then, Cadillac planned for his return to the fort as "absolute Master". Violence between the Ottawas (Odawas) and Miamis at Fort Pontchartrain, joined by the Detroit Hurons (Wendat-Petuns), broke out at the fort about twenty days before he departed from Lachine in June with the large convoy of 1706. It seems Isabelle was at the fort through the winter of 1705-06, serving as godmother in April of 1706, and, although not documented in the registers of Sainte-Anne, her brother, Louis Montour, may have been there. Cadillac arrived with his convoy of soldiers and potential settlers on 8 August, among whom, most probably, were Marguerite Couc, her Fafard and Massé children, and her second husband, Michel Massé.48 Bourgmont and Isabelle / La Tichenette are reported to have left the fort to join her brother Montour sometime late in 1706 or in 1707; no precise date survives, but Isabelle was still at the fort on 26 September 1706, when she served as godmother for Louis, son of "Pierre Taoun [ink blot] rony" and of "Martine, Hurons de nation".49 The priest did not reject her as a godmother because of any "scandalous" sexual behavoir. "Scandalous" behavior can, after all, be something other than sexual. Montour appears in New York by 1707, perhaps earlier, and again in 1708, his sister by 1709 at the latest, and the rest of the story shifts for awhile to the surviving United States colonial records.

The colonial documents and other records I have cited leave little doubt as to the identity of Montour and Madame Montour. Other surviving documents reinforce their identity. As will be seen, some of them have not previously been cited in any works I have read.

My articles in Michigan's Habitant Heritage of 1999 and 2000 presented an account of Madame Montour's life based on some of my preliminary research and on Madame Montour et son temps, the work of Simone Vincens, to whom I am indebted for introducing me to Isabelle's story. My intent then was to reach an audience that cannot read French. I have since consulted almost every primary source cited in the secondary sources I used in writing these articles and my follow-up ones about translations of key documents. I could not have done this research without the excellent indexes, Internet sources, and mail service from the National Archives of Canada and Les Archives Nationales du Québec. I am grateful to all of those who assisted me in my quest. As a result, I have found some of my secondary sources to be less precise than they could have been in interpreting the primary sources. I have also located new primary source documents. Although I am acutely aware that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of documents still waiting to be mined for the gold (and fool's gold!) they might contain, I have nevertheless already located sources no one else, to my knowledge, has found, and these documents reinforce the identity of Isabelle Couc of New France as Madame Montour of the colonies of New York and Pennsylvania.

Suzanne Boivin Sommerville
[begun in June 2002] 11 June 2003

(1) www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/metis4.htm
(2) There is no conflict. Cadillac left the fort in the summer of 1704, Tonty serving as the interim commandant until early 1706, after Cadillac sent Bourgmont to replace Tonty. Cadillac did not return to the fort until 8 August 1706. He did not then leave the fort for the mother colony until the spring of 1711, after having been replaced by Renaud Dubuisson, who arrived in December 1710, himself a temporary commandant for Daupin de Laforest.
(3) See Henri Folmer, "Etienne Veniard de Bourgmond in the Missouri Country," Missouri Historical Review, 36: 3, April, 1942, pp. 279-298, passage on pp. 281-82. Milton Reichart, "Bourgmont's Route to Central Kansas: A Reexamination," Kansas History, 2: 2, Summer, 1979, pp. 96-120, passage on p. 96. Passages from these articles are quoted in Part 5 of this work. Frank Norall, Bourgmont, Explorer of the Missouri, 1698-1725, Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1988. Norall repeats the "mistress" story. See also my "Madame Montour (La Techenet) and the 1707 Judgment of Pichon dit La Roze at Détroit: the perils of translation and interpretation", MHH, July 2000. And "Postscript to the perils of translation and interpretation," MHH, October 2000, for a discussion of mistranslated words that may have bolstered the "mistress" tale.
(4) MPHC, Vol. 33, p. 432. The original French document reads: "Mais Mr de Tonty leur [the Indians] disoit jl faut que la terre soit renversée on menvoye un Simple Soldat pour me commander. Ces parolles firent redoubler leur Inquietude dont le sr de Bourgmont fut averty par une femme nomée la chenette qu'jl entretenoit". AN, FC, série C11A, vol. 29, fol. 26-77v, photocopy.
(5) Early Canadiana Online: From Les Ursulines de Québec, depuis leur établissement jusqu'à nos jours, Saint-Thomas, mère, 1833-1885.; Sainte-Marie, mère, 1831-1886. 612 pages. (Québec? : s.n. , 1863) Matching pages: 259, 411. See my articles in MHH, 2000, for other examples of the use of the word in the seventeenth and eighteenth century as well as for a discussion of the verb "débaucher", which in both French and English (debauched) is used to indicate the allegiance of an individual or group of individuals has been compromised, that they have been won over not exclusively in a sexual manner but to an opposing side in a political sense.
(6) Later, D'Aigremont reports that Quarantesou (also called Quarante Sols), the Huron dispatched by Bourgmont, allegedly told the Miamis: "I am sent by the tribes of Detroit to tell you to join them, to go all together against the Sioux; but I warn you that it is in order to kill you. I know it from a good source. Bourgmont and La Chenette, [sic] have told me so." And "This Quarantesou, according to the Outaois, was a rascal whom the Sr. Bourgmont employed to deceive them." (MPHC, 34: 432-33.) The French phrase used for the word translated as "employed" is se servoit: "Ce Quarantsou a ceque disent les outaois estoit unfourbe dont le sr Bourgmont se servoit pour les tromper." This verb, se servir, means to use or make use of rather than to employ. I am also intrigued by D'Aigremont's comment: "M. de La Mothe told me that he had been accused of trading with the English, and of employing [se servoit = using] the Sr. Bourgmont for that purpose; but there is no ground for believing that that is so. He [Cadillac] is too clever to put his interests in the hands of a man so dissolute as the Sr. Bourgmont, who deserted from Detroit to go after a woman called La Chenette, referred to above, with whom he is living in the woods like a savage." (MPHC 34: 441.) Pichon in November of 1707 reported that Bourgmont had been waiting for La Tichenette to join him. The French word translated as "dissolute" is, in the original French, déreglé, from déregler, meaning mentally unstable or lawless rather than dissolute. As Cadillac may have been the source for the version reported by D'Aigremont, though, I must discount it. Cadillac was more likely throwing dust into d'Aigremont's eyes (as Delanglez also believes) to evade the charge of trading with the English. D'Aigremont wrote Pontchartrain in 1710: "As regards the complaint which M. de La Mothe has made to you, that I had not conversed with him long enough to learn thoroughly the reasons which have governed his action, I thought, My Lord, that any longer conversation with a man like him, whose disposition is secretive and full of cunning, could only make me more doubtful about things which it was my business to learn." MPHC 33: 467. Underlining mine. Cadillac also tried to convince d'Aigremont to marry his daughter. D'Aigremont declined.
(7) Milo Milton Quaife, Editor, The Western Country in the 17th Century, The Memoirs of Antoine Lamothe Cadillac and Pierre Liette, New York: The Citadel Press, 1962.
(8) "Surquoy le dit sr Bourgmont fut assembler ces Sauvages et leur dit j'ay aprit que vous avez parlé a M. de Tonty pour aller faire la guerre aux Sioux."
(9) Citations above. Hunters were necessary at the fort to feed the inhabitants. Despite Cadillac's claims, thousands of Indians did not settle there in the first two years, particulary during the winter hunting months. I am indebted to Gail Moreau-DesHarnais for originally noticing Bourgmont's signature on the 1703 document.
(10) Photocopy of Contract between Lamothe Cadillac and the Compagnie de la Colonie, Notary Chambalon, 28 September 1705, AN, FC, série C11A, Vol. 23, f. 89v. The attack by the Ottawa on the Miamis occurred during Bourgmont's tenure, on 2 June 1706. Bourgmont deserted sometime after Cadillac returned and was allegedly pursued sometime in 1707. Nevertheless, his agent "Pascaud", in Montréal, acting for "Sieur de Bourmont Enseigne dans les Trouppes dun detachment de la marine" hired Jaques Estienne, Maximiliam Demers, and Gilbert Desautels dit Lapointe, voyageurs, to take a canoe to Fort Pontchartrain with merchandise and to return with the pelletries belonging to the Sieur de Bourmont, and to accomplish this task even if he he is not there. Notary Adhémar, 13 April 1707, #7677, photocopy. Bourgmont had evidently left his power-of-attorney with Pascaud, although it appears not to have survived.
(11) Original registers of Sainte-Anne de Détroit, 1704 and 1706. Her sisters are also recorded with the last name "Coup" in the mother colony: Jeanne "Coup" burial 1679 Trois-Rivières, Angélique signing this record "Angelique Couc"; Angélique "Coup" at the baptism of her son Pierre, 8 July 1695, no indication she was present. She consistently signed "Angélique Couc". Marie-Madeleine "coup", 1 December 1698, Boucherville. The French pronunciation of "Coup" is /COO/. It is possible the name Couc was similarly pronounced or heard that way, with the final "c" silent. Marguerite is often recorded as "Kouk". Marguerite and Madeleine could not sign their names, nor could Isabelle. Angélique and Louis, as well as their father, could sign their names and used the COUC spelling, and they are consistently recorded with a "c" or "k" or "que" at the end of the name. Refer to this document for signatures and marks.
(12) Testimony taken in September 1704 at Fort Pontchartrain from both "Elisabeth Couk" and "Piere Tichenet [sic]". Papiers Beauharnois NAC C-2925, ff. 415-16.
(13) She is "La femme de Tichenet", Montour's sister, in the First Council of War (court martial) held at Fort Pontchartrain, dated 7 November 1707, filed in the papers of Étienne Véron Grandmesnil the younger, secretary to Cadillac, said document now in the Archives Nationale du Québec. "Jugement rendu par le Conseil de guerre Contre Bertellemy pichon soldat de la Comp[agnie] de Cortemanche [sic] de la garnison du fort pontchartrain," Grandmesnil [fils, the son, Cadillac's hired clerk], photocopy Archives Nationales du Québec, (ANQ) 4 880. The DCB still mis-identifies Grandmesnil the elder as Cadillac's secretary. She is "Latishenette" (and associated with Montour) in Vaudreuil's annotation of Cadillac's 27 August 1706 letter from Fort Pontchartrain, AC C 11A, Vol. 24, NAC microfilm F-24, f. 287. I have yet to see any formal mention of the events reported in this conseil de guerre in any other colonial document. I even wonder whether it ever left the official papers of Grandmesnil the younger to go to be read by anyone else in any official capacity.
(14) NAC, C-1220, ff. 55-55v, photocopy, my underlining.
(15) 7 January 1709, Angélique was present at her home there and signing the marriage contract of her daughter Marie-Anne Delpé and Joseph Petit Bruno, Notary Veron Grandmesnil the elder, father of Cadillac's commis and agent, writing the document at a time when his son was at Fort Pontchartrain working for Cadillac, photocopy. See my articles in MHH, January, April and July of 2001.
(16) 9 October 1707, Marguerite Couk, wife of Massé, godmother with Charles Fafard, son of Sieur Delorme, her first husband's nephew, for baptism of Joseph, son of Joseph Soudinan(?), huron, & 8entralon(?), huronne, at Fort Pontchartrain; this is the first evidence of her there. 20 March 1709, baptism of Marguerite, daughter of François Marquet dit Périgord and his wife Louise Galernaud. Godparents: Paul Guillet and Marguerite Maconce (Marguerite Fafard dit Maconce, daughter of Jean Fafard and Marguerite Couc). Guillet signed. And 5 May 1710, marriage, after three consecutive banns, of Jean-Baptiste Turpin, son of deceased Alexandre Turpin & Charlotte Beauvais, his wife, of the parish of Montréal; and Marguerite Fafart, daughter of Jean Fafart and Marguerite Couque, his wife, of this parish and nouvelle colonie. All from original registers of Sainte-Anne. I have not yet seen any satisfactory explanation for the term nouvelle colonie in 1710.
(17) 7 February 1709 baptism at Boucherville of François Ménard, born the 6th, son of Maurice Ménard and Magdeleine Couq. FHL #1288825, photocopy.
(18) But see M. de Vaudreuil au Ministre (5 novembre 1708), RAPQ. Two years ago, in 1706, Vaudreuil had told the Sonnontuans (Senecas), when they asked him to pardon two French deserters, that only the king had the right to pardon. Also mentioned in this letter is the 1708 killing by a young Native in the village of the Onondagas of a soldier "de la garnison du detroit" who deserted with another. The governor agreed to accept a slave in the place of the soldier to "cover" or atone for the death. Was one of these deserters Bourgmont? The timing is right.
(19) See Frank Norall, Bourgmont, Explorer of the Missouri, 1698-1725, Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1988.
(20) My translation from DCB, Vol. II, French language version: "Le ministre de la Marine contenta les plaignants en donnant à Lamothe des ordres secrets pour le faire arrêter, mais il ne semble pas que le gouverneur de la Louisiane en ait pressé lexécution." See Louise Dechêne, "Véniard de Bourgmond, Étienne de," DCB, Vol. II.
(21) This mine was possibly associated with Jacques Mainville / Miville. Cadillac, while he was in Louisiane, may have slandered "Mainville" as well, saying he was keen on Indian women, "tres adonné aux sauvagesses". In citing this passage, Gilles Havard qualifies Cadillac's accusation, saying he is certainly habituated to projecting on others his own faults: "certes habitué à projeter sur les autres ses propres travers", Empire, pp. 657-58. Miville himself is on record as petitioning to have his wife and family join him in Louisiane, just as Bisaillon wished to visit his wife. Jacques Miville's wife, Catherine Lécuyer, later remarried to Michel Germaneau, Isabelle's son, in 1717, after Jacques had died at some unknown time and place. Since Michel's whereabouts are not known until his marriage in 1717, I have to wonder whether he met Catherine through her first husband, who traveled to Fort Pontchartrain. Jacques Miville was part of the large group arriving in Détroit in 1706. The Cadillac Papers in MPHC report he came with Paul and Jean (Baptiste) Lescuyer, "brothers". (Jetté says Jean-Baptiste also engagé Ouest 19-02-1708) They brought ten head of cattle and three horses to Détroit in 1706. These were the first domestic animals in the west." (Vol. 33, p. 272). A Robert Chevalier, Louis Morisseau and Jacques Maurisseau were also part of this contingent, as was Laurent Leveille, Panis Indian, and Louis Normand dit Labrière, who served as godfather to Isabelle's godmother at the baptism of a Huron baby in September. This group arrived in August. I have seen all of their hiring contracts. See my articles in MHH on brides of soldiers and other women who voyaged in 1706. Did Isabelle have her children, Michel (about twelve) and Marie-Anne (five to ten), with her? Could one of these people have assumed temporary responsibility for the children when she fled the fort? Did Catherine Lécuyer travel to the fort after the birth of her son Jean-Baptiste in February of 1707? If she did, she was back in the mother colony for the baptism of her daughter Marie-Anne, 3 October 1708. These questions, unfortunately, remain unanswered, but the interconnections and Cadillac's accusations are more than intriguing.
(22) Delanglez, citing relevant documents.
(23) Dechêne, DCB, Vol. II.
(24) 30 June 1710, marriage, after three consecutive banns, of Michel Bisaillon, son of Benoist Bisaillon and Louise Blaye ses pere et mere of Ville de Clairmont in Auvergne and Marguerite Fafart, daughter of François Fafart and Marie Magdeleine Jobin, ses pere et mere, of this parish. Registers of Sainte-Anne. Jetté gives Louise Bléderne for Michel's brother Benoit; and Françoise Deblay for brother Etienne. He also lists a Pierre Bisaillon (Benoit & Louise Bléderne) of St.-Jean d'Aubergoux, ev. Clermont, Auvergne, as brother to Benoit, Etienne and Michel. This Pierre Bisaillon went to Pennsylvania in 1688-89. See DCB III, 69-70, and also Hanna.
(25) Ramezay to the Minister (September 18, 1714) in: Wisconsin Historical Collections, XVI, pp. 300-303, p. 302. Spelling is as it appears in this published translation. Claude Ramezay served as governor during Governor Vaudreuil's absence in France, 1714-1716.
(26) Mr de Ramzay à quebec le 28 oct 1715, AC C11A, Vol. 35, NAC microfilm F-35, ff. 99-100v.
(27) See C. J. Russ, "Liette, Pierre-Charles de (di Lietto, Deliette, Desliettes), aide de camp d'Henri Tonty", DCB II. He was cousin to Henri and Alphonse Tonty.
(28) From "Justification de Michel Bizaillon," AC C11A, Vol. 35, NAC microfilm F-35, photocopy.
(29) Wisconsin Historical Collections (WHC), Vol. XVI, Letter from Ramezay to the French Minister, 3 November 1715.
(30) 17 February 1717, Délibération du Conseil de Marine sur une lettre de Vaudreuil datée du 12 novembre 1716, Serie C11A, NAC F-37, ff. 44-45.
(31) For example, 25 September 1720, Ordonnance, MG 8 -A 6, NAC C-13588, 119-121, and other infractions.
(32) Joseph L. Peyser wrote an article about Thérèse Catin that treats her unfairly, as I see it, including calling her a "contentious butcher's daughter". Much of Peyser's language is similarly "loaded" and biased. "The Fall and Rise of Thérèse Catin: A Portrait from Indiana's French and Canadian History," Indiana Magazine of History, XCI (December, 1995), pp. 361-377. "Thérèse Catin became the first woman to make a business investment in what is now the state of Indiana. On 11 June 1735, the commandant of Fort Miami, Philippe Damours de La Morandière, signed an agreement" with her that transferred to her the Miami post. Widow Catin and d'Autueil had married 27 September 1734 at Montréal, photocopy.
(33) "Enfants naturels: 1.(mère: Marie-Thérèse, Amérindienne): Pierre b 13 Nov 1703 Kaskaskia. 2. (mère Marie ASEMGAMASOUA, Amérindienne): Michel n 1 b 2 April 1712 Kaskaskia." Children by Marguerite Fafard dite Delorme: Michel 1716 and Marie Marguerite 1718 at Laprairie; Marguerite Fafard, buried 26 Dec 1728 Ile Dupas; Michel d avant 1728. (Jetté) I am awaiting a document that will more closely identify Michel's death date.
(34) As a minor example, Marie Lalande, wife of Pierre Émard, used her mother's birth name, Filiatrault, at the 21 October 1707, baptism of François, son of Pierre Haimart, cy devant soldat in the Company of M. DeLorimier, and Marie Filiastreax. Registers of Sainte-Anne de Detroit.
(35) "The Celebrated Madame Montour, 'Interpretress' Across Early American Frontiers" by Alison Duncan Hirsch, of Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, speech presented to the McNeil Center for Early American Studies Seminar Series, University of Pennsylvania Law School, February 6, 1999, e-mail copy sent to me in July 1999. Her revision of this paper was published in Explorations in Early American Culture, Volume 4, 2000, Pennsylvania Historical Association for the McNeil Center for Early American Studies, pp. 81-112. She acknowledges my 1999 suggestions to her, but she did not revise her earlier paper to include all of them. For example, she continues to attribute a 1679 notarial document, unfortunately cited as "Lawsuit filed June 5 1779 [sic]", as connected to Louis Montour under the name "Louis Manitouake Koucq", when the record actually concerns, as I discovered and she herself acknowledged: "The computerized index to the judicial archives in Montreal refers to a Louise Manitouake Couc, not Louis, …" E-mail 11 September 1999, emphasis mine. Louise Manitouakikoué, Algonquine, and Pierre Artault, sieur de LaTour, married about 1664 in the region of Trois-Rivières (Jetté). "Koué" is Algonkin for woman. Perhaps the indexer of Parchemin saw Kouc in error. Hirsch's account of Isabelle's years in New York and Pennsylvania, though, is very well-presented, the best I have seen.
(36) Hirsch (1999), citing Peter Van Brugh and Hendrick Hansen, Account Book for the Vetch Expedition Against Canada, Aug. 20, 24, 27, 29, 1711, New York Historical Society, New York: "The account book for the 1711 expedition--the only surviving English document to give Madame Montour a first name--shows that 'Eysabelle Montour interpretress" was given five-eighths of a yard of stroud cloth, two yards of duffel cloth, and one shirt for interpreting from mid-July to mid-October 1711." [(*54) Footnote *54 Van Brugh and Hansen, Account Book, fols. 5, 6, 14 (Aug. 20, 24, 27, 1711)]; and, for the passage above, Footnote *55 Van Brugh and Hansen, Account Book, fols. 16, 18, 19, 26. My emphasis. I regret that I have not yet seen these documents myself.
(37) In Antoine Laumet dit de Lamothe Cadillac's long 14 November 1704 Mémoire written in Québec and sent to France, she is "La femme de Tichenet". In this Mémoire, Maurice Ménard, husband of her sister Madeleine Couc, and interpreter at Michilimackinac, is said to be her brother-in-law, and she is cited as having been at Michilimackinac during Cadillac's tenure there (1694-1697). AC C 11E, vol. 14, f 189v-190. NAC F-412
(38) For example, Vaudreuil writes in 1707: "what he [Cadillac] says about the Outtavois [Ottawas], who came down to Montreal with Jean le Blanc and loaded themselves there with ammunition, is a tale he has invented. That is no difficult matter for the Sieur de La Mothe [sic, Cadillac consistently signed his name "Lamothe Cadillac"]; he has had the privilege of doing so [inventing tales] for a long time." Observations of the Marquis de Vaudreuil on the Letter from de Lamothe of the 1st of October, 1707", MPHS, Vol. 33. See Jean Delanglez's many demonstrations of Cadillac's mendacity in his series of articles in Mid-America; an historical review, Chicago, Loyola University (Institute of Jesuit History) from 1944 - 1951. Specific articles to be cited.
(39) This phrase, "en face de l'eglise", often wrongly translated as in the front of the church. The sense is that the marriage took place in the presence of Church witnesses and with its consent. My thanks to Father Owen Taggart for clarifying this.
(40) My translation.
(41) For example, an editor's note to an article by Jean Delanglez: "Cadillac's interpreter [La Tichenet] happened to be a notorious profligate wench. . . ." Jean Delanglez, "Cadillac: Proprietor at Detroit," Mid-America, 32 (1950), Editor's Note, p. 175, a comment in connection with Cadillac's 1704 Mémoire. The editor also says that Delanglez "was revising his manuscript account of the Memorandum [Cadillac's 1704 Mmoire, translated in MPHS Vol. 33] before his death, trying to make clear what Cadillac intended to be confusing." Possibly, Delanglez was equally baffled by Cadillac's attacks on La Tichenet. This article is part of a series of articles by Delanglez published between 1944 and 1951.
(42) References for these items cited elsewhere in this article. I am aware that Vincens gives Michel's birth year as 1685, but no record survives; and, no matter how hard I try, I cannot change the "vint deux", twenty-two years old, of the church record, into trente-deux, thirty-two years old. He was active as an engagé in the fur trade as late as 26 June 1729, thus about age thirty-four, going to Michilimackinac where his uncle Maurice Ménard served as interpreter (J. B. Adhmar, #2838, photocopy), and died at Montréal 14 May, buried 15 May 1734, habitant journalier de la cote St. Pierre, photocopy.
(43) Delanglez, pp. 172-173.
(44) A Claude Rivard dit Loranger was hired to go to the fort 27 May 1701 and 10 July 1703. Photocopies. The others mentioned are also documented.
(45) Papiers Beauharnois (Francois de Beauharnois, Chevalier Seigneur de la Chaussaye, Beaumont et autres Lieus, Conseilleur du Roy en ses conseils, Intendant de justice, police et finances en la Nouvelle France), 29th of May seventeen hundred and five. NAC C-2925, ff. 415-16. Photocopied in the 1960s but acquired by the French archives earlier from Le Duc de Leuchtenberg [sic], a collector of documents. These documents were not available to Farmer and Burton and other early historians of Detroit.
(46) Those who accept without question the "myth" of Cadillac often use this phrase. But see Yves Zoltvany, "Antoine Laumet dit de Lamothe Cadillac," DCB, Vol. II. Cadillac made no attempt to go to the fort that summer of 1705, after the trial was settled, nor in the fall after receiving word he was to be "absolute master", instead sending Bourgmont, recently named an enseign, as temporary commandant and Grandmesnil the younger as commis or clerk to take a required inventory of the Company's possessions at the fort so that Cadillac could repay it for its investment.
(47) At Versailles, 14 June 1704, Pontchartrain to Cadillac, AC C11E, Vol. 14, NAC F-412, ff. 192-195. This document is Cadillac's transcription of Pontchartrain's letter, signed by Cadillac, with his, Cadillac's, annotation: "I have the original here." Pontchartrain to Vaudreuil, 17 June 1705: "You will find attached duplicates of the letters I wrote you last year." Transcription in Les rapports des Archives nationales du Québec, 1920-1975, Les Publications du Québec, CD-Rom version. (RAPQ)
(48) See my articles in MHH, 2002 and 2003.
(49) Original register of Ste-Anne de Detroit, photocopy. Godfather was Louis Normand "Labrierre".

Back     Next

Késsinnimek - Roots - Racines
Copyright © 2003 Norm Léveillée
©Tous droits réservés
Copyright © May 2003 Suzanne Boivin Sommerville