Késsinnimek - Roots - Racines

 

Please read Part One first. (February 2006)

 

I closed Part One by writing:

 

Karen Marrero’s assumption that Marguerite “would be eventually separated from her people, who would abandon Detroit during Cadillac’s tenure” seems shaky, at best, but she continues to extrapolate from limited “facts”, also claiming Marguerite “would also be separated from her husband, who, for all intents and purposes, would leave Detroit to pursue greater trading freedom among his wife’s people at the Poste des Miamis, the site of present-day Fort Wayne, Indiana.”

 

 

Here Marerro takes for granted that Marguerite, at this stage of her marriage, did not “stand by her man,” that she did not go with her husband to St.-Philippe. Yet, Marguerite and her husband were definitely present there in August of 1720 when Governor-general Vaudreuil gave instructions to Enseign Dumont, about to leave to assume command of both the Ouiatanon[1] post (modern-day West Lafayette, Indiana) and Fort St.-Philippe (Fort Wayne, Indiana).[2] Dumont was to tell Pierre Roy to take himself, his wife and children, and his possessions to Fort Pontchartrain, to winter there, and to return the following spring to the new colony.[3] Other French / French Canadians were also evacuated.

 

The couple was still definitely at St.-Philippe Miamis eight years later when their daughter Magdeleine married Pierre Chesne (dit Labutte) on 25 May 1728.  Father Dominique Thaumur wrote their marriage contract the day before and officiated at the marriage ceremony. The official Church marriage record found its way to the Sainte-Anne register, perhaps carried there by Father Thaumur or by the newly-married couple, Magdeleine and Pierre, where it appears as a loose sheet, page 204, inserted within the register proper between entries by Frère Bonaventure for 13 June and 24 September 1728.[4] Thaumur himself deposited the marriage contract with the notary J. B. Adhémar in Montréal on 30 July[5] as he was traveling to his ultimate destination, Québec City, where I next locate him at Hôtel-Dieu, the hospital.[6] Even though they grew up in the pays d’en haut among the Indians, Magdeleine and her two sisters, Marguerite and Marie-Louise, signed these documents, as did Marguerite’s husband and several others, despite the fact Sieur and Madame Roy are said not to be able to sign their names on the marriage documents or as godparents for baptisms at Fort Pontchartrain.

 

Having wrongly concluded Marguerite stayed put at Fort Pontchartrain until she died there, Marrero says: “With the baptism of each child, [Marguerite OuabanKiKoué] resurfaces briefly in the record between 1704 and 1717.”  Resurfaces briefly? Here are the extant references in the Sainte Anne de Detroit registers showing both Pierre’s and Marguerite’s presence at Fort Pontchartrain; they are recorded not only for the baptisms of their children (names underlined) but also when they themselves served as godparents:

 

27 April 1704, baptism of Marguerite, fille legitime, legitimate daughter of Pierre Roy and Marguerite OuabanKiKoué.  Godparents Henry Belille [chirurgien] & Isabelle Coup [Couc].  Godfather signed and the godmother declared she could not sign.  Delhalle.  (FHL 13)[7] [Original, p. 4 or 5; number is hard to read.]

 

21 April 1706, baptism of Pierre, fils legitime, legitimate son of Pierre and Marguerite OubanKiKoué, with Pierre Tichenet and Isabelle Coup (Couc) as godparents.  Pierre Tichenet signed. Delhalle.  (FHL 14) [Original, p. 5 or 6] Note: between this record and the next in May of 1708, their names are not recorded in the register.

 

19 May 1708, baptism of Marie-Louise, daughter of Pierre Roy, habitant du Détroit, and Marguerite Oubankik8é, Miamise de nation, ses pere et mere en legitime mariage, her father and mother legitimately married.  Godparents:  Sr Louis Gastineau, marchand, and Marie Dussaut [Marie Renée Tupin dite “Dussaut”], femme de Sr [Jacques] Langlois, habitants du fort.  Gastineau signed. Deniau.  (FHL 42) [Original, p. 38]

 

25 May 1710, [Jetté has 1711[8]] baptism of Magdelene, daughter of Pierre Roy and Marguerite 8banKiK8e, 8taoise [sic] de nation [earlier called Miamise by the same Father Deniau], ses pere et mere en legitime mariage, her father and mother legitimately married, born today.  Godparents:  Paul Guillot, commis du magasin du Roy, clerk of the king’s store, & Marie Magdeleine Parent.  Both signed.  Deniau.  (FHL 55-56) [Original p. 52]

 

30 June 1710, marriage, after three consecutive banns, of Michel Bissaillon, son of Benoist Bisaillon and Louise Blaye of Ville de Clermont in Auvergne and Marguerite Fafart, daughter of François Fafart [dit Delorme] and Marie Magdeleine Jobin, his wife, of this parish. One of the witnesses: Pierre Roy, present for Bisaillon. [Original, p. 89]

 

22 September 1710, three baptisms, of Jean and Joseph, sons of M8namahan and Michapiahan, 8tagamis [Renard or Fox / Mesquakie]; and Marie, daughter of hechK8ian and LantgilaKK8a, also 8tagamis.  Godparents for all three:  Jean Contant & Marguerite 8abanKik8e, femme Pierre Roy, wife of Pierre Roy. Deniau.  (FHL 105) [Original, pp. 113-114] [9] The entry is among the earliest recording the presence of Renard / Fox Indians at the fort. Cadillac had invited them to come.

 

12 November 1710, baptism of Jacques, un petit esclave de Pierre Roy agé 7 à 8 ans, panis [a young Panis slave belonging to Pierre Roy, about 7 to 8 years old. Panis Indian is a general name given to Natives taken as slaves, usually by other Natives, although some are definitely Pawnee].  Godparents:  Jacques Dumay & Marguerite Fafart, femme Bisaillion. Deniau.  (FHL 109-110) [Original, p. 120] Indian slavery had been declared legal in New France in 1709.

 

4 October 1711, baptism of Michel, fils de Sasteretsi[10] and Datyrez, Hurons.  Godparents:  Pierre Roy, habitant, & Dame Barbe Loiselle, veuve de Sr dufiguier De Rané.  Godmother signed. Deniau.  (FHL 123) [Original, p. 133]

 

30 October 1711, baptism of Magdeleine fille de Joseph Montour et de Isabelle Ononthio.  Godfather:  Pierre Roy, habitant, & Marguerite Fafart, femme de Turpin. Deniau.  (FHL 124)  [Original p. 133] Important note: Jetté does not list this child, nor does PRDH as of 2002.

 

11 April 1712, baptism of a petit esclave belonging to Joseph Senecal, Joseph, nation unknown, about seven years old.  Godparents:  Laurent Trutaud, armurier, & Marguerite 8abanKik8, femme de Pierre Roy.  Godfather signed. Deniau.  (FHL 129) [Original, p. 138] This act is one month before the beginning of the Fox wars on 13 May.

 

20 April 1713, baptism of François, son of Pierre Roy and Marie 8banKik8e, ses pere et mere en legitime mariage, her father and mother legitimately married, born tonight.  Godparents:  François Roy [Pierre’s brother, who gave the child his name] & Marguerite Parent. Deniau.  (FHL 63)  [Original p. 58] PRDH did not list this child the last time I checked.

 

2 June 1714, baptism of Jean Baptiste, esclave of Sieur Louis Gastineau.  Godparents:  Jean Baptiste Trudaud [Trudeau], forgeron, & Marguerite OubanKiKa8e, femme de Pierre Roy.  Deniau.  (FHL 75) [Original, p. 77]

 

29 June 1714, baptism of Pierre, esclave de Pierre Roy de ce lieu, slave of Pierre Roy of this place, nation [of the slave] unknown.  Godparents:  Jean Baptiste Trutaud & Magdeleine Parent.  Deniau.  (FHL 76) [Original, p. 78]

 

4 November 1715, marriage after three banns of Jean Baptiste Fafart, son of deceased Jean Fafart and Marguerite Couque [Couc], his wife, of this parish, and Marguerite Joseph [Jetté says Queroti], dau of Joseph and Josephe, Hurons de Nation.  Witnesses:  Michel Massé [husband of Marguerite Couque / Couc];  François Fafart dit Delorme, uncle of the groom; Joseph Besnard; Jacques Hubert; Pierre Roy; Jacques Cardinal.  Signed by Michel Massé, Joseph Besnard, Jacques Hubert.  Pelfresne.  (FHL 90) [Original, p. 92]

 

3 June 1717, baptism of Marie Louise, fille naturelle de Pierre Roy, natural or illegitimate daughter of Pierre Roy.[11]   No name given for the mother. Godparents:  Baptiste Truto [Trudeau, who often appears in connection with Pierre Roy] & Marie Robert [probably Marie Louise Robert].  Last record in this section signed by Pelfresne. (FHL 69)  [Original p. 63] 

 

Yes, this last record is accurate: fille naturelle, illegitimate daughter of a Pierre Roy, not of Marguerite. I am again grateful to Gail Moreau-DesHarnais for originally noticing the true reading of this act. Yet the transcription on the FHL microfilm of this record affirms this Marie-Louise is Marguerite’s illegitimate child, as reported even by Jetté in 1983. Her name is not even mentioned in this entry! Abbé Cyprien Tanguay, the celebrated author of the first French-Canadian genealogical dictionnaire, in seven-volumes, certified the transcription now available on FHL microfilm, but in this case, as in many others that have since been corrected, he (or someone else) not-so-simply guessed, or altered the content of the record, or at least approved the reading that became the standard reference until the registers became available on microfilm.  But this is a topic for another day. Marguerite cannot even be documented at the fort in 1717, contrary to Marrero’s declaration: “With the baptism of each child, she resurfaces briefly in the record between 1704 and 1717.” 

 

There are no entries after 30 October 1716 until this 3 June 1717 one.  There are none after 25 March 1718,  the last entry by Father Pelfresne, until baptisms were performed in August of 1718 by the missionaries,  Calvarin, Jean Mercier, and  D. Thaumur (the same priest who would officiate at the Chesne / Roy marriage in 1728). These priests were on their way to Illinois country, and all of these ceremonies are for Natives. The godparents are French-Canadians. The register then jumps to November of 1719, [12] when Frère Antoine de Lino makes his first entry. After his arrival, Father de Lino performs several baptisms for children born in the interim when, it appears, no priest was present.  Judging only from the surviving register entries, it appears the fort was essentially deserted during 1718, although French-Canadians were present to serve as godparents at the August baptisms. Yet I count at least 18 hiring contracts specifically for Detroit in 1718, and a total of 66 for the year, with destinations in the pays d’en haut or other specific locations such as Michilimackinac and Baye des Puants (Green Bay, Wisconsin). [13]

 

Although the Roy family is not mentioned in any of these religious entries at Detroit for mid- to late-1717 and early 1718, they can be documented in 1718 — in Montréal. Marguerite even served there as godmother for her brother-in-law’s child. Here’s how the record appears on the PRDH “certificate”.

 

44951 Montréal 1718-04-05 Birth :1718-04-05   

Rank Name Age M.S. Pr. Sex [14] 

  01 JACQUES ROY---c p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  02 JACQUES ROY FATHER  OF 01 SPOUSE  OF 03---m p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  03 MARTHE FRENCH MOTHER  OF  01 SPOUSE  OF 02---m p f[15]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  04 FRANCOIS ROY------p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  05 MARGUERITE ROY SPOUSE  OF 06---m p f

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  06 PIERRE ROY SPOUSE  OF 05---m---m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  07 BELMONT Occupation :PRETRE---c p

 

 

On this 5 April 1718 entry, Marguerite is recorded not with her Indian name but with the last name of her husband.[16] But Marguerite was not alone in Montréal in 1718.  Her sister was also there. A 20 July 1718 baptism, three months later, reads:

 

 

{in the margin}  B: Pierre miamy

 

Ce vintieme iuillet de l'an mil sept cent dix huit a ete batise pierre aage de trois jours fils d un miami et dune miamie le parrain fut mr pierre roy et la maraine mari [?] miamie soeur de la fesme de pierre roy fils

Belmont ptre

nom inconu {this last added after the record but within the text of the record and evidently refers to the actual names of the Miamis.}[17]

 

{in the margin} B[aptism] of Pierre miamy

This twenty of July of the year seventeen hundred and eighteen was baptized Pierre, three days old, son of a Miami and of a Miamie [female]. The godfather was Mr. Pierre Roy, and the godmother Mar?, Miamie sister of the wife of Pierre Roy, son [or junior].

Belmont, priest

Name unknown

 

When I examined the book version of PRDH years ago, I noted that it misidentified this child as Pierre ROY [sic]. The record, though, is now corrected on the on-line version “certificate”.

 

The father of the Pierre fils, husband of the Miamie, was also named Pierre Roy, and to further confuse accurate tracking of records, Pierre père, the father, had another son named Pierre, as I have previously indicated,[18] the second one, in 1705, marrying Marie Angélique Faye, very definitely not a Miami.  About all that is certain about this record is that a Miami(e), sister of the wife of pierre roy fils, was the godmother and that one of the three men of this family named Pierre Roy was the godfather. Pierre senior, the father, was still alive in 1718.

 

The godfather could not have been Pierre and Marguerite’s son, also named Pierre, baptized 21 April 1706 at the fort of Détroit, because he had died and had been buried in June of 1716, age ten. Present at his burial was his aunt, born Marguerite Roy in 1674. a nun in the Congregation de Nôtre-Dame de Montréal, who joined the community at the age of fifteen, taking the name Soeur de la Conception. [19]

 

12037 Pointe-aux-Trembles 1716-06-19

Rank Name Age M.S. Pr. Sex

01 PIERRE ROY 010 c d m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

02 PIERRE ROY SPOUSE OF 03 FATHER OF 01 --- m --- m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

03 MARGUERITE RABAKIKOI SPOUSE OF 02 MOTHER OF 01 --- m --- f

------------------------------------------------------------------------

04 LAURENT ARCHAMBAU le pere --- --- p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

05 ANDRE ARCHAMBAU fils --- --- p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

06 LOUIS BAUDRI --- --- p m

------------------------------------------------------------------------

07  LANOUE --- --- p f

------------------------------------------------------------------------

08  DE LA CONCEPTION Occupation : SOEUR --- c p f

------------------------------------------------------------------------

09  SEGUENOT Occupation : CURE --- c p m

                                               

I decided to view the actual record on microfilm to determine how far off someone’s reading of “Rabakikoi” might be from OuabanKiKoué. The entry actually reads _abaKìK_ì, the transcriber misreading the first symbol as an /R/. This Pierre is definitely the son of Pierre and Marguerite. A side bar notation, not recorded by PRDH, even identifies him as “neveu de la Sr de La conception”, nephew of Sister de La Conception,[20]   Pierre Roy’s sister, Marguerite Roy. It is documented that both Pierre and his wife, Marguerite, were with their family and her sister’s family in the Montréal area in 1718, perhaps even during the years between 1716 and 1719. (I truly believe some records are just waiting to be found!)

 

So much for Marrero’s “Marguerite would disappear into the French social presence at Detroit, raising six children in an atmosphere which was becoming increasingly contentious, due to mounting hostilities between some of the tribes. . . .”

 

It simply must not be imagined that these individuals and families ensconced themselves at a distant post and never left it, nor that they were cut off from all communication with the mother colony. Pierre’s friend, Jean-Baptiste Trudeau, voyageur, who also lived at the fort, acted for Pierre Roy, “absent, at Fort Pontchartrain”, in a property arrangement on 31 July 1710.  Pierre’s sister, Marguerite Roy of the Sisters of the Congregation of Nôtre-Dame de Montréal, was also present and signing “marguerite roy delaconception.[21] Pierre Roy himself returned to Montréal by 8 July 1711, to accept from his father 300 livres in card money as a portion of inheritance granted to him ahead of time. Since de Lamothe Cadillac had already arrived in Montréal from Fort Pontchartrain by this time, I have to wonder whether Pierre Roy traveled from Fort Pontchartrain with him. Pierre was back at the fort by the fall of 1711 to witness the inventory taken of Cadillac’s property, and Cadillac sailed for France in November. Another notarial document was transacted in the mother colony two years later, on 10 September 1713, Pierre Roy père acting for Pierre Roy fils, presently absent at detroit du lac Erie. The transaction involved a plot of land Pierre Roy fils purchased on the island of Montréal at La pointe Saint Charles sur le bord du fleuve,[22] at Pointe Saint Charles on the bank of the river, Le Saint-Laurent. This property was later sold back to the previous owners, the final payment accepted by Pierre in person in 1718.[23] The Pierre Roy family would settle elsewhere by 1720.

 

Both Pierre and Marie are documented at Fort Pontchartrain in June of 1714. Then Pierre was definitely at Fort Pontchartrain 4 November 1715, but he was not necessarily present for the 3 June 1717 baptism of his or a Pierre Roy’s natural daughter, Marie-Louise, conceived in about September of 1716, although the name “pierre roy” is definitely given as father.[24]   I can hypothesize as well as anyone, and it would not surprise me to learn that, if Pierre and Marguerite were separated, it was because of the danger inherent in remaining at the fort in the early years of the Fox wars, begun in 1712, or, perhaps, because of their son Pierre’s ill health and eventual death. It may be Marguerite who “abandoned” or at least temporarily left Pierre and not the other way around. They may even have sent their children to live with relatives in the mother colony. But this is pure speculation.

 

As I stated above, there are no surviving entries in the Ste.-Anne registers after 30 October 1716 until the 3 June 1717 baptism of Marie-Louise, natural daughter of Pierre Roy and an unnamed mother.  There are none after 25 March 1718,  the last entry by Father Pelfresne (who apparently would not be replaced until 1719), except for the baptisms entered by the missionaries on their way to Illinois country.

 

There are several very good explanations for why the fort seems practically deserted, both after 1712 and after 1716. The ongoing war between the Fox / Renard / Mesquakie and other Western Indian Nations, begun in May of 1712 and reaching a crucial point in 1716 with French involvement, would be reason enough for families to go elsewhere; the illegal coureurs de bois were even granted amnesty if they would join in this initiative against the Fox and then return to the mother colony. In addition, and of equal significance once word arrived from France, is the 1716 royal cancellation of the concessions of land Cadillac had made from 1707 to 1710. The force of this edict would later be modified to respect those concessions that had been accepted in good faith, although issued in improper form by Cadillac, if the lands had been developed. Those plots of land that had actually been developed by the habitants of Detroit remained in their possession; but in the interval, no one knew the status of his or her[25] property, and Alphonse de Tonty, commandant beginning in 1717, even demanded that those holding property documents give them to him and would not return them.

 

Although Marrero claims Pierre Roy “was not present to father the last child of his wife, Marguerite,” whom Marrero identifies as “a girl born in 1721 [sic], listed as an enfant naturel [sic] or illegitimate child”,[26] she does not cite her source for this girl child. I count only seven events listed in the register for 1721, from 16 February 1721 to the end of December.[27] None names Marguerite as the mother of an extra-marital child. Could this 1721 be simply a typographical error for the published – but false – attribution of an illegitimate child born to Marguerite in 1717? I’ve made enough typos to understand, if this is what happened. Either way, it appears to be wrong.

 

Before 1720, Marguerite and her husband and family were definitely living at St.-Philippe, the Miamis mission located near Kekionga, modern-day Fort Wayne, Indiana, as I documented above. Otherwise Governor-general Vaudreuil would not have ordered Enseigne Dumont to tell them to go to Fort Pontchartrain. They were still present at St.-Philippe in 1728 for their daughter Magdeleine’s marriage and marriage contract, which were written in their home.  I can cite several permissions granted before this date to François Roy, brother of Pierre, to take supplies to this Miami post, for example, 1721 August 6, permission granted by M[onsieur the governor] général to the man named François Roy to leave with a canoe equipped with four men, including him, to go to take to Pierre Roy, his brother, interpreter at the Miami post, the provisions and belongings that he needs.[28] These permissions specifically state François Roy is allowed to take provisions and supplies for his brother and for his brother’s family. Note: Pierre is identified as an interpreter, not a trader, and permission is not granted for trade merchandise to be transported. It is true, that Pierre and François Roy entered into a three year agreement with Lieutenant De Noyelle, commandant at Fort St.-Philippe, on 24 May 1728 to share profits from the commerce they would conduct at “Fort St.-Philippe Village des Miamis”. [29] And, as Marrero says, in 1732 on 3 June, Pierre Roy and Commandant d’Arnaud entered into a trade agreement.[30]

 

She does not say that d’Arnaud was stationed at Detroit at the time,[31] that this agreement was written au Détroit Erié, nor that Pierre Roy signed it with a cross. I have a copy of the original now held by the Chicago Historical Society.[32] Pierre’s wife died this very year, about five months later, so it is not likely she was, in this instance, “separated from her husband, who, for all intents and purposes, would leave Detroit to pursue greater trading freedom [sic] among his wife’s people at the Poste des Miamis.” I will return to the 1732 date of this agreement shortly.

 

When and why Marguerite, Madame Roy, traveled from the Miami post on the Maumee River at modern-day Fort Wayne, Indiana, to die at Fort Pontchartrain on the last day of October of 1732 will never be known with any certainty, but it is fact that her daughter Magdeleine gave birth three years earlier, 23 May, to her only son, Pierre Chesne, baptized the next day on 24 May 1729 at Sainte-Anne du Detroit. The reason for Marguerite’s presence at Detroit in October of 1732 could be as simple as her desire to see her daughter and grandson; or perhaps she wished to minister to her sick daughter, since Magdeleine died of an unidentified cause in November. Possibly, Marguerite brought one or both of the girls named Marie-Louise with her to seek a husband. A Marie Louise Roy married Alexis De Ruisseaux (Trottier dit Desruisseaux) 6 Jan 1735 at Detroit, slightly more than two years after her mother’s death.  The Marie Louise born in 1708 would have been twenty-six in 1735; Marie Louise, the child of 1717, would have been age eighteen in 1735; but, although no age is given for her, the wife of Alexis De Ruisseaux is clearly said to be daughter of Pierre Roy and Marguerite Oabankicoües, vivants demeurant au miamis, when both were alive residing with the Miamis (p. 245 original).  Marie Louise Roy died in December 1735,[33] (p. 255), no age given, after the birth and death of her daughter, "la petite des Ruisseaux".  Madame Philis, sage femme, mid-wife, giving her parolle, testimony, about the event, reported that the infant had been ondoyé, administered baptism by a lay person.  The record is damaged.  (p. 254). Or, what is equally possible, Madame Roy went to Fort Pontchartrain because she wanted to escape the mysterious illnesses that were ravaging Miami territory. Barnhart and Riker report: “To avoid the plague many of the Miami fled from their village” of Kekionga, the Miami name of Ste.-Philippe, d’Arnaud’s Miami post.[34]

 

The original belief was that the illness was caused by poison put into the liquor the Indians had obtained in trading with the English in Iroquois country, modern-day New York State. One container was even reported to have had a human hand in it. In a letter dated 1 May 1733, Governal-general Beauharnois in the mother colony refers to having already informed the minister in France “of the ravages caused by small pox among the Villages of the Five Iroquois Nations.” He also writes:  “From the News I have received I learn that It is decreasing there But that It has spread among all the nations, and that the Miamis and Poutouatamis Among others have lost many Persons. Brandy Eau de vie which they went to get from the English, has also contributed to their ruin”.[35] Thus it seems the smallpox traveled from Iroquoia to the Miamis via the Indians who had gone to trade with the English. Considering the time it took for messages from the pays d’en haut to reach the mother colony, the trading evidently took place sometime before the fall of 1732.

 

Finally, and most convincing to me, Marguerite, Pierre Roy’s wife, could have accompanied her husband in the spring of the year when he was going to conduct business with Jean-Charles d’Arnaud, appointed that year, 1732, as commandant for the Miamis post on the Maumee River, who was stationed at Detroit in 1731,[36] and who was also at Fort Pontchartrain in June of 1732. Many historians confuse the appointment date with the actual date an individual reached the location of the position he had received. Marguerite could have arrived at Fort Pontchartrain long before she could have been infected with the smallpox that traveled from the Iroquois in New York via the Indians who traded with the English. Thus Marrero’s “Interestingly, it is highly likely that the outbreak of this disease originated in Post Miami, the adopted home of her French husband” is also subject to question, as is any suggestion that Marguerite may have functioned as a carrier of the disease.

 

For Marrero, though, Marguerite was fulfilling her destiny to confirm Marrero’s thesis, because, Marrero asserts: “it is [Marguerite’s] lack of immunity to and death from the European scourge of smallpox in October of 1732 which establishes and identifies her finally and forever as Native American. [underlining mine]” Marrero does not stop to consider that Marguerite could have been exposed to the disease any number of times[37] but succumbed only in 1732, twenty-eight years after she appeared for the first time in a now-known French language document.

 

Once again I decided to examine an original source, the registers of Sainte-Anne de Detroit, to determine exactly when this outbreak of smallpox is first documented at Fort Pontchartrain and also to count the number of deaths attributed to this cause. Marguerite’s death is the first so-identified; thus the contract her husband signed with a cross in June was agreed upon almost five months before the word “la picotte”, smallpox, appears in the register of Ste.-Anne de Detroit. On the next such entry, 16 January 1733, “la picotte” is again clearly readable.

 

Marguerite, was buried at Fort Pontchartrain in the cemetery of Ste.-Anne on 31 October 1732, after receiving all the sacraments: “Margueritte 8abanquiKouet [sic], femme de Pierre Roy, morte dela picote”, the latter phrase inserted above the line: wife of Pierre Roy, died from smallpox. (p. 231) Picote is another name for la petite vérole. Her daughter Magdeleine died a few weeks after her mother, on 20 November 1732,  femme de Sieur labutte (Pierre Chesne’s dit name is La Butte), after receiving all the sacraments, about 22 or 23 years of age. No cause for her death is given. Correspondence of the time indicates there was also an infectious fever in the area.[38]

 

Recorded in 1732, though, after Marguerite’s burial record, is the death and burial on 17 November of Antoine, pathocas de nation, belonging to Sieur La butte, about 13 or 14 years old, who had been baptized during his illness because he had shown beaucoup dapparences damour de l’etre, much evidence of love to be baptized. Sieur Labutte, Marguerite’s son-in-law, witnessed the burial. No indication is given of the nature of the illness causing the death of this pathocas (Padouka, in English, Comanche).[39] The burial of the wife of Sieur La butte is recorded next, on 20 November 1732 (p. 232), followed by the burial of “marie francoise du tremble”, twenty years old, no cause given, and then, on 16 January 1733, of “Jean baptiste esteve dit lajeunesse”, about 17 or 18 years old, “mort de la picotte”.  Two-and-a-half months had elapsed, then between the first and the second deaths specifically identified as caused by smallpox, and the second death was of a French-Canadian, born at the fort,[40] not a Native American. French-Canadians born in the New World were not as immune to the disease as the original settlers had been. Between the first and the second death from smallpox, three individuals associated with the family of Sieur La Butte had died. A cluster of victims also appears within another family.

 

The mention of death by smallpox disappears after the last such case so-identified on 5 March 1733, “pierre”, also patocas de nation, about nine or ten years old.  Twelve of twenty individuals who died from October to March are said to have been ill with smallpox, ten of these twelve are French-Canadians.[41] Two Renards (Fox / Mesquakie) are included among these twenty deaths, but they did not die from smallpox; at least the record does not say they did.  Of course, no indication is given of the number of individuals— of Native, Canadian, or European origin— suffering or dying with the disease who were not given a religious burial in the cemetery of Sainte-Anne. Yet the point must be made that it was not only Native Americans who contracted “the European scourge of smallpox” and dying from it does not automatically mark one as Native American.

 

Marrero’s guesses and broad-brush interpretations do not hold up well when examined in the light of documents she apparently never attempted to locate, at least as of her writing of this article. Of equal concern to me is the ease with which Marrero uses insufficient evidence in order to shore up her predetermined “thesis”.  Like her, far too many others rely on the published histories or indexes (perhaps because it is easier or they cannot read French) without asking themselves whether these works could be partial, biased, or absolutely wrong.  Marrero at least challenges the older histories and their version of the truth, and is to be commended for this, but the fascinating early history of Detroit deserves better. 

 

Even as the story of what became modern-day Detroit began, some of the Odawas / Ottawas of Michilimackinac themselves refused to move to the new post, despite the standard history’s insistence that the Jesuits alone prevented them from going. An annotator of Cadillac’s 1702 letter to Pontchartrain gives one of the reasons (there are others) some of the Ottawas stood their ground and stayed in Michilimackinac:

 

In their speeches to M[onsieur] de Callières [then governor-general], the Indians said that the land was under water and worthless; to make it productive, irrigation would be necessary, which, the Indians say, they are unable to do.[42]

 

Much of the published history of Early Detroit continues to be “under water and worthless”, swampy with misconceptions and falsities. The tools are now available to irrigate the territory, and to let the sun shine on “Detroit’s Misty Early Years”, if only modern historians would examine the extant French records, some of which, like the notarial records I have been examining for seven years now, are only beginning to be read. I am doing my part to reclaim the land of my ancestors. The mists may not vanish entirely, but I know there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of documents still waiting to be mined for the treasures they hold.

 

Originally written 15 June 2003, revised for this publication October 2005 and January 2006

Suzanne Boivin Sommerville