| The Lake of the Woods Tragedy |
Excerpt from In Search of the Western Sea, selected Journals of La Vérendrye, edited by Denis Combet
Up to this point the French Court had welcomed the news of Sieur de La Vérendrye’s accomplishments in the West. To this it must be added that the Western posts and fort Beauharnois had harvested half of the total production of furs for the Colony in 1735 (100 000 livres worth of beaver pelts).
However, La Vérendrye changed business partners, hoping the new system of sociétés proposed by Beauharnois would allow him to increase his revenues. In fact, the government of New France asked him to farm out his posts to new associates for a period of three years. From then onwards he would devote all his energies to the work of discovery and would receive 3 000 livres per year while the merchants would take over the fur trade.
La Vérendrye looked forward to this next step with optimism, but lack of coordination between the explorer and his new partners was to set in motion a series of disastrous events for the expedition. First the fresh convoy from Michillimackinac which was to re-supply the forts in the fall of 1735 was forced to stay at Grand Portage because of a navigational error by the crew. La Jemerais left in the fall of 1735 to occupy the newly constructed Fort Maurepas. He was to fall gravely ill through lack of adequate food. In spite of the arrival of his cousins, who had come to his aid in the spring of 1736, he died on the return journey near the forks of the Red and Roseau rivers. Worse yet, in the month of June 1736 the explorer sent his son, Jean-Baptiste, Father Aulneau and nineteen Frenchmen to find the supplies and the necessary trade goods at Kaministiquia and Michillimackinac. On June 6, 1736 the convoy was ambushed by a Sioux war party which massacred them on an island in Lake of the Woods. This tragedy was due in large part to the negligence of the merchant suppliers and the associates, who had acted irresponsibly by doing as they pleased.
The massacre of the twenty-one Frenchmen on Lake of the Woods almost put an end to the work of discovery of the Western Sea. For La Vérendrye, this personal tragedy corresponded also to the beginning of his troubles with the Court. Maurepas held him responsible for the failure: in his opinion the motivation of the explorer was to grow rich through the fur trade, and therefore neglect exploration and fail to keep the peace among the peoples of the Prairies. In fact, these territories belonged to the Natives who had been generous enough to accept the French. The Sioux attack may well be explained by their unhappiness at seeing the French give arms to their enemies. The attack might also be explained as retaliations for an earlier raid against the Sioux in 1735, and in which Jean-Baptiste may have been involved.
In several of the letters written by Beauharnois and Maurepas, the biases of that era and the European’s sense of superiority over the Natives contribute to remarks which tend to over-simplify matters. The first inhabitants are characterized as fickle and prone to vices. In contrast, La Vérendrye often presents the Natives with whom he has come in contact in a more favourable light. La Colle, the great Monsoni chief, clearly emerges from these texts as the major player. It is he who reminds the explorer he must go to Montreal himself to speak to Beauharnois and to convince his associates to bring back sufficient trade goods on a regular basis, for this is what it will take to keep La Colle’s people from going to the English. In September and October of 1736, La Vérendrye manages to dissuade his allies from going to war against the Sioux, and he succeeds in postponing their attack until the spring of 1737. The nations in question were of course planning to avenge the death of Jean-Baptiste whom they had adopted as their chief. La Colle backs up La Vérendrye’s decision, while at the same time pointing out to him that this revenge only concerns the Monsonis and the Crees. By adopting La Vérendrye’s eldest son, these nations revealed a sincere desire to welcome the newcomers to their land and even to establish long term commercial links. The death of Jean-Baptitste could only be avenged by the people who had implicated him in this affair. Besides underscoring the acute sense of honour motivating La Colle, the Monsoni chief’s attitude shows us that he alone is master of his land.
In his journal written in 1736-1737 La Vérendrye gives very little information on the Lake of the Woods massacre. Grief-stricken, he avoids giving details and only gives basic facts. The official Court documents are more informative because of the enquiry that followed. Here are two letters that Beauharnois sent to Maurepas, the Minister of Marine.
The voyageur by the name of Bourassa reports that on June 3, 1736, he was the fifth to leave Fort Saint-Charles on Lake of the Woods in order to go to Michillimackinac. The following morning, as he was about to set out, he met thirty Sioux canoes, made up of eighty to one hundred men who surrounded him, disarmed him and all his men, and robbed him. After having learned from him that there were five or six lodges of Crees under the parapet of M. de La Vérendrye's fort, and whom they were coming to attack, they let him go and left with the intention of destroying those lodges. The Sioux told Bourassa that he had only to wait for them, and that upon their return they would give him back his weapons. He did not believe it was prudent to do this. On the contrary, he went to Michillimackinac. The Sioux, for their part, went to Fort Saint-Charles where they didn't find the five lodges of Crees because they had struck camp. They went back. Meanwhile, twenty voyageurs who had just arrived from Lake Alepimigon were starting out for Michillimackinac. One day out they ran into the same Sioux, and were all massacred. Among their number were the son of La Vérendrye and Father Aulneau, a Jesuit missionary. Their bodies were seen and recognized by the French who were passing through the same region a few days later. The heads were all placed upon beaver robes, most of them having been scalped. The missionary was down on one knee with an arrow in his side, his chest split open, his left hand on the ground and his right hand raised. Sieur La Vérendrye was lying face down, with his back covered in knife wounds, a hoe driven into his ribs, headless, his torso decorated with garters and bracelets made of porcupine quills.
We won't find out until later this year all the circumstances of this unfortunate affair. Some think that these Indians had a particular grudge against the son of M. de La Vérendrye who, two years earlier, had marched with the Crees to go to war against the Sioux. He had been made chief during the council, according to claims. Be that as it may, the young man had withdrawn and did not go to war.
The majority of the Indian party, according to Bourassa's report, was made up of Prairie Sioux, a few Lake Sioux and some from the post of Monsieur de La Ronde. The latter seemed to be well disposed towards the French; perhaps they were not the instigators of the La Vérendrye affair. If the Lake Sioux have plotted with the Prairie Sioux to kill the French, we must fear greatly for Sieur Saint-Pierre, commanding officer of the post in Sioux territory. The Sioux in general are the most ferocious of all the Indians. They have from time immemorial been at war with the Crees and the Assinibones. The latter are of Sioux origin, they all speak more or less the same language, and yet are irreconcilable enemies.
One detail that the man called Bourassa reports is that the Sioux complained to him that the French were providing the Crees with weapons and ammunition. The Crees could in the same manner complain that the French provide ammunition to the Sioux.
Sieur La Vérendrye writes that, grief-stricken by the loss of his son, his intention was to lead the Crees and the Assiniboines to march against the Sioux (a decision both extreme and inappropriate). It might be better to abandon the post of the Western Sea or to send another officer there to relieve Sieur de La Vérendrye and who could work towards a reconciliation of all these nations.
Monseigneur,
I have received the letter that you did me the honour of writing me on April 17 last concerning the discovery of the Western Sea. I have not, Monseigneur, been able to give you any information, not having been sent anything of particular interest.
I received this year a letter from Sieur de La Vérendrye dated from Fort Saint-Charles on Lake of the Woods, June 2, in which he tells me that he was only able to arrive there with the Jesuit Father Aulneau on October 2, and that all the canoes of the merchant suppliers wintered at Kaministiquia, since the season was too far advanced to go to meet up with him. This prevented him from continuing on his way, since his supplies and provisions were left behind. He adds that all the natives, knowing this, decided to deal with the English, and that since his nephew had fallen gravely ill, he found himself unable to make any discovery. Sieur de la Vérendrye proposes a new establishment to the south of the Lake of the Prairies and points out to me that this location will be advantageous for the fur trade.
He wrote to me from this place on the 8th of the same month and told me that the canoes had just arrived from Kaministiquia and they had not met the convoy which had left on the 5th for Michillimakinac, led by his eldest son and comprising Father Aulneau and twenty-two engagés. He told me of the death of Sieur de La Jemerais, and expressed fear that the convoy might have been set upon by the Prairie Sioux.
I have since found out, Monseigneur, that the convoy was massacred by the Indians, and here are the details of why it happened.
You may, Monseigneur, remember that in 1734 Sieur de La Vérendrye gave me a memoir to be sent to you, which you approved last year, and in which he speaks to the Indianss in the following terms : “I am not against you going to war against the Maskoutins Pouanes, your enemies”. In this same memoir he mentions that he has given them his son to lead them. He went with them and then turned back, but the Indians continued on their way, and this is what gave rise to the disaster which has befallen us, Monseigneur, as you will soon see.
After having read attentively the memoir of Sieur de La Vérendrye I learned from former voyageurs who the Maskoutins Pouanes were. They told me that they were the Prairie Sioux.
I foresaw immediately the attack that was to take place and forbade him sternly from sending Frenchmen to war against this nation in the future, and even from encouraging the Indians of his post to go to war. I told him that his orders were to maintain peace, union and harmony among the Indians. I pointed out to him the place where he had observed that if he went there himself there might be consequences. He told me that he wouldn’t send them there anymore.
I have, Monseigneur, inquired as to what happened and I have learned that the Indians of the post of Sieur de La Vérendrye had attacked these so-called Maskoutins Pouanes who asked them: “Who is killing us?” They answered: “It is the French.” They resolved on the spot to avenge themselves and used all the means at their disposal to succeed in doing so, even though Sieur de La Vérendrye had turned back. The first step taken had the same effect as if he had been there.
At the beginning of last June, a party of Prairie Sioux, numbering one hundred and thirty men, found Father Aulneau’s canoe with the man called Bourassa at its helm. They took all the French as prisoners and attached the leader to the stake in order to burn him. Luckily for him he had with him a slave woman of the same nation that he had bought from the Monsonis. She told the Sioux: “My people, what are you about to do? I owe my life to this Frenchman, he has always been good to me. If you wish to take vengeance for the attack against our people, you need only to go a little further, you will find twenty-four Frenchmen, among whom is to be found the son of the chief who killed us.” They let Bourassa and his engagés go and went off to massacre the entire convoy.
There you have, Monseigneur, a very unfortunate incident, and one which might cause us to abandon all the posts in the area.
Sieur de La Vérendrye, without knowing, indicated to me that I would not object to his taking revenge, even though he had no orders to do so. If he were to reflect upon it a little, I have difficulty believing that he would choose a course of action so at odds with his duty.
I am, with deepest respect, Monseigneur,
Your very humble and obedient servant,
Beauharnois.
Quebec, October 14, 1736