Battle of Jumonville Glen

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The battle of Jumonville Glen took place on the morning of May 28, 1754, about 50 km south of what is now Pittsburgh, between a French troop and militias from the British colony of Virginia and their Indian auxiliaries. The British militias were led by the young officer George Washington , later the first President of the United States ; The commander of the French unit was Joseph de Jumonville , after whom the site of the battle is named. The battle was one of the initiators and at the same time the first combat action of the Seven Years' War in North America .

Jumonville Glen, the site of the battle today

A 40-man platoon of militias from the British colony of Virginia under the command of Washington, accompanied by fourteen Indians, caught a 35-man French squad under the command of Jumonville in a wooded area near the present-day city of Uniontown ( PA ). During or after the battle, Jumonville himself and nine to thirteen other French were killed and the survivors captured; in the case of the British, the losses amounted to only one dead and a few injured. The battle was followed by a retaliatory expedition by the French in June, which ended with the surrender of Washington-commanded Fort Necessity and the temporary withdrawal of all British troops from the Ohio Valley . The skirmish is occasionally seen as the first battle of the conflict that grew into the Seven Years' War with the reversal of the alliances in 1756 . In this context, a saying by Horace Walpole is often circulated : "This volley, fired by a young Virginian in the furthest corner of America, set the world on fire".

There are few and contradicting reports of the course of the battle. In particular, the role of Washington in the events was taken up in the following years by French war propaganda and is still the subject of scientific controversy today. According to the French account, Jumonville was en route to Washington as an emissary with peaceful intent ; Irrespective of this and without warning, he had opened fire on the French and consequently murdered Jumonville in cold blood. According to the British version, based on Washington's rapport and later updated by American historians such as Francis Parkman and Lawrence Henry Gipson , Jumonville was a spy preparing an attack on the British, and thus a combatant . On the other hand, current research assumes, based on recent archive finds, that Jumonville did not die in the battle itself, but was slain by Tanaghrisson , an Iroquois allied with the British, after his surrender , while Washington looked on or had to watch.

prehistory

Around 1750 the conflict between Great Britain and France over the rule over the upper Ohio Valley ( Ohio Country ) intensified . The British colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia laid claim to this area, as did France, for which the Ohio was of paramount strategic importance as a navigable link between the French settlements in Canada and those on the middle and lower reaches of the Mississippi . At that time, however, no European settlers had settled in the area; the only inhabitants of the valley were Indians, namely Shawnee and Delawaren as well as Mingo , who in turn had been subjugated decades earlier by the Iroquois League in the north of what is now New York state. The Iroquois exercised their dominion over the tribes of Ohiotals about Iroquois village head, so-called "semi-kings" (half-kings) , whose authority, however, was increasingly questioned since the 1730s. In the worsening dispute between the major European powers, it soon became apparent that this inner-Indian conflict would also escalate and the Shawnee and Delawaren would try to break free from Iroquois rule. For the Ondondaga in particular, it was clear that the Mingo, for example, had no council fire and thus no designated speaker, who was called king in the language of the time . Therefore the Americans used the designation half-kings . When the local half-king accepted gifts from the settlers, a council fire, i.e. a recognized meeting place, established itself at Logstown ( Ambridge , Pennsylvania, also Chiningué). Here Tanaghrisson became half-king from 1748 .

From 1749, more and more English traders and land speculators from the Ohio Company ventured into the Ohio Valley and soon began building trade routes and warehouses. In the spring of 1752 one of the busiest of the English traders in the valley, George Croghan , agreed on behalf of the Ohio Company with Tanaghrisson in Logstown to build a fortified warehouse on the strategically important headland at the confluence of the Monongahela and Allegheny (the Forks of the Ohio ). Tanaghrisson, possibly a Catawba by birth, in any case a member of the Seneca , who belonged to the Iroquois, with this step effectively gave up the decades-long neutrality policy of the Iroquois League and made himself an ally of the English, with whose help he ultimately made his unstable emerging position of power over which Shawnee and Delawaren hoped to re-establish. He had also become the master of a council fire, at least recognized by Croghan. Only then did he qualify to surrender land.

French (blue) and British (red) forays into the Ohio Valley, 1753–1754

France responded to the English advances from 1753 by building a chain of forts along the northern tributaries of the Ohio. The Delawaren and Shawnee protested, as did Tanaghrisson, whose request for withdrawal was denied on September 3 by the French commander Paul Marin de La Malgue. Simultaneously, delegations from the Iroquois, Delawars, Shawnee, Hurons and Miami went to Winchester and Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and demanded help against the French. They emphasized that they did not stand up for the Iroquois, but for the Indians in the Ohio area. Tanaghrisson urged the English traders to leave the area.

Robert Dinwiddie , the governor of Virginia, wrote a formal request for the French commanders to immediately leave the territory claimed by the British. He appointed twenty-one year old George Washington , a major in the Virginia militia, to deliver this message . Washington, accompanied by Tanaghrisson, among others, reached the French Fort LeBœuf on December 11, 1753. The French commander, however, dismissed Washington and Tanaghrisson's request and let them know that he had no intention of evacuating the Ohio Valley. A month later, Washington reached Williamsburg , the capital of Virginia, with this sobering news . Dinwiddie then decided on a military response and ordered the warehouse of the Ohio Company on the Forks of the Ohio to be converted into a fort for the Virginia militia. Since Dinwiddie himself held shares in the Ohio Company, this practice was also in his personal financial interest.

Tanaghrisson returned to Logstown on January 15, 1754, where he was escorted by a French unit led by Michel Maray de La Chauvignerie. De La Chauvignerie tried in vain to win Tanaghrisson's friendship. The unit built a small, temporary fort.

The first confrontation between French and British associations took place in March 1754. The Virginia militia had barely begun to build the fort on the Forks of the Ohio when they had to surrender without a fight when a French overwhelming force approached and had to return to Virginia. The French built Fort Duquesne at this point , next to Fort Detroit and Fort Niagara the most powerful fortress in the American interior. For Tanaghrisson, who had helped the Virginians build the fort, this show of force by the French meant the final loss of his authority; he himself had to leave his village with a few loyal followers (mostly Mingo) and camped with them in the surrounding forests.

In the meantime, Dinwiddie had promoted Washington to lieutenant colonel and ordered the formation of a 200-man regiment to oppose the French in the west. In fact, however, it was only possible to recruit 160 men who - like Washington itself - also had little or no military experience. The requested reinforcement by militias from the other British colonies in North America did not materialize, as was the hoped-for reinforcement by allied Indian tribes such as the Cherokee and the Catawba . Despite these unfavorable conditions, in May 1754 Washington led its poorly equipped regiment from Wills Creek , Maryland, westward into the Ohio Valley. First he wanted to lead his troops to a fortified warehouse of the Ohio Company on Red Stone Creek , a tributary of the Monongahela, but finally had a camp set up on a river meadow called Great Meadows halfway on May 24th , which he used for a promising location Construction of a fort stopped.

course

The Washington and Jumonville marches in May 1754

The anything but silent advance of the British, who made their way through the dense forest with axes and saws, was not long hidden from the French Indian scouts, even if they overestimated their troop strength and the commanding officer of Fort Duquesne, Claude-Pierre Pécaudy , seigneur de Contrecœur , reported that the British army was several hundred men strong. Contrecœur decided to deliver a diplomatic note to Washington requesting that the King of France leave the lands immediately. He appointed Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, scion of a traditional French-Canadian military family, to be the bearer of the note; He put 34 men at his disposal as escort. On the morning of May 27, when Washington's regiment had just begun building the stockade on the Great Meadows , Christopher Gist , one of the few English traders in the area, rode into the camp with news that a French formation was moving towards the British . Washington then ordered 75 of its 160 men west to the Monongahela to intercept the French. The following night, however, Tanaghrissons Indian scouts reported to him that the French had camped seven miles north of the Great Meadows rather than west . Washington, having sent half of its troops in the wrong direction, decided to take the initiative immediately. With 47 men, he marched through the pitch-black forest, first to the Tanaghrissons camp, which with its thirteen warriors joined the British advance, and finally towards the French camp.

There are few brief and contradicting contemporary accounts of the course of the ensuing battle that have remained the subject of scientific controversy to this day.

The French version

Contrecœur learned of the following events a few days after the battle from a soldier named Monceau, the only French man who had managed to escape into the forest after the first shots; his - due to the circumstances - incomplete report was supplemented a few days later by that of a British deserter who, according to his name, was probably a Catholic Iroquois. Based on their reports, Contrecœur had to conclude that it was the British who opened fire and killed Jumonville and the other French victims. This is how he described what happened on June 2, 1754 in a letter to Duquesne , the governor of New France:

"The Assassination of Jumonville" - In this account of the events of Alexandre Dumas ' La Régence de Louis Quinze (1855), the British under Washington shoot the unarmed emissary Jumonville, who is about to read his note; the Indians appear only as observers.
Title page of the Mémoire contenant le précis des faits ... Royal Printing House, Paris 1756

“I expected Mr. de Jumonville to be back within four days, but the Indians informed me that his squad had been defeated and taken prisoner. There were eight [victims], one of whom was Mr. de Jumonville. A Canadian named Monceau managed to escape. He said that they [the French] had built shelters in a small hollow where they were looking for shelter because it was raining heavily. At about seven on the morning of the next day they found themselves surrounded by the English on one side and the Indians on the other. The English fired two volleys, but the Indians did not fire. Mr. de Jumonville asked them [the English] through his translator to comply, as he had something to say to them. Then they stopped the fire. Thereupon Mr. de Jumonville gave the instruction to hand him his order so that he could read it out [...] the Monceau mentioned saw how all our French, surrounded by the English and the Indians, crowd close to Mr. de Jumonville […] That is all, Sire, that I was able to learn from the aforementioned Monceau. It is unfortunate that our men were taken by surprise. The English had surrounded them and went undetected […] The Indians who were there when it all happened say that Mr. de Jumonville was killed by a shot from the musket while he was reading his note; and that the English would have killed all our men afterwards if the Indians had not intervened and dissuaded them from this project. "

Contrecœur then dispatched a 500-strong retaliatory expedition under the command of Louis Coulon de Villiers , Jumonville's brother. Washington, meanwhile, withdrew with his regiment to the Great Meadows , where he hastily had the wooden fort that he had begun completed. He baptized it with the obvious name Fort Necessity ("Fort Necessity"). Coulon de Villiers Heer reached it on July 3, 1754. After a fierce battle, the British had to capitulate to the French superiority. With the deed of surrender, Washington also had to sign a passage according to which Jumonville's death was an assassination , that is, a murder . He later complained that he had been deceived by the translators about the meaning of this word, he had been assured that, unlike in English, it did not mean "murder", but simply "killing". At the surrender, Washington's diary also fell into the hands of the French, who apparently felt reinforced by his succinct description of the battle in their assessment that the British had opened fire without warning and that Washington had so criminally violated the conventions of honest warfare, especially since Jumonville had come with peaceful intent. When the open war between Great Britain and France broke out in Europe in the summer of 1756, the deed of surrender and Washington's diary, along with other documents, were printed as part of a propaganda pamphlet by the royal printing house in Paris (Mémoire contenant le précis des faits ...) . English translations of this work also appeared in London in 1757 and 1759 (behind which some Britons suspected Pro-French subversion). Many of the "revelations" contained therein about British machinations were already described by contemporaries as falsifications. The original of Washington's diary has been lost to this day, so that many later British and American historians insisted for a long time that his imprint in the Mémoire was faked; In the 20th century, however, there was another copy among the Contrecœur papers in the Québec archives, which only differs in a few details from the printed version, so that the extent of the French manipulation of the original wording was probably rather minor.

The aim of French propaganda was to brand Great Britain in the domestic and European public as an aggressor against whom the peace-loving France had to act in self-defense with its campaign against the Virginia militias. At least in the period from 1754 to 1756, when the state of war between France and Great Britain had not yet been officially declared and the fighting was limited to arenas overseas, Versailles still hoped with this justification for its campaign in the Ohio Valley to smooth things over and an open one To avoid war in Europe. The propaganda had its hoped-for effect and aroused patriotic outrage over the "murder" of Jumonville throughout Canada and among the French public, who otherwise had little interest in the concerns of their North American colonies. In numerous songs, pamphlets and poems Jumonville was glorified as a patriotic martyr, the British in general as inhuman barbarians and Washington in particular as a vile murderer. The epic poem Jumonville (1759) by Antoine Léonard Thomas deserves special mention , which helped the poet to his first popularity and immensely promoted his literary and political career. Even Voltaire let himself be changed by the news: "I was English," he wrote on July 12, 1757, "but haven't been since you murdered our officers in America."

The French version of the events shaped not only French, but also and especially French-Canadian historiography, in which the Seven Years War is an emotionally and politically charged topic to this day. In the 19th and 20th centuries it was rumored in numerous historical works and embellished with further details. Bernard Faÿs George Washington, Republican Aristocrat (1931) , for example , claims that the British opened fire on the sleeping French without warning and killed Jumonville with a volley of rifles in the face as he was just beginning to read his orders. Jumonville was merely the bearer of a diplomatic note that had the same right to immunity as Washington had on its mission to the French forts the previous year; The British attack could not be justified as a military action, if only because it took place in a time of peace. If Washington had killed Jumonville in Europe, Faÿ said, he would have been dishonored and punished by his superiors. Two years later, the French-Canadian Jesuit Georges Robitaille repeated these allegations in a monograph on the incident ( Washington and Jumonville, 1933) and compared Washington with a "common criminal". Similar representations can also be found in Canadian school books and to this day in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography .

The British version

The British version of the events is based primarily on the statements of Washington itself. His diary, as it was published in Paris in 1756, succinctly describes the course of the battle in a few sentences:

“The Death of Jumonville” - this illustration from an American school book ( The Illustrated Life of George Washington , 1859) shows a battle that is as lively as it is organized according to the rules of warfare.

"About eight o'clock in the evening I received the news from the half-king that he was on his way to us when he had discovered the trail of two men whom he had followed to a hidden little hollow; he is convinced that the entire French troop is hiding there. I immediately dispatched 40 men to bring our ammunition stores to safety, as I feared the French intended to attack our camp. I moved out with the rest of my men in heavy rain and pitch black nights, on a path barely wide enough for a man. Sometimes we lost the path, and it was often fifteen or twenty minutes before we found it again. It was so dark that we often collided with each other ourselves. We marched all night until we came to the Indian camp, where I conferred with the half-king; we decided to attack them [the French] together. Then we sent two men out to find out where they were and in what line-up and how the area looked. We were quite close to them when they spotted us, and I ordered my company to fire. My unit was supported by Mr. Wager's men, and it was his unit that drew French fire for most of the battle. It was barely a quarter of an hour before the enemy was caught. We killed Mr. de Jumonville, the squad commander, and nine others; we wounded one, and took twenty-one prisoners, including M. la Force, M. Drouillon, and two cadets. The Indians scalped the dead and took most of their weapons from them ... "

Later statements by Washington, such as in a letter to Dinwiddie, coincide with minor discrepancies with this report. He described the battle again in a letter to his brother John Augustine Washington, which was also printed in London Magazine in August of that year . Here Washington put the number of French killed as twelve, its own losses as one man.

Washington thus evidently expected an attack by the French, which made a preventive attack appear entirely justified under the warfare conventions; In his order, Dinwiddie had expressly authorized him to use armed force if the French offered violent resistance to his instructions. This version was also championed by British war propaganda, which tried to expose the “revelations” of the Mémoire of the royal French printer as a forgery, for example in the pamphlet The Mystery Reveal'd published in London in 1759 , allegedly written by an anonymous “patriot ". The majority of British and American historians to this day follow the assumption that it was not Jumonville's mandate or intention to invite Washington to a meeting, but rather to investigate the strength and position of the British in order to prepare a planned attack against contrœur. An example of this is the description of Francis Parkman , whose seven-volume history of the Anglo-French conflict in North America ( France and England in North America , 1865-1892) has long been the standard work on the subject. For two days, according to Parkman, Jumonville “played the role of the lurking enemy with perfection” and thus with “behavior that can only be explained by sinister motives or extraordinary folly” brought about its own downfall. Following Parkman, Lawrence Henry Gipson also wrote in his multi-volume History of the War in 1946 that Jumonville was killed in battle.

After the beginning of the Second World War and the recent military alliance between France and the USA, French and Canadian historians also adopted more conciliatory tones. Gilbert F. Leduc tried to exculpate the accusations of Robitaille in a monograph by the Société Historique Franco-Américaine Washington in 1943 , as did the French-Canadian historian Marcel Trudel ten years later . Leduc, for example, lists inconsistencies in Contrecœur's letter to Duquesne, on which all French representations are based. Contrecœur's informant Monceau, the escaped Frenchman, was only able to witness the start of the battle, but not the death of Jumonville. The question also arises as to who the other informants named in Contrecœur's letter were, namely the "Indians who were there when everything happened", since according to French sources, Jumonville was not accompanied by Indian auxiliary troops. Contrecœur could only have obtained information about the "murder" of Jumonville from second or third hand from the Indians of the Ohio Valley, who themselves could have had some interest in falsifying their reports in order to influence the conflict and, for example, a French military action against them To provoke the British and their allied half-king Tanaghrisson. In addition, the disproportionate size of Jumonville's escort - 34 men - make it seem unlikely that he was alone as an emissary on a peaceful mission. The diplomatic note he was carrying was only an excuse to conceal his military intentions. Trudel shares the view that Jumonville was on a "double mission," so the diplomatic note was just an excuse to spy on the strength of the British. He notes that, according to French sources, Jumonville had the assignment to send a runner to Fort Duquesne once he had identified the position of the British. He criticizes the accusations of his French and French-Canadian historians colleagues such as Faÿ as historiography pro domo .

The fact that the battle has met with such great interest in historiography to this day is not only due to its instrumentalization in contemporary war propaganda, but above all to the interest in the biography of Washington, who later became the commander of the Continental Army (1776–1783) and first President of the United States (1789–1797) achieved world historical importance. Washington was and is in American historical consciousness as a downright unassailable man “without blame or blame” (the anecdote invented by Parson Weems about the young Washington and the cherry tree, according to which Washington was incapable of lying), which is the vehemence of the attempts of American Historians may declare to refute the French allegations. As Washington's “ baptism of fire ”, the battle is also of interest to military historians, especially since the disastrous outcome of his expedition to the Ohio Valley is in marked contradiction to the current image of Washington as a capable general.

Historical reconstruction - role of the Indians

The research of the later 20th century has reconstructed a course of the battle, which corrects the "French" as well as the "British" version in one decisive point: In fact, the French victims probably did not die in the battle itself, but became after their surrender by the with the British allied Indians killed. It relies in particular on the testimony of Corporal John Shaw (first printed in 1970), a participant in Washington’s expedition, who was not an eyewitness, but learned from his comrades a detailed description of the battle, which he gave to Governor South in August 1754 Carolinas on oath . His version of the events also coincides in crucial points with a newspaper report that appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette on June 27, 1754 .

According to the reconstruction of the historian Fred Anderson , which took into account all the sources that have come to light to date , Washington suddenly encountered the French camp around 7 a.m., some of whom were still asleep, others were just preparing their breakfast. The surprised French took up their arms; the first shot was released in the general unrest, whereupon Washington ordered its troops to fire. About a dozen French were wounded in the process, others tried to flee, but were pushed back by Tanaghrisson's warriors who had surrounded the camp. When the British stopped firing, the French surrendered, surrendered their weapons and rallied around their commander Jumonville (who, according to one of the reports, had been wounded in the skirmish). He began reading his note to Washington. As soon as he had started to speak, however, Tanaghrisson stepped up to him, hit him in the skull with several blows with the tomahawk and then “washed” his hands with the brain of the dead Frenchman. Tanaghrisson's warriors then fell upon the other wounded, killing and scalping all thirteen or fourteen while Washington watched (or had to watch) idly; They beheaded one of them and impaled his head on a stake, visible from afar. The 21 surviving French fell into English captivity and were transferred to Virginia.

Washington's statements that his expedition (including the allied Indians) killed ten French, are not strictly wrong in view of this source, but they do not conceal the fact that the French victims did not die in battle, but that he after the probably quite harmless one Skirmishes watched or had to watch how "his" Indians massacred the defenseless French and he violated his moral duties as commander in the most criminal way. Anderson substantiates Shaw's statement with the means of statistics: It is highly unlikely that ten French people would be killed in one battle with only one wounded. Washington's insistence on his version is probably due to the fact that the young, ambitious Washington worried about his military reputation: In his version he emerges as the winner of his first battle as commanding officer and inflicts heavy losses on the enemy during his Company itself hardly takes any damage. In this context, Washington's pleading request in his letters to Dinwiddie not to believe the statements made by the French prisoners should also be understood.

The historical reconstruction makes it clear that the reasons for the course of the battle and therefore for the outbreak of war are by no means to be sought only in the British-French contrast that historiography has so far emphasized; instead, the Iroquois Tanaghrisson appears as the key actor in the conflict. His motivation is to be found in his precarious position of power as a "half-king", who threatened to slip away from his rule over his Indian subjects (the Shawnee and Delawaren). With his consent to the building of an English fort, he had irrevocably sided with the English. He could not have been interested in a British-French understanding, such as might have resulted from a conversation between Washington and Jumonville. It is plausible that he consciously wanted to escalate the conflict with the massacre of the French in order to induce the British to take decisive military intervention that would have strengthened his position of power (as an ally of the British). Conversely, the tribes of the Ohiotal had an interest in persuading France to intervene against the British and Iroquois.

In this context, a detail is enlightening that can be found in the description of Denis Kaninguens, the British-Iroquois deserter who made his way to Fort Duquesne after the battle and made a contrœur report. Accordingly, shortly before he killed Jumonville, Tanaghrisson said the words "You are not dead yet, my father". If the content of these words remained unclear to the Europeans, Kaninguen, as an Iroquois, understood the special meaning of these words: the Indians, allied with France, described the role of France as they understood it in political terms by analogy with their kinship system . Tanaghrisson's words are to be understood in their specific meaning in the ritual diplomacy of the Indians, his attack on Jumonville as a symbolic "killing" of France.

In fact, his act led to an escalation of the internal Indian conflict; the tribes of the Ohiotals, as subjects Tanaghrissons willy-nilly even allies of the British, now broke open with the Iroquois rule and fought on the side of the French. After their defeat in the Battle of Fort Necessity, the British found that the French auxiliary troops no longer consisted only of the tribes traditionally allied with France (such as the Ottawa ) but, as an eyewitness wrote, of "our own Indians" - Shawnee, Delawaren and Mingo.

literature

swell

  • Donald Jackson (Ed.): The Diaries of George Washington. Volume 1: 1748-65 . University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville 1976 (authoritative edition of Washington's Diaries; digitized on the Library of Congress pages).
  • Fernand Grenier (Ed.): Papiers contrecœur et autres documents concernant le conflit Anglo-Français sur l'Ohio de 1745 à 1756 . Les Presses Universitaires Laval, Québec 1952 (Contrecœur's letter to Duquesne and other documents relating to the war year 1754).
  • William L. Mc Dowell, Jr. (Ed.): Colonial Records of South Carolina: Documents Relating to Indian Affairs, 1754-1765. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia 1970 (the affidavit of John Shaws).
  • Gilbert F. Leduc: Washington and "The Murder of Jumonville" . La Société Historique Franco-Américaine, Boston 1943 (an overview of archive material can be found in the bibliography; digitized version ; some documents are printed in the appendix).

Digitized copies of the French pamphlets, the two contemporary English transmissions and the British replica The Mystery Reveal'd can be found on the Internet Archive website :

Secondary literature

Web links

Commons : Battle of Jumonville Glen  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ "The volley fired by a young Virginian in the backwoods of America set the world on fire"; The quotation is not found in Walpole's printed works.
  2. ^ Joseph L. Peyser: Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre: Officer, Gentleman, Entrepreneur , Michigan State University Press 1996, p. 213.
  3. ↑ Donald Jackson (Ed.), The Diaries of George Washington , Volume 1, p. 195.
  4. ↑ Quoted in: Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , pp. 53-54.
  5. ↑ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , p. 64; Gilbert F. Leduc, Washington and "The Murder of Jumonville" , pp. 139-153.
  6. ↑ On the edition history of the diary and the pamphlets see: Donald Jackson (Ed.), The Diaries of George Washington , Volume 1, pp. 162–173.
  7. ^ Frank L. Brecher, Losing a Continent: France's North American Policy, 1753–1763 , p. 55.
  8. ↑ See on this David A. Bell, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800 , Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2003, p. 78ff.
  9. ↑ “J'étais Anglais alors, je ne le suis plus depuis qu'ils assassinent nos officiers en Amérique […]” Voltaire's letter to the Marquis de Courtivron, dated July 12, 1757. Quoted in: Gilles Havard, Cécile Vidal : Histoire de l'Amerique française . Flammarion, Paris 2008. p. 627.
  10. ↑ Bernard Faÿ, George Washington, Republican Aristocrat , Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York 1931. pp. 73-78.
  11. ↑ Leduc gives an example of the Histoire du Canada by Paul-Émile Farley and Gustave Lamarche, a school book first published in 1935, which for decades represented the standard text on Canadian history in the schools of Québec.
  12. ^ Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville, Joseph . In: Dictionary of Canadian Biography . 24 volumes, 1966–2018. University of Toronto Press, Toronto ( English , French ).
  13. ↑ Donald Jackson (Ed.), The Diaries of George Washington , Volume 1, pp. 193-196.
  14. ^ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , p. 51.
  15. ^ Francis Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe , Volume 1, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1884, pp. 146-150 ( digitized 6th edition, 1885).
  16. ↑ Lawrence Henry Gipson, The British Empire before the American Revolution , Vol. VI, The Great War for the Empire: The Years of Defeat, 1754-1757 , Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1946. p. 31
  17. ↑ Gilbert F. Leduc, Washington and "The Murder of Jumonville" , pp. 110-114.
  18. ↑ Gilbert F. Leduc, Washington and "The Murder of Jumonville," pp. 82-87.
  19. ^ Trudel, L'Affaire Jumonville , pp. 349–351.
  20. ↑ Trudel, L'Affaire Jumonville , pp. 339-340.
  21. ^ Francis Jennings , Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America , WW Norton, New York and London 1990. pp. 68-70.
  22. ↑ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , pp. 55-58.
  23. ^ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , p. 59.
  24. ↑ This assessment also roughly shares: Frank L. Brecher, Losing a Continent: France's North American Policy, 1753–1763 , p. 54.
  25. ↑ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , pp. 14-15, 58-59.
  26. ↑ Fred Anderson, Crucible of War , pp. 64-65.
  27. ↑ Based on Louis Le Jeune: Joseph Coulon de Villiers, sieur de Jumonville , in: Dictionnaire général de biographie, histoire, littérature, agriculture, commerce, industrie et des arts, sciences, mœurs, coutumes, institutions politiques et religieuses du Canada , vol 1, Université d'Ottawa , 1931, pp. 848-850.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on October 25, 2010 .