While researching the Archives of
Maryland for my book which carried the
title, Maryland And The French And Indian
War, I discovered several references to the
presence of Acadians in the colony of
Maryland. This came as a surprise since I
had supposed that the forcible eviction of
those French farmers, craftsmen and seamen
and their families from Nova Scotia had
resulted in a series of deportations that had
placed them in Louisiana. Here they were
popularly referred to as “Cajuns” – a play
on the word Acadian quite like that when
Indian became “Injun.”
It seemed it would make an intriguing
story to uncover why there was such a
massive relocation of these French speaking
subjects of Great Britain to nine British
colonies to the south. It would also be
informative to find out what happened to
those who were deposited on the shores of
the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. The
object of this essay is to report what the
record reveals.
Background Of The Deportation
On September 2, 1755, a proclamation
written in both French and English was
posted in several Acadian villages. It
contained an order for the appearance of all
males above ten years of age at the church
in Grand Pré on Friday the 5th at three in the
afternoon. The order was backed up with
the threat that “… no Excuse will be admitted
of on any pretense whatever on pain of
Forfeiting Goods and Chattels on Default.”1
There was bound to be an ominous
anxiety among the French inhabitants as they
plodded dutifully along the country roads
to hear the pronouncement of their British
overlords. Their fears were justified. Colonel
John Winslow, Commander of the New
England troops, read the fateful message
which he declared “… is very disagreeable
to my natural make & temper as I know it
must be Grievous to you who are of the same
specie.” 2
In stunned silence the rural inhabitants
heard with dismay their awful fate. The
orders read:
“That your Lands & Tenements, Cattle of
all kinds and Live Stocks of all Sorts are
Forfeited to the Crown with All other Effects
Saving Your money and Household Goods
and you yourselves to be removed from this
his Province …”3
After promising that whole families
would be kept together as units on the same
vessel, Colonel Winslow was thoughtful
enough to “… hope that in whatever part of
the world you may Fall you may be Faithful
Subjects, a Peaceable & Happy People.”4
What followed can only be viewed as
one of the most tragic stories of human
suffering and deprivation recorded on North
American soil. For about eight years there
was an ongoing dispersion of Acadians
which, of necessity, involved separation and
suffering by shipwreck, hunger, disease and
persecution. The blame for such a calamity
may be widely shared but, in the end, the
bulk of it must be placed upon the Acadians
themselves – along with their civil and
religious mentors serving the French
government.
The numbers of those deported varies
from “a few thousand” to upwards of twelve
thousand. It is hard to get an accurate count
of those dispossessed of their land because
of the scope of the dispersion. Some ended
up in Canada, England and France while
others were distributed in New York,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina
and Georgia.5
Before dealing with how these “neutral
French” Fared at their various destinations
we need to Take a momentary,but important,
digression to point out the significance of
the dates of their arrival in the above named
colonies. This detour will help explain the
anti French And anti Catholic public
opinion which resulted In much resistance
– even hostility – to their placement. Those
destined for Maryland made Their
appearance in November, 1755. There Were
four boatloads with 178, 242, 263 and 208
Acadian passengers respectively.6
It is crucial to recall that these exiles were
forcibly removed from their homeland and
their villages burned before a declaration of
war was made by England on May 15, 1756.
In addition there were several other
instances of confrontation which served to
send signals that yet another war between
England and France was in the making.
Between 1690 and 1814 there were no
less than six wars between these inveterate
foes. This fourth war, wrongly called “The
13
French And Indian War,” was a seven year
long conflict between 1756 and 1763.
Unofficially, however, there surfaced several
confrontations beginning as early as 1754 in
North America. In February of that year,
French forces seized the unfinished Fort
Prince George at the site of present day
Pittsburgh and renamed it Fort Duquesne.
Then on May 28th of that year, George
Washington ambushed a small contingent
of French military forces near the present
day site of Uniontown, Pennsylvania and
killed ten of their numbers while capturing
21. The two foregoing events might well
have qualified as “precipitating
causes” for officially declared war.
But the declaration was not yet
forthcoming.
On July 3rd the French retaliated
against Washington at the makeshift
outpost named Fort Necessity, also
in western Pennsylvania. This was
a much larger engagement and the
defeat prompted the British
government to commit two regiments
of British regulars to retake Fort
Duquesne. Lead by General Edward
Braddock, these European trained
soldiers suffered a horrendous defeat
on July 9th in 1755, at the hands of a
small number of French and
Canadian troops augmented by over
700 Indians. T h e y
then turned on a defenseless frontier
and unleashed a torrent of burning,
scalping, torture, and destruction.
Tales of frontier atrocities were
carried in the Maryland Gazette at the
very same time that ships were
unloading large numbers of potential
enemies on both shores of the
Chesapeake Bay. Little wonder then,
that Marylanders were in no mood
to embrace their Acadian guests.
It is fair to assert that while hostility
was the norm in the relations
between England and France,
England had followed a very
enlightened policy in the
management of the Acadian population. By
the treaties of Utrecht (1713) and Aix la
Chapelle (1748) these inhabitants of the
peninsula of Nova Scotia were placed under
the rule of Great Britain while the islands of
St. Jean (now Prince Edward) and Cape
Breton were left under the control of France.
The dividing line (see map) between French
Canada and British control on the peninsula
was the Missaguash River. The French were
quick to build Fort Beauséjour on the French
side of that line.
The Acadians were, by these same
treaties, to enjoy the free exercise of their
Catholic faith and were given one year to
make a decision as to whether to move out
from under the rule of England or to remain
and take an oath of allegiance expected of all
British subjects. This became an insoluble
obstacle to peaceful relations between the
two populations.
There were compelling reasons why the
Acadians stubbornly refused to take an
unqualified oath of subservience to England.
There were also compelling reasons why
successive governors of Nova Scotia felt a
necessity of forcing an acceptance of this
oath of loyalty. As it turned out, persuasion
did not produce success so British officials
turned to force.
The Acadians had willingly taken a
qualified oath of loyalty which permitted
them to refrain from taking up arms for
England. If, however, they had submitted to
an unqualified oath they might have been
required to take up arms against other
Acadians and the armed forces of France at
Fort Beauséjour, Fort Louisburg and
possibly at other places in other ports of
Canada. This they were loath to do.
On the other hand, the British
government faced some serious problems as
it tried to rule a population that still had such
a strong attachment to France. British
officials tried in vain to win the Acadians
over to become willing subjects of English
rule. Britain’s meager troops on the
peninsula were in a precarious situation with
Fort Beauséjour nearby and
Louisburg not too far distant to be
a menace.
In addition, British historians claim
that Acadians charged excessive
prices for the goods they sold to
their unwanted overlords. At the
same time, they secretly supplied
French forces with much needed
farm produce and even intelligence
from time to time. But the most
egregious affront to peace and
stability came from Catholic priests
who continually stirred up the
Micmac Indians to scalp and
plunder. The most fanatic of these
priests, the Abbé Le Loutre, was
tireless in the use of threats of Indian
atrocities and eternal damnation to
keep the Acadians from taking the
much hated oath.
Eventually, the Provincial Council
of Nova Scotia, with the approval
of the Governor, Charles Lawrence,
and the Board of Trade in England,
made the momentous decision to
remove the troublesome Acadians
from their homeland and distribute
them among the colonies to the
south. For practical reasons, they
could not be sent to Canada, Cape
Breton or neighboring islands for
fear that they would merely
strengthen the enemy.
A letter to Governor Lawrence from
the Lords of Trade will serve to reveal the
utter frustration experienced by the British
in their failure to effect any change in the
attitudes of those who had been termed
(improperly) “neutral French.” They were
never neutral; they were resident enemies.
The correspondence reads as follows:
"We were in hopes that the lenity which had
been shown to those people by indulging
them in the free exercise of their religion
and the quiet possession of their lands,
would by degrees have gained their
friendship and assistance, and weaned their
affections from the French; but we are sorry
to find that this lenity has had no little effect,
and that they still hold the same conduct,
furnishing them with labor, provisions, and
intelligence, concealing their designs from
us.”
So it came about that an estimated seven
thousand Acadians were uprooted from their
homes in Nova Scotia and scattered abroad.
It is now appropriate to concern ourselves
with the story of the 900 plus who ended up
in the colony of Maryland. It bears repeating
that their arrival in the Fall of 1755 was
incredibly bad timing in view of the situation
on the frontier.
Indian incursions into western Maryland
were fueled by gifts of rum and other presents
as well as the prospects of plunder. These
incursions came from French officers
operating out of Fort Duquesne. The
commanding officer, Captain Jean-Daniel
Dumas, openly bragged of laying waste the
western parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia and
Maryland. He claimed to have killed more
enemies of France after Braddock’s defeat
than were lost during the disasterous
encounter near Turtle Creek. Anti French
feeling was widespread.
Acadian Exiles: The Maryland Experience
Upon arrival in Maryland, the four
boatloads of Acadians were assigned to
various locations with the aim of keeping
the concentration at manageable
proportions. A December 4th release of the
Maryland Gazette made these observations
about the newcomers.
“ S u n d a y
last arrived
here the two
last of the
vessels from
N o v a
Scotia, with
F r e n c h
Neutrals for
this place,
w h i c h
makes four
within this
Fortnight
who have
b r o u g h t
upwards of
N i n e
Hundred of them.
While they have been in this Port, the Town
has been at a considerable charge in
supporting them, as they appear very needy,
and quite exhausted in Provisions …. We
are told that three of these vessels are to
sail With the first wind (which we heartily
wish soon To happen), one for the Patuxent
River, another For Choptank, and a third
to Wicomico, there to Wait the orders of his
Excellency the Governor.”
Figure 2 shows the major areas of
settlement for the newly arrived French exiles.
It is obvious that there are no areas occupied
in our western parts. Great pains were taken
to insure that the exiles were contained where
they could be watched.
Since winter was fast approaching and
officials of the colony were slow in
formulating a plan of assistance for these
poorly clad and unfed needy, it was left up
to individuals with a charitable impulse to
offer aid to these unwanted guests. There
are many reports of personal kindness by
those who were sympathetic to the plight of
the Acadian exiles.
Government policy contributed to the
appalling conditions by forbidding Catholics
to house the exiles. Charles Carroll, the well
known and prosperous planter, wrote to his
son that:
“Many of them would have met with very
humane treatment from the Roman
Catholics here, but a real or pretended
jealousy inclined this government not to
suffer them to live with Roman Catholics. I
offered the government to take and support
two families consisting of fourteen souls, but
was not permitted to do it.”
It was six months after the exiles had
settled in before the legislature of Maryland
enacted a law of assistance which also
regulated their conduct. Several elements
of the law merit notice. It was provided:
"that the Justices of the several Counties
within this Province, shall, and they are
hereby empowered in the same Manner that
they now take care of and provide for the
Poor of their respective Counties, to take
care of and provide for such of the said
French Neutrals in their respective Counties
as they deem to be real Objects of Charity
….Provided always, that none of the said
Neutrals shall be sent into Frederick
County.”10
Reports of widespread poverty among
the exiles and their children resulted in some
provisions in the foregoing legislation
especially targeted toward the children. If
judged by the standards of today the
assistance would seem primitive.
Nonetheless, it was probably typical of the
times. The act declared:
“That if any of the said Inhabitants of Nova-
Scotia shall be unable to support their
children by their own Labour and Industry,
that then, and in such case, it shall and may
be lawful for the Justices of the several
County Courts respectively to bind out such
Child or Children to some Person, upon the
best Terms they can make, for the Ease of
the County, as well as the Benefit of such
Child, in the same Manner that Orphans
are bound out by the Laws of this
Province.”11
It has already been pointed out that the
exiles, as French and Catholic, were under
dark clouds of suspicion. Many saw them
as “papists” who sided with their perennial
enemy, the King of France. There was no
agreement on how their status should be
defined. While they may have been officially
referred to as “French Neutrals,” in popular
speech and writing they were called “rebels,”
“prisoners of war” and other terms of
derision. They were certainly regarded as
potential spies.
It followed that they should not be given
freedom of movement. Both law and practice
restrained the exiles in their capability to move
about. The 1756 law referred to above
contained these restrictive clauses.
“…if any of the said Inhabitants of Nova-
Scotia commonly called French Neutrals,
shall be found traveling above the Distance
of ten miles from the Place of his or her
Abode, or out of the County where he, she
or they shall reside, without a Pass from
some Provincial or County Magistrate,
describing the Person or PeRsons of such
French Neutrals, mentioning their Place of
Residence. And whither they are going and
limiting a Time for their Return, it shall and
may be lawful for any Person or Persons to
take up such French Neutral or Neutrals,
and him, her or them, carry before some
Justice of the Peace; and if, on Examination,
it shall appear to such Justice, that such
French Neutral or Neutrals are traveling
beyond the Place or Places, or after the Time
mentioned in the said Pass, it shall and may
be lawful for such Justice, and he is hereby
required to commit such Person or Persons
to the Public Goal of the County where he,
she or they reside, there to remain for the
Space of five days, unless he, she or they
give Security for his, her or their good
Behavior and Appearance at the next
County Court.”12
This fear of the movement of exiles was
not confined to intra-provincial changes of
address. There was concern that large
numbers might be secretly trying to return
to their homeland. British Governor Charles
Lawrence, in a letter from Halifax dated July
1, 1756, to Governor Horatio Sharpe, warned
of such a possibility. He wrote:
“I am well informed that many of the
“I am well informed that many of the French
Inhabitants transplanted last year from this
Province, and distributed among the
different Colonies upon the Continent, have
procured small Vessels and embarked on
Board them in order to return by Coasting
from Colony to Colony; and that several of
them are now actually on their way: And
as their success in this enterprise would
not frustrate the design of this Government
in sending them away at so prodigious an
Expense, but would also greatly endanger
the Security of the Province especially at
this Critical juncture, I think it my
indispensable duty to entreat Your Honour
to use your utmost endeavors to prevent the
accomplishment of so pernicious an
undertaking, by destroying such Vessels as
those in your Colony may have prepared
for that Purpose….”13M
In a response to Governor Lawrence
dated August 24th 1756, Governor Sharpe
assured him that:
"none of the French who were imported into
this Province last year from Nova Scotia
have been suffered either by Land or Water
to return again thither.”14
Meanwhile, there remained the practical
problem of meeting the daily needs of
“the wretched Acadians.” Apparently there
were regular complaints about their door to
door begging. A group of citizens from
Talbot County expressed their frustration in
the
following statement:
…they cannot find houses, clothing and
other comforts, in their condition needful,
without going from house to house begging,
whereby they are become a nuisance to the
County hereby unable to afford necessary
comfort to their own poor.”15
Their solution to the problem was to find a
way to rid themselves of these bothersome
creatures.
“We therefore pray that you will use your
endeavors in the Assembly to have this pest
removed from among us, after the example
of the people of Virginia and Carolina, at
their own expense, as they Request ….”16
Since few of the exiles could afford to
finance their own way to Louisiana, there
were requests for public assistance.17 There
must have been a positive response because
several boatloads of exiles made an exit from
Maryland to the more hospitable
government of Louisiana – now under
Spanish rule. Starting in 1766, there was a
boatload of exiles bound for the mouth of
the Mississippi each year for four years. The
total number of relocated exiles is estimated
to be about 600 persons.
The journey to the new homeland to the
south was a perilous one which exposed
these unfortunate victims to even more
hardship and suffering. Those who sailed
on the schooner, “Virgin” in 1767 reported
that they missed the entrance to the
Mississippi and entered the mouth of the
Rio Grande. Because of a shortage of food,
they were reduced to eating rats, cats and all
the leather on board.18
Those who remained in Maryland were
typical of those who lived in “French Town”
in Baltimore. They found ways to survive,
find a trade and accommodate to the
conditions imposed by the exile. One
interesting form of adaptation was the
alteration of their French names which
obviously identified the origin of the bearer.
One writer makes the following observation.
“Many Acadians made Maryland home.
Many who remained anglicized their names.
Thus Dupuis, which means “of the well” in
French, became Wells. Le Blanc became
White and Dorant became Gold. These
name changes helped the Acadians
assimilate with the English colonial
population.”19
Thus the memory of the Acadian exiles
has faded into the misty past, resurrected
only occasionally by the curious student of
history who may have been moved by the
pathos of their story. Then too, there are
descendents of these ill-fated transplants
who find some comfort in keeping a record
of their trials and achievements.
We are now at an appropriate point to
conclude this brief account with an
assessment of who might have contributed
to the conditions which eventuated in so
much human suffering and dislocation.
Conclusions
One must be careful not to rush to
judgment at a great distance from a tragic
event. The following observations are made
therefore, with no attempt at bombast or
authoritarian righteousness. Those with a
different perspective, may then make their
case and it will be heard with openness and
respect.
Acadians and their plight will in all probability
make the charge that British officials were
guilty of effecting a gigantic land grab. By
this view, British officials saw the lush and
fertile fields that had been cleared by the
hard work of these sturdy farmers and
coveted the land. It could be gotten very
easily by improvising a plan to justify a
military occupation.
This argument would be compelling if
there had been a land shortage at the time of
the deportation. But, with so much available
land and so little that was occupied, it is hard
to see land hunger as the prime factor in the
Acadian deportation.
It is then asserted that the eviction was
the result of a hasty and unjust decision
made by British officials who failed to
exercise due patience with their French
subjects. As the unfortunate victims of a
contest for empire, they were, it is claimed,
pawns in the game of geo-political chess –
heartlessly manipulated by rival world
powers. Accordingly, they were not
considered with due patience and fairness.
In addition, it is argued that their own
conduct was not a factor in the British
decision to remove them from Acadia.
The foregoing arguments and who would
be interested in reading an extended work
which completely presents an Acadian
perspective, should read Dudley J. Le Blanc’s
The True Story Of The Acadians. Le Blanc
liberally quotes historians who see the
deportation as an act of inhuman brutality
perpetrated by heartless British officials.
These historians include the eminent United
States historian, George Bancroft.20
As a descendent of those long-suffering
Acadians, it is understandable that Le Blanc
would point an accusing finger at the British
for every real or imagined trespass on his
ancestors. But when he points to one evil to
be indicative of the general nature of British
leaders, he has winded a good horse. I am
referring not to the exile but to Le Blanc’s
charge that what General Jeffrey Amherst
proposed to be carried out by Colonel Henry
Bouquet during Pontiac’s uprising was
typical of British leadership.21
It will be recalled that Amherst suggested
that small pox infected blankets be given as
gifts to the Delawares and Shawnees who
had laid siege to Fort Pitt during the uprising
of Pontiac, the great Ottawa Chief. This early
attempt at germ warfare was indeed
successful – but it only brought shame to
those responsible.
The problem with this approach is that
it ignores many instances of French atrocities
during the four French and Indian wars which
raged between these great rival powers.
Brutality was a common element of
European, Colonial and Indian behavior as
they contested for their separate interests.
Understandably, those with a British
perspective do not accept the foregoing line
of thought. Perhaps the most important
consideration for them is the stark reality that
Acadians were deeply French and Catholic
at heart and could not conceive of making
an unqualified oath of allegiance to a British
monarch. No matter that they had
experienced the enlightened rule of British
officials for over forty years. They could
not or would not put themselves in the
position of possibly bearing arms against
their kinsmen and neighbors.
British legalists had pointed out in vain
that Acadians were actually asking for an
exception to the expectations of all other
British subjects who had no qualms about
taking the desired oath. Acadians were surely
aware that security required loyalty and unity
as a condition of rule by British officials who
were painfully aware of their precarious
position in Nova Scotia.
The British were resentful of the
willingness of the Acadians to supply
intelligence, food and other material to
England’s enemies. They were infuriated at
the continued warlike acts of Catholic priests
who stirred up the Indians to mischief. It
becomes clear then that the ordeal faced by
the Acadians was a ghastly wound that was
self inflicted.
Francis Parkman is deservedly
recognized as one of America’s great
historians. He makes the following judgment
about the unfolding events in Acadia.
“There is no doubt that in a little time they
would have complied, [with the terms of the
Treaty of Utrecht] had they been let alone;
but the French authorities of Canada and
Cape Breton did their utmost to prevent
them, and employed agents to keep them
hostile to England. Of these the most efficient
were the French priests, who, in spite of the
treaty, persuaded their flocks that they were
still subjects of King Louis.”22
Then, at the conclusion of his study of
the Acadian deportation, Parkman makes this
scathing indictment of French officials
“Whatever judgement may be passed on the
cruel measure of wholesale expatriation, it
was not put in execution till every resource
of patience and persuasion had been tried
in vain. The agents of the French court,
civil, military and ecclesiastical, had made
some act of force a necessity. We have seen
by what vile practices they produced in
Acadia a state of things intolerable, and
impossible of continuance. They conjured
up the tempest; and when it burst on the
heads of the unhappy people, they gave no
help. The government of Louis XV began
with making the Acadians its tools, and
ended with making them its victims.23
If the foregoing judgements are valid, it
becomes obvious that these simple Acadian
farmers, craftsmen and fishermen, along with
their wives and children, were the sorry
recipients of bad advice. The tragedy was
compounded by the almost certain verdict
that it was all unnecessary and avoidable.
Bibliography
Clark, George Frederick, The True Story
(documented) Expulsion of the Acadian.
Fredericton: Brunswick Press, 1955.
Gipson, Lawrence Henry, The British Empire
Before The American Revolution. Vol. VI,
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1753.
Le Blanc, Dudley J., The True Story Of The
Acadians, Lafayette, La.: Tribune Publishing
Co., 1937.
Parkman, Francis, Montcalm and Wolfe. New
York: Atheneum, 1984.
Sharpe, Horatio, Correspondence Of
Governor Horatio Sharpe, William Hand
Browne (Ed.), Baltimore: Maryland Historical
Society, 1888.
Wood, Gregory A., A Guide To The Acadians
In Maryland in The Eighteenth And
Nineteenth Centuries, Baltimore: Gateway
Press Inc., 1995.
Journals
Sollers, Basil, “The Acadians (French
Neutrals) Transported To Maryland,”
Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. III, No.
1, March 1908.
Sollers, Basil, “Party of Acadians Who Sailed
From the Potomac, Bound For The
Mississippi,” Maryland Historical
Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 3, September, 1909.
Newspapers
Morgan, Michael, “The Acadians: When
‘boat people’ arrived In Annapolis.” The
Sun, The Evening Sun (Baltimore), Feb. 14,
1980.
Notes
1 Lawrence Henry Gipsen, The Great War
For Empire, p. 269.
2 Ibid., p. 270.
3 Ibid., p. 270.
4 Ibid., p. 270.
5 George Frederick Clark, The True Story
(Documented) Expulsion Of The Acadians,
p. 30.
6 Gregory A. Wood, A Guide To The
Acadians Of Maryland In The Eighteenth
And Nineteenth Century, pps. 9-10.
7 Francis Parkman, Montcalm And Wolf, p.
151.
8 Gregory Wood, Op. Cit., p. 16.
9 Ibid., p. 24.
10 Ibid., p. 20.
11 Ibid., p. 20.
12 Archives of Maryland, L11 p. 373 in Ibid.,
p. 21.
13 Archives of Maryland, Vol. I pps. 445-6.
14Ibid., p. 471
15 Gregory Wood, Op Cit., p. 23.
16 Ibid., p. 23.
17 Basil Sollers, “The Acadians (French
Neutrals) Transported to Maryland,”
Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. III, No.
1, 1908, pps. 19-20.
18 Basil Sollers, “Party Of Acadians Who
Sailed From The Potomac, Bound For The
Mississippi,” Maryland Historical Magazine,
Vol. IV, No. 3, Sept. 1909, p. 280.
19 Michael Morgan, “The Acadians: When
‘boat people’ arrived in Annapolis,” The Sun,
Evening Sun, Feb. 14, 1980.
20 Dudley J. Le Blanc, The True Story Of The
Acadians, p. 96.
21 Ibid., p. 61.
22 Francis Parkman, Op. Cit., p. 54.
23 Ibid. p. 166.