Jump to content

Talk:Dummer's War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Father Rale's War)

Merge

[edit]

Grey Lock's War should be merged here. It's not that long, and its content is mostly already replicated here. Magic♪piano 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as it appears that most of the information is already here. It should have a separate heading to distinguish it from the rest of the raids. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51[reply]
I disagree! This war was separate and not related to Father Rale in Maine. As an Abenaki, I strongly disagree with you!--Donnacona (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to explain (with reference to appropriate sources, and not an appeal to ethnicity), how and why it is not related. Magic♪piano 01:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to explain, Grey Lock was in present day Vermont, Father Rale was in Northeastern Maine. No telephones or cellphones back then. It is a historical mistake to give so much credit to Father Rale. Grey Lock acted on his own. We all know that! White men are always trying to deform history as they did for the Battle of Little Big Horn.--Donnacona (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it seems that Native Americans cannot do anything on their own, they need a white man to tell them what to do. It's like the justice system who seems to think that a woman cannot make her own decisions, a man had to tell her what to do. Same conceited belittlement.--Donnacona (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Father Rale died in 1724, and the war ended in 1725; but Grey Lock continued for another two years. So you will leave that out to make it fit your assumptions. Why don't you read this: [1]!--Donnacona (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Grey Lock and the Maine natives are not known to have communicated in person doesn't mean their actions where neither coordinated nor related. Communication was slow then but that does not mean it did not take place. However, far be it from me to suggest that Rale be given great credit; I actually agree that colonial chroniclers greatly overstated his role (because they couldn't conceive of the natives taking action without French support or machination), and that misconception bled into the historical record (as exemplified in part by the current name of this article). Grey Lock started his campaign at about the same time as other hostilities commenced; his continuation of the war is easy to explain: he was not part of the 1725 peace, and probably only stopped fighting because he was starved of support by the French and those who had made peace. (And I'll thank you to not make assumptions about what I or other editors assume, think, or do. Kindly stick to the subject.) Magic♪piano 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have articles on Northeast Coast Campaign (1723), Battle of Norridgewock, Battle of Winnepang and Battle of Pequawket, which are all, per their infoboxes, part of Father Rale's War. But Grey Lock's War is part of Anglo-Wabanaki War. Why should they be merged if it's not even part of the same war? If it is indeed part of the same war, why can't it have its own article, as the other battles do? Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality rating

[edit]

The article has clearly gone beyond Class=start. It appears to deserve a "B" rating today, IMO. PKT(alk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense against Accusations to Fr. Sebastian Rale

[edit]

Sir, author, etc. In reading the the article which you most kindly contributed to the vast wealth of knowledge in Wikipedia, I have encountered an accusation. The Accusation is as follows: "While most of the tribe was away hunting, Westbrook's 300 soldiers surrounded Norridgewock to capture Rale, but he was forewarned and escaped into the forest. Found among the priest's possessions, however, was his strongbox. In it was discovered a hidden compartment containing letters implicating Rale as an agent of the French government, promising Indians enough ammunition to drive the English from their settlements." Against these most atrocious charges I bring the following defenses: 1. If the said strongbox did contain letters promising Indians enough ammunition to drive the English from their settlements, might this passage, "to drive the English from their settlements" been a comparison, rather than a use of these weapons? 2. If the said passage indeed was a use for which the weapons were to have been sent, might this have not been for the purpose of protecting the Indians from the obvious aggression and bigotry of the English settlers? 3. According to the narrative of Chicago EDU, this strongbox contained no other thing but Lexicography and personal letters. I will also note that the site to which this detail refers says nothing of the said letters itself; that is, the letters implicating Fr. Rale as a French agent

These arguments I bring forth in the defense of Father Sebastian Rale. Yours, etc. Indignant, Adam Swift — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.180.165.38 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Dummer's War as most consensus for this below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated|Father Rale's War}}

Anglo-Wabanaki War → Father Rale's War – Was moved to Anglo-Wabanaki War to correct fallacies of that period...this is not our job....we are here to regurgitate what the sources say...not to fix history. There are many conflicts called " Anglo-Wabanaki war" so this title is misleading. A Google search for "Anglo-Wabanaki War " leads to nothing/...that said "Dummer's War" would be ok with me as per the sources. Moxy (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not one source listed above mentions the title "Anglo-Wabanaki War" and in fact all do mention "Rale" by name in the title. As has been mentioned "Anglo-Wabanaki War" is used for a slue of conflicts. Not sure how who is to blame would change a the tilled that history got right or wrong. Per the sources (even the ones above) Father Rale's War or Dummer's War is best.
  • John Grenier (31 January 2005). The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814. Cambridge University Press. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-1-139-44470-5.
  • Paul R. Wonning. American History A Day at A Time - February: A Daily Pioneer History of the American Colonial Frontier. Mossy Feet Books. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-1-310-87092-7.
  • Donald A. Yerxa (2008). Recent Themes in Early American History: Historians in Conversation. Univ of South Carolina Press. pp. 70–. ISBN 978-1-57003-765-8.
  • Alan Gallay (11 June 2015). Colonial Wars of North America, 1512-1763 (Routledge Revivals): An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. pp. 1194–. ISBN 978-1-317-48718-0.
  • Joseph C. Miller (18 January 2015). The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History. Princeton University Press. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-1-4008-5221-5.-- Moxy (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the conflict has nothing to do with whether or not Rale was in any way complicit in the military actions of the Wabanaki; it would be best to say that it is named for him because he was a central figure in the conflict, regardless of his actual role. As Moxy says, you have to identify reliable sources that speak to the naming of the conflict, rather than Rale's role in it. Your sources do not support the present name of the article; in fact, one of them undermines your case by identifying the conflict as "Father Râle's War". Magic♪piano 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, however, I look at the Anglo-Powhatan Wars and no one is nominated to take the blame and to have the title of the conflict. Then there is the Pequot War and no one is single out. There is Father Le Loutre's War, but unlike Father Rale, he actively participated. After Father Rale's death in 1724, Lovewell made three raids against the Abenakis, but there is no talk of Lovewell's War. As an Abenaki, there is also King Philip's War where my people were removed from present day Lewiston, Maine and sent to Saint-Francis, Quebec, which Rogers Rangers burnt to the ground during the French and Indian War. So I don't quite understand why it's Father Rale's War. He had been asked by the governor of New France to come back and he prefer staying with my people. Even when he was killed, seven Abenakis braves protected him and lost their lives for it. He established the first school for the Abnakis and the first Abanaki language dictionary which is presently held in Harvard. At the time of the American Revolution, the Abenakis of Maine would not join the new country unless they sent them a Jesuit priest after the war. So why Father Rale is vilified in this article is beyond comprehension, since my people would have fought the English intruders, with or without Father Rale.--Donnacona (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know why it's called what it is, you should speak to someone with knowledge of the historiography of the conflict (like a real historian); we only follow what sources say. Your POV points about the article content are noted (and IMHO have some validity), but are not germane to this discussion, which is strictly about the principal article title. Magic♪piano 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a genealogy site confirms the original name was Racle, so it should be "Râle" by normal WP:FRMOS except that isn't a surname in France, but the word for birds like crakes, coots. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct...we have had this talk before about the name (not sure where) but I do remember the source as its in our bib Sébastien Racle, Anglicized as Sebastian Rale (or Râle, Rasle, Rasles) Thomas S. Kidd (2004). The Protestant Interest: New England After Puritanism. Yale University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-300-12840-6. this source they are talking about is this file ... Also we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#People-- Moxy (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Execution" of Father Rale ?

[edit]

The lead section of this article states that: "During the war, Father Rale was defeated and executed by the British at Norridgewock; … " No reference is cited for this claim that Father Rale was executed.

However, in this article, the section "Eastern theatre (Maine and New Hampshire): Battle of Norridgewock" states that: "Rale was killed in the opening moments of the battle, … " A reference is provided for this statement.

Wikipedia's article "Sébastien Rale" states merely that Rale was a casualty of the Battle of Norridgewock ; there's no mention of his having been executed.

Wikipedia's article "Battle of Norridgewock" states that: "Lieut. Richard Jaques killed Rale in the opening moments of the battle, … " The same reference is cited for this statement as for the corresponding one in "Eastern theatre (Maine and New Hampshire): Battle of Norridgewock".

An execution is a formal procedure, typically preceded by trial, which would have required Father Rale to have survived the Battle of Norridgewock and then to have been tried, convicted, and then formally killed. No evidence has been provided that Father Rale survived the battle or that he participated in any judicial proceeding.

Therefore I am revising the sentence to read: "During the war, Father Rale was killed by the British at Norridgewock; … "

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

summary execution( of pirates, spies, and francs-tireurs) was acceptable but it is hard to see how it could have happened at the beginning of the battle. Perhaps he tried to surrender or was caught unarmed but killed without a chance to defend himself? Rmhermen (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, in order to be executed, the victim must at least be taken into custody, i.e., he must be in the control of his executioners. To have been executed, Father Rale would have had to have been held by the British and then either summarily shot or shot after a trial. There's no mention of Father Rale's having been among the British when he was shot.
The important point is that there's no evidence to support the claim that he was "executed". Certainly he was killed, perhaps in cold blood: perhaps he was shot while he tried to prevent the battle, pleading for restraint by the British (perhaps while he was saying to the British something like, "The warriors have departed. There are only women and children here." Bang.). However, there's no citation to document even this scenario, so the claim of "execution" isn't supported.
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dummer's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dummer's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dummer's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont & Maine were not all 'Massachusetts' during this period

[edit]

During these conflicts, only the southeast portion of what is now Vermont and the southwest portion of what is now Maine were claimed by Massachusetts Bay Colony. The northern portions were claimed by France until much later, and the portions that were claimed by the British were claimed by the Province of New York and the Province of New Hampshire. In the Lake Champlain basin, there were French and Abenaki communities as far south as what is now Shoreham. You can still see the iconic shape of seigneury lots in the landscape today. The French and Indigenous are written off at this point, but in fact, outside of strategic retreats (which the British engaged in as well), both French and Indigenous descendants live in this area today. I'm one of them. Both the French and the English granted land that was never or only briefly occupied until after this period, but the only English communities actually in existence were small outposts in the far southeast corner of what is now Vermont. And that southeastern corner was actually given by Massachusetts to Connecticut as 'equivalent lands' for the land they 'mistakenly' settled in northern Connecticut. Sblanchard56 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dummer%27s_War&oldid=1237082899"