Talk:Montreal campaign

Rampant British bias

1) The article states that the overall fighting force of the French ostensibly included 20,000 "militia" and an unknown number of natives in addition to regulars and Troupes de la Marine stationed all across the war theater, implying the total count of French troops engaged in that specific campaign and pitted against the British forces exceeded that of the latter by at least 5,000.

The excerpt taken as proof for that statement reads as follows:

"The census of February, 1759, gave a total population in Canada of 82,000, with 20,000 able to bear arms. (Cf., Rameau, "La France aux Colonies," p. 86.) This would not include the regular army and the domiciliated Indians."

This makes it clear that the figure in question actually refers to the totality of the able-bodied male population in the whole region of Canada and not just in the area between Saint Lawrence and Richelieu rivers where the Montreal campaign took place. Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever of their actual involvement in the campaign on the French side by engaging the British forces with actual arms drawn, which is the defining factor of being a combatant and thus subject to inclusion in the "Strength" section. Finally, that excerpt was taken from Chapter XLII "1759. The Fall of Québec" and not Chapter XLIII "1760. The Fall of Montreal" that gives no such figure instead simply stating:

""The town," says Parkman, "was crowded with noncombatant refugees. Here, too, was nearly all the remaining force of Canada, consisting of twenty-two hundred troops of the line and some two hundred colony troops; for all the Canadians had by this time gone home"

This leaves us with a then-outdated census estimate of some 20,000 male inhabitants of the whole province of Canada, who by some perverted logic were deployed in full capacity as a viable fighting force, and concentrated specifically in the area of the Montreal campaign under the direct command of Lévis and Vaudreuil.

2) The following statement is given in the article with reference to Cubbinson Douglas Jr's "All Canada in the Hands of the British":

"What is more (sic) the French military had spread false propaganda - Vaudreuil had warned Canadian inhabitants of cruel unjust treatment by the English but this actually worked against them since it was the French who threatened repercussions if they did not resist the British.[23]".

First of all, the author substitutes one person, marquis de Vaudreuil, with the whole "French military" body, which is strongly biased and historically inaccurate. Secondly, the so-called "propaganda", had it been real, would have been based on reality, and not "false" as Cubbinson claims - the Canadians were no strangers to British cruel and unjust treatment since that is precisely what happened 4 years earlier, during Vaudreuil's incumbency as a governor. Finally, that harsh accusation is not corroborated in any way, shape, or form - Cubbinson provides absolutely no source of the document that was ostensibly written, signed, or issued - that is not clear either - by Vaudreuil or any of his subordinates.

After much edit-warring spurred by Eastfarthingan who refused to back up their points, inviting me instead to, quote, "ask him (Cubbinson) that", I demand that aforementioned statements be deleted from the article on the grounds of violation of the the bias clause and fact-checking, as well as NPOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимур Азадов (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

1 - Be aware that this campaign relates not just to the capture of Montreal. By the time of the city's capture there were only small number of natives or militia. I must add that Murray with his advance went deep into French speaking territory which was after all the only area which was densely populated. He therefore faced an uncertain number of militia or men able to bear arms - this is perfectly acceptable hence the reason to pacify this population. This was an operation that Murray succeeded in. In addition he also faced an unknown number of natives Allied to the French. There is no problem with this being in the infobox. I can reword it if necessary, but figures speak for themselves.

2 - As for Cubbison citation - Vaudreuil was governor, so it was his responsibility. The quote is also from Captain Jean-Daniel Dumas himself. This isn't bias at all. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

1) "I must add that Murray with his advance went deep into French speaking territory which was after all the only area which was densely populated."

On what grounds do you include the local Canadian population in the "Strength" section? You presented zero evidence that all 20,000 inhabitants of the whole region of Canada (which covered more territory than the area of the Montreal Campaign) participated in the said campaign against the British. Murrey's civilian pacification effort, which chiefly consisted of distributing money to farmers and citizens, has no relation whatsoever with military engagements. The "Strength" part is reserved for military personnel deployed under the command of people mentioned in "Commanders and leaders". The quote you refer to speaks exclusively "population able to bear arms" with no mention of their participation in the campaign - everything else is your conjecture.

"He therefore faced an uncertain number of militia or men able to bear arms - this is perfectly acceptable hence the reason to pacify this population."

Not only did you clearly refute your own claim by dropping the figure of 20,000, you once again admitted to conflating militia (an actual fighting force that was part of 3000 troops engaged in the conflict) with "men, able to bear arms" - a term so broad, it naturally includes non-combatants and civilians that have no place in the "Strength" section.

"I can reword it if necessary"

It is the absolute least you can do. Your arguments made it abundantly clear that the French did not have a 20,000 strong fighting force at their disposal, which warrants its removal from "Strength".

2) "As for Cubbison citation - Vaudreuil was governor, so it was his responsibility. The quote is also from Captain Jean-Daniel Dumas himself."

His responsibility to do what precisely? There is no quote in the original sentence. Such evasiveness and lack of clear answers only prove how spurious Cubbinson's claims are. When an author accuses the whole French military of lying and spreading false propaganda, they should present overwhelming evidence to eliminate biased and opinionated POVs. Nothing of the sort was given, not a single source. It is a violation of impartial tone at best and uninhibited bias at worst. --Тимур Азадов (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said this part of the campaign was pacification, yet it is still a military undertaking Murray's troops were still attacked such as at the combats of Sorel and Varennes. Therefore I'm committed to saying 'unknown' total overall militia. However in the notes I will add the population and men able to bear arms.

Do you have a problems with Dumas' quote? Why the frustration? Here is a quote from Francis Parkman's book Montcalm and Wolfe it includes a quote a from Vaudreuil himself:

Vaudreuil on his part was not idle. He sent a counter-proclamation through the parishes as an antidote to that of Murray. "I have been compelled," he writes to the Minister, "to decree the pain of death to the Canadiens who are so dastardly as to desert or give up their arms to the enemy, and to order that the houses of those who do not join our army shall be burned." Execution was to be summary, without court-martial. Yet desertion increased daily. The Canadians felt themselves doubly ruined, for it became known that the French Court had refused to redeem the paper that formed the whole currency of the colony; and, in their desperation, they preferred to trust the tried clemency of the enemy rather than exasperate him by persisting in a vain defence.

It's clear then that this a misfire of French policy by Vaudreuil. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said this part of the campaign was pacification, yet it is still a military undertaking Murray's troops were still attacked such as at the combats of Sorel and Varennes. Therefore I'm committed to saying 'unknown' total overall militia"

No, you are persisting in your ludicrous claim that all able-bodied men population numbering 20,000 people across Canada sprung up, left their households, and took a journey to the area of the Montreal Campaign, with no officers to guide or deploy them. I am tired of wading through biased guesswork and shameless stretching of British historians that derive enormous pride from fighting destitute civilians since the war against regular land troops turned into an almost uninterrupted sequence of routs and raids of the British by outnumbered and undersupplied French since 1690. At the end of the day, I am willing to concede to nothing less than the replacement of "~20,000 militia, unknown natives" with "unknown militia and natives", supplemented by the note "men able to bear arms", as to highlight their virtually non-existent participation in the campaign.

"Here is a quote from Francis Parkman's book Montcalm and Wolfe"

Parkman's literary legacy is widely acknowledged to be that of pervasive bias and chauvinism, to the extent that it warranted a whole paragraph on his Wikipedia page. Everything he wrote must therefore be called to question and susceptible of deletion as per the bias clause.

"I have been compelled," he writes to the Minister, "to decree the pain of death to the Canadiens who are so dastardly as to desert or give up their arms to the enemy, and to order that the houses of those who do not join our army shall be burned."

Not only this "quote" is not backed up by any reference to the source, but it also contradicts de Vaudreuils' own letters to de Lévis:

"Je fais faire la recherche exacte des miliciens déserteurs de l'armée (et) je les ferai hiverner dans les fortes à préférence de tous les autres"

"Je vais incessamment prendre des arrangements pour arrêter les miliciens et les cavaliers déserteurs et les faire rejoindre. Je sens bien toute la nécessité d'un exemple sévère au sujet de ces déserteurs et ne puis désapprouver l'ordre vous avez donné à M. de Bourlamaque de publier cet égard un ban sous peine de la vie, mais je crains vu les circonstances que cela n'ait de fâcheuses suites surtout si M de Bourlamaque se trouve dans le cas de faire casser la tête à quelque Canadien."

These letters show that militia deserters were subject to internment, exile or imprisonment and that de Vaudreuil frowned upon any violence against the population, which disproves Parkman's biased and unsourced claims about summary executions of the Canadians or putting their houses on fire. --Тимур Азадов (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Im happy for a compromise here. First I will change the figures in the infobox & add the information in the notes. As for the Parkman/Cubbison views we need a consensus given that they are 'reliable' sources. Once this is done the content can be changed to put a neutral POV. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)