"Founding" Halifax

Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:16:07 GMT

Note on Formatting

Hi everyone. I really like researching and writing about stuff, but sometimes it's hard to cram in all the cool facts!

So when you see writing like this, <-- click it. It is a link to a relevant subject I am using to further illustrate a point, or maybe it's just funny. Who know's what it will be!

When you see bold, coloured writing like this and this, it means that nearby in the margin there will be a little tangent adding a bit more colour to that part of the story.

WOW. If you had told 10 year old Michael, that the statue in “that park by the new grocery store” would polarise so many seemingly balanced individuals… He probably wouldn’t have cared, but he definitely would not have understood why.

My stance hasn’t really changed to be honest.

WAIT! Before you hurtle angry statements at me like

“YOU FILTHY APATHETIC LIBERAL!”
-or-
"HOW CAN YOU STAND IDLE WITH SUCH INJUSTICE!?”

Please allow me to explain. I know nothing about Edward Cornwallis. He blends in the with 100’s of other names that have been glossed over in history class between the ages of 13 and 18.

And as Einstein once said, “Until you’ve read the books and done the learning, keep your words to yourself, mister!”

In other words, be above the rest, and make your opinion is an informed one.

Vertical Divider

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”

Harvey Dent may not have been refering to actual historical figures in his quote from The Dark Knight, but it would seem that even death can't solidify your hero standing.

Though, I do exaggerate. I can confidently assume Ed Corn is from England, and by all contemporary definitions, identified as a male. I know these things because of actions I have taken to learn them, but that’s as far as my yearning for knowledge on Cornwallis has taken me. I suspect most people living in Nova Scotia would be in the same pool as me.

But WHOA momma, with the amount of people who have sprang out of the woodwork, speaking as if they just finished their thesis defense on “The Life and Times of Edward Cornwallis: A Man Steeped in Controversy” is enough to make your head spin. And it's just exhausting.

I have decided to do some learning, and present some objective facts, in the most unbiased and entertaining way I can.

So who the hell is this guy anyway and why do I care.

I don’t know if thesises work like that (or if that’s how you pluralise thesis). I'm ok with this.

Vertical Divider

Edward Cornwallis

Well he was born in February of 1713 to the very regally named Charles and Charlotte. Charles was a Baron and Charlotte was a Lady (note the capital “L”) What do those titles mean for baby Edward? For starters, Edward’s Dad Charles, married up. The title Lady was only given to daughters whose fathers were Earls or higher, two full ranks above the title Baron.

Edward Cornwallis' Father, Charles. What a great era for fashion!

Now what exactly is a Baron might you ask?

I may delve into the world of peerage a bit more, because it seems kinda neat, but a quick glance tells me that Barons are Noble by birth, though basically the lowest of the nobility. Not huge decision makers by birthright, but still given a giant leg up compared to the majority.

However, the title of Baron would dictate some of Baby Ed’s future. Barons are linked to military service, so at age 12, when Eddy’s twin brother Freddy severely broke his arm, it was an obvious choice for Eddy to uphold the family’s standing in military.

6 years later, aged 18, he was a commissioned officer.
(I don’t really know what commissioned officer means)

protestants and catholics don't get a long.

Have you heard of the War for Austrian Succession? No? How about the Seven-Years War? Well Edwardo’s first real military action came in that first one, apparently Austrian Succession was direct pre-cursor to the Seven-Years War.

By this time (1745) Cornwallis was a Major, and 32-33 years old. Ed was fighting alongside fellow protestants, against the catholics (French). When the particular battle he was fighting went sour, his Colonel was killed and Cornwallis was thrust into leadership.

The battle continued to go terribly, so they retreated. Although the British military thought the retreat was justified, the public didn’t hold back from mocking Major Cornwallis and the others in charge.

So far, so good. I gotta say I’m not seeing any reason to take down a statue just yet.

If you wanted military experience, Europe was a good place to be

Vertical Divider

For the record, as far as the US Military is concerned, 33 is a somewhat regular age for someone to be a major.

I will ASSUME the same holds for 18th century England… (though some sources I came across say he was a Major as young as 21)

The next military expedition took place later that year with another protestant vs catholic conflict, this time it was the Jacobites instead of the French. sometimes referred to as the “Pacification” of the Jacobites It seems like this battle was kind of do-or-die for the Jacobites, and they lost.

If Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and world history have taught me anything, when the “do-or-die” team loses there isn’t friendly handshakes and exchanges of “good effort, blokes, really good effort”.

No, usually the victor takes this time to assimilate or stamp out the opposing force that remains, through destruction of culture or human lives.

The Jacobites were mostly Scottish, some English, all Catholic.

Basically they believed the wrong Monarch was in charge, it sounded like some real Game of Thrones type stuff.

Uh oh. You pacify babies, not populations.

Vertical Divider

I'm fairly certain that if victorious, Sauron wasn't just going to increase taxes for humans.

At this time Prince William the Duke of Cumberland, a man not heralded for leniency and referred to as “the Butcher" allegedly ordered Cornwallis and his regiment to keep pursuing the defeated Jacobites. To plunder and burn, and take no prisoners.

Cornwallis did this successfully enough to be acknowledged by the royals, though many of his men got far too enthusiastic during this “pursuit”. Needless to say, not a shining moment for humanity in North-Western Scotland, 1745

Perspective break! Two things:

First, this is objectively bad. Cornwallis was in charge of a regiment that did some pretty bad stuff. We don’t know if he accepted the task begrudgingly, or with zeal. We don’t know if he attempted to exercise restraint as they were fulfilling orders to “burn”, or encouraged barbarism.

Though after reading more into this Pacification, it would seem that due to the extent of it, at the very least Cornwallis must have personally allowed and witnessed much of the brutality. There aren’t a lot of positives to take from this.

Second, I’m regretful to say this stuff happens all the time. Americans in Vietnam, Germans in Belgium, Japanese in China, Ottomans in Armenia, Belgians in Congo… This is just since 1900. What I’m saying is that sometimes individuals in groups act outside of orders and expectations, or basic human decency.

It isn't always fair to attribute the actions of a group to the individual in charge. Although sometimes it is definitely fair. Group mentality is complex.

Regardless of potential crimes against humanity, Britain was very pleased with the quelling of the Jacobites, and Cornwallis was named… (booming voice) Groom of the Bedchamber! Apparently it’s quite an honour.

So what happens next for Edward? Well Britain waits until he’s 37, and had a bit of a rest from fighting catholics, and then appoints him as Governor of Nova Scotia. At this point in history, you don’t wilfully run and get elected as leader of Nova Scotia, the ruling monarch appoints you.

Once Cornwallis heard his new appointment, I assume his response was something to the degree of “Which part of the Crown is Nova Scotia? Oh….That looks far.”

One thing the Governor of Nova Scotia has to do, is (presumably) go to Nova Scotia. Around 1750, leaving Europe for Nova Scotia would have been high on no ones list.

I can't help but wonder, why is Britain sending ANYbody to Nova Scotia, anyway?

Well, In 1745, a mostly New English force assualted and took the French fortress of Louisbourg.

In 1748 The Old English gave Louisbourg back to the French, in exchange for Madras, India (present day Chennai)

This give-backsies by the Old English angered a lot of the New English, whom sacrificed a lot to take the fortress in the first place.

It was actions like this by the English which made revolution seem like a pretty good idea.

Vertical Divider

That meant that Nova Scotia was entirely in the hands of the French and Mi’kmaq. Nova Scotia had been with Mi’kmaq since waaayyyyyy back, but from about 1600-1749 there was a relatively peaceful co-existence with the French settlers, characterised through the Acadian people. The French were encouraged to mix with native populations to foster a greater, stronger sense of settlement, but the protestants were all for hardcore segregation.

I use America in the geographical sense.
North/South America are collectively, America. Somehow, the United States of America has stole the naming rights for the whole continent. :|

Vertical Divider

It’s important to note that prior to Cornwallis’ arrival in Nova Scotia, Europeans had mostly unintentionally killed up to 90% of the entire American native population.

If you weren’t aware, microbes and viruses, not people, have been humanity’s greatest killer since day 1.

The Europeans had, unwittingly, hundreds of years of armour built up in the form of natural immunities. Since the natives has no exposure, EVER, to things like smallpox; diseases spread worse than wildfire.

It’s estimated that the local population of Nova Scotia was in the realm of 15,000+ in the centuries past, but by the time Cornwallis arrived it may have been as low as 2,000. It is even said that a French ship, the “disease-ridden Duc’ D’Anville” that landed in Chebucto Bay (Halifax Harbour) 1746 may have been responsible for the deaths of one third of the native population.

So Cornwallis had this task of setting up the first, exclusively protestant settlement in the area, complete with an air of "no mingling with the natives".

This was a high pressure scenario. If Nova Scotia became too far entrenched as French, it could become a threat to the rest of New England. Chebucto Harbour turned out to be kind of a good half-way point in the province, and serve to divide Louisbourg from the rest of the English Colonies.

Mostly English societal rejects, but plenty of Swiss, Dutch, and Germans. Just be protestant.

Vertical Divider

One of the issues with setting up a city on the other side of the world, is finding the people who will set up a city on the other side of the world. So that’s why all immigrants who dared make the venture, were promised free land, food and protection for at least one year after arrival.

It is unclear to me whether in 1749 that you would pronounce F's as S's.

Most successful people would see this newspaper ad and say “why would I leave? I got a good thing going here, and I have all the food I want”.

So that leaves, more or less, a bit of an undesirable population being relied upon to start a new city. Basically a month after arriving, Cornwallis complained to the powers that be of the “unsatisfactory” population that he was given, stating that of the 1,400 inhabitants, around 200 were willing to work.

So Lord Halifax, the leader of the Board of Trade and Plantations responded to the pleas of Cornwallis. Halifax's solution was to immigrate the more industrious and hard working Germans and Swiss (but still, white protestants) from New England and Europe over to the new settlement.

This worked to a degree, but a lot of the Germans upon arriving just got up and figured they should just start a place of their own (Lunenburg). But that place turned out pretty nice so I don't blame 'em.

I like to imagine someone reading the paper saying "Oh, Honey! Do you see here they're looking for settlers in Nova Scotia? What do you say, shall we give it a whirl?"

Here's some more promotional material, note the creepy porcupine.

Though some might say adventurous or entrepreneurial instead of undesireable

Yes, that Halifax, the guy who recommended Chebucto Harbour for settlement in the first place

Arm of British government in charge of the colonies

Vertical Divider

On top of this, it was not uncommon for European settlers to be attacked or raided and be scalped, almost to the point of the settlers being afraid to go outside. Cornwallis’ gardener, and gardener’s son were among the victims of these attacks.

And we all know how important the relationship is between a man and his gardener.

On Scalping...

By many metrics, if not all metrics, today is the absolute best time to be alive in human history. A couple of these metrics are human death (or lack thereof) by violence, illness, or starvation. As much as media might mislead you to believe, fewer people are dying today as a result of violence than any other point in history. 100 years ago, The average Canadian died 20 years earlier than they do today. Although not in equal levels of improvement, worldwide accessibility to food and clean water has never been better.

300 years ago, if you made it to 50 without dying of typhus, scurvy, pneumonia, stab wounds, gunshots, AND managed to not starve? By god son, you’re doing well. The world used to be a much rougher and more violent place.

This is all to say, that people had been doing the absolutely horrific act of scalping one another, long before Cornwallis was even born. Why? Because people don’t actually need a large amount of convincing to be terrible.

At some point (I imagine), one group of people hated another group for some mundane reason. Members from both groups were incentivized to kill one another.

How do I simultaneously terrorize my enemy, elevate my social status, prove to allies that I’m doing a good job killing, AND prove I deserve a calculable compensation? Scalping is one method.

Being troubled by deteriorating negotiations with the French and natives, the oncoming winter, the village raids, and deserting settlers to New England, Edward made the rash and emotionally charged decision to enact the Scalping Proclamation in October 1749. Cornwallis thought, presumably, bounties on scalps “worked” before in New England, and brutality against natives was certainly not a novel or frowned upon concept.

The winter would kill hundreds of settlers, not that this was an irregular occurrence or anything.

Dying during the winter was just something that happened 300 years ago :|

Vertical Divider

Perspective break! Two more things:

1. To inflict pain and suffering is bad.

But sure, there’s grey areas. A lot of people say WW1 didn’t have a great cause, but forces had to intervene in WW2 against such an obvious evil, pain and suffering was an unfortunate consequence. Grey area.

2. Bad is relative.

In WW1 they had new, untested methods of fighting which turned out to be ghastly and inhumane, but only relative to conventional ways of killing each other. So they banned the methods deemed too inhumane.

At one point or another in history (today included), different societies have all agreed that the following were/are acceptable:

Watching a human be killed for family entertainment.
Caging animals and leeching their fluids for the duration of their lives
General rape and pillage (every war ever)
Murdering and beating people based on physical or mental differences
Slavery

Most of the people I know would agree these are all atrocious, deplorable acts that have no place in this world. But depending on the time and place in history, ALL of these things were acceptable.

For the simple reason being, that’s all you’ve ever known.

Famed figures revered in history are all victim to these antiquated ideas. For instance, philosophy heavy-weight Aristotle believed slavery was a necessary part of society. For millennia, public executions have been and still are well attended events. Forms of rape, pillage, and humiliation of defeated enemies are only beginning to be phased out. I’m sure everyone remembers one of the lowest moments for American military in 2004.

Right now, there are many actions that are commonplace to us today that could be viewed as primitive, barbaric, and shameful by future generations. Perhaps raising animals in repulsive conditions for cheap hamburgers, will one day be viewed as barbaric. Maybe having such lopsided male to female ratios for all positions of power will be seen as primitive. Maybe it will be be thought shameful how we burn stuff we find underground to power cars and cities, without limit or consideration.

Who knows what future generations will think of us.

The point is, if EVERYBODY is doing it, conventional wisdom dictates that it must be acceptable. Thank goodness we seem to be moving in some right directions.

Unfortunately, Halifax in 1749 was one of the places where the conventional wisdom deemed scalping as an acceptable part of war.

Moral of this part of the story: be your own person, don’t blindly accept existing practices.

Life in Early Halifax

So life went on like this for a while, with the French paying natives for British scalps, the British paying British for native scalps, and then the general misery of life in 1750.

I'm thrilled to have been born in Halifax in 1988 instead of 1788.

But Cornwallis' Proclamation, by all sources I've read, were relatively unsuccessful. So much so that Cornwallis upped the bounty, and added the clause that captures of women and children would be rewarded.

Although the "successfulness" of the Proclamation is debated, it persisted well after Cornwallis departed Nova Scotia.

For decades to come there would be raids on native peoples in Nova Scotia, with intent to collect scalps, all based on this original '49 Proclamation.

Vertical Divider

It is on record that Edward said indicated his desire to be rid of all the Mi’kmaq, as his frustration with New World warfare began to mount. Subsequent actions make it seem that his intent was to “harass, annoy”, and not eradicate for sake of doing so. Such a statement seemed hyperbolic, but still, an awful thing to say.

He was resistant to declare open war with the natives, because in his opinion, a war declaration would legitimise the Mi’kmaq as a sovereign people. Issuing this Scalping Proclamation treated them like British rebels (like the Jacobites) rather than a foreign entity.

All in all, the claims against Cornwallis range from a few collected scalps, to dozens, to full genocide. I’m sure the truth is in there somewhere.

I don’t know if it’s the bias of the historical victor, lack of sources, bad luck in research, or bad research, but I haven’t really found anything that unequivocally paints Cornwallis as an effective enemy of Mi’kmaq. Cornwallis even relied on the military experience of settled New England colonials, as he found himself unequipped for warfare in the New World.

I acknowledge there’s probably gaps in the data, but with the glaring exception of joining the scalping bandwagon in the first place, it seems like he was an average guy for the time he existed.

The short-lived, harmful intent was there, but not the proportional outcome.

After trying to establish Halifax for three years and at age 40, tired Edward decided he was too old for this sh*t, and asked for permission to return home.

Before he left, Cornwallis was at least partially responsible for the founding of a local paper, a ferry service between Halifax and Dartmouth, the beginnings of a shipbuilding industry, the site selection, and construction of Halifax. All of this was done with a largely unwilling, unhappy population.

As an example, Cornwallis' soldiers were still wearing their bright red coats as they would march into the dense green woods to fight...

But also Halifax’s first divorce in 1750 between Lt. Williams and his wife Amy in 1750.

Vertical Divider

For a person who likely did not actively choose a career in military, or desire to start a city in the New World, I think I can objectively say by, city building standards, he had good results.

In terms of overall impact on the native population, Cornwallis’ 3-year term seems to have not as much of an impact as I would have initially thought. The majority of the destruction was done before through disease, and after through displacement by the quickly growing Halifax.

Life after Halifax

Doesn't look like too bad a place to settle down?

A couple years after he got home, Ed was made Colonel, and subsequently sent from England to Gibraltar to fight the French again over the small island of Menorca. His Admiral thought the French had too strong a grip on Menorca, Cornwallis and others agreed, so they retreated.

Upon returning to England they were greeted with an angry mob, complete with burning effigies of Cornwallis et al., angry at the failure versus France.

The Admiral who was in charge of the decision to retreat was held liable, and subsequently executed. Probably in front of a crowd. Ed and the others were released from arrest, even though they supported the retreat.

A year later, he was involved with an “amphibious” attack on France's coastline. The men in charge deemed defences too strong, again, and they retreated. Though the decision wasn’t unanimous this time.

It’s now 1761, Cornwallis is made Governor of Gibraltar, he gets married to Mary two years later, and dies 13 years after that. He might have died just before all of those model New England states started to rebel against the crown during the American Revolution. The very states early Nova Scotians had been deserting to.

There you have it.

63 years old
Three major retreats
Involved in efforts to pacify local populations in both Scotland and New Scotland
One protestant, British, New World establishment (that didn’t revolt)

It’s a diverse career. Especially for someone
who under different birth circumstances may have had nothing to do with the military whatsoever.

So the controversy surrounding his name, all stemming from one proclamation in October, 1749.

Ed, a couple years after his return home.

Personally, I might pass judgement on someone based on the intent and results of their actions.

I think plenty of people intend to do well, but I admire the people who actually do well. I get frustrated with people whose actions produce negative results, but I admonish those who intend negative results.

Here are my approaches to passing judgement on Cornwallis.

What I have gathered from research, is that Edward Cornwallis, a probable racist and definite intolerant of non-protestants, begrudgingly accepted duty to establish a new colony.

He then attempted to settle peacefully in Nova Scotia, but the natives definitely saw the writing on the wall with this renewed enthusiasm for conquest, which was not present in the French.

So the Mi'kmaq resisted. Edward’s response to the resistance, was the tried, tested (definitely untrue) eye-for-an-eye policy.

I mean, when your entire society is threatened, who wouldn’t resist?

It's not like Europeans coming over was something that was diminishing year over year, and the result for natives was awful regardless of intent.

Vertical Divider

Or in this case, scalps-for-a-scalp.

An “eye-for-an-eye”, or Lex Talonis (by the way) is a friggin’ 4,000 year old way of thinking, and was Edward’s idea to implement in Nova Scotia. So violence and fear were met with the same.

As a general tip, don’t employ the legal principles of a civilisation that ended 2,500 years before you were born. Even better, evaluate each situation independently and objectively! (please, do this)

But his intent was to set up Halifax, I don’t believe he was ever in it for the long haul. His results were the beginnings of a city, and crippled relations with the local population. And of course, the lives of many innocent men, women, and children.

Based on what was acceptable at the time, his appointment to setup a city, and his intent (perceived by me); he was a man of average character.

“Well, we’re gunna hafta rename EVERYTHING now!”

A successful retort against the slippery slope.

To those people, first I will say, please take a few moments to consider the logical fallacies, specifically the “slippery slope” argument.

Second I say, you’re not entirely wrong. The names Shirley and Lovewell are all over New England, both are from individuals who took part in scalping initiatives.

William Shirley even lends his name to a street in Halifax. I think it would be unwise to set precedent for revising landmarks every time current perspective frowns upon old perspective.

For instance, when you learn that democracy’s origins actively excluded the majority of the population, namely slaves and women, you don’t say “THROW OUT DEMOCRACY IT’S TERRIBLE!”

You understand how democracy began, the circumstances that created it, then you update the antiquated model for an improved, contemporary one. This is something we need to do periodically.

That's why it's dangerous to have people blindly adhering to old and ancient documents that have rarely (if ever) been updated.

Some examples of how "not updating the rules and regulations" of old documents can create issues like:

Too many people, owning too many guns, too easily (23o year old document)
Intolerance towards different lifestyles

Vertical Divider

Now that historians can appreciate a more complete picture of the human being Edward Cornwallis, maybe we should understand the individual, the circumstances that influenced him, and include the full story instead of suppressing part of it.

Maybe I think it was an emotionally charged, hasty decision to take down the Cornwallis statue. After all, he is an essential character in the development of Halifax and it is difficult to debate that.

Maybe a plaque should have been added to the statue, explaining the controversial actions for which Cornwallis is responsible and which are no longer acceptable. But more importantly, how his actions contributed to the circumstances we see ourselves in today.

But most importantly, maybe there should be more statues, commemorative plaques, and recognition in general for the people who lived uninterrupted in this area for thousands of years.

Zooming way out helps me with perspective, hopefully these images can assist us with that. Though it's a little tough getting all of human history in 20 centimetres.

For perspective, remember the extinct Babylonian society that formalised an “eye-for-an-eye” 4,000 years ago, which Cornwallis would later use?

The Mi’kmaq were indisputably living in present day Nova Scotia then as well.

Vertical Divider

Homo Erectus really had pretty great run eh?

Take a moment to appreciate this scale.

For almost the entire time that Nova Scotia has not been covered with giant sheets of ice, the Mi'Kmaq have been here.

There is 250 or so years of European fuelled culture in Halifax, and Halifax is celebrated as one of the oldest, most historic cities and cultures in North America. But whatever culture Halifax has developed, there was at least SIXTY times as much of it possessed by the Mi’kmaq and their ancestors before Cornwallis arrived.

It boggles my mind that a history and culture this rich in narrative, is continually slipping away.

I think it is quite clear that this whole topic is symptomatic of a far larger, far more complex issue.

The issue being a nation-wide crisis for native peoples, struggling to keep their culture and society together after having it repeatedly smashed for most of the last 500+ years.

An issue I won’t get into here.

But if the removal of a single statue helps ignite the right type of progress, I’m all for it.

Sources

Google? I mean none of this stuff was hard to find. Most of my Cornwallis info I got here, here, and here. There is a great book online about the history of early Nova Scotia that was good for some facts, and the Halifax Military Heritage Reservation Society also has a extensive document on the subject.

Some of the websites I gleaned info from, gleaned their info from books like Cornwallis: A Violent History, The Lion and the Lily, and The Founding of Halifax: Duc D'Anville, Governor Cornwallis, Captain John Gorham. All of these are available at the library.

EUDAIMONIA - History is Fickle

"Founding" Halifax

Note on Formatting

Edward Cornwallis

​protestants and catholics don't get a long.

Life in Early Halifax

Life after Halifax

Sources

protestants and catholics don't get a long.