GEN-FR-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-FR > 1999-07 > 0932765369

From: "Robert L. Quinnett" <>
Subject: Re: Protestant French in Acadia
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:29:29 GMT

There was no such thing as the Treaty of Nates nor, to my knowledge, a
place called Nates. No doubt you are referring to the well-known
Edict of Nantes, proclaimed by King Henry IV in 1598 to end the
religious wars in France. In 1685 King Louis XIV revoked it, and the
Huguenots bugged out to safer places.

It's amazing how the use of punctuation can show a person's deep
feelings. In the 16th and 17th centuries knives, swords, guns,
cannons and stakes jutting from high piles of very dry wood did the
job; now punctuation is expected to do it. Might you be showing your
extreme prejudice in public with your: "massacres of the 1500's";
"the 'True Faith' which, in the eyes of Louie XIV ... was Catholicism
!"; "'Gods Will' (?)"; and "Louie" instead of Louis? BTW, you might
want to tell us all of those other "massacres" besides the
properly-named Massacre of St. Batholemew's Day.

I condemn my ancestors for what they did to yours, but you seem to
have a gut need to continue it in a genealogy newsgroup which includes
descendants of both sides. After 400 years isn't it time for it to
stop? I can't think of a better place than here and now among the
descendants of those who killed each other.


Dean RussoMetevia wrote:
> Alice
> There is a definitive work on Huguenots titled:
> Huguenot Emigration to America, by Charles W Baird, D.D.
> Within his book Dr. Baird describes the history of Protestant persecution
> and events that led to each wave of migration (escape) from France ... for
> religious freedom.
> Off the top of my head ....
> The 1500's was a period of change within Europe and many older conventions
> were resented and rejected.
> The massacres of the 1500's resulted in what was called "The Treaty of
> Nates" and that treaty allowed (grudgingly) religious freedom until the
> Revocation; of the of the Treaty of Nates, in 1685.
> Obviously, there was a first escape during the times of the massacres and
> the second, resulted with the insistence that the Huguenots renounce their
> Protestant religion and accept the "True Faith" which, in the eyes of Louie
> XIV ... was Catholicism !
> The causes that led to the Revocation of the Treaty were social, economic as
> well as religious.
> Louie was a BIG spender, as governments are apt to be ...
> One of the serious issues was taxes against the middle class and that ...
> was largely the Huguenot population. The problems, social, economic and
> religious progressed from good, after the treaty of Nates to terrible,
> before the Revocation.
> Louie did not want to depopulate France of its middle class, but he also
> could not abide Protestants in his Realm. Louie took the sociably acceptable
> position: If you were Huguenot, you were BAD.
> With that rationalization, Louie gained the support the Catholic population
> and leading up to 1685 a lot of terrible things were done in the name of :
> "Gods Will" (?)
> Now, more directly to you question:
> After the Treaty of Nates and previous to the Revocation Bairds writes
> that:
> "Champlain notes that ... Gabrial Bernon, a Huguenot, was owed a great
> deal of money... "
> .. after he was expelled from New France, after the Revocation.
> Baird goes on to explain that there was (originally) a prohibition against
> any, but Catholic in New France,
> The penalty was to be returned to france as a galley slave (read: row, row,
> row your boat) ...
> Gabrial Bernon and many others,, were necessary for commerce, in the fur
> trade.
> Champlain, himself was from a Huguenot background and it appears that he
> was personally tolerant of religious freedom, but NOT to the extent of
> openly opposing the Catholic clergy in the New World.
> Jacques Poissant, my ancestor noted (by Baird) as an "agent" for Gabrial
> Bernon, on the Caribbean Island of Curaccoa, a Dutch free ( pirate) port.
> Baird also notes my ancestor (Jacques Poissant) as well as others was caught
> as a Protestant.
> Rather than deporting Jacques, they SUGGESTED that he embrace the Catholic
> faith, which he did
> and as such continued to live in peace in the New World.
> With the above references to Champlains tolerance, Bernon Losing a great
> deal of money, for his religious belief and Poissant seeking the security of
> a homeland ... rather than pursuing his former convictions, I think that it
> is fair to say that your ancestor (Jacques ?) could very easily have lived
> in
> Acadia until the prohibition against non Catholics REALLY got serious.
> An additional bit of information that may or may not be pertinent:
> Acadia, was originally a "stop over" fishing village, where the French dried
> fish for transport back to France. In 1635 it was most likely pretty basic
> living. It is very possible that as a Protestant in a (small) Catholic
> community, Jacques was not a "happy camper".
> If you have Huguenot ancestry, Baird is required reading, as it is indexed
> by surname and captivating reading.
> Let me know if you find your ancestor
> Dino
> (San Diego)
> Alice Wilson wrote:
> > >From my knowledge, Huguenots were French Protestants who left France in
> > the 1500s after a particular bloody massacre. Some first took refuge in
> > England or Ireland before coming to America.
> > I also have heard that some first went to Acadia or Nova Scotia even in
> > the 1500s Is this true ?
> > One of my ancestors (Jaques) was supposed to be a Huguenot who left Nova
> > Scotia about 1635 and begged to be taken in at Boston. I don't know if
> > this story has any actual basis. I do know that Acadias were expelled in
> > the early 1700s by the English, but ho would expll Huguenots in the
> > early 1600s?
> > AW

This thread: