text:
Army of the Tennessee

The Army of the Tennessee was a Union army in the Western Theater of the American Civil War, named for the Tennessee River. A 2005 study of the army states that it "was present at most of the great battles that became turning points of the war—Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Atlanta" and "won the decisive battles in the decisive theater of the war."

It appears that the term "Army of the Tennessee" was first used within the Union Army in March 1862, to describe Union forces perhaps more properly described as the "Army of West Tennessee"; these were the troops under the command of Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in the Union's District of West Tennessee. This article also covers Grant's 1861–1862 commands – the District of Southeast Missouri and the District of Cairo – because the troops Grant led in the Battle of Belmont and the Henry-Donelson campaign during that period became the nucleus of the Army of the Tennessee. In April 1862, Grant's troops survived a severe test in the bloody Battle of Shiloh. Then, during six months marked by discouragement and anxiety for Grant, his army first joined with two other Union armies to prosecute the relatively bloodless Siege of Corinth and then strained to hold Union positions in Tennessee and Mississippi. In October 1862, Grant's command was reconfigured and elevated to departmental status, as the Department of the Tennessee; the title of his command was thus officially aligned with that of his army. Grant commanded these forces until after his critically important victory at Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.

Under other generals, starting with William Tecumseh Sherman, the army marched and fought from the Chattanooga Campaign, through the Relief of Knoxville, the Meridian Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea, the Carolinas Campaign, and to the end of the war and disbandment. In 1867, apparently speaking of the Atlanta campaign, General Sherman said that the Army of the Tennessee was "never checked—always victorious; so rapid in motion—so eager to strike; it deserved its name of the 'Whip-lash,' swung from one flank to the other, as danger called, night or day, sunshine or storm."

History
History remembers the Army of the Tennessee as one of the most important Union armies during the Civil War, an army intimately associated with the Union's two most celebrated generals, Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. It is thus rather ironic that frequent military reorganizations and looseness of usage during the war itself make it difficult to pinpoint the exact date at which this army formally came into existence. It should suffice to note that the "nucleus [of troops] around which was to gather the... Army of the Tennessee" first took shape in 1861–1862, while Grant was headquartered at Cairo, Illinois. Those troops continued under Grant in his next command, the distinct District of West Tennessee; they were then sometimes, and perhaps most appropriately, called the "Army of West Tennessee." However, army correspondence began using the term "Army of the Tennessee" in March 1862; that term soon became commonplace and naturally lived on when Grant's command was elevated to departmental status in October 1862, as the Department of the Tennessee. During the course of the war, elements of the Army of the Tennessee performed many tasks, and the army evolved with the addition and subtraction of many units. It is not feasible to chronicle every such development here, even at the corps level. Rather, this article traces the main thrust of the army's development and its most memorable activities. At any given time, substantial numbers of troops were engaged in activities not discussed here. For example, in April 1863, less than half of Grant's departmental strength was directly engaged in the Vicksburg Campaign.

Cairo and the Battle of Belmont
In September 1861, Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, then subordinate to Maj. Gen. John Fremont in the Union's Western Department, assumed command of the District of Southeast Missouri; Grant established his headquarters at Cairo, Illinois. One of Grant's wartime aides, John A. Rawlins, later stated that "[f]rom this time... commenced the growth and organization of the Army of the Tennessee." Just days later, prompted by Confederate occupation of Columbus, Kentucky, on the Mississippi River, Grant led a small force to seize Paducah, Kentucky, where the Tennessee River joins the Ohio River; Grant thus forestalled a Confederate effort to occupy the strategically important town. Paducah promptly became a separate Union command under Brig. Gen. Charles F. Smith, who soon occupied Smithland, Kentucky, at the junction of the Cumberland River and the Ohio.

According to Rawlins, the "first affair dignified by the name of a battle" for any of Grant's forces occurred at Fredericktown, Missouri, where some of Grant's troops helped defeat Confederate forces under M. Jeff Thompson. Grant's own first engagement came on November 7 at Belmont, Missouri, a Mississippi River landing opposite Columbus, Kentucky. Grant, accompanied by Brig. Gen. John A. McClernand, moved a force of approximately 3,000 to Belmont by water, cut his way into the Confederate camps there, and then had to fight his way back out to regain his transports. Grant's casualties in this first battle totaled about 500; Confederate casualties were similar. While Grant had suffered a repulse, he won favorable press coverage. This battle, reports Rawlins, "confirmed General Grant in his views" that he should "give battle" whenever "he had what he thought a sufficient number of men." Also in November, John Fremont lost his command at St. Louis, to be replaced by Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck, whose command was designated the Department of the Missouri.

Henry-Donelson Campaign
On December 20, Grant's command was reconfigured to include C.F. Smith's and renamed the District of Cairo. From that perch, in February 1862, Grant led the Union campaign against Fort Henry, on the Tennessee River, and Fort Donelson, on the Cumberland River. His troops for this campaign eventually numbered approximately 27,000 men, divided into three divisions commanded, respectively, by John McClernand (1st Division), C.F. Smith (2nd), and Brig. Gen. Lewis Wallace (3rd).

Grant initially moved up the Tennessee River (southward) to Fort Henry with only two divisions, McClernand's and Smith's. On February 6, even before he could organize his force for attack, the fort surrendered to U.S. Navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote, commander of the Western Flotilla. Several days later, in winter conditions, most of Grant's two divisions marched overland to attack the more formidable Fort Donelson, situated on the Cumberland River but only 12 mi away from Fort Henry. Additional Union regiments arrived at Fort Donelson by water; these were formed into the new 3rd Division under Lew Wallace. The Battle of Fort Donelson began on February 13 and, after sharp fighting, concluded on February 16 with the unconditional surrender of the remaining Confederate garrison of approximately 15,000.

Although it would still be a month before the term "Army of the Tennessee" came into use, the three divisions that served under Grant in the Henry-Donelson campaign were the nucleus of that famous army and had now won an important victory that foreshadowed its later successes. One historian describes their accomplishments in the Henry-Donelson campaign as the "first significant Union triumph in the war"; its fruits included breaking the Confederacy's western line of defense, securing Kentucky to the Union, and opening the South, especially Tennessee, to invasion. Another historian notes that Grant's troops "had performed prodigies of valor and endurance during the campaign" and had learned from it that "hard fighting would bring success." As a result of the campaign's conspicuous success, Grant, McClernand, Smith, and Wallace were all promoted to the rank of major general of volunteers. Grant in particular became a national celebrity—"Unconditional Surrender" Grant—for his refusal to allow any other terms of surrender.

Shiloh and the Siege of Corinth
On February 14, 1862, during the Donelson campaign, Grant was given command of the newly created District of West Tennessee; it appears that his troops soon came to be called the "Army of the Tennessee" more often than the "Army of West Tennessee." Over the next several months, Grant twice was in danger of losing his command, a development that doubtless would have changed the future course and character of the army and perhaps deprived it at this early stage of one source of its future success—continuity of leadership.

In early March, Grant's superior, Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck, then in command of the Department of the Missouri, assigned Grant to lead an expedition up the Tennessee River from the recently captured Fort Henry. On March 4, however, Halleck ordered Grant to give field command of the expedition to C.F. Smith; this order has been variously attributed to professional jealousy and to Halleck's lacking confidence in Grant due to certain administrative difficulties. Smith initially established the expedition at Savannah, Tennessee, a town on the east side of the river approximately 100 river miles (160 km) south of Fort Henry. He soon began staging troops at a point—Pittsburg Landing—nine miles (14 km) further south and across the river. Meanwhile, Halleck's command was enlarged and renamed the Department of the Mississippi, and Halleck restored Grant to field command, perhaps because of personal intervention by President Abraham Lincoln. Grant joined his army in the field on March 17. By early April, Grant's army had grown to a total of roughly 50,000 men, organized into six divisions. The three new divisions were commanded by Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut (4th Division), Brig. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman (5th), and Brig. Gen. Benjamin M. Prentiss (6th). In addition, Brig. Gen. W.H.L. Wallace took command of Smith's 2nd Division due to the latter's having suffered a debilitating leg injury.

On April 6–7, Grant's forces fought the bloodiest battle of the Civil War to that time, the Battle of Shiloh, when Confederate forces advanced largely undetected from Corinth, Mississippi, and attacked the five Union divisions staged at Pittsburg Landing. On the first day of the battle, the surprised and unentrenched army fought desperately and suffered many casualties. However, long-expected elements of the Army of the Ohio, under Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell, arrived to reinforce Grant late that day, with many more troops arriving overnight and the following day. Grant was also bolstered by the evening arrival of his own 3rd Division; Lew Wallace and his troops had been slow arriving at Pittsburg Landing from their separate position at Crump's Landing. Substantially reinforced by Buell and Wallace, Grant counterattacked the Confederate forces on April 7 and drove them from the field and back toward Corinth. "Grant's victory at Shiloh," one historian has written, "bloody and bitter though it was, doomed the Confederate cause in the Mississippi valley." In the near term, however, the battle resulted in much criticism against Grant for lack of preparedness, swift promotion to major general of volunteers for Sherman, capture for Prentiss, a fatal wound for W.H.L. Wallace, and Grant's loss of confidence in Lew Wallace. In addition, C.F. Smith died later in April from complications due to his non-combat leg injury.

In the aftermath of Shiloh came the second threat to Grant's leadership, as well as a preview of the multi-army operations that would feature prominently in the future of the Army of the Tennessee. Pursuant to previous plans, Grant's departmental superior, General Halleck, arrived at Pittsburg Landing to take command in the field. Intending to move against the Confederate forces concentrating at the rail hub at Corinth, Halleck proceeded to gather and organize what was in effect an army group of over 100,000 men. His force included Grant's Army of the Tennessee, Buell's Army of the Ohio, and Maj. Gen. John Pope's Army of the Mississippi. On April 30, Halleck divided this force into three corps (or "wings") and a reserve. The left wing was commanded by Pope, the center by Buell, the right wing by Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas, and the reserve by John McClernand. Grant's 1st and 3rd Divisions constituted the reserve; the right wing contained Grant's 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Divisions and Thomas's division from the Army of the Ohio. In other words, Halleck had drawn Thomas from division command in the Army of the Ohio and assigned to him, as commander of the right wing, most of Grant's troops.

Halleck assigned Grant to be second-in-command of the entire 100,000-man force, but also expressly confirmed Grant in command of the "Army Corps of the Tennessee" (the right wing and the reserve). It is unclear exactly why Halleck took these actions affecting Grant. However, Grant was under severe public criticism about Shiloh at the time and soon complained that his second-in-command position constituted a "sensure" and was akin to an arrest; among his complaints was the fact that Halleck gave orders directly to Thomas and division commanders nominally subordinate to Grant. With this awkward command structure, embarrassing to Grant, Halleck's forces took the entire month of May, with constant entrenchments, to advance the twenty miles [32 km] to Corinth. This Siege of Corinth culminated with the Confederate forces abandoning the town on the night of May 29–30. Grant later suggested that Halleck failed to accomplish all that he should have in this campaign and its aftermath. However, William Tecumseh Sherman, commanding a division in Thomas's right wing, considered the campaign to be an important period of training for Halleck's forces, including the Army of the Tennessee: "[I]t served for the instruction of our men in guard and picket duty, and in habituating them to out-door life; and by the time we had reached Corinth I believe that army was the best then on this continent."

After Corinth was taken, Grant might have left his command in frustration, but Sherman intervened and encouraged him to remain. Grant's experiences during this period have been cited as one reason for his subsequent warm relations with Sherman and his cooler relations with George Thomas. In turn, the trust between Grant and Sherman contributed importantly to the future effectiveness of the Army of the Tennessee. More immediately, however, Halleck soon rescinded the multi-corps organization adopted for the Corinth campaign and began to disperse his large force. On June 10, Halleck restored Grant to straightforward command of the "Army of the Tennessee"; Buell was dispatched toward Chattanooga, Tennessee; and, by incremental stages, George Thomas and his division were detached from the Army of the Tennessee and returned to service with Buell's army. While departmental commander Halleck remained at Corinth, Grant established his headquarters for the District of West Tennessee at newly occupied Memphis, Tennessee, with "his troops strung out across half a dozen railheads along the Mississippi-Tennessee border." Thus, having survived threats to his leadership both before and after Shiloh, Grant remained in position to "buil[d] the Army of the Tennessee in his [own image]," to reflect "his matter-of-fact steadiness and his hard-driving aggressiveness."

Iuka and the Battle of Corinth
In July 1862, Lincoln summoned Henry Halleck to Washington to serve as general-in-chief; Halleck was not replaced as departmental commander, leading by September to the demise of the geographically broad Department of the Mississippi. One immediate result was that, on July 16, Halleck enlarged Grant's District of West Tennessee and included within it portions of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as the Army of the Mississippi, five divisions then under the command of Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans. Grant relocated his headquarters to Corinth (and later Jackson, Tennessee) to oversee his expanded responsibilities. He soon lost four divisions from this expanded command—that of George Thomas and three from Rosecrans's Army of the Mississippi—to Buell's Army of the Ohio; these losses shrank Grant's forces from approximately 80,000 men to less than 50,000. This threw Grant on the "defensive," simply trying to deploy his remaining forces to protect his own positions against threatening Confederate forces; Grant later described this as his "most anxious period of the war." It came to an end with victories led by General Rosecrans in the September Battle of Iuka and the more consequential October Battle of Corinth. Grant was nearby and coordinating with Rosecrans, but not on the field, for these two battles; Rosecrans fought Iuka with elements of his shrunken Army of the Mississippi, and Corinth with the addition of two divisions from the Army of the Tennessee. The victory at Corinth was sufficiently clear cut to relieve Grant "from any further anxiety for the safety of the territory within my jurisdiction."

Soon thereafter, on October 16, Grant's geographical command was redefined and elevated to departmental status, becoming the Department of the Tennessee. This made the term "Army of the Tennessee" more official for his troops. Also in October, Don Carlos Buell lost command of the Army of the Ohio; his place went to Rosecrans, whose commands were christened the Department and the Army of the Cumberland. By an order dated December 18, but not fully implemented until somewhat later, Grant's Army of the Tennessee was organized into four corps—the XIII under John McClernand, the XV under W.T. Sherman, the XVI under Stephen A. Hurlbut, and the XVII under Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson. Each corps contained several divisions and detachments of artillery and cavalry. For illustrative purposes, the reported organization and strength of the Army of the Tennessee as of April 30, 1863, when it numbered approximately 150,000 in total, can be seen in the Official Records.

Vicksburg Campaign
In the fall of 1862, Grant began organizing operations against Vicksburg, Mississippi, a Confederate strong point on the east bank of the Mississippi River under the command of Lt. Gen. John C. Pemberton. Grant's first initiative ended unsuccessfully in December, when Confederate attacks on his supply lines, especially the supply depot at Holly Springs, Mississippi, caused Grant to abandon his own planned overland move on Vicksburg from the east. Sherman, intended to be operating against Vicksburg down the Mississippi River in concert with Grant's abandoned thrust, then suffered a repulse in the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou. Meanwhile, initially unbeknownst to Grant, his senior subordinate, John McClernand, had used his political influence with Abraham Lincoln to obtain authority for an expedition of his own against Vicksburg. This development, which one historian has characterized as "one of the more bizarre episodes of the Civil War," set McClernand up as a potential competitor to Grant, but also benefited the Army of the Tennessee in the long run because McClernand raised new troops in the Midwest to further his own purposes. In January 1863, shortly after Chickasaw Bayou, McClernand asserted control over the 30,000 men then under Sherman and redesignated those troops as the Army of the Mississippi; that force, under McClernand and Sherman, succeeded in capturing Fort Hindman on the Arkansas River. Grant considered this objective to constitute "a wild-goose chase," and General-in-Chief Halleck authorized him to assume control over all Vicksburg operations. Hence, McClernand's briefly independent force was reincorporated into the Army of the Tennessee, and McClernand's further participation in the Vicksburg campaign was as XIII Corps commander under Grant.

In the early months of 1863, Grant pursued various futile operations seeking to capture Vicksburg from the north, causing one newspaper to complain that the "army was being ruined in mud-turtle expeditions, under the leadership of a drunkard [Grant], whose confidential adviser [Sherman] was a lunatic." However, in April Grant proceeded to establish his troops well south of Vicksburg by marching them down the west side of the Mississippi and crossing it with the aid of the Navy. Working well with the Western Flotilla under Acting Rear Admiral David D. Porter, Grant led approximately 40,000 men in the XIII (McClernand), XV (Sherman), and XVII (McPherson) Corps through the Vicksburg Campaign, a masterful 180-mile (288 km) campaign of maneuver against two Confederate armies, Pemberton's Vicksburg force and a relief force under General Joseph E. Johnston. After capturing and briefly occupying Jackson, Mississippi, on May 14, and winning the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16, Grant failed in initial assaults against the Confederate entrenchments at Vicksburg on May 19 and 22 and then settled in for siege operations rather than incur additional casualties.

During the siege, the army received significant reinforcements, from within and without the Department of the Tennessee, bringing Grant's total strength at Vicksburg above 70,000 soldiers out of a reported July 1863 total strength for the department of approximately 175,000. These reinforcements included troops from Hurlbut's XVI Corps, a "strong division" from the late Army of the Frontier under Maj. Gen. Francis J. Herron, and the IX Corps, 8,000 men from Ambrose Burnside's Army of the Ohio under the command of Maj. Gen. John G. Parke. On June 18, essentially on grounds of insubordination, Grant replaced the ever-political McClernand in command of the XIII Corps with Maj. Gen. Edward O.C. Ord. The city ultimately surrendered on July 4; its garrison of 30,000 was given parole (rather than taken prisoner). Even before Vicksburg fell, reflecting his growing confidence in W.T. Sherman, Grant placed him in charge of a force drawn from the IX, XIII, XV, and XVII Corps to shield the siege operations against potential attack from the east by Joe Johnston's relief force. After Vicksburg fell, Sherman commanded a sizable Expeditionary Army (IX, XIII, and XV Corps) to drive Johnston beyond Jackson and then fell back toward Vicksburg. Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele led Sherman's XV Corps in this operation, which effectively concluded the roles of both the IX Corps and XIII Corps in the Department of the Tennessee.

Grant's capture of Vicksburg, achieved largely by long-established elements of the Army of the Tennessee, was one of the most important Union victories of the war. It opened the Mississippi River for the Union and cut the Confederacy in half. In recognition of his achievement, Grant was promptly elevated to the rank of major general in the regular army. At Halleck's suggestion, Grant then asked Lincoln to give Sherman and McPherson the rank of brigadier general in the regular army, in addition to their rank of major general of volunteers. Sherman later wrote that, with the capture of Vicksburg, "Grant's army had seemingly completed its share of the work of war." Even though much work in fact still lay before the Army of the Tennessee, there is much truth in Sherman's observation. Soon Grant would move on to expanded responsibilities, leaving the Army of the Tennessee in Sherman's hands. And the army itself would shift its operations eastward, closing the 1861–1863 chapter of riverine operations on the Cumberland, the Tennessee, and the Mississippi and beginning a series of epic marches. In addition, after Vicksburg, the Army of the Tennessee would ebb in size and usually operated in tandem with other forces, principally the Army of the Cumberland.

Chattanooga and Knoxville
After taking Vicksburg, the Army of the Tennessee "lay, as it were, idle for a time." But soon enough the changing roles for the army and its leading figures evidenced themselves in the November 1863 victory achieved by a mixed Union force in the Battles for Chattanooga. To set the stage: In late September 1863, Confederate General Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee defeated William Rosecrans's Army of the Cumberland in the Battle of Chickamauga; Rosecrans retreated to Chattanooga, Tennessee, and was besieged there by Bragg. To address this crisis, Washington elevated Grant, the celebrated victor of Vicksburg, to command of the newly created and geographically broad Military Division of the Mississippi and ordered him to travel to Chattanooga, assume command of all forces there, and defeat Bragg. The War Department gave Grant his choice between continuing Rosecrans as commander of the Army of the Cumberland or elevating corps commander George Thomas to head that army; Grant chose Thomas. Grant's forces at Chattanooga eventually included elements of three armies: 35,000 men from the Army of the Cumberland under Thomas; 20,000 men sent west from the Army of the Potomac under Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker; and 17,000 men from the Army of the Tennessee.

It was William Tecumseh Sherman who led the Army of the Tennessee's contingent to Chattanooga, up the Mississippi River from Vicksburg and then east from Memphis. Sherman began his march as a corps commander and ended it as Grant's replacement as commander of "the Department and Army of the Tennessee." He brought to Chattanooga most of his old XV Corps, now placed temporarily under the command of Maj. Gen. Frank P. Blair, Jr., and the 2nd Division of the XVII Corps, led by Brig. Gen. John E. Smith. With the arrival of Sherman's force, Grant was prepared to take the offensive and break Bragg's siege. He assigned Sherman to assault the right flank of Bragg's army, at the north end of Missionary Ridge, with three of his four divisions and other troops; this attack was intended to play the major role for the Union. However, in the Battle of Missionary Ridge on November 25, Sherman's attack gained no traction, and it fell to Thomas's Army of the Cumberland to break the Confederate line by assaulting directly up the middle of Missionary Ridge. On this occasion, then, the Army of the Tennessee ended up playing second fiddle to the Army of the Cumberland.

Immediately after Chattanooga, Grant ordered Sherman to take command of a mixed force, including part of the XV Corps, and proceed to break the siege that other Confederate forces had mounted against Ambrose Burnside's command at Knoxville, Tennessee. Sherman's mere approach resulted in the lifting of the siege, allowing Sherman to return to Chattanooga with the XV Corps troops. Sherman later calculated that, in these crises, the XV Corps had marched 330 mi from Memphis to Chattanooga and 230 mi from Chattanooga to Knoxville and back.

Meridian Campaign
Only about a third of Sherman's Army of the Tennessee (mostly XV Corps troops) had participated in the Chattanooga and Knoxville campaigns. Most of the XVII Corps had remained on other duties, under McPherson at Vicksburg, and most of the XVI Corps, under Hurlbut at Memphis. In early 1864, Sherman organized from the latter two corps an expedition of 20,000 men to move into central Mississippi to break up Confederate rail communications and other infrastructure and thereby to solidify Union control of the Mississippi River. This force, led by Sherman himself, consisted of two divisions from McPherson's corps and two from Hurlbut's corps. In February, after concentrating at Vicksburg, the force made a largely unopposed round-trip march of approximately 330 mi from Vicksburg to Meridian, Missisissippi, and back, in two columns. Hurlbut led the left column, and McPherson, the right. This force destroyed the transportation center at Meridian in mid-February. One recent study of the Meridian campaign describes it as a "dress rehearsal" for the style of war against infrastructure that Sherman, as well as some of these very troops, would later practice in Georgia during the March to the Sea. Another historian has stated that the Meridian campaign taught Sherman that he "could march an army through Confederate territory with impunity and feed it at the expense of the inhabitants. He could wage successful war without having to slaughter thousand of soldiers in the process." The Meridian campaign essentially marked the end of Hurlbut's role in the Army of the Tennessee; subsequently he became commander of the Department of the Gulf.

Atlanta Campaign
Now that Chattanooga was secure, an avenue of invasion lay open into the heart of the Deep South. It fell to Sherman to lead this invasion in the 1864 Atlanta Campaign, with the Army of the Tennessee serving as his "whiplash." To set the stage: In March 1864, Lincoln promoted Ulysses S. Grant to the new rank of Lieutenant general and gave him command of all Union armies; to fulfill that role, Grant relocated to the Eastern Theater and maintained his headquarters thereafter in the field with the Army of the Potomac. In the West, Sherman succeeded Grant in command of the Military Division of the Mississippi. Command of the Army of the Tennessee now passed to the XVII Corps commander, Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson; he had begun his association with his new army as a lieutenant colonel and the chief engineer in Grant's Henry-Donelson force. On the Confederate side, after Chattanooga, Braxton Bragg lost command of the Confederate Army of Tennessee, replaced initially by General Joseph E. Johnston and later by Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood.

Sherman later described the Atlanta campaign, launched in early May, as "a continuous battle of 120 days," fought for "over a hundred miles [160 km]" along the route of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, during "which, day and night, were heard the continuous boom of cannon and the sharp crack of the rifle." For this campaign, the Army of the Tennessee initially numbered about 25,000, consisting of the XV Corps under Maj. Gen. John A. Logan and the Left Wing of the XVI Corps under Brig. Gen. Grenville M. Dodge. Eventually, McPherson also had two divisions of his old XVII Corps, now under Maj. Gen. Frank Blair's command. Sherman's overall force of about 100,000 also included George Thomas's larger Army of the Cumberland and Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield's smaller Army of the Ohio. Typically, Thomas's large force served as Sherman's center, with McPherson and Schofield operating somewhat interchangeably on the wings. During the intricate campaign, having special confidence in his old army, Sherman "prefer[red] to employ the Army of the Tennessee... for flanking maneuvers."

Despite Sherman's confidence in the Army of the Tennessee, one historian has characterized McPherson as the "least aggressive" commander of that army; another considers that he "worried too much about what might be 'on the other side of the hill.'" These qualities, together with troop shortages, may account for McPherson's failure to fully exploit his opportunities early in the campaign, before the Battle of Resaca. As Sherman began his move southward, Johnston was entrenched at Dalton, Georgia. Hoping to threaten Johnston's rear from Resaca, Sherman sent McPherson, on the Union right, to the west of Rocky Face Ridge and through the "unoccupied, unguarded, unobstructed, and unobserved" Snake Creek Gap to Resaca. McPherson did reach Johnston's rear, but assumed a defensive position there, rather than carrying through Sherman's plan to cut Johnston's railroad link to the south. After the rest of Sherman's forces moved up, the first significant battle of the campaign occurred at Resaca (May 13–15). While a much more decisive outcome might have been achieved, Sherman had to be satisfied with Johnston's falling back toward Adairsville.

Resaca set the tone for the first phase of the campaign, as Sherman's armies attempted to maneuver around Johnston, and Johnston continually fell back toward Atlanta. On June 27, Sherman departed from character and attempted a direct assault on Johnston's position at Kennesaw Mountain. When that failed, Sherman swung McPherson from the left around to the right in order to resume his southward progress. On July 18, as the Army of the Tennessee completed a giant wheeling maneuver from Sherman's right to his left and cut the Georgia Railroad east of Decatur, John Bell Hood replaced Johnston as the Confederate commander. The aggressive Hood soon initiated the Battle of Peachtree Creek (July 20); his attack was intended to exploit a gap in the Union lines (between Thomas on the right and Schofield in the center) but ended unsuccessfully. Then, in the Battle of Atlanta on July 22, Hood launched a strong assault against McPherson's army, on Sherman's left. McPherson himself was killed, and command temporarily passed to Maj. Gen. Logan, his senior corps commander. The July 22 battle, writes one historian, was "the climax of the Army of the Tennessee's wartime career," as 27,000 men "defeated the attacks of nearly 40,000 Confederates who had the advantages of surprise and position."

Notwithstanding Logan's battlefield success that day, Sherman chose West Pointer Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard, imported from a corps command in Thomas's army, to become the new commander of the Army of the Tennessee. Thereafter, Sherman refocused his efforts west of Atlanta, now swinging the Army of the Tennessee around to his right flank. This led to the Battle of Ezra Church on July 28, where Howard repulsed Hood's third attack in nine days "with ease." However, Sherman also suffered setbacks in cavalry operations at this juncture, and for a month his campaign became more static. He finally broke the impasse in late August, essentially abandoning his positions north and east of Atlanta, and wheeling the Army of the Tennessee well south of Atlanta to attack Hood's last rail communications. On August 31, Howard's army repulsed a final Confederate attack in the first day of the Battle of Jonesborough (August 31 and September 1). With all his rail communications finally severed, Hood evacuated Atlanta during the night of September 1–2. Sherman's capture of Atlanta, facilitated by the prowess of the Army of the Tennessee, "was one of the great epochs of the war, on a level with the seizure of Vicksburg" and contributed importantly to the November reelection of Abraham Lincoln. Sherman later estimated that the XV Corps had "traversed in maneuvering" approximately 178 mi during this campaign.

March to the Sea
The Army of the Tennessee, under Oliver O. Howard, was now fated to function as Sherman's right arm in the March to the Sea and the Carolinas Campaign, but not immediately. After losing Atlanta in early September, Confederate General Hood regrouped and then sought with some success to lure Sherman back northward by attacking his communications and threatening Tennessee; Sherman estimated that his own regression toward Chattanooga and subsequent return to Atlanta involved 270 mi of marching by the Army of the Tennessee. During this period (September–October), Sherman made many adjustments to his forces. One involved dividing Grenville Dodge's XVI Corps troops between the XV and XVII Corps; this ended the role of the XVI Corps with the main Army of the Tennessee.

Ultimately, Sherman received approval from his superiors to detach other forces under George Thomas and John Schofield to defend Tennessee, cut loose from his lines of communication back to Chattanooga, and march southeast to the sea with approximately 60,000 men. In November and December, then, the Army of the Tennessee constituted the right wing during the march of 280 mi to the sea; Howard's command at this stage consisted of the XV Corps (now under Maj. Gen. Peter J. Osterhaus in place of Logan) and the XVII Corps (Blair). Sherman's other column, designated the Army of Georgia, was drawn from the Army of the Cumberland; its commander was Maj. Gen. Henry W. Slocum.

Sherman himself characterized his march to the sea as a largely unopposed "'shift of base,' as the transfer of a strong army, which had no opponent, and had finished its then work, from the interior to a point on the sea-coast, from which it could achieve other important results." As is well known, during the march, his troops lived off the land and demoralized the South by extensive destruction of property. (On the eve of the march, one soldier wrote that "[w]e understand... that Sherman intends to use us to Christianize this country." ) In the final stage of the march, Sherman called upon his old Shiloh division, now in the Army of the Tennessee's XV Corps and under the command of Brig. Gen. William B. Hazen, to subdue Fort McAllister, outside Savannah, Georgia. On December 21, the march culminated with the capture of Savannah. The Army of the Tennessee and the Army of Georgia thereby allowed Sherman to present Savannah to Lincoln as a "Christmas-gift ... with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, also about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." Despite Sherman's deprecation of the operational significance of the March to the Sea, it "was one of the major events of the Civil War"; Sherman's virtually unopposed movement through Georgia showed that the Confederacy's "days were numbered" and demoralized the Confederate army in Virginia under Robert E. Lee.

Carolinas Campaign
On February 1, 1865, after a month in Savannah, Sherman resumed in force his destructive march, now northward into the Carolinas, with the ultimate objective of concentrating with Grant's forces in Virginia. Howard's Army of the Tennessee again constituted the right wing of a two-column advance, with John Logan now resuming command of the XV Corps and the XVII Corps continuing under Blair. The other column was again composed of Slocum's Army of Georgia. Resistance was scarce in South Carolina, and Sherman's troops worked much destruction on the cradle of secession. (As Sherman exited the state in early March, one soldier observed that South Carolina "has her 'rights' now.") Confederate opposition intensified in North Carolina, led by Sherman's erstwhile foe, Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston. At Sherman's final significant battle, Bentonville in mid March, most of the fighting fell to Slocum's forces. Thereafter, Johnston slipped away to the northwest, and Sherman rendezvoused near Goldsboro with forces Grant had ordered east from Tennessee under John Schofield. The Army of the Tennessee had marched roughly 450 mi in 50 days from Savannah to Goldsboro, and it seemed that nothing could long prevent Sherman from concentrating with Grant in Virginia. Sherman later wrote that this was "one of the longest and most important marches ever made by an organized army in a civilized country." Observing Sherman's swift progress, Joe Johnston concluded "that there had been no such army since the days of Julius Caesar."

End of War and Disbandment
On April 10, 1865, the day after Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant at the village of Appomattox Court House, Virginia, Sherman resumed his advance, headed toward Raleigh, North Carolina, now with almost 90,000 soldiers—Howard's Army of the Tennessee on the right, Schofield's Army of the Ohio in the center, and Slocum's Army of Georgia on the left. Only learning of Lee's surrender on the night of April 11–12, Sherman had as his immediate target the separate Confederate force under General Johnston, then near Raleigh, but there was little need for further fighting. Sherman entered Raleigh on April 13, and Johnston promptly opened what became prolonged and politically sensitive surrender discussions. On April 26, at Durham Station, Johnston finally surrendered to Sherman all of the Confederate forces in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. The Army of the Tennessee and the Army of Georgia then marched some 250 mi to Washington, D.C., and on May 24 participated there with Sherman in the Grand Review.

To salve the injury he had inflicted in bypassing John A. Logan for Oliver Howard after McPherson's death, Sherman arranged in May for Logan to become the final commander of the Army of the Tennessee. Thus, while Howard rode with Sherman, Logan led the army in the Grand Review. On July 13, Logan issued a farewell address to the Army of the Tennessee: "Four years have you struggled in the bloodiest and most destructive war that ever drenched the earth with human gore; step by step you have borne our standard, until to-day, over every fortress and arsenal that rebellion wrenched from us, and over city, town, and hamlet, from the Lakes to the Gulf, and from ocean to ocean, proudly floats the 'Starry emblem' of our national unity and strength." Taps sounded for the Army of the Tennessee on August 1, 1865.

Society
The preliminary meeting for the formation of the Society of the Army of the Tennessee was held in the senate chamber at the state capitol in Raleigh, North Carolina, on April 14, 1865. Membership in the Society was restricted to officers who had served with the Army of the Tennessee. The Society erected in Washington, D.C., at a cost of $50,000, a bronze statue of Major General John A. Rawlins, and also placed a memorial, costing $23,000, over the grave of Major General James B. McPherson, at Clyde, Ohio. Also erected in Washington by the Society were an equestrian statue of General McPherson, and a monument in memory of General John A. Logan.

Command history
District of Southeast Missouri District of Cairo District of West Tennessee Department of the Tennessee

title: Army of the Tennessee


text:
1716 in Canada

Events from the year 1716 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac then Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: Thomas Caulfeild
 * Governor of Placentia: John Moody

Events

 * Jacques Talbot came to Montreal as a schoolmaster.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 1716 in Canada


text:
1717 in Canada

Events from the year 1717 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Jean-Michel de Lepinay
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: Thomas Caulfeild then Samuel Vetch then Richard Philipps then John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * Fort Kaministiquia was founded by French merchants to be the first in a series of forts reaching westward to expand trade and seek a route to the western sea. (Daniel Greysolon Dulhut had built a fort, (Fort Caministigoyan), at the same location on the Kaministiquia River in 1679.)
 * Fort Prince of Wales founded by the Hudson's Bay Company, (rebuilt later in stone in 1731.)

Births

 * January 29 - Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, army officer (died 1797)
 * November 9 - Louis-Joseph Gaultier de La Vérendrye, French Canadian fur trader and explorer (died 1761).

Deaths

 * Pierre Boucher, explorer (born 1622)

title: 1717 in Canada


text: File:Young and Dangerous (series) DVD cover.jpg


text:
Sympatric speciation

In evolutionary biology, sympatric speciation is the evolution of a new species from a surviving ancestral species while both continue to inhabit the same geographic region. In evolutionary biology and biogeography, sympatric and sympatry are terms referring to organisms whose ranges overlap so that they occur together at least in some places. If these organisms are closely related (e.g. sister species), such a distribution may be the result of sympatric speciation. Etymologically, sympatry is derived. The term was coined by Edward Bagnall Poulton in 1904, who explains the derivation.

Sympatric speciation is one of three traditional geographic modes of speciation. Allopatric speciation is the evolution of species caused by the geographic isolation of two or more populations of a species. In this case, divergence is facilitated by the absence of gene flow. Parapatric speciation is the evolution of geographically adjacent populations into distinct species. In this case, divergence occurs despite limited interbreeding where the two diverging groups come into contact. In sympatric speciation, there is no geographic constraint to interbreeding. These categories are special cases of a continuum from zero (sympatric) to complete (allopatric) spatial segregation of diverging groups.

In multicellular eukaryotic organisms, sympatric speciation is a plausible process that is known to occur, but the frequency with which it occurs is not known. In bacteria, however, the analogous process (defined as "the origin of new bacterial species that occupy definable ecological niches") might be more common because bacteria are less constrained by the homogenizing effects of sexual reproduction and are prone to comparatively dramatic and rapid genetic change through horizontal gene transfer.

Evidence
Sympatric speciation events are quite common in plants, which are prone to acquiring multiple homologous sets of chromosomes, resulting in polyploidy. The polyploid offspring occupy the same environment as the parent plants (hence sympatry), but are reproductively isolated.

A number of models have been proposed for alternative modes of sympatric speciation. The most popular, which invokes the disruptive selection model, was first put forward by John Maynard Smith in 1966. Maynard Smith suggested that homozygous individuals may, under particular environmental conditions, have a greater fitness than those with alleles heterozygous for a certain trait. Under the mechanism of natural selection, therefore, homozygosity would be favoured over heterozygosity, eventually leading to speciation. Sympatric divergence could also result from the sexual conflict.

Disruption may also occur in multiple-gene traits. The medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) is showing gene pool divergence in a population on Santa Cruz Island. Beak morphology conforms to two different size ideals, while intermediate individuals are selected against. Some characteristics (termed magic traits) such as beak morphology may drive speciation because they also affect mating signals. In this case, different beak phenotypes may result in different bird calls, providing a barrier to exchange between the gene pools.

A somewhat analogous system has been reported in horseshoe bats, in which echolocation call frequency appears to be a magic trait. In these bats, the constant frequency component of the call not only determines prey size but may also function in aspects of social communication. Work from one species, the large-eared horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis), shows that abrupt changes in call frequency among sympatric morphs is correlated with reproductive isolation. A further well-studied circumstance of sympatric speciation is when insects feed on more than one species of host plant. In this case insects become specialized as they struggle to overcome the various plants' defense mechanisms. (Drès and Mallet, 2002)

Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot, may be currently undergoing sympatric or, more precisely, heteropatric (see heteropatry) speciation. The apple feeding race of this species appears to have spontaneously emerged from the hawthorn feeding race in the 1800–1850 AD time frame, after apples were first introduced into North America. The apple feeding race does not now normally feed on hawthorns, and the hawthorn feeding race does not now normally feed on apples. This may be an early step towards the emergence of a new species. Some parasitic ants may have evolved via sympatric speciation. Isolated and relatively homogeneous habitats such as crater lakes and islands are among the best geographical settings in which to demonstrate sympatric speciation. For example, Nicaragua crater lake cichlid fishes include nine described species and dozens of undescribed species that have evolved by sympatric speciation.

Monostroma latissimum, a marine green algae, also shows sympatric speciation in southwest Japanese islands. Although panmictic, the molecular phylogenetics using nuclear introns revealed staggering diversification of population.

African cichlids also offer some evidence for sympatric speciation. They show a large amount of diversity in the African Great Lakes. Many studies point to sexual selection as a way of maintaining reproductive isolation. Female choice with regards to male coloration is one of the more studied modes of sexual selection in African cichlids. Female choice is present in cichlids because the female does much of the work in raising the offspring, while the male has little energy input in the offspring. She exerts sensory bias when picking males by choosing those that have colors similar to her or those that are the most colorful. This helps maintain sympatric speciation within the lakes. Cichlids also use acoustic reproductive communication. The male cichlid quivers as a ritualistic display for the female which produces a certain number of pulses and pulse period. Female choice for good genes and sensory bias is one of the deciding factors in this case, selecting for calls that are within her species and that give the best fitness advantage to increase the survivability of the offspring. Male-male competition is a form of intrasexual selection and also has an effect on speciation in African cichlids. Ritualistic fighting among males establishes which males are going to be more successful in mating. This is important in sympatric speciation because species with similar males may be competing for the same females. There may be a fitness advantage for one phenotype that could allow one species to invade another. Studies show this effect in species that are genetically similar, have the capability to interbreed, and show phenotypic color variation. Ecological character displacement is another means for sympatric speciation. Within each lake there are different niches that a species could occupy. For example, different diets and depth of the water could help to maintain isolation between species in the same lake.

Allochrony offers some empirical evidence that sympatric speciation has taken place, as many examples exist of recently diverged (sister taxa) allochronic species. A case of ongoing sympatric divergence due to allochrony might be found in the marine insect Clunio marinus.

A rare example of sympatric speciation in animals is the divergence of "resident" and "transient" orca forms in the northeast Pacific. Resident and transient orcas inhabit the same waters, but avoid each other and do not interbreed. The two forms hunt different prey species and have different diets, vocal behaviour, and social structures. Some divergences between species could also result from contrasts in microhabitats. A population bottleneck occurred around 200,000 years ago greatly reducing the population size at the time as well as the variance of genes which allowed several ecotypes to emerge afterwards.

The European polecat (Mustela putorius) exhibited a rare dark phenotype similar to the European mink (Mustela lutreola) phenotype, which is directly influenced by peculiarities of forest brooks.

Controversy
For some time it was difficult to prove that sympatric speciation was possible, because it was impossible to observe it happening. It was believed by many, and championed by Ernst Mayr, that the theory of evolution by natural selection could not explain how two species could emerge from one if the subspecies were able to interbreed. Since Mayr's heyday in the 1940s and 50s, mechanisms have been proposed that explain how speciation might occur in the face of interbreeding, also known as gene flow. And even more recently concrete examples of sympatric divergence have been empirically studied. The debate now turns to how often sympatric speciation may actually occur in nature and how much of life's diversity it may be responsible for.

History
The German evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr argued in the 1940s that speciation cannot occur without geographic, and thus reproductive, isolation. He stated that gene flow is the inevitable result of sympatry, which is known to squelch genetic differentiation between populations. Thus, a physical barrier must be present, he believed, at least temporarily, in order for a new biological species to arise. This hypothesis is the source of much controversy around the possibility of sympatric speciation. Mayr's hypothesis was popular and consequently quite influential, but is now widely disputed.

The first to propose what is now the most pervasive hypothesis on how sympatric speciation may occur was John Maynard Smith, in 1966. He came up with the idea of disruptive selection. He figured that if two ecological niches are occupied by a single species, diverging selection between the two niches could eventually cause reproductive isolation. By adapting to have the highest possible fitness in the distinct niches, two species may emerge from one even if they remain in the same area, and even if they are mating randomly.

Defining sympatry
Investigating the possibility of sympatric speciation requires a definition thereof, especially in the 21st century, when mathematical modeling is used to investigate or to predict evolutionary phenomena. Much of the controversy concerning sympatric speciation may lie solely on an argument over what sympatric divergence actually is. The use of different definitions by researchers is a great impediment to empirical progress on the matter. The dichotomy between sympatric and allopatric speciation is no longer accepted by the scientific community. It is more useful to think of a continuum, on which there are limitless levels of geographic and reproductive overlap between species. On one extreme is allopatry, in which the overlap is zero (no gene flow), and on the other extreme is sympatry, in which the ranges overlap completely (maximal gene flow).

The varying definitions of sympatric speciation fall generally into two categories: definitions based on biogeography, or on population genetics. As a strictly geographical concept, sympatric speciation is defined as one species diverging into two while the ranges of both nascent species overlap entirely – this definition is not specific enough about the original population to be useful in modeling.

Definitions based on population genetics are not necessarily spatial or geographical in nature, and can sometimes be more restrictive. These definitions deal with the demographics of a population, including allele frequencies, selection, population size, the probability of gene flow based on sex ratio, life cycles, etc. The main discrepancy between the two types of definitions tends to be the necessity for "panmixia". Population genetics definitions of sympatry require that mating be dispersed randomly – or that it be equally likely for an individual to mate with either subspecies, in one area as another, or on a new host as a nascent one: this is also known as panmixia. Population genetics definitions, also known as non-spatial definitions, thus require the real possibility for random mating, and do not always agree with spatial definitions on what is and what is not sympatry.

For example, micro-allopatry, also known as macro-sympatry, is a condition where there are two populations whose ranges overlap completely, but contact between the species is prevented because they occupy completely different ecological niches (such as diurnal vs. nocturnal). This can often be caused by host-specific parasitism, which causes dispersal to look like a mosaic across the landscape. Micro-allopatry is included as sympatry according to spatial definitions, but, as it does not satisfy panmixia, it is not considered sympatry according to population genetics definitions.

Mallet et al. (2002) claims that the new non-spatial definition is lacking in an ability to settle the debate about whether sympatric speciation regularly occurs in nature. They suggest using a spatial definition, but one that includes the role of dispersal, also known as cruising range, so as to represent more accurately the possibility for gene flow. They assert that this definition should be useful in modeling. They also state that under this definition, sympatric speciation seems plausible.

Current state of the controversy
Evolutionary theory as well as mathematical models have predicted some plausible mechanisms for the divergence of species without a physical barrier. In addition there have now been several studies that have identified speciation that has occurred, or is occurring with gene flow (see section above: evidence). Molecular studies have been able to show that, in some cases where there is no chance for allopatry, species continue to diverge. One such example is a pair of species of isolated desert palms. Two distinct, but closely related species exist on the same island, but they occupy two distinct soil types found on the island, each with a drastically different pH balance. Because they are palms they send pollen through the air they could freely interbreed, except that speciation has already occurred, so that they do not produce viable hybrids. This is hard evidence for the fact that, in at least some cases, fully sympatric species really do experience diverging selection due to competition, in this case for a spot in the soil.

This, and the other few concrete examples that have been found, are just that; they're few, so they tell us little about how often sympatry actually results in speciation in a more typical context. The burden now lies on providing evidence for sympatric divergence occurring in non-isolated habitats. It is not known how much of the earth's diversity it could be responsible for. Some still say that panmixia should slow divergence, and thus sympatric speciation should be possible but rare (1). Meanwhile, others claim that much of the earth's diversity could be due to speciation without geographic isolation. The difficulty in supporting a sympatric speciation hypothesis has always been that an allopatric scenario could always be invented, and those can be hard to rule out – but with modern molecular genetic techniques can be used to support the theory.

In 2015 Cichlid fish from a tiny volcanic crater lake in Africa were observed in the act of sympatric speciation using DNA sequencing methods. A study found a complex combination of ecological separation and mate choice preference had allowed two ecomorphs to genetically separate even in the presence of some genetic exchange.

Heteropatric speciation
Heteropatric speciation is a special case of sympatric speciation that occurs when different ecotypes or races of the same species geographically coexist but exploit different niches in the same patchy or heterogeneous environment. It is thus is a refinement of sympatric speciation, with a behavioral, rather than geographical barrier to the flow of genes among diverging groups within a population. Behavioral separation as a mechanism for promoting sympatric speciation in a heterogeneous (or patchwork landscape) was highlighted in John Maynard Smith's seminal paper on sympatric speciation. In recognition of the importance of this behavioral versus geographic distinction, Wayne Getz and Veijo Kaitala introduced the term heteropatry in their extension of Maynard Smiths' analysis of conditions that facilitate sympatric speciation.

Although some evolutionary biologists still regard sympatric speciation as highly contentious, both theoretical and empirical studies support it as a likely explanation of the diversity of life in particular ecosystems. Arguments implicate competition and niche separation of sympatric ecological variants that evolve through assortative mating into separate races and then species. Assortative mating most easily occurs if mating is linked to niche preference, as occurs in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella, where individual flies from different races use volatile odors to discriminate between hawthorn and apple and look for mates on natal fruit. The term heteropatry semantically resolves the issue of sympatric speciation by reducing it to a scaling issue in terms of the way the landscape is used by individuals versus populations. From a population perspective, the process looks sympatric, but from an individual's perspective, the process looks allopatric, once the time spent flying over or moving quickly through intervening non-preferred niches is taken into account.

title: Sympatric speciation


text:
1719 in Canada

Events from the year 1719 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * Construction of Fortress Louisbourg by the French begins on Ile Royale (Cape Breton Island).

title: 1719 in Canada


text:
1720 in Canada

Events from the year 1720 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * 1720-60 - The Chickasaw fight the French and the Choctaw in the Southeast.
 * c. 1720: French forts along the Mississippi River spread northward from New Orleans.
 * To compensate for their loss, the French build a fortress at Louisbourg on the southeast tip of Cape Breton Island.

Historical documents
"A Hundred Pieces of Cannon fired together" - Ship crossing Grand Banks draws St. Elmo's Fire before fierce lightning storm

St. John's merchants include "litle pedlers" who reduce indebted planters "to a servant, and soon after to slavery for life"

Extensive piracy is committed in Newfoundland's Trepassey and St. Mary's harbours because road for sending help still not built

Newfoundlander William Keen requests full judicial authority to address "evills and outrages dayly committed in this place"

Nova Scotia governor urges Acadians to take oath of allegiance to King, who has preserved their civil and religious rights

Acadians residing in Nova Scotia appeal to Île-Royale (Cape Breton Island) leader for advice and assistance

"Demands we cannot agree to" - Acadians tell Governor Philipps they cannot take oath because they fear "savages" will retaliate

Nova Scotia described in its mineral and agricultural potential, its settlements and people (Note: "savage" and other racial stereotypes)

title: 1720 in Canada


text:
Marge Piercy

Marge Piercy (born March 31, 1936) is an American progressive activist, feminist, and writer. Her work includes Woman on the Edge of Time; He, She and It, which won the 1993 Arthur C. Clarke Award; and Gone to Soldiers, a New York Times Best Seller and a sweeping historical novel set during World War II. Piercy's work is rooted in her Jewish heritage, Marxist social and political activism, and feminist ideals.

Family and her early life
Marge Piercy was born in Detroit, Michigan, to Bert (Bunnin) Piercy and Robert Piercy. While her father was non-religious from a Presbyterian background, she was raised Jewish by her mother and her Orthodox Jewish maternal grandmother, who gave Piercy the Hebrew name of Marah.

On her childhood and Jewish identity, Piercy said: "Jews and blacks were always lumped together when I grew up. I didn’t grow up 'white.' Jews weren't white. My first boyfriend was black. I didn't find out I was white until we spent time in Baltimore and I went to a segregated high school. I can't express how weird it was. Then I just figured they didn't know I was Jewish."

An indifferent student in her early childhood, Piercy developed a love of books when she came down with the German measles and rheumatic fever in her mid-childhood and could do little but read. "It taught me that there's a different world there, that there were all these horizons that were quite different from what I could see".

Education
Upon graduation from Mackenzie High School, Piercy became the first in her family to attend college, studying at the University of Michigan, where she received a B.A. degree in 1957. Winning a Hopwood Award for Poetry and Fiction (1957) enabled her to finish college and spend some time in France. She earned an M.A. degree from Northwestern University in 1958.

Adulthood
After graduating from college, Piercy and her first husband went to France, then returned to the United States. They divorced when Piercy was 23. Living in Chicago, she supported herself working various part-time jobs while unsuccessfully trying to get her novels published. It was during this time that Piercy realized she wanted to write fiction that focused on politics, feminism, and working-class people. After her second marriage, she became involved in the organization Students for a Democratic Society. In 1968, Piercy's first book of poetry, Breaking Camp, was published, and her first novel was accepted for publication that same year.

Personal life and relationships
At a young age, Piercy was married to her first husband, a French Jewish physicist. However, the marriage failed when she was 23; Piercy attributes this to his expectations of gender roles in marriage. In 1962, she married her second husband, Robert Shapiro, a computer scientist. They divorced, and Piercy married her current husband, Ira Wood. She and her husband live in Wellfleet, MA. Piercy designed their home, where the couple have been living since the 1970s.

Politics
Piercy was involved in the civil rights movement, New Left, and Students for a Democratic Society. She is a feminist, environmentalist, Marxist, social, and anti-war activist.

In 1977, Piercy became an associate of the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press (WIFP), an American nonprofit publishing organization that works to increase communication between women and connect the public with forms of women-based media.

In 2013, Piercy signed an open letter, described as an "open statement from 48 radical feminists from seven countries". The letter may be interpreted to endorse TERF ideology because it defends the right to exclude transgender women from "women-only conferences". Yet, this issue is one that is contested.

Writing
Piercy is the author of more than seventeen volumes of poems, among them The Moon Is Always Female (1980, considered a feminist classic) and The Art of Blessing the Day (1999). She has published fifteen novels, one play (The Last White Class, co-authored with her current—and third—husband Ira Wood), one collection of essays (Parti-colored Blocks for a Quilt), one non-fiction book, and one memoir. She contributed the pieces "The Grand Coolie Damn" and "Song of the Fucked Duck" to the celebrated 1970 anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from The Women's Liberation Movement, edited by Robin Morgan.

Piercy's novels and poetry often focus on feminist or social concerns, although her settings vary. While Body of Glass (published in the United States as He, She and It) is a science fiction novel that won the Arthur C. Clarke Award, City of Darkness, City of Light was set during the French Revolution. Other novels, such as Summer People and The Longings of Women, are set during modern times. All of her books share a focus on women's lives.

Woman on the Edge of Time (1976) mixes a time travel story with issues of social justice, feminism, and the treatment of the mentally ill. This novel is considered a classic of utopian "speculative" science fiction as well as a feminist classic. William Gibson has credited Woman on the Edge of Time as the birthplace of Cyberpunk, as Piercy mentions in an introduction to Body of Glass. Body of Glass (He, She and It, 1991) itself postulates an environmentally ruined world dominated by sprawling mega-cities and a futuristic version of the Internet, through which Piercy weaves elements of Jewish mysticism and the legend of the Golem, although a key story element is the main character's attempts to regain custody of her young son.

Many of Piercy's novels tell their stories from the viewpoints of multiple characters, often including a first-person voice among numerous third-person narratives. Her World War II historical novel, Gone to Soldiers (1987) follows the lives of nine major characters in the United States, Europe and Asia. The first-person account in Gone to Soldiers is the diary of French teenager Jacqueline Levy-Monot, who is also followed in the third person after her capture by the Nazis.

Piercy's poetry tends to be highly personal free verse and often centered on feminist and social issues. Her work shows commitment to social change—what she might call, in Judaic terms, tikkun olam, or the repair of the world. It is rooted in story, the wheel of the Jewish year, and a range of landscapes and settings.

Piercy contributed poems to the journal Kalliope: A Journal of Women's Art and Literature. Piercy also contributed to the collection of essays by women leaders in the climate movement, All We Can Save.

Novels

 * Going Down Fast, 1969
 * Dance The Eagle To Sleep, 1970
 * Small Changes, 1973
 * Woman on the Edge of Time, 1976
 * The High Cost of Living, 1978
 * Vida, 1979
 * Braided Lives, 1982
 * Fly Away Home, 1985
 * Gone To Soldiers, 1987
 * Summer People, 1989
 * He, She And It (aka Body of Glass), 1991
 * The Longings of Women, 1994
 * City of Darkness, City of Light, 1996
 * Storm Tide, 1998 (with Ira Wood)
 * Three Women, 1999
 * The Third Child, 2003
 * Sex Wars, 2005

Short stories

 * The Cost of Lunch, Etc., 2014

Poetry collections

 * Breaking Camp, 1968
 * Hard Loving, 1969
 * "Barbie Doll", 1973
 * 4-Telling (with Emmett Jarrett, Dick Lourie, Robert Hershon), 1971
 * To Be of Use, 1973
 * Living in the Open, 1976
 * The Twelve-Spoked Wheel Flashing, 1978
 * The Moon is Always Female, 1980
 * Circles on the Water, Selected Poems, 1982
 * Stone, Paper, Knife, 1983
 * My Mother's Body, 1985
 * Available Light, 1988
 * Early Ripening: American Women's Poetry Now (ed.), 1988; 1993
 * Mars and her Children, 1992
 * What are Big Girls Made Of, 1997
 * Early Grrrl, 1999.
 * The Art of Blessing the Day: Poems With a Jewish Theme, 1999
 * Colours Passing Through Us, 2003
 * The Hunger Moon: New and Selected Poems, 1980–2010, 2012
 * Made in Detroit, 2015
 * On the Way Out, Turn Off the Light, 2020

Collected other

 * "The Grand Coolie Damn" and "Song of the fucked duck" in Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings From The Women's Liberation Movement, 1970, edited by Robin Morgan
 * The Last White Class (play co-authored with Ira Wood), 1979
 * Parti-Colored Blocks For a Quilt (essays), 1982
 * The Earth Shines Secretly: A book of Days (daybook calendar), 1990
 * So You Want to Write (non-fiction), 2001
 * Sleeping with Cats, (memoir), 2002
 * My Life, My Body (Outspoken Authors) (essays, poems & memoir), 2015

Awards and honors

 * Arthur C. Clarke Award for science fiction, 1992
 * Bradley Award, New England Poetry Club, 1992
 * Brit ha-Dorot Award, Shalom Center, 1992
 * May Sarton Award, New England Poetry Club, 1991
 * Golden Rose Poetry Prize, New England Poetry Club, 1990
 * Carolyn Kizer Poetry Prize, 1986, 1990
 * National Endowment for the Arts award, 1978
 * Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2004

title: Marge Piercy


text:
1721 in Canada

Events from the year 1721 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * 800 Acadians take oath of allegiance to the French.

Historical documents
Get-rich-quick attitude hinders early development of New France

French governor and intendant want Indigenous allies to resist British, possibly with their direct support (Note: "savages" used)

Sisters of the Congregation in Montreal "are poor[...]and poorly nourished, although indefatigable" in serving at Hôtel-Dieu

Council of Marine informed of Montreal fire losses, including 138 houses and "more than one million to the merchants and bourgeois"

Intendant of Canada encourages alliance of Indigenous people and Acadians to drive British from Nova Scotia

Call to move Newfoundlanders off island after William Keen and other residents have enough of murder and other "great disorders"

"Dayly Cry here is for Justice" - Nova Scotia Governor and Council authorize themselves to be court of justice meeting quarterly

Recommendation to expel French inhabitants of Nova Scotia, who refuse to give allegiance to Crown and divert trade to French ports

"Promising beginnings" - New York gratifies Five Nations with deal for Lake Ontario trading post plus proof of French lies to them

Illustration: Five Nations "Indian sachems" meeting with N.Y. Gov. Burnet give him beaver for his new wife (Note: racial stereotypes)

With French favouring might over treaty right, Britain must make itself "considerable" in American colonies and build frontier forts

Detailed description of French routes from Montreal to their settlements on Mississippi River

Names and numbers of Indigenous allies of French detailed and compared with far fewer British allies

As France has done, Britain should reinforce its bonds with Indigenous peoples through gifts, marriage, religion, trade and treaties

title: 1721 in Canada


text:
1722 in Canada

Events from the year 1722 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * The Tuscarora become the sixth tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy.
 * Haudenosee League admits Tuscarora as 6th Nation. The refugee band was accepted according to the terms of the League Constitution. No other Native Nations had such a provision as this, other alliances and "confederations" were all temporary and informal.

Births

 * March 23 - born Marguerite-Thérèse Lemoine Despins (1722–1792) the second Mother Superior of the Grey Nuns. (died 1792)

Historical documents
"[T]o gain the Indians[...]is to sell them no rum, nor to chett them in[...]trade, and to lett them know [we] will be their master."

Haudenosaunee urge French not to regarrison their village near Montreal because soldiers make women unsafe and youth disruptive

Abenaki at Nanrantsouak defer to Jesuit missionary in religion, council and relations with New Englanders (Note: "savages" used)

Passenger reports capture with others on sloop from Annapolis Royal by French-allied Indigenous men at Passamaquoddy

Gov. Shute declares war on "our Eastern Indians" who kill settlers, as Gov. Vaudreuil admits supporting attacks on vessels

New York requests garrisons on Indigenous land to extend frontier to Great Lakes for trade strategy spanning Mississippi to St. Lawrence

New York's expanding influence on Lake Ontario approved of, though building Niagara fort needs "consent of the Indian Proprietors"

Though "flourishing state of" Canso fishery would draw settlers, survey delay prevents Nova Scotia governor from granting land

Several forts needed for security of Nova Scotia, most immediately at Canso, where French dispute British "sole right" to fishery

Nova Scotia leaders report attacks on British ships and residents, with hostage-taking by both sides

New York Assembly strengthens law against "the selling of Indian goods to the French," which does most to increase French power

Commodore in Newfoundland must intervene when New Englanders "entice and carry away handycraftmen, seamen and fishermen"

"[O]ther men[...]run away with my works" - Mariner complains about someone preempting him with Nova Scotia map based on his data

title: 1722 in Canada


text:
Plymouth Reliant

The Plymouth Reliant and Dodge Aries are mid size cars introduced for model year 1981 as the first "K-cars" manufactured and marketed by the Chrysler Corporation. The Reliant and Aries were the smallest cars to have the traditional 6 passenger 2 bench seat with column shifter seating arrangement favored by customers in the United States (Chrysler marketed the car as being able to seat "six Americans"), similar to larger rear-wheel drive cars such as the Dodge Dart and other front-wheel drive cars such as the Chevrolet Celebrity. The Reliant was powered by a then-new 2.2 L I4 SOHC engine, with a Mitsubishi "Silent Shaft" 2.6 L as an option (this engine also featured hemispherical combustion chambers, and all 1981 models equipped with it featured "HEMI" badges on the front fenders). The Reliant was available as a 2-door coupe, 4-door sedan, or as a 4-door station wagon, in three different trim lines: base, Custom and SE ("Special Edition"). Station wagons came only in Custom or SE trim.

As rebadged variants, the Reliant and Aries were manufactured in Newark, Delaware, Detroit, Michigan, and Toluca, Mexico — in a single generation. After their introduction, the Reliant and Aries were marketed as the "Reliant K" and "Aries K". The Aries was sold as the Dart K in Mexico, and as the Michigan in Japan. The Reliant replaced the Plymouth Volaré/Road Runner, while the Aries replaced the Dodge Aspen.

The Reliant and Aries were selected together as Motor Trend magazine's Car of the Year for 1981. Initial sales were brisk, with both Reliant and Aries each selling over 150,000 units in 1981, with cumulative sales of million Aries and 1.1 million Reliant units over the nine-year run.

History

Chrysler was facing a grave financial crisis due to poor business decisions, lack of investment in new products during previous years, and external factors outside of their control as the 1970s ended. Lynn A. Townsend, chairman from 1967 to 1975, had pursued a hands-off policy of running the company, refusing to spend more than the minimum on new drivetrains or platforms as long as the existing ones continued to sell. Sales of the company's larger cars started dropping after the 1973 OPEC Embargo and an increased amount of company volume consisted of lower profit compact models. Chrysler also had a policy of producing cars regardless of whether a customer ordered them, which was in contrast to AMC, Ford, and GM who only produced vehicles for which they received orders. Soon, they were left with a backlog of unsold inventory which cost money to store and had to resort to the money-losing tactic of rebates to get rid of these excess cars. Compounding these difficulties were new Federal emissions and safety regulations during the 1970s which added more to the production costs of each car. Townsend retired in 1975 and left the reins to John J. Riccardo, who presided over a slowly-sinking company.

The following year, the compact Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare debuted as replacements for the dated Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant, but were rushed into production and ended up with a major string of quality control problems that led to them being one of the most recalled cars in US history. In 1977, Riccardo petitioned newly elected US president Jimmy Carter for a Federal bailout, but Carter would not consider the idea as long as Chrysler's present management was in charge. In January 1978, Chrysler released the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon, a US adaption of the European Simca Horizon and the first domestic-built FWD subcompacts. They came out in a year when larger cars were in demand and dealers struggled to move them from lots, costing the hard-pressed company yet more money. Ford president Lee Iacocca was fired on July 13, 1978, and three months later, Chrysler offered him the position of company president. By this point, the smallest of the Big Three American automakers was close to collapse, struggling from the unexpected poor sales of the Omni, the fallout from the Aspen recalls, and the decision to discontinue full-sized Dodges and Plymouths in 1978, leaving it without a full-sized car in a year of strong sales for them. Since 1976, quality control on Chrysler vehicles had become worse.

Although the K-platform had been designed during 1978, the failing company could not afford by this point to put them into production. Thus, Iacocca and Riccardo decided to repeat the original 1977 request for government assistance, but since the Carter Administration would not offer any help until the existing management was removed, Riccardo stepped down as chairman and gave Iacocca the job. During a series of Congressional hearings, Lee Iacocca made his case for a Federal bailout of Chrysler, citing past bailouts of the railroad industry and aerospace company Lockheed as precedent. He argued that thousands of American jobs would be saved and the company had been consciously attempting to build modern, economical cars such as the Omni, but fate had dealt them a bad hand. Iacocca also stated that excessive government regulations were costing needless money. Congress approved the bailout after Chrysler detailed the plans for their new FWD platform and the first handful of K-cars trickled off the assembly line at Detroit's Jefferson Avenue plant in late 1980.

The Reliant and Aries were downsized replacements for the six-passenger Volare and Aspen, which in turn were modernized version of the original Valiant and Dart compact cars of the 1960s. Based on experience gained with subcompact Omni/Horizon of 1978, the roomier K-cars set out to build a family sized car with a front-wheel drive design powered by a four-cylinder engine. They were offered as two and four door notchback sedans and wagons and retained six-passenger seating on two bench seats. While the Chevrolet Citation introduced front-wheel drive in the 1980 model year to replace the Nova, its unusual styling and problems with recalls hampered its success. They achieved nearly a million in sales between the two original nameplates before being rebadged and upgraded, not counting the numerous stretched, sporty, or minivan derivatives. Ford did not replace its family-sized Fairmont/Granada/LTD with a front-wheel drive design until the 1986 Ford Taurus, while cars like the Chevrolet Cavalier and Ford Tempo would be marketed as upscale compacts rather than family sedans.

Initial advertisements for the Aries were done in red, white, and blue and emphasized American industry's desire to answer the challenge of Japanese products and also promoted the low $5,880 base price. Since Chrysler was so financially strapped, early promotional shots featured the same car, but with Dodge and Plymouth badges and trim swapped. In 1981, sales of the Reliant and Aries got off to a slow, but early start and can be attributed to Chrysler's inadequate preparation. Instead of producing a sufficient amount of base models, Chrysler was producing a larger number of SE and Custom models. When consumers arrived at Plymouth (and Dodge) dealers, they were shocked to find that the Reliant they were planning on purchasing would end up costing hundreds or thousands of dollars more. As a result of this, Chrysler corrected this and began building more base models and sales of the Reliant and Aries skyrocketed.

The Reliant and Aries were available in standard "base", mid-level Custom, and high-end SE (later renamed LE) trim levels. Unlike the coupe and sedan, the station wagon was not available in base trim. "SE" Reliant/Aries wagons came standard with exterior woodtone siding, although it could be deleted. All models except base could be ordered with front bucket seats rather than the standard bench. By 1987, though, bucket seats became standard and bench seats were optional without charge.

Changes through the years

 * 1982: A new hood ornament (changed from either a Plymouth "frog legs" hood ornament or a Dodge badge mounted flat on the hood to an upright Chrysler Pentastar), a counterbalanced hood, and black painted valve cover on the 2.2L engine (vs. the former blue). 1981 and 1982 were the only two years when a factory installed sunroof on coupes and sedans could be ordered. Actual production numbers are not known.
 * 1983: A blacked out grille is made standard on the Aries. Also, the four-door sedan and station wagon models finally received roll-down rear door windows versus the former stationary glass with rear quarter pop-out panes.
 * 1984: The hood ornament was removed and the Chrysler Pentastar moved to the grille; the Mercedes-Benz-styled grille used on the Reliant was modified. Also, the tail lights received chrome trim, and the interior received a padded dash and new black instrument cluster with round gauges.
 * 1985: The first major changes occurred when the Ks received a new, rounder front fascia, featuring either a new egg-crate or crosshair grille for the Plymouth and Dodge that was the same height as the headlights (rather than going all the way up to the hood as with previous model years). A new rear fascia featuring five-section taillights. A new trim line, the top-tier LE ("Luxury Edition"), was added (it also replaced the Custom trim level on the wagon). The base engine was a transverse mounted Chrysler designed 2.2 L (135 cid) inline-four engine with an electronic two-barrel carburetor (later replaced by a fuel injection system in 1986), rated at 82 hp. Transaxles were a four-speed floor shift manual or a three-speed automatic with either a floor or column shift. A Mitsubishi motor was optional (automatic transmission was required with that engine), and cars so equipped for 1981 were badged as 2.6 HEMI. Reliants and Aries equipped with this engine accelerated 0–60 mph in the 13-second range.
 * 1986: There was the replacement of the 2.2 L engine's carburetor by a new throttle-body electronic fuel injection system, while a new 2.5 L four-cylinder engine, also fuel-injected, was added to the option list, replacing the Mitsubishi 2.6 L G54B engine, but driveability and reliability problems led to its replacement. (Just like the 2.6, automatic transmission was mandatory for the 2.5.) The four-speed manual transmission – previously offered as standard equipment – was dropped. The SE trim line was dropped, and the LE and base trim remained the only trims until the end of production.
 * 1988: All Reliant models were renamed Reliant America in the U.S., and Reliant Canada, in Canada, and was offered in one "LE" trim level. This marketing strategy was also practiced with the Dodge Omni America/Plymouth Horizon America in 1988, and as a separate base series for the Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance twins for 1992. It is also the last year for the station wagons.

After 1987, the Reliant and Aries underwent only minor changes throughout the rest of its production run. The last K-car rolled off the assembly line on December 9, 1988. The 1989 Reliant and Aries were carryovers from the 1988 model year and only the America and Canada trims were available on these models. No station wagon models were sold in 1989. The Reliant was replaced by the Acclaim for 1989, while the Aries was replaced by the Spirit.

Production numbers
* For 1981, coupe and sedan production figures were not listed separately.

Trim levels

 * Base: 1981–1987; America/Canada: 1988–1989
 * Custom: 1981–1984; LE: 1985–1989
 * SE: 1981–1986

title: Plymouth Reliant


text:
1725 in Canada

Events from the year 1725 in Canada.

Incumbents

 * French Monarch: Louis XV
 * British and Irish Monarch: George I

Governors

 * Governor General of New France: Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil then Charles de la Boische, Marquis de Beauharnois
 * Colonial Governor of Louisiana: Pierre Dugué de Boisbriand
 * Governor of Nova Scotia: John Doucett
 * Governor of Placentia: Samuel Gledhill

Events

 * August 27 - French ship Chameau sank near Louisbourg.
 * Claude-Thomas Dupuy was appointed intendant of New France.
 * Peter the Great sends Vitus Bering to explore the North Pacific.
 * 1725-1729 - First Arctic expedition of Vitas Bering.

Births

 * Juan José Pérez Hernández, naval officer and explorer (died 1775)

Historical documents
"No method can be so effectual" - Another call for Six Nations to come into war on side of Massachusetts against Indigenous people

Massachusetts leader's update on war alleges Father Rasles refused "to give or take quarter" before his death

Long letter of Fr. Rasles mentions champions, fires, scalps, wounded, plunder, ransom, and "a very great inclination for peace at Boston"

Long letter of Gov. Vaudreuil mentions injustice, unreasonableness, pretension, confusion and trouble, sacrifice, threatenings, and cruelty

Murderous kidnappers take New England women and children to Canada

Île-Royale governor tells Nova Scotia councillors that Penobscot and Saint John River Indigenous people are "inured to war"

Indigenous people in Nova Scotia "have shewed some inclinations of peace," but lieutenant governor wants to avoid separate peace

Nova Scotia commissioner to Boston peace talks with Indigenous people is directed to encourage their intermarriage with British

Promising peace, four Indigenous delegates sign treaty stating British "jurisdiction and dominion" over Nova Scotia

New France laments loss of naval ship with all hands, death of Gov. Vaudreuil, and "much regretted" departure of Intendant Bégon

Nova Scotia is "most commodious Colony for the fishing trade," with "greatest salmon fishery in the world"

Summary of Nova Scotia events includes inhabitants in 1725 taking oath "to the Government" (by extortion, they say later)

Île-Royale governor assures Nova Scotia lieutenant governor that no one supplies arms to Indigenous people (Note: "savage" used)

Lt. Gov. Armstrong reports evidence of clandestine trade and secret introduction of "Missionary Priest" from Île-Royale

Armstrong to assemble force (including Indigenous from New England) "to humble the vilanous french inhabitants as well as Indians"

Book on war with "Eastern Indians" offers "a Narrative of Tragical Incursions perpetrated by Bloody Pagans[...]" (Note: racial stereotypes)

Scores of Newfoundland taverns serve fishers on credit to point latter "have nothing left to carry them home" at season's end

Newfoundlander's complaint of Placentia commander's assault on himself, wife and daughter, plus extortion (with supporting depositions)

Scheme to put 100 blockhouses at back of colonies from Nova Scotia to South Carolina to prevent Indigenous attack

Photograph: 1725 Kahnawake fortification wall

title: 1725 in Canada