Re: Montcalm and the massacre

Posted by Tom Kilbane on November 04, 1997 at 20:29:15:

In Reply to: Re: Montcalm and the massacre posted by Marcia on November 04, 1997 at 06:26:00:

: Tom, I assure you that I understand that LOM is a work of fiction, based loosely on some events of the time with a few actual historical figures thrown in. I merely agree with Myrrh that the *film* hints at Montcalm's possible conspiracy with the Hurons. And I have read enough of what you term "revisionist history" to know that some scholars are still questioning his role. I don't think for one moment that the purpose of LOM was other than to entertain & to give us an idea of what life, in general, might have been like in 1757.

Marcia,

I apologize if you felt that I addressed my "movies are fiction" post towards you personally. I assure you that was never my intention. My post was just my general feelings on the dangers of accepting films as fact.

Yes, Montcalm was well aware of the fact his Indian allies might get out of hand if they were not appeased in some way. Incidents of Indians attacking POWs are evident throughout the French and Indian Wars period, the American Revolution, and the War of 1812. But I see a HUGE difference between knowing that there is a chance a massacre might happen and actually conspiring to make it happen which is what LOTM hints at. I do not believe any history, conventional or "revisionist", can provide solid evidence that Montcalm was in league with his Indian allies to do away with his prisoners. I think that is unfair to memory of a very fine soldier to insinuate this.

Also what I mean by the word "revisionist" is its classical meaning of a new interpretaion or theory of a previously accepted event. The conventional view is that Montcalm was "a soldier and a gentleman" and that the Indians got out of hand. The revisionist verion is that Montcalm actually desired this result. Both versions find Montcalm culpable of not controlling his allies and not adequately protecting his prisoners but they disagree on whether Montcalm had any intent in the subsequent events. I simply do not find enough evidence to warrant my belief in this revisionist theory of the Fort William Henry Massacre.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Montcalm and the massacre Marcia 21:09:35 11/04/97 (1)
  • Re: Montcalm and the massacre Elaine 07:58:13 11/05/97 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: 
: : Tom, I assure you that I understand that LOM is a work of fiction, based loosely on some events of the time with a few actual historical figures thrown in. I merely agree with Myrrh that the *film* hints at Montcalm's possible conspiracy with the Hurons.  And I have read enough of what you term  "revisionist history" to know that some scholars are still questioning his role.  I don't think for one moment that the purpose of LOM was other than to entertain & to give us an idea of what life, in general, might have been like in 1757.

: Marcia,

: I apologize if you felt that I addressed my "movies are fiction" post towards you personally.  I assure you that was never my intention.  My post was just my general feelings on the dangers of accepting films as fact.

: Yes, Montcalm was well aware of the fact his Indian allies might get out of hand if they were not appeased in some way.  Incidents of Indians attacking POWs are evident throughout the French and Indian Wars period, the American Revolution, and the War of 1812.  But I see a HUGE difference between knowing that there is a chance a massacre might happen and actually conspiring to make it happen which is what LOTM hints at.  I do not believe any history, conventional or "revisionist", can provide solid evidence that Montcalm was in league with his Indian allies to do away with his prisoners.  I think that is unfair to memory of a very fine soldier to insinuate this.

: Also what I mean by the word "revisionist" is its classical meaning of a new interpretaion or theory of a previously accepted event. The conventional view is that Montcalm was "a soldier and a gentleman" and that the Indians got out of hand.  The revisionist verion is that Montcalm actually desired this result.  Both versions find  Montcalm culpable of not controlling his allies and not adequately protecting his prisoners but they disagree on whether Montcalm had any intent in the subsequent events.  I simply do not find enough evidence to warrant my belief in this revisionist theory of the Fort William Henry Massacre.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: