Parkman Vol. 3, Chapter 3

La Salle discovered the Ohio, and in all probability the Illinois also; but that he discovered the Mississippi has not been proved, nor, in the light of the evidence we have, is it likely.

Previously in The Discovery of the Great West.

Our special project presenting the definitive account of France in Canada by Francis Parkman, one of America’s greatest historians.

[Footnote: As no part of the memoir referred to {Margry’s—ED} has been published, I extract the passage relating to this journey.

After recounting La Salle’s visit with the Sulpitians to the Seneca village, and stating that the intrigues of the Jesuit missionary prevented them from obtaining a guide, it speaks of the separation of the travellers and the journey of Galinée and his party to the Saut Ste. Marie, where “les Jésuites les congédièrent.” It then proceeds as follows: “Cependant Mr. de la Salle continua son chemin par une rivière qui va de l’est à l’ouest; et passe à Onontaqué (Onondaga), puis à six ou sept lieues au-dessous du Lac Erié; et estant parvenu jusqu’au 280me ou 83me degré de longitude, et jusqu’au 4lme degré de latitude, trouva un sault qui tombe vers l’ouest dans un pays has, marescageux, tout couvert de vielles souches, don’t il y en a quelquesunes qui sont encore sur pied. Il fut done contraint de prendre terre, et suivant une hauteur qui le pouvoit mener loin, il trouva quelques sauvages qui luy dirent que fort loin de là le mesme fleuve qui se perdoit dans cette terre basse et vaste se réunnissoit en un lit. Il continua done son chemin, mais comme la fatigue estoit grande, 23 ou 24 hommes qu’il avoit menez jusques là le quittèrent tous en une nuit, regagnèrent le fleuve, et se sauvèrent, les uns à la Nouvelle Hollande et les autres à la Nouvelle Angleterre. Il se vit done seul a 400 lieues de chez luy, où il ne laisse pas de revenir, remontant la rivière et vivant de chasse, d’herbes, et de ce que luy donnèrent les sauvages qu’il rencontra en son chemin.”]

This must have been in the winter of 1669-70, or in the following spring; unless there is an error of date in the statement of Nicolas Perrot, the famous voyageur, who says that he met him in the summer of 1670, hunting on the Ottawa with a party of Iroquois.

[Footnote: Perrot, Mèmoires, 119, 120.]

But how was La Salle employed in the following year? The same memoir has its solution to the problem. By this it appears that the indefatigable explorer embarked on Lake Erie, ascended the Detroit to Lake Huron, coasted the unknown shores of Michigan, passed the Straits of Michillimackinac, and leaving Green Bay behind him, entered what is described as an incomparably larger bay, but which was evidently the southern portion of Lake Michigan. Thence he crossed to a river flowing westward, — evidently the Illinois, — and followed it until it was joined by another river flowing from the northwest to the southeast. By this, the Mississippi only can be meant; and he is reported to have said that he descended it to the thirty-sixth degree of latitude; where he stopped, assured that it discharged itself not into the Gulf of California, but into the Gulf of Mexico; and resolved to follow it thither at a future day, when better provided with men and supplies.

[The memoir, — after stating, as above, that he entered Lake Huron, doubled the peninsula of Michigan, and passed La Baye des Puants (Green Bay), — says, “Il reconnut une baye incomparablement plus large; au fond de laquelle vers l’ouest il trouva un trés-beau havre et au fond de ce havre un fleuve qui va de l’est à l’ouest. Il suivit ce fleuve, et estant parvenu jusqu’environ le 280me degré de longitude et le 39me de latitude, il trouva un autre fleuve qui se joignant au premier coulait du nordouest au sud-est, et il suivit ce fleuve jusqu’au 36me degré de latitude.”

The “très-beau havre” may have been the entrance of the River Chicago, whence, by an easy portage, he might have reached the Des Plaines branch of the Illinois. We shall see that he took this course in his famous exploration of 1682.

The Intendant Talon announces in his despatches of this year that he had sent La Salle southward and westward to explore.]

The first of these statements, — that relating to the Ohio, — confused, vague, and in great part incorrect as it certainly is, is nevertheless well sustained as regards one essential point. La Salle himself, in a memorial addressed to Count Frontenac in 1677, affirms that he discovered the Ohio, and descended it as far as to a fall which obstructed it.

[The following are his words (he speaks of himself in the third person): “L’année 1667, et les suivantes, il fit divers voyages avec beaucoup de dépenses, dans lesquels il découvrit le premier beaucoup de pays au sud des grands lacs, et entre autres la grande rivière d’Ohio; il la suivit jusqu’à un endroit ou elle tombe de fort haut dans de vastes marais, a la hauteur de 37 degrés, après avoir été grossie par une autre rivière fort large qui vient du nord; et toutes ces eaux se déchargent selon toutes les apparences dans le Golfe du Mexique.”

This “autre riviére,” which, it seems, was above the fall, may have been the Miami or the Scioto. There is but one fall on the river, that of Louisville, which is not so high as to deserve to be described as “fort haut,” being only a strong rapid. The latitude, as will be seen, is different in the two accounts, and incorrect in both.]

Again, his rival, Louis Joliet, whose testimony on this point cannot be suspected, made two maps of the region of the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. The Ohio is laid down on both of them, with an inscription to the effect that it had been explored by La Salle. [1] That he discovered the Ohio may then be regarded as established. That he descended it to the Mississippi, he himself does not pretend; nor is there reason to believe that he did so.

[1: One of these maps is entitled Carte de la découverte du Sieur Joliet, 1674. Over the lines representing the Ohio are the words, “Route du sieur de la Salle pour aller dans le Mexique.” The other map of Joliet bears, also written over the Ohio, the words, “Rivière par où descendit le sieur de la Salle au sortir du lac Erié pour aller clans le Mexique.” I have also another manuscript map, made before the voyage of Joliet and Marquette, and apparently in the year 1673, on which the Ohio is represented as far as to a point a little below Louisville, and over it is written, “Rivière Ohio, ainsy appellée par les Iroquois à cause de sa beauté, par où le sieur de la Salle est descendu.” The Mississippi is not represented on this map; but — and this is very significant, as indicating the extent of La Salle’s exploration of the following year — a small part of the upper Illinois is laid down.]

With regard to his alleged voyage down the Illinois, the case is different. Here, he is reported to have made a statement which admits but one interpretation, — that of the discovery by him of the Mississippi prior to its discovery by Joliet and Marquette. This statement is attributed to a man not prone to vaunt his own exploits, who never proclaimed them in print, and whose testimony, even in his own case, must therefore have weight. But it comes to us through the medium of a person, strongly biased in favor of La Salle and against Marquette and the Jesuits.

Seven years had passed since the alleged discovery, and La Salle had not before laid claim to it; although it was matter of notoriety that during five years it had been claimed by Joliet, and that his claim was generally admitted. The correspondence of the Governor and the Intendant is silent as to La Salle’s having penetrated to the Mississippi; though the attempt was made under the auspices of the latter, as his own letters declare; while both had the discovery of the great river earnestly at heart. The governor, Frontenac, La Salle’s ardent supporter and ally, believed in 1672, as his letters show, that the Mississippi flowed into the Gulf of California, and, two years later, he announces to the minister Colbert its discovery by Joliet. [2] After La Salle’s death, his brother, his nephew, and his niece addressed a memorial to the King, petitioning for certain grants in consideration of the discoveries of their relative, which they specify at some length; but they do not pretend that he reached the Mississippi before his expeditions of 1679 to 1682. [3] This silence is the more significant, as it is this very niece who had possession of the papers in which La Salle recounts the journeys of which the issues are in question. [4]

[2: Lettre de Frontenac au Ministre, 14 Nov. 1674. He here speaks of “la grande rivière qu’il (Joliet) a trouvée, qui va du nord au sud, et qui est aussi large que celle du Saint- Laurent vis-à-vis de Québec.” Four years later, Frontenac speaks slightingly of Joliet, but neither denies his discovery of the Mississippi nor claims it for La Salle, in whose interest he writes.]

[3: Papiers de Famille, MSS.; Mémoire présenté au Roi. The following is an extract: “Il parvient … jusqu’à la rivière des Illinois. Il y construisit un fort situé à 350 lieues au-delà du fort de Frontenac, et suivant ensuite le cours de cette rivière, il trouve qu’elle se jettoit dans un grand fleuve appellé par ceux du pays Missisippi, c’est à dire grande eau, environ cent lieues audessous du fort qu’il venoit de construire.” This fort was Fort Crêvecoeur, built in 1680, near the site of Peoria. The memoir goes on to relate the descent of La Salle to the Gulf, which concluded this expedition of 1679-82.]

[4: The following is an extract, given by Margry, from a letter of the aged Madeleine Cavelier, dated 21 Février, 1756, and addressed to her nephew M. Le Baillif, who had applied for the papers in behalf of the minister, Silhouette: “J’ay cherché une occasion sûre pour vous anvoyé les papiers de M. de la Salle. Il y a des cartes que j’ay jointe à ces papiers, qui doivent prouver que, en 1675, M. de Lasalle avet déja fet deux voyages en ces decouverte, puisqu’il y avet une carte, que je vous envoye, par laquelle il est fait mention de l’androit auquel M. de Lasalle aborda près le fleuve de Mississipi.” This, though brought forward to support the claim of discovery prior to Joliet, seems to indicate that La Salle had not reached the Mississippi, but only approached it, previous to 1675.

Margry, in a series of papers in the Journal Général de l’Instruction Publique for 1862, first took the position that La Salle reached the Mississippi in 1670 and 1671, and has brought forward in defence of it all the documents which his unwearied research enabled him to discover. Father Tailhan, S.J., has replied at length, in the copious notes to his edition of Nicolas Perrot, but without having seen the principal document cited by Margry, and of which extracts have been given in the notes to this Chapter.]

Had they led him to the Mississippi, it is reasonably certain that she would have made it known in her memorial. La Salle discovered the Ohio, and in all probability the Illinois also; but that he discovered the Mississippi has not been proved, nor, in the light of the evidence we have, is it likely.

Chapter 3

What were the Jesuits doing? Since the ruin of their great mission of the Hurons, a perceptible change had taken place in them. They had put forth exertions almost superhuman, set at naught famine, disease, and death, lived with the self-abnegation of saints and died with the devotion of martyrs; and the result of all had been a disastrous failure. From no short-coming on their part, but from the force of events beyond the sphere of their influence, a very demon of havoc had crushed their incipient churches, slaughtered their converts, uprooted the populous communities on which their hopes had rested, and scattered them in bands of wretched fugitives far and wide through the wilderness. [5] They had devoted themselves in the fulness of faith to the building up of a Christian and Jesuit empire on the conversion of the great stationary tribes of the lakes; and of these none remained but the Iroquois, — the destroyers of the rest, among whom, indeed, was a field which might stimulate their zeal by an abundant promise of sufferings and martyrdoms; but which, from its geographical position, was too much exposed to Dutch and English influence to promise great and decisive results. Their best hopes were now in the North and the West; and thither, in great part, they had turned their energies.

[5: See “The Jesuits in North America.”]

– The Discovery of the Great West, Chapter 3 by Francis Parkman

The below is from Francis Parkman’s Introduction.

If, at times, it may seem that range has been allowed to fancy, it is so in appearance only; since the minutest details of narrative or description rest on authentic documents or on personal observation.

Faithfulness to the truth of history involves far more than a research, however patient and scrupulous, into special facts. Such facts may be detailed with the most minute exactness, and yet the narrative, taken as a whole, may be unmeaning or untrue. The narrator must seek to imbue himself with the life and spirit of the time. He must study events in their bearings near and remote; in the character, habits, and manners of those who took part in them, he must himself be, as it were, a sharer or a spectator of the action he describes.

With respect to that special research which, if inadequate, is still in the most emphatic sense indispensable, it has been the writer’s aim to exhaust the existing material of every subject treated. While it would be folly to claim success in such an attempt, he has reason to hope that, so far at least as relates to the present volume, nothing of much importance has escaped him. With respect to the general preparation just alluded to, he has long been too fond of his theme to neglect any means within his reach of making his conception of it distinct and true.

MORE INFORMATION