Chapter IV: , VII (203)

Article 4th.
The said territory, and the States which may be formed
therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
United States, and those of any other States that may be
admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
duty, therefor.

Article 5th.
There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
period, and when there may be a less number of free
inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

Article 6th.
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

{2383}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
Extinguished by divisions.
Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

"Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of
the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent
secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal
constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of
officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory
act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of
officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,
President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur
St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and
Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,
for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in
this message designated the country as 'The Western
Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…
named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,
he having been president of the branch society in
Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,
1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to
Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry
Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress
in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of
Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided
this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.
Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.
Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory
west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky
River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The
eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the
river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,
November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The
territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a
political division after the admission of the State of Ohio
into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of
Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed
by legislation to other political divisions."

_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
pages 159-160._

ALSO IN:
_J. Burnet,
Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
chapters 14-20._

_C. Atwater,
History of Ohio, period 2._

_J. B. Dillon,
History of Indiana,
chapters 19-31._

_W. H. Smith,
The St. Clair Papers,
volume 1, chapters 6-9._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
Indian war.
The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
and Wayne's decisive victory.
The Greenville Treaty.

"The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,
numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to
40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been
the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,
was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest
of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark
and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient
barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own
inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to
the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now
so maddened against the United States that the first
imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western
settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into
submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the
small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …
a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations
extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major
Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British
commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly
with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,
by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period
were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A
formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon
by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest
Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar
set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a
force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths
of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and
Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a
disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1)._

"The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati
[Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually
at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the
expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made
manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became
bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost
in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an
army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The
command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time
a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under
General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash
country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and
returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious
expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so
fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.
Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.
The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a
shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder
that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large
number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his
2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's
Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the
necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The
militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of
capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of
the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While
waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of
this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,
1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the
first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia
dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days
had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his
strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses
were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the
bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the
artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in
their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and
dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,
over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder
horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.
Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every
settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into
excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned
for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A
committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been
defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from
the tragedy of the dark November morning.
{2384}
Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making
another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers
into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one
of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at
all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the
removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The
British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain
also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red
men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of
this last resort came one of the most popular of the
Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his
army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully
in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of
St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the
summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong
reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish
between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with
his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was
evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of
Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came
upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank
of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the
Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy
they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had
carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here
directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging
and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men
bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead
and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he
declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred
by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus
ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian
crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne
fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty
by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent
peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus
Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,
ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,
guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the
Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of
immigration."

_A. Black,
The Story of Ohio,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_A. St. Clair,
Narrative of Campaign._

_C. W. Butterfield,
History of the Girtys,
chapters 23-30._

_W. H. Smith,
The St. Clair Papers,
volume 2._

_W. L. Stone,
Life of Brant,
volume 2, chapters 10-12._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------

NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,
and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

NORUMBEGA.

"Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec
(Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country
embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a
part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the
mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say
that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several
old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers
and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian
origin."

_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1, foot-note._

On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La
Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating
probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The
name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and
appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.
Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map
is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater
extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there
is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which
trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of
Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast
was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da
Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la
Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and
even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward
Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the
inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great
gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered
by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time
of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,
as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.
Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a
later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to
the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or
'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and
sometimes to the whole of New England."

_J. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine
(Maine Historical Society Collection,
series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283._

"The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
though occasionally the country was known by other names.
{2385}
Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
of crystal and silver."

_B. F. De Costa,
Norumbega and its English Explorers
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 6)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Winsor,
Cartography of North East Coast of America,
(N. and C. History of America,
volume 4, chapter 2)._

NORWAY.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

NOSE MONEY.

A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to
have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might
suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are
thought to have imposed the same there.

_T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
volume 2, chapter 17._

NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

NOTTOWAYS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------

NOVA SCOTIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.
Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

See NORUMBEGA;
also CANADA: NAMES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.
Origin of the name Acadia.

In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out
Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,
Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned
the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region
defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts
gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …
This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was
afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the
dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause
of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the
Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish
called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock
Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name
from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.
This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'
'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is
properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for
example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in
'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 2, and foot-note._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Port Royal colony revived,
but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
English grant to Sir William Alexander.
Cession to France.
Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
English reconquest and recession to France.

"In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
former established himself on the River St. John, where the
city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
year; but it was not until two years later that it was
ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
{2386}
In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
made to the British government; but by the treaty of
Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
possession, and the question of title was referred to
commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

_C. C. Smith,
Acadia
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 4)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
Recovery by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.
Final conquest by the English and change of name.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.
Relinquished to Great Britain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
Their refusal to swear allegiance.
Hostilities with the Indians.

"It was evident from the first that the French intended to
interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as
possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of
England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest
limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the
treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at
Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these
settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht
to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an
exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and
resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful
French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant
communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of
those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making
the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to
believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of
scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and
hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition
that they should not take up arms either for the French or
English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it
was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may
have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other
place, with all their movable effects. But those who are
willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great
Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion
according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the
laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never
contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in
the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all
times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make
the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen
Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.
Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to
proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,
River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King
George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance
to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the
oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that
they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the
people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that
they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it
would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who
actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then
summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the
oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his
deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,
who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in
the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his
predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.
Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold
in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in
readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war
was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to
France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration
between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there
was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.
Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the
Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians
were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in
Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in
1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen
there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French
of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being
seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …
The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the
progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec
filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had
not been always so just in their dealings with them that they
could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed
their territorial rights in the lands over which the English
settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this
claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory
to the English. While these questions were in controversy the
Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not
tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.
{2387}
This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of
Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,
whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to
acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to
the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at
Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which
failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a
war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso
to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly
take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as
they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."
This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of
the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious
event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous
murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in
the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was
concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King
George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the
inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of
allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At
Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and
when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George
II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew
their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips
returned to the province and had great success during the next
year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only
throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of
allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not
bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when
they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the
understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them
from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for
that was the position they always assumed, but the matter
seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the
question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of
discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

_J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 17._

ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 4._

_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 114-121._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;
and 1745-1748.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Futile discussion of boundary questions.
The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
The founding of Halifax.
Hostilities renewed.

"During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments
were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual
occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left
open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as
they had been before the war; and before the war the entire
basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.
Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,
was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no
convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.
Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were
but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at
another time in another, and when these names were mentioned
in treaties they were understood by each party according to
its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left
abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the
continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal
peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to
settle the question of the disputed territory, but the
differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but
conquest. While the most important question was that of the
great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were
devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or
Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The
French were determined to restrict the English province to the
peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent
a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to
hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by
the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the
mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established
themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep
possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to
French claims, formed the northern boundary of English
territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule
in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,
and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in
gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had
grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to
France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king
of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,
outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes
suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by
Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of
English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the
Government might have friends and influence throughout the
country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted
£40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five
hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from
the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted
to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the
Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.
Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town
was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of
Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In
July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis
gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government
would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required
of them." They were called upon to take the oath of
allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the
privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been
formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them
from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,
indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing
less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month
later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand
signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the
oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis
took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for
instructions."
{2388}
Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a
French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting
the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent
to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the
little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their
southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous
village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]
had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance
to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the
inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded
by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind
the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their
fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under
the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other
parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in
exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a
speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a
large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side
of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie
Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of
fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of
the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the
question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any
results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia
and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent
against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000
troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the
command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were
added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the
command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto
on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for
long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.
"After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.
Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the
French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was
changed to Cumberland."

_R. Johnson.
History of the French War,
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5)._

_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3)._

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
Frustrated naval expedition of the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

"The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova
Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious
termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the
fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the
army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort
du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara
and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident
that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at
least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the
savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the
English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon
the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and
his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled
to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted
towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so
peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who
had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally
determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this
whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not
unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be
naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of
this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the
New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],
from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well
qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as
he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and
temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier
were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;
which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …
They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the
moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to
labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was
secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

_T. C. Haliburton,
Account of Nova Scotia,
volume 1, pages 170-175._

"Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
and their families were divided into groups answering to their
several villages, in order that those of the same village
might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
provided that the members of each family should remain
together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
… When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
were disappointed in its results.
{2389}
They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
in vain."

_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 8._

"The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one
of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will
attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius
of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a
somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the
victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people
they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as
we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the
picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described
by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among
themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were
wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at
peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger
to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified
allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.
But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in
which it was executed."

_C. C. Smith,
The Wars on the Seaboard
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 7)._

"We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which
an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an
extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of
the New England troops."

_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
page 216._

ALSO IN:
_W. B. Reed,
The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
volume 6, pages 283-316)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
Cape Breton added to the government.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.

See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
The Halifax Fishery Award.
Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
Renewed Fishery disputes.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------

NOVANTÆ, The.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

NOVARA,
Battle of (1513).

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

NOVARA,
Battle of (1821).

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NOVARA,
Battle of (1849).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

NOVEMBER FIFTH.

See Guy FAWKES' DAY.

----------NOVGOROD: Start--------

NOVGOROD: Origin.

See RUSSIA.
RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.

NOVGOROD: 11th Century.
Rise of the Commonwealth.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.
In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

----------NOVGOROD: End--------

NOVI, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

NOVIOMAGUS.
Modern Nimeguen.

See BATAVIANS.

NOYADES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

NOYON, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

NUBIANS, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NUITHONES, The.

See AVIONES.

----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------

NULLIFICATION:
First assertion of the doctrine
in the United States of America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

NULLIFICATION:
Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

----------NULLIFICATION: End--------

NUMANTIAN WAR, The.

"In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field
[resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of
Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the
Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the
dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the
Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a
precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied
only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power
of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the
consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a
sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted
conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate
would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius
Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for
faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his
hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the
Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept
him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;
Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew
circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn
rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the
fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly
facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned
into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to
leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men
marched out."

_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 18._

ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapters 6-7._

See, also, LUSITANIA;
and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

{2390}

NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.

----------NUMIDIA: Start--------

NUMIDIA: The Country and People.

See NUMIDIANS.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.
Alliance with Carthage.
Subjection to Rome.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
The Jugurthine War.