“BRITISH IN THOUGHT AND DEED” HENRY BOUQUET AND THE MAKING OF BRITAIN’S AMERICAN EMPIRE Erik L. Towne A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2008 Committee: Peter Way, Advisor Frank McKenna Graduate Faculty Representative Amilcar Challu Andrew M. Schocket ii ABSTRACT Peter J. Way, Advisor This work examines how Colonel Henry Bouquet used the British fiscal-military state as a blueprint for military operations in colonial North America during the Seven Years’ War (1756-63). Bouquet’s military operations marked the peripheral projection of the British fiscal-military state onto American colonists and Native Americans on the imperial periphery. Inside the colonies, military mobilization involved marshalling provincial troops, quartering soldiers, requisitioning provisions, livestock, and farm equipment, and making military infrastructure, all of which led to varying degrees of friction between the army and colonial society. Bouquet sought to impose military power on Native society by controlling diplomacy, regulating trade and gift giving, and reclaiming White captives, with mixed results. Problematically, both colonists and Indians balked at these policies, marking the failure in the colonial world of what had proven to be efficient bureaucratic institutions inside Britain. This work broadens Military Revolution and state formation theories by examining how these process unwound in an imperial setting. This work identifies variables in British America that did not obtain in the formation of European states. By bridging British imperial, colonial, and Indian historiographies, this work reports that militarization caused tensions between the British state and colonial and native peoples. Historians have not examined the Royal American Army as the catalyst for these tensions, overlooking important variables in empire making. Using path dependence and constitutional theories, this work reports that colonial society developed in ways that made it unable to cope with the fiscal, social, or tactical demands of modern warfare. Ethno-historians have pushed their field to “look east” from Indian Country, overlooking European and military historiographies. By merging Native and British historiographies, this work reports that Bouquet sought to militarize Indian Country in a way that undermined its culture and livelihood, generating a form of violent resistance that European state makers seldom encountered inside their own societies. In both colonial and Indian societies, cooperation with Bouquet led to subjugation. Colonials resisted subjugation through constitutional channels, and political and passive resistance; Native Americans resisted through the Cherokee War and Pontiac’s War. Path dependence and violent resistance emerge as the two most important variables that account for Bouquet’s inability to integrate North America into the British fiscal-military state during the Seven Years’ War. iii This work is dedicated to Lorenzo Maria T. De La Rosa Jr., The Carthusian Community, And all those who “seek and strive after peace.” iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A former student recently pointed out that the most remarkable point about my existence in the world is that “you have spent the past thirty years trying to avoid other people.” True. Even so, one cannot research, write, and edit a dissertation without the assistance of many people and institutions, which is certainly true in the case of this dissertation. To countless people, I owe a great deal of gratitude. Over the past couple years, the faculty and staffs of the Old Northwest’s historical institutions have provided me with financial and intellectual assistance in this project. I should like to thank the History Department at Bowling Green State University. On behalf of the History Department, Walter E. Grunden awarded me a one-year non-service fellowship. This fellowship facilitated the timely completion of this dissertation in time for several major revisions. Additionally, the History Department has generously funded several conference and research trips that improved the quality of this work. Tina Amos, among many others in the History Department, has shown me great kindness and patience. The William L. Clements Library allowed me the use of their facilities and archival materials. Brian Leigh Dunnigan showed a lively interest in my project and made many insightful suggestions. Likewise, Barbara DeWolfe lent much assistance to my research, and directed me to the Sterling Journal. This journal aided my understanding of trading networks and Indian relations in the Ohio Territory. On a dreary December afternoon, the curators of the Pennsylvania Historical Society directed me to several reels of microfilm that complemented the Papers of Henry Bouquet. I am grateful to Susan Miller of Washington University, Saint Louis, who went to great lengths to retrieve the Colonial Records of Pennsylvania for my last minute use. Finally, over the past many years, the archivists and librarians at the Bailey Howe Library, University of Vermont, have allowed me to use their resources and lent much assistance. In a secluded corner of this library, I worked out my ideas on the colonial constitutions and path dependence. Several North American monasteries have given me silence and solitude over the past year. I am grateful to the Abbot and community of Saint Anselm’s Abbey, in Manchester, New Hampshire. They allowed me to use the Geisel Library at Anselm’s College and a place to complete an early manuscript. Thomas Frerking, OSB generously quartered me at Saint Louis Abbey on several occasions over the past year, where I completed my notes and later edited several chapters. The members of Saint Louis Abbey have taken a lively interest in this project, including J. Linus Dolce, OSB who has been a constant source of friendship, encouragement, and humor. In the final days of completing the dissertation, Maximilian Toczylowski, OSB unintentionally awakened my interest in the British Marxist tradition, which has always inspired my intellectual work. Additionally, I am indebted to several Cistercian and Carthusian monks, whose lives witness to an ability to resist modernity, warfare, and violence. Accordingly, this work is dedicated to the Carthusian monks in Vermont, who requested a copy for their library. I wish to acknowledge two former students and two former professors. Brian Gernert read early portions of Chapter II and ensured that I had not violated the dictates of v common sense. More recently, Mr. Gernert has listened patiently as I worked out the relationship between warfare, modernity, and society. Richard A. Murray has used me as a sounding board for several social theories that often dovetailed with my research. Mr. Murray has provided me with many Subway tuna sandwiches, which he distributed to me at little charge and so prevented my starvation. I value the intellectual commitments of both these men, who have ultimately reminded me that I am a teacher. Back when I was an undergraduate, Linda Pitelka listened to me ask questions similar to those that Gernert and Murray now ask of me—often questions that only years of study can answer. Professor Pitelka encouraged me to go to graduate school and has remained a good friend. Donald Poochigian and I share a common interest in political philosophy and social ethics, and he has encouraged me to understand the relationships between war and society. Together, we stood in a North Dakota blizzard protesting the illegal US invasion of Iraq, and thereafter our relationship has remained equally bizarre. My students call me to become as good a teacher as Linda and Donald have been to me. I am grateful to my parents, who have always supported my academic endeavors. I own much gratitude to my advisory committee. Andrew Schocket has been a part of my intellectual development since I took his seminar on Early American History, back in my first semester at Bowling Green. Over the past four years, Professor Schocket has taken an interest in my teaching and research, directed me to new historiographies, and made many valuable suggestions. Amilcar Challu graciously agreed to serve on my committee and took an immediate interest in my project. He helped me to understand the state formation literature and conceive it as part of broader imperial processes. Finally, I own much gratitude to my advisor, Peter Way. Professor Way helped me to envision Henry Bouquet as an embodiment of British imperialism in North America. Quite unknowingly, Professor Way directed me to material that ultimately helped resolve questions that have motivated my intellectual inquiries for a decade now. Military history proved to be the missing variable in my own intellectual development that has allowed me to understand better how the world works—or does not work. Professor Way listened to my ideas, tried to improve them, and directed me in creative directions. He read several early manuscripts, a couple more, and ultimately helped me craft this dissertation into a work that will someday be complete. I am grateful to the members of my advisory committee for their dedication to this project, their patience, and insights. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. HENRY BOUQUET: BRITISH IN THOUGHT AND DEED.……….. 1 The State, Colonies, and Indians in Historical Thought ……………………… 1 Henry Bouquet: Enlightened, Calvinist, and Military Entrepreneur…………. 4 War and the Rise of the