Modernization Theory is Hokum.

[jmm99]

Quebec Seminary administrator - oui !

The full context (what your omitted fore and aft of your quote) is provided us in the Jesuit Relations, Vol. XII Qubec 1637 (Thwaites trans. Creighton):

[191] CHAPTER XIII.

OF THE ORDER OBSERVED IN THE SEMINARY, AND SOME PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE SEMINARISTS.

HERE is nothing so difficult as to control the tribes of America. All these Barbarians have the law of wild asses,they are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint; they do not know what is meant by bridle or bit. With them, to conquer one's passions is considered a great joke, while to give free rein to the senses is a lofty Philosophy. The Law of our Lord is far removed from this dissoluteness; it gives us boundaries and prescribes limits, outside of which we cannot step without offending God and reason. Now it is very hard to place this yoke, although it is very mild and easy, upon the necks of people who make a profession of not submitting to anything, either in heaven or upon earth; I say it is very hard, but not impossible. In fact, I am convinced that it is beyond the power and skill of men, but that it is very easy to God. [192] We are astonished to see how wild young men, accustomed to follow their own caprices, place themselves under subjection, with so much meekness, that there seems to be nothing so pliant as a Huron Seminarist.

In 1637-1638, the primary civil administrators (besides the governor and his limited staff) were Nicolas Marsolet, King's Agent at Tadoussac (DCB bio - English); and Olivier le Tardif, Head Clerk for the Cent-Associes at Quebec (DCB bio - English). Their "trick" in administering the Indians was not to administer them. W.W. Rostow "modernization" - or de Lautey-Galliani "colonialization" - would have been quite foreign to them. And, yes, both Marsolet and le Tardif were among my ancestors.

A more impartial view of the French civil regime's generally "hands off" policy is found in Desmond H. Brown, "They Do Not Submit Themselves To The Kings Law: Amerindians and Criminal Justice During the French Regime" (Manitoba Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 3; there used to be a free pdf online), which sums up the situation:

The early progression from participation in the North Atlantic fishery to monopoly in the fur trade and its subsequent rapid and lucrative expansion, caused French dominion in North America to evolve into an empire of trade. But it was an empire that needed few French subjects to function. The bulk of the work was done by the Aboriginal peoples. It was they who gathered the pelts and transported them to the French entrepots, and who also became valued military allies.

This was fortunate for successive trading companies who founded and administered the first settlements, as well as for later royal governments, because the attention of French monarchs was focused on Europe and the endemic Continental warfare of the time. The French were always thin on the ground. They never had the military muscle to overawe the Amerindians and force them to submit to French sovereignty nor, in particular, to French criminal justice. Nor were they able to convince them to comply with it by argument or example.

As a result, there was no change in the legal status of Amerindians during the French regime. They continued to be governed by their own law in all intra-tribal offences and, with the rare exceptions that proved the rule, in crimes that involved Amerindians and French subjects, with restitution as the means for settlement.

The favored method for resolving collisions between French and Indian justice was reparations, particulary after a 1684 case (p.28):

It is thus evident that accepting or making restitution for offences committed by or against Amerindians in French settlements along the St. Lawrence was becoming customary in the mid-seventeenth century. This practice also came to be followed at French military posts in the pays den haut later in the regime. It became the rule after two Natives, a Chippewa and a Menomimee, were executed at Michilimackinic in 1684 for killing two Frenchmen.

The incident is analyzed in detail by R. White who follows the lengthy and tortuous negotiations between the French and the tribal councils. He makes clear the failure of the French to comprehend the imperatives of Amerindian justice and the purpose of restitution on the one hand and, on the other, the incredulity of the tribesmen when they were made to understand that French justice demanded a life for a life, even if the accused was an ally in an ongoing war. In short, the affair came close to sundering friendly relations between the French and the Natives of the area, even after the French made liberal restitution to the tribes when the consequences of their action became clear.

After this, and surrounded by the Native presence, post commanders who dispensed justice to their fellow subjects were not eager to observe the letter of French law in their dealings with the Natives. As White then goes on to demonstrate, French authority in the area subsequently worked to find some middle ground to settle incidents of this kind. Nevertheless, whatever compromises were negotiated invariably conformed to the Amerindian pattern of conflict resolution: restitution rather than retribution.

This seems to have usually worked, with the Colonial Troops acting more as policemen (less as soldiers) and where negotiation had to be their strength. From the Michigan Historical Collection (link):

Letter from Vaudreuil
(October 12, 1717)
Vaudreuil, "On the Savages of Detroit" in: Michigan Historical Collections, XXXIII, pp. 590-593.

pp. 592, 593.

(page 592) .....

The trouble which prevented the principal chiefs of the Detroit tribes from coming, to Montreal, was created by an Outaouac of that post and four others from Saguinan. These five men pretended they were going to war against the Flatheads; they proceeded to the river of the Miamis and there slew an Iroquois and his wife, who was a Miami woman, and two children.

This wrongful attack concerns the Iroquois because the (page 593) man who was killed was of their tribe. It also concerns the Miamis, for the man was married and living with them. This matter must be settled, and the Iroquois and Miamis must be prevented from taking vengeance on the Outavois and the other tribes of Detroit.

The Sr. de Tonty has already begun, for his part, to take action with the Miamis through the Sr. de Vincennes to dissuade them from their intention of avenging themselves and to remove every pretext for their pursuing this course which would give rise to a war between them and the people at Detroit and Saguinan, which it would be difficult to stop. He has induced the tribes of Detroit to join him in sending to Saguinan to seize these murderers and deliver them up to the Miamis.

The Outaouacs and Poutouatamis each sent a boat of their men, to which the Sr. de Tonty added a boat of Frenchmen under the command of the Sr. de Bragelongue, a Lieutenant, who brought back the three murderers to Detroit where the Sr. de Tonty had them under guard until he received news from the Miamis, to whom he had taken care, to make known the amends, which it was proposed to make to them.

He hopes that they will be satisfied with this action and will accept as a complete reparation the presents which the tribes of Detroit, and the French also, are preparing to make them, and that this disturbance may be suppressed by this means. I hope so, too; but I shall not be able to get any news about it until next spring.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the rest of the story. If the reparations offer were accepted, the three Indians would have been freed and a blood feud between four Indian groups would have been avoided. Etienne de Bragelongue was later promoted to capitaine and commanded his own company at Fort Chambly (near Montreal), where he was aide-major.

Adding another arrow favorable to the French civil regime's "hands-off" position: MacLeod, The Exercise of Power by the Amerindians of the Great Lakes during the War of the Austrian Succession, 1744-1748 (1992, 210 pp.).

Regards

Mike