|
La vie de Philip Long Timeline of Philip Long’s life. |
![](3D"Timeline21742-1783_files/image001.gif")
![](3D"Timeline21742-1783_files/image002.gif")
|
Earliest possible year of birth of Philip Long.<=
span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Evidence for this year is tak=
en from Death Certificate where Philip Long is said to have been “nin=
ety years old” at his death on December 25, 1832. There is also the 1830 Census of the Madawaska S=
ettlement where Philip is listed as between 80-90 years old—only one =
year before he died in 1832 at the documented age of “ninety years ol=
d” - this is a much better fit than with Mgr. Lang’s deduction =
that Philip was possibly 75 when he died. |
Documentary evidence is difficult to challenge e=
ven in the face of one obvious conclusion: based on this information, Phili=
p would have been fifty (50) years of age when he married Marie-Julie Couil=
lard Després in 1992. =
Michel, the last living child to come from this union, was born in 1820 whi=
ch means that Philip would have been 70 years old! Another piece of evidence is the survey done in 1830 =
of the Madawaska Settlement whereby Philip is said to have been between the=
ages of 80-90 years old. Oth=
er pieces of information, not documentary, may cast some doubts on this adv=
anced age: (a) older people then tended to exaggerate their advanced age &#=
8211; a sign of pride, and (b) a mistake was made on Marie-Julie’s de=
ath certificate that is incontrovertible.&=
nbsp; If one mistake, why not others? However, documentary evidence is strong that we should cons=
ider our ancestor to have been born in 1742 instead of 1757 as was put forw=
ard by Mgr. Lang. |
|
|
|
Mgr. Ernest Lang shared what he knew of oral his=
tory in his book about Philip Long. =
In that book, Philip was believed, throughout oral history from gene=
rations to generations according to Mgr. Lang, to be eighteen when he did an act of bravery by being =
220;reputed to have escaped to the British with an American Mail” (so=
urce: Deane and Kavannagh, 1832). Even Mgr. Lang is hesitant about Philip LongR=
17;s origins since he says that some believed him to be Scottish, others fr=
om Philadelphia. He claims th=
at the only certain thing about Philip Long was that he was Protestant (an =
obvious conclusion based on his Scottish ancestry and later validated by th=
e marriage in 1792 in the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Quebec City). But Protestant is not Presbyterian whi=
ch would almost certainly have confirmed Long’s Scottish ancestry. In fact, Mgr. Lang infirms this rather than dedu=
ces this conclusion so we left wondering where his Scottish ancestry came f=
rom. Mgr. Lang’s descri=
ption of the famous act of bravery is done with a great affection and flair=
, and even today, you cannot resist his energy and enthusiasm for the subje=
ct. Mgr. Lang simply affirms, based on oral history from generation to gene=
ration, three very important pieces of information: First, that Philip Long was eigtheen years old w=
hen the act of bravery was committed. =
; There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict this information and=
so we must accept oral history in this particular at face value. Second, that the act of bravery took place in 17=
75. This date is much more pr=
oblematic since it is deduced rather than originating from oral history per=
se. Third, that Philip was assuredly already a membe=
r of the armed forces in 1775 when the conflict began. Unfortunately, there=
is no further evidence or information by Mgr. Lang in his writings that wo=
uld support these affirmations, and none that this author and others have f=
ound to invalidate or confirm this oral history. As Gilles Long as said, we should tread carefully when =
we wish to challenge oral history. <=
/span> However, this oral history may be suspect for a =
number of reasons which are reviewed elsewhere. Of particular concern is that Mgr. Lang deduces Philip&#=
8217;s birth year by connecting the date of the beginning of the conflict w=
ith his being eigtheen and substactring it to arrive at 1757. The circularity here is a challenge and is=
one that only further evidence will enlighten. In our view, it is much more likely that the year 1775 b=
ecame an accepted year for the act of bravery not based on strong oral hist=
ory but rather based on the fact that a 1816 letter signed by Philip Long a=
nd known to researchers since the early 1930’s, includes the followin=
g quote: “It his well known by a great many Respectable people how mu=
ch I have Done and Suffered Since the year 1775 for my King and Country whi=
ch reduced me to the Situation I am in at present which is to Long to Detai=
l in any Letter, but I hope your Excellency will think only of me as a men =
of 26 or 30 years acquaintance, of my Conduct will report of me, as to Mail=
remaining in my house is false which I can prove it never Remained one Day=
if that it is my Orders and my Duty to take profsesion of and cary it forw=
ard Either up or Down which I Surely have Done.” Here are the words used by Mgr. Lang: “Touj=
ours selon la tradition orale, Philip avait dix huit ans lors de son fameux=
exploit de jeunesse. Or conf=
ormément à une allusion, à ce fait memorable de sa vie=
, allusion faite par lui-même dans une de ses letters, cet exploit au=
rait eu lieu en l’année 1775.=
D’après ce renseignement, il serait né en=
l’année 1757”. <=
/span>Philip did not in fact make the link between 1775 and his exploitR=
12;the year 1775 instead refers to his having been loyal to the King from t=
hat momentous period onward—a proof of his loyalism but not of the da=
te of his exploit. Today, we =
don’t believe there is any oral history that supports the year 1775 a=
s the year of his exploit. Th=
is letter represents no proof that the act of bravery was committed in 1775=
or that Philip was already in the armed forces in 1775. But it would provide an explanation for connect=
ing the two pieces of information. <=
/span>Given the embellishment of oral history that even Mgr. Lang suggested=
may have been present throughout the description of the story of the act o=
f bravery, this development cannot be ruled prima facie. Today, we cannot disprove the 1757 year of birth=
for Philip Long but faced with documentary evidence that he may have been =
born instead in 1742, we must take the latter as stronger than oral history=
. |
|
|
Treaty of Paris – conclusion of the Seven =
Years War between France and England. =
; This Treaty resulted in the permanent transfer of New France into =
British hands. |
If Phi=
lip was born in 1742, he would have been 18 when the Treaty was signed. An int=
eresting hypothesis is to imagine that oral history is correct about Philip=
having been 18 when he committed the act of bravery. If that were the case, he then would have had to c=
ommit this act at the end of the Seven Years War!? This however is likely not possible since Dean =
and Kavanagh expressly mention that he “escaped from the British to t=
he Americans” which requires both sides to oppose each other. The Seven Years War was one fought b=
etween the French and English as well as other powers, and there was no dis=
tinction between the British and the Americans. Again,=
the challenge is which line of investigation to choose from. Based on the documentary evidence, it is a=
lso now difficult to accept that Philip was 18 when he committed the act of=
bravery. We cannot deny that=
the act took place, and that it took place during the Revolutionary confli=
ct of 1775-1783—it must therefore be concluded that Philip was at lea=
st 33 years before he could have committed his act of bravery. |
|
|
The first battles of the Revolution take place a=
t Lexington and Concord. The =
seeds of the Revolution were sowed over a few years by various actions of b=
oth the British Parliament and American leaders. The siege of Boston would take place in 1776, an=
d it would ultimately be evacuated by the British forces. Washington would begin the creation of a Conti=
nental Army that would ultimately triumph eight years later—an amazin=
g and historical feat that would forever forge the soul of America. |
The quote above from the 1816 letter to Lord She=
rbrooke (Sir John Coape) clearly indicates that Philip saw himself as loyal=
to the Crown from the onset of the conflict with the American Colonies. Philip Long does mention the year 1775 but not t=
he context or events that made it momentous. He was writing to Sir Jo=
hn Coape, a man who had had a distinguished military career and was now Lor=
d Sherbrooke. We easily draw the conclusion that he is referring to t=
he events of 1775 in the context of the the start of the War, particularly =
as he is later to be represented as an American Loyalist. However, th=
e real first large scale conflict of this Revolutionary War actually took p=
lace also in 1775 but not on American soil. The campaign to take Cana=
da was one of the first and best organized events to further that objective=
. If it had succeeded, it would have totally reversed the fortunes of=
the war, and certainly changed forever the history of the people of Canada=
as we know it today. However, it did fail. Is it possible that=
in the context of writing to the Governor of Canada in 1811 that Philip Lo=
ng was actually referring to the effort, and his part in it, to thwart the =
campaign to Quebec City and Montreal? If this was the case, could it mean that our anc=
estor was actually a member of the (a) postal system in the Northern Provin=
ce rather than the the Southern Provinces, or (b) a member of the military =
in the Northern Province already or, (c) a resident of the Northern Provinc=
e who got embroiled in the conflict after participating in some fashion in =
the Northern campaign on the side of the British? Unfortunately, such conjectures are only helpful=
if they us build credible scenarios about his likely / possible origins.&n=
bsp; Research continues. |
|