Source:Fleming-french-noble/content
DUQUESNE is our commonest commemorated name arising from French dominion here. We have the well-known way, the heights, the borough, the theater, the Greys, the Garden and numerous lodges, some of these sectarian in their nature, and commemorating a person entirely antithetic in the matter of creed and doctrines, but that phase seems to have not been considered and gives rise to the presumption that the name, Duquesne, in many instances has been given from fancy.
It is odd and pleasing and then it is French. It's [sic] pronunciation is entirely different from its literal appearance. We can all remember when we called it "Du-ques-ney." If not, we can remember correcting someone who so pronounced it.
For Duquesne way, which is not a "way" in the recent sense of an "alley," but a combination of street and wharf, there is good reason in the designation. This way led up the river from the French fort named Duquesne which stood about the southern approaches to the new bridge at the Point.
Likewise there is reason in calling the high part of Mt. Washington Duquesne Heights, for they looked down upon the fort.
Old Duquesne Borough.
We once had on the Allegheny county map Duquesne borough, including the territory on the north side of the Allegheny River from the eastern line of the original city of Allegheny to the run at Willow Grove at the head of Herrs Island.
The borough included the island also. This territory was annexed to the city of Allegheny by act of Assembly, March 18, 1868. It was a narrow strip and became the Eighth Ward of Allegheny.
The name Duquesne here was doubtless a fancy, but being within sight of the French fort, there was no impropriety in the name.
The newer and better known Duquesne, with its immense works, became a borough in 1893. The name here is altogether a matter of fancy; the keeping alive a historic name of the region in a better way than in Pittsburgh's Allegheny River front and assuring the widespread fame, which has been accomplished.
From the time the Pennsylvania Railroad entered Pittsburgh it has maintained a freight depot at "the Point," as we commonly say. More correctly at the foot of Liberty street, or from Third street, formerly Marbury, to the Monongahela wharf, or Water street.
Note it is Water street, not "Water way," and it is like Duquesne, a combination of street and wharf. Perhaps we may be corrected by someone claiming that the street ends at the wharf line, and conversely the wharf ends at the street line.
We said the "Monongahela wharf" once, now it is the "wharf." No one thinks of the Allegheny as a wharf.
Mills Move Away.
The railroad maintained the freight depot at the Point obviously for two reasons; First, the convenience of reshipping via river in the days of that vast system of transportation; second, for convenience of location in the downtown district.
The factories, mills, foundries and many warehouses of the old Pittsburgh have passed away, but the Duquesne Station has remained and grown larger. It is now and since 1904 reached on the elevated tracks erected on the Allegheny wharf in Duquesne way.
This leaves to the remembrance of the long trains of freight that were once pushed down Liberty street and pulled back, and in these days of congested traffic the wonder arises how we could get along now under the old conditions.
The name Duquesne applied to the Point freight station stuck. Its fame was widespread in railroad circles. It is a good name. It covers part of the site of Fort Pitt, and the former Fort Duquesne had been close by. It stood between the Blockhouse and the rivers right in the angle at the Point.
But who was Duquesne thus commemorated? Even those who do not know can fairly presume the name commemorates a man. It would take a really stupid individual to believe the name was other than French. It is French in looks, pronunciation and fact. It is also an old name, dating back centuries.
We find it written also Du Quesne, which seems distinctively French. We do not now use this form as similarly. We have run the La with Fayette and find Lafayette the more common form. We have also Duluth instead of Du Lhut [sic].
Famed Naval Officer.
In our common commemoration we keep alive the name and fame of the Marquis Du Quesne de Menneville, a French naval officer, a grandnephew of a famous French mariner, Abraham Du Quesne.
De Menneville, our marquis (note, we claim him), when but a boy entered the marine service of France. In 1752 he became a captain. The same year he was appointed governor general of New France in America. "La Nouvelle France," they called it.
It was a vast area. Its governor general had plenty to keep him busy. Read the history of the years of Pittsburgh under French dominion and reflect, and De Menneville had but part of those years in his official term.
As an executive De Menneville was characterized with marked ability. He introduced great reforms into the colony, despite its vastness and age, from the days of Champlain still a colony.
First De Menneville placed the colonial troops on a par with the European, and by constant drill and study made them equal in efficiency, morale and all that tends to make good soldiery. He ordered and saw that the historic chain of French forts was erected in the wilderness frontier, that were designed to connect Canada and Louisiana.
At the Forks of the Ohio.
During the term of De Menneville as governor general great events took place about the forks of the Ohio, since justly styled the "debatable land." George Washington had his first independent command in one of these years, 1754, and the affair with Jumonville took place.
Washington had visited the French forts in Northwestern Pennsylvania in 1753, a dangerous and futile mission, full of hardships. Fort Necessity arose and vanished. Washington for once was defeated. He surrendered.
Robert Stobo and Jacob Van Braam, two captains given by Washington as hostages for the safe treatment of La Force and the French officers captured at the skirmish with Jumonville, come into our history, Coulon De Villiers likewise. Then Braddock came and we have Beaujeu Dumas and Lignery.
It is with some surprise that we read in a standard history, written by the historians, John Fiske and James Grant Wilson, this paragraph pertaining to Du Quesne de Menneville:
It was during his administration that the assassination of Jumonville took place, and also the brilliant victory over the English AT
This is mixing things up to a certainty. The assassination claim of the French has long since been disposed of in history. It arose from the wrong translation of a French word by Van Braam, a poor French scholar.
Hence, Washington was blamed with assassinating Jumonville, a young French officer in command of a scouting party of French from Fort Duquesne, who was, in fact, killed in a skirmish.
Mistake Is Evident.
This incorporating of the French version is bad enough by United States historians and famous at that, but one will look in vain on many maps for the place of that brilliant victory over the English.
Let us impute the error to bad proofreading. The author surely meant at Fort Necessity and knew that Canlon [sic] de Villiers was the commander of the French forces that compelled G. W. to hand over his sword, and that De Villiers was the half-brother of the slain Jumonville.
Both historians are dead. No errata slip seems to have been issued in that history.
De Menneville solicited his return to France, and left this continent in 1755, but not until Braddock had been defeated.
In the voluminous history known as "Les Relations des Jesuites" or the "Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents," there is but slight mention of De Menneville. We find his name in the list of governors and intendants of New France in Vol. LXII, "Miscellaneous Data." This record shows that De Menneville served as governor from July, 1752, to July 9, 1755—and that was the day of Braddock's defeat.
The list shows that De Menneville's immediate successor was Charles Lemoyne, Baron de Longueuil, who acted as governor from February until July, 1572 [sic], awaiting the arrival of De Menneville.
Lemoyne, referred to in history as De Longueuil, died in office in July, 1752, perhaps but a few days before De Menneville's arrival. He was an old man, who had previously served a year as governor, 1725–1726.
Same Old Governor.
Preceding de Longueuil there came as the successor of the Count de la Gallissoniere, another noted Frenchman; Jacques Pierre de Taffanel, Marquis de la Jonquiere, who is usually, as the others, called in history by his title of nobility.
Jonquiere served from September 24, 1749, to February, 1752. De Gallissoniere's term extended from September 19, 1747, to September 24, 1749.
Exact dates are not always found. The editors of the "Relations," Dr. Reuben Gold Thwaites and his collaborators state that they have given the terms of the actual service of these governors as existing data permit.
Accordingly, the dates are those of the officials' arrival and departure from the colony. Sometimes they indicated the formal assumption of office or the time when sickness or other emergencies compelled giving place to a successor. We are, therefore, somewhat in doubt as to which dates to apply in De Menneville's case.
The successor of De Menneville is a great character in the French regime in North America in the eighteenth century, none other than De Vaudreuil, to give his full name and title—Pierre Rigand, Marquis de Vaudreuil de Cavagnal, who acted from July 10, 1755, to September 7, 1760, a potent factor in those stirring years.
And his term concerned Pittsburgh, for during it, the French dominion on the Ohio ceased and English sway began. A new flag, the royal standard of St. George, supplanted the fleur de lis and floated from Fort Pitt until the Revolution gave us our stars and stripes.
Three Nations Rule Here.
Pittsburgh, then, has known the sovereignty of three nations. Few American cities have this history and distinction. Detroit is one, Niagara Falls another.
It is true that St. Louis and New Orleans can come into such a class, but Spain in their cases took the place of Great Britain in this trio of nations.
All of the names above of French governors really concern us. They are formidably French in form and substance, but not more so than Duquesne, De Villiers, Jumonville, etc., which we have familiarized.
It is to be noted that in the list of French governors general all have been mentioned under both family name and title noblesse, except De Menneville. He figures simply as the Marquis Duquesne de Menneville. One other mention of him in the "Relations" is in connection with an erring priest—nothing to give us his family name or any history, and we do not get the date of his birth.
Readers of the delightful histories of Francis Parkman relative to the French in America, will readily recognize all of the French governors enumerated above by their titles of nobility.
We have found no record that De Menneville ever visited the Forks of the Ohio and saw the formidable fort named in his honor and to perpetuate his name, more so than any acts of his. Nevertheless, there was a civilization about the fort and a settlement, many cabins, a church and a parish, a priest, regular services and regular records, kept in the thorough French way. These records have been verified and published by a Pittsburgh historian, prelate and scholar, the Rev. A. A. Lambing.
The French not only had the above adjuncts of civilization, they had also the indispensable one of a graveyard.
The priest was Friar Denys Baron.
Two Forts Distinct.
Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt as terms are used interchangeably by some historians—however, never by real historians. Even the block house erected by Col. Henry Bouquet has been made to serve as both forts as occasion or whim demanded.
To get at the facts in proper order, let us always remember that Fort Duquesne was built by the French forces under Contracoeur, who surprised and captured Ensign Edward Ward, second in command of a small Virginia detachment under Capt. William Trent April 17, 1754. The French fort that arose in place of the little work begun by the Virginians was named in honor of De Menneville, then governor general at Quebec.
It was burned November 24, 1758, when the army under Gen. John Forbes was within a day's march of the forks of the Ohio, or while at Turtle Creek on the just completed Forbes road. The smoke of the fort apparent, the army hastened its footsteps to find the fort a ruin.
Then arose the first Fort Pitt in December, 1758, the command of which was given to that gallant Virginian, Col. Hugh Mercer. This fort was about 400 yards from Fort Duquesne, we are told, meaning the site of that fortification.
The next year there was built by the orders of Gen. John Stanwix who came here, the second, or permanent Fort Pitt, which lasted until 1791. It was a really formidable work. Henry Bouquet, who was at the taking of Fort Duquesne, or what remained of it, November 25, 1758, was here again with his succoring force fresh from his great victory over Guyasutha at Bushy Run, August 5, 1763.
Block House Built.
The next year before his departure on the expedition to the Muskingum country, he had erected outside the main walls of Fort Pitt the pentagon shaped little blockhouse that has remained to us. It was intended as an outpost for riflemen to prevent surprise by any enemies entering within the outer fortifications by reason of low water in the rivers and the draining of the ditches.
Fort Pitt was five-sided, necessitating the block house likewise.
In the wall of the blockhouse Bouquet placed a stone tablet that is now seen there, reading:
"A. D. 1764, Coll. Bouquet."
The abbreviation is with two ls, an old time form, and after the A and D are stars. After the date and the abbreviation, "Coll." is a sign that resembles the letter S on its side.
This tablet fully establishes the date of erection and the builder and we can come to the querry [sic]:
"How can a small brick blockhouse, 16 feet square, figure as a formidable earthwork that was blown up six years previous to the erection of the blockhouse?"
Similarly:
"How can Fort Pitt, the second fortress, be confounded with the French Fort Duquesne which passed out of existence at least eight months previously?"
In fact these forts had nothing in common save that they were built for a similar purpose—to further and perpetuate the sovereignty of the nation whose flags they flied [sic]. We may add to this close proximity of sites.
Picture of Old Fort.
Prof. Archer Butler Hulbert, in his work, "The Ohio River, a Course of Empire," has given us a picture alleged to be one of Fort Duquesne. He uses the subscript:
Fort Duquesne, afterwards Fort Pitt and Pittsburg. (No h). From an old print.
The imprint of the artist in the left hand corner reads or seems to be "W. H. Boots." The picture shows a section of the wall or rampart with buildings on the top—the flag flying from a staff. A small forest appears in the right-hand corner and there is water in the foreground, with vegetation springing from it which we are justified in thinking is cat-tails (typha latifolia).
A few tepees and what we may believe are bark cabins are in the middle foreground. A shed is at the left corner, more cabins to the left of the walls seemingly upon the Allegheny's bank, and across the river a forest.
Mr. Boots has written himself down somewhat of a guesser. Capt. Stobo, while confined in Fort Duquesne as a hostage in 1754, had ample liberty and was treated kindly. He was not a prisoner, but a hostage, and on his honor to follow certain rules as to imparting knowledge of the enemy and the fort thus brought to him.
Sketch of Fort Made.
He has been accused of dishonorable conduct in that he made an accurate sketch of the fort, which he sent Gov. Morris of Pennsylvania. He also wrote letters detailing the strength of the garrison and urging an attack upon the fort, assuring success if prompt measures were taken. The attempt was made by Braddock a year later.
These letters and map found with Braddock's captured baggage got Stobo into trouble, a trial and conviction as a spy and the sentence of death that was not carried into execution but years of imprisonment instead.
However, Stobo was accurate. His sketch shows the fort six pointed, corn fields to the East and a quarter of a mile around. The walls came closer to the Ohio, or Allegheny River, than to the Monongahela. The profile of the wall shows it was 10 feet high and 10½ feet thick at the base, and four feet thick at the parapet.
Boots' picture proportionately to the surroundings makes the fort look like a section of a modern battleship.
Then we have also two other accounts. John McKinney was a prisoner there in February, 1756. He gives an extended description, which Neville B. Craig has given us in his History of Pittsburgh.
McKinney says:
There are no pickets or palisadoes on the top of the Fort to defend it against scaling; the eaves of the houses in the Fort are about even with the top of the logs, or wall of the Fort; the houses are all colored with boards, as well as the roof, as the side that looks inside the Fort, which they saw there by hand; there are no bogs or morasses near the Fort, but good dry ground, which is cleared for some distance from the Fort, the stumps cut close to the ground; a little without musket shot of the Fort, in the fork, is a thick wood of some bigness, full of large timber.
John Ormsly [sic], who was present with Forbes November 25, 1758, describes the ruined work and says the French burned all their improvements.
Thomas Forbes, an English soldier of fortune in the service of the French, was at Fort Duquesne in January, 1755, and he has also given a description of it, which appears in The Gazette Times article of Sunday, February 7, 1915.
