Talk:Étienne Perier (governor)/Archive 3

This is a sandbox/working group page for the rewrite of the section of the article covering Étienne de Perier's time as governor.

(work in progress)

Governor of French Louisiana (1726–1733)
In August 1726, after then governor of French Louisiana Pierre Dugué de Boisbriant was recalled to France, Perier was appointed commandant general of the territory, overseeing military matters and relations with the Native Americans. He arrived in New Orleans in October 1726 and established his home at 613 Royal Street.

Despite Perier's lack of experience in colonial administration, the Company of the Indies felt they had a long-time employee who would be a pliant administrator focused on the Company’s goals. To ensure this, the Company granted him an annual salary of 10,000 French livres, 10 acre of riverfront land, and eight enslaved people a year so long as he remained in office. He sold the land, which is in the modern McDonoghville neighborhood, in 1737.

The Company directed Perier to increase the profitability of the colony, enforce discipline and loyalty, and keep the English from entering the territory. He was specifically tasked with completing improvements to secure the health and safety of New Orleans, as well as to visit the Company settlement in Natchez. Perier also sought to diffuse some of the partisan, religious, and familial cliques that had made running the colony difficult for his predecessors. In this he had some initial successes, particularly in managing the dispute between Jesuit and Capuchin missionaries.

Perier launched a large public works effort, overseeing the construction of the first levees on the Mississippi, cleared forests and brush from the land between the city and Lake Pontchartrain, and dug a canal from the Mississippi to connect the river to a rice mill on the king's plantation and Bayou St. John. He also welcomed the Ursuline nuns to the city; his wife, Catherine, laid the cornerstone for the nun's first convent in the city.

Slavery policies
Achieving these public works required the labor of enslaved Africans. The Company had a monopoly on the slave trade and oversaw the importation of more captured Africans to Louisiana when it controlled the colony than at any other point in the 18th century. With this steady supply of new captives, Perier tended to put enslaved people to work on public projects until they were auctioned off to local slavehoders. To increase the available workforce, Perier began conscripting enslaved people for 30 days at a time. In most cases, they were conscripted when the Company first brought them to Louisiana, before delivering them to their purchasers, which raised the ire of Louisiana slaveholders. Perier instituted an apprenticeship program where enslaved people were loaned to craftsmen for three years to train them as brickmakers, joiners, masons, carpenters, and other skilled trades necessary to the growth and development of the colony. He also put enslaved Africans to work on Company ships, navigating the coast and rivers.

At the time, both Africans and Native Americans were enslaved by French settlers. Perier was increasingly concerned about alliances among enslaved people, and he encouraged slaveholders to keep enslaved Africans apart from enslaved Native Americans for fear of the two groups forming alliances. He was particularly concerned that Native Americans who escaped from slavery would induce enslaved Africans to also escape and seek the protection of Native tribes. To foster mistrust between the two groups, Perier used armed enslaved Black troops to attack neighboring Native Americans, and he continued the policy of rewarding Native Americans for capturing escapees and disrupting maroon communities.

Native American relations
Perier's taking office marked the end of the indigenous policy established by the former governor Bienville. Despite having been encouraged to learn from what Bienville had written about relations with the Native Americans and recognizing the need to improve relations to forestall British advancement into the territory, Perier instead broke with Bienville's policy of diplomatic engagement with neighboring tribes.

Louisiana's colonial administrators at the time tried to balance the need to maintain good relations with Native Americans with demands from settlers for more and better land; however, Perier did not recognize Native American ownership of their traditional lands. This was in line with French desires to colonize New France, as opposed to earlier efforts to maintain the territory as a resource for trade.

While Perier did work to maintain positive relations with France's Choctaw and Quapaw allies, in other cases, he sought to dominate tribes unwilling to align with France's colonial ambitions. In Illinois, at the border between France's Canada and Louisiana territories, the Meskwaki (Fox) in 1728 again declared war on France. Pereir, his counterpart in Canada the Marquis de Beauharnois, and the local commanders pursued a policy of complete destruction against the Meskwaki, despite the ill will it generated with other Native American tribes in the region. This approach would be seen in Perier's response to the Natchez revolt.

Personal ambition on Natchez land
The territory of the Natchez, on bluffs above the Mississippi River, had been noted by the Company of the Indies for its agricultural potential as early as 1717, and Fort Rosalie and several tobacco plantations were established there after the First Natchez War in 1716. The Company specifically told Perier to attend to the development of the Natchez settlement, and Perier saw an opportunity to establish his own plantation in the area, too.

To oversee Fort Rosalie and the Natchez settlement, Perier appointed the Sieur de Chépart. Chépart was described as "rapacious, haughty, and tyrannical," abusing soldiers, settlers, and the Natchez alike, including throwing Dumont de Montigny who had overseen the fort under the previous commandant, into chains. With the help of some Illiniwek traders, Dumont escaped to New Orleans and reported on Chépart's actions; the commandant was called before the Superior Council, which found him guilty of "acts of injustice."

Perier, who according to some sources was already in a partnership with Chépart to establish a large plantation at Natchez, overruled the Superior Council, pardoned Chépart, and sent him back to the Natchez territory. Upon his return, Chépart was working to secure land for himself and Perier's plantation. In spring 1729, Chépart ordered the Natchez to abandon the village of White Apple, an important cultural and religious site for the Natchez, planting a missionary cross on the land to indicate he was acting on Perier's orders. To delay action against them, the Natchez asked Chépart to wait until after the fall harvest so they would be able to remove their ancestor's remains from White Apple. He granted their request, and the Natchez used the delay to plan the attack that marked the beginning of the Natchez revolt.

Natchez revolt and retaliation
On November 28, 1729, the Natchez Chief, the Great Sun, led his warriors into Fort Rosalie and captured the settlement, killing Chépart and between 229 and 285 colonists and enslaved people and taking about 450 captives, mostly French women and enslaved people. A about a month later, the Natchez's allies, the Yazoo, made a similar attack on Fort St. Pierre. Ahead of the attack, the Natchez also recruited several enslaved Africans, arguing that driving off the colonists would mean freedom for them too.

In response to the Natchez revolt, according to historian Lyle Saxon, Perier "made the grave mistake of trying to inspire the Indians with fear," seeking the complete destruction of the Natchez and their allies to ensure the safety of the colony. He began by authorizing an attack on the unaligned Chaouacha tribe south of New Orleans by enslaved Blacks in December 1729, rewarding the men by freeing them from slavery. He also proposed attacks against other tribes along the Mississippi, regardless of their involvement in the revolt, earning a rebuke from Controller-General of Finances Philibert Orry, who described the plan as "acting against all the rules of good government and against those of humanity."

In January 1730, French and allied Choctaw soldiers caught the Natchez by surprise and recovered 54 women and children and 100 enslaved people. Throughout 1730, Perier sought to make examples of captured Natchez men and women, including torturing them and burning them alive in public executions. Lacking enough troops to handle the revolt, and unwilling to rely too heavily on France's Choctaw allies, Perier sought reinforcements from France.

The Natchez continued to resist the French until January 1731 when Perier and colonial soldiers, along with two battalions of marines commanded by his brother, Antoine-Alexis, successfully captured the Natchez's Grand Village. The Great Sun and nearly 500 more Natchez men, women, and children were captured and shipped to Saint-Domingue where they were sold into slavery. However an undetermined number of other Natchez escaped to seek refuge with (and eventual assimilation) into other tribes, including the English-allied Chickasaw and Cherokee, further straining the French's already poor relationship with the Chickasaw.

Aftermath and recall
In his reports on the Natchez revolt and his response, Perier suggested a conspiracy among the tribes, perhaps with British encouragement, was responsible for the revolt, to divert attention from the role Chépart and his orders played in igniting the conflict. However, this story did not gain credence back in France, nor in Louisiana. Instead, Perier was criticized by the Company for letting his personal plans for a Natchez plantation distract him from his public responsibilities. This fits the analysis of historian Michael James Forêt, who finds that the roots of the Natchez revolt "lay in a larger pattern of Franco–Natchez conflict and the greed of Perier and the commandant of Fort Rosalie."

In there aftermath of the revot, Perier attempted to punish the Chickasaw for taking in Natchez refugees and continued his harsh approach toward even allied Native Americans, which raised the concern of other military and civil officails in the colony. At the same time though, he sought to reward some Native allies, such as the Quapaw, by expanding trading posts.

In June 1731, Perier faced an attempted slave uprising, the Samba rebellion, involving enslaved Bambara peoples inspired by the Natchez revolt. As he had done with Natchez prisoners, Perier ordered torture and public executions via breaking wheel for the men and women who planned the attempted uprising.

In the end, Perier was criticized for his support of Chépart and his policies towards Native Americans, which failed to provide security and stability for the colony. Ultimately, the result of the revolt was a further weakening of the Company, which was still suffering from the bursting of the Mississippi Bubble in 1720. Due to its ongoing financial losses in the territory in 1731 the Company abandoned its charter and returned Louisiana to the king. Despite questions about his management of the Natchez revolt, Perier remained in place as governor of the colony, although the king's advisors, particularly the Count of Maupaus, sought to replace Perier.

In 1733, Perier was recalled to France to answer for his handling of the Natchez revolt, and former Louisiana governor Bienville was appointed to replace him.

Discussion
Hi Carter, You made an serious work of research and this proposal is a very good start. Some remarks: asks the Natchez to leave their landi of White Apple to make a plantation for him and Perier) s cited by several authors as the reason that led to the revolt of Natches. Even the Company blamed Perier for that. Thanks. Regard, --Belyny (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree to delete the subsection "Collusion with commandant Chepart" or whatever we aggre to named it. This partnership and its  consequences (Chepart
 * For the content I would like to make some improvments.


 * Hi, The consensus was for something (final wording was not determined) closer to "Natchez revolt" than "Collusion with commandant Chepart." That's why I went with "Natchez revolt and retaliation." The details of Perier's support for Chépart and his desire to acquire the Natchez's land is all included in the text as is the fault the company and king found with him for it:

"The Company was working to increase tobacco farming in the colony, and Chépart and Perier eyed the Natchez territory along the Mississippi as a ripe opportunity for a new plantation. Chépart issued an order for the Natchez to begin planning for their complete removal from White Apple Village and other Natchez territory. These actions sparked the Natchez revolt."
 * —Carter (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Carter,
 * There was no consensus on that. For my part, I agree to dissociate Perier's partnership with Chepart from Natchez revolt that are two things connected but two totally different subjects. The Natchez revolt is not the subject of this article, the focus of this article is Governor Perier, his life and his actions.
 * To be constructive and find consensus I accepted several amendments on which I did not agree, thank you this time for the reciprocity on your part.
 * I am open to any proposal from your part on the title to be given to the Perier' colusion with Chepart to take the Natchez'land, but given its consequences, there is no reason to remove the subdivision concerning this important point in Perier’s action. This is not a "Native American policies" from the governor but a personal action on his part which was reproached him by the company and which had serious consequences.
 * I wish to make some amendments and additions to the content of the other paragraphs of your proposal, but let us first agree on the structure of the sub-divisions and their titles. Regards --Belyny (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Belyny, can you be clear as to what you're wanting here? If I'm understanding you correctly, you want a specific subdivision about Chépart that is at a secondary or tertiary level. Is that correct? I don't believe that makes sense and would run afoul of MOS:OVERSECTION.
 * I labeled the section "Native American policies" because it the core of Perier's policy towards Native Americans was that the Company's interests were greater than any indigenous claims on the land. He then took personal advantage of that, working with Chépart, to try and force the Natchez to remove from land they (Perier and Chépart) wanted and it exploded spectacularly against him. That is all there in the text. Is there some aspect of what you feel needs to be included in the text that is missing?
 * How would you divide the text, preserving WP:NPOV and WP:EPSTYLE, to disentangle the tangled mess of personal business, formal policy, and the unintended reaction? —Carter (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The current section has all of one sentence: "The Company was working to increase tobacco farming in the colony, and Chépart and Perier eyed the Natchez territory along the Mississippi as a ripe opportunity for a new plantation that would benefit them personally. Chépart issued an order for the Natchez to begin planning for their complete removal from White Apple Village and other Natchez territory" which can be seen as a description of collusion. All the rest of the 3 paragraphs are about the revolt and aftermath of massacres and slavery. The section, as currently framed, should be titled about the revolt, not the Chépart dealings. Finally, collusion has a very negative connotation in the English language and is not a dispassionate framing of the title.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Carter Was this initially copied from the actual article, and then edited? &#8213; Qwerfjkl talk  15:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Qwerfjkl, No, I drew on the existing article and sources, but wrote it fresh with additional sourcing. --Carter (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Carter Can you copy & paste the article in, replacing this article, and then immediately revert it, so it's easier to compare the two via diffs? &#8213; Qwerfjkl talk  18:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Here you go:
 * vs. the current (post edit war) main article text
 * vs. Belyny's proposal below
 * —Carter (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Policies vs. personal ambition
Hi Carter, I thought I was clear: --Belyny (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't wan't a subdivision "about Chepart" as you wrote, I want to keep the subdivision (as secondary level in "Governor of the French Louisiana (1726-1733)" '''about Perier partnership with Chepart" (not the same at all).
 * I don’t agree with you point of vue: that makes sense and its does not go against MOS:OVERSECTION. (Also there is no spécific rule on number of subdivsions and a subdivion is justified by its content. A lot of Good articles have many subdivisions see for exempleRichard Montgomery).
 * You make a mistake in your analysis : Partnership between Perier and Chepart to take for themselves Natchez land of White apple has nothing to do with "Native American policies" of the governor Perier under the order of the Companie des Indes. Its a another topic of personal behavior (blamed by the Compagnie) which had serious consequences and as such justifie a subdivison on this specific point.
 * There is no problem of WP:NPOV and WP:EPSTYLE in stating in an article what several authors write on a specific subject.
 * Before discuss the title and content of subdivions you proposed, it's better to find consensus on this point. I always accept your proposal even when I didn’t really agree, so I'd appreciate some of the same.


 * Hi, I moved your signature up to try any help keep the threading and conversation obvious.
 * I'm not wedded to "Native American policies" it's just a simple way to break out that aspect. I disagree with you that there is a clear difference between Perier's personal ambitions and his implementation of policies for the colony. It seems clear in the sources that he used his office to benefit himself personally, so it's not two different things its two aspects to what he did. He put in place policies in the name of the Company that he used to his personal benefit.
 * Yes, there can be more sections or fewer sections in articles, but it's dependent upon the content. I don't think breaking out the single paragraph "Achievements," for example, is necessary. If he didn't have the major incident of the Natchez revolt in his history, that would all just be part of the sole paragraph on his governorship.
 * Looking at your proposal below, you've repeated some things and placed a number of things out of chronological order (see MOS:BLPCHRONO). This creates issues of WP:UNDUE. For example, the Carter Godwin quote is in reference to his attack on the Chaouacha (not Chickasaw), which happened in response to the Natchez revolt. For it to make sense, you need to set up the full context of the attempt of the Natchez to enlist enslaved Africans into the attack on Fort Rosalie. As you've placed it, it doesn't really explain what was going on or why. Beyond that, the same point is given in the prior section ("To foster mistrust between the two groups, Perier used armed enslaved Black troops to attack neighboring Native Americans"). Most of the quotes about public burnings of Native Americans also came after and in response the Natchez revolt. That doesn't excuse them or make them less horrific, but it does indicate that it wasn't something being done just to do it. And, this is included in the section on the Natchez revolt and reaction. The quote you've pulled from Delanglez is about the attack on the Chaouacha, not the public burnings, which is the implication left by where you've placed it.
 * Regarding Chépart, a lot of what you have in here is about him, not Perier. Yes, Perier supported, enabled, and worked with Chépart, but I don't know that all the detail you have in here about him belongs here. Some of it is may be more appropriate in Natchez revolt.
 * When you reduce the duplication of content here, each section gets a lot shorter. Shorter is good (WP:BECONCISE), but then you come back to the MOS:OVERSECTION issue if it's a lot of really short sections.
 * I'm open to suggestions and have changed most all of the text I've proposed in the other sections in response to concerns and criticisms. I'm sorry if you feel it's been a one-way process, but I don't believe that's fair or accurate. My only goal here is to get a readable, accurate article posted to replace the mess that was frozen in place after the edit war between you and Savary34 (and his sockpuppets).—Carter (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Carter,
 * I disagree with you : there is a clear difference between Perier's personal ambitions and his implementation of policies for the colony. Your strong opposition on the subdivison "Parnership with Chepart" is againt WP:NPOV and its a point of vue.
 * Find consensus is not trying to impose a point of view without considering others are wrong.
 * Nobody has an editorial power to choose what should be said or not as long as it is information centered on the subject anf given by reliable secondary sources as references.
 * Findind a chronology error must not be a pretext to suppress information.
 * I'm sorry to remind you that before the Edit war started by Savary34 (and his sockpuppets), this article was shorter and not "a mess"
 * If you constantly reject my arguments with reasons that I do not find valid, I don’t see how we can reach a consensus.
 * I’m too old to fight for nothing, so do you prefer I let you write "your article"? --Belyny (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm not trying to impose a point of view; I'm trying to ensure the article is encyclopedic and in line with the WP:MOS. This includes having an article that is concise, NPOV, and logically laid out. I disagree that anything is being suppressed here; the points you are highlighting about Perier's actions and character are in the text. They may not have a separate subhead and they may not have the quotes that you've attached, but they are all there.
 * The MOS:BLPCHRONO issue isn't that there's an error in the chronology; it's that when that's resolved (and the duplication it's creating) you end up with much shorter sections, which is when MOS:OVERSECTION comes into play.
 * I'm not opposed to attempting to get more of what you want in the article; I'm opposed to adding repetitive material, quotes that require much more text to properly contextualize without gaining new information, and creating small sections or section heads that run afoul of WP:MOS. Regarding the diff you've linked to, yes, that's much shorter, but it also needs revision to meet MOS:BLPCHRONO and WP:BECONCISE. It's also missing some things that I learned about in researching Perier for this rewrite, such as his involvement with the Second Fox War and the Samba rebellion.
 * I do see some things that you've added that were missing in what I had, in particular Perier's pardoning of Chépart and reinstating him at the fort. That should be mentioned.
 * I'm not pushing back strongly because I disagree with including material. I'm pushing back when you are ignoring MOS conventions and aren't offering changes that are in line. My only reason for opposing a "Partnership with Chépart" subdivision is that I really only see about two sentences before it becomes about the Natchez revolt, which is the event that requires greater importance for detailing Perier's actions and reactions. I'd ask you to honestly divide up what you have here, put it in the proper chronological order, consider the appropriate level of detail, and see what's left.
 * —Carter (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've tried above to work in some of what you added in expansion. I'm not in favor of excessive quotes and I don't think they're necessary for the article, so I have not used them exactly. I also tried to add more to contextualize the changing nature of France's ambitions for New France at this time. The changes are highlighted in this diff. Hopefully this addresses your content concerns, even if the wording is not exactly as you've offered. —Carter (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Carter,
 * I don’t agree with your interpretation of some guidelines to justify your points of view.
 * I maintain that there is a clear difference between Perier's personal ambitions and his implementation of policies for the colony and the the subdivison "Parnership with Chepart" is quite justified. I disagree with your point of view on that.
 * I maintain that some quotations of authors are accurate. Your writes "I'm not in favor of excessive quotes and I don't think they're necessary for the article, so I have not used them exactly" is a point of vue that I do no share.
 * In this discussion you seem to be positioning yourself as a super-editor with a "right of validation", but nobody (you, me...) has an editorial power to choose what should be said or not as long as it is information centered on the subject anf given by reliable secondary sources as references.
 * I'm sorry that your refusal to accept my proposals is not conductive to find consensus. I accepted many things that I did not agree with, I expected the same from you. Regards, --Belyny (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Belyny, on the subject of quotations please read MOS:QUOTE, Quotations, and Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. It is in the English Wikipedia guidelines to avoid lengthy quotations.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not positioning myself as anything other than someone who's trying to navigate disputes around an article that has been subject to an unusual amount of discord. Part of that means looking to the MOS for direction and focusing on the text. I've been going back and working on the text above based on what the preponderance of sources say. If you have a dispute about the text, address it in the text; however, it is necessary to keep mind of the timeline of events. For example, the quotes you string together about Perier's torture and public execution of Natchez prisoners should not sit before any discussion of the Natchez revolt. Those events happened afterwards and in response to the revolt. Had they happened before, it would be explaining in part why the revolt happened, but that's not the case.
 * I don't think any of the text above attempts to minimize or excuse Perier's actions (official or personal). If you read the text you can see that I broke out a section "Plantation ambitions" that tries to emphasize his personal business ambitions and his entanglement with Chépart. While I'd rather focus on the text than the subtitles, I think that subtitle is better that "Partnership with Chépart" in part because the article is explaining who Chépart is; he's not an otherwise known or noteworthy individual so seeing his name in the subhead will mean nothing to the reader; he has no article we can link to in any language version of Wikipedia and "Chépart" may not even be his name. The text is where he is introduced and explained.
 * Regarding quotes, as Eostrix noted there is policy around their use, but if you think that a quote improves the ability of the article to inform and educate a reader, then look at a way to include it. Just dropping in quotes doesn't do the job, especially when their inclusion confuses the situation or requires otherwise unnecessary explanation or detail to setup.
 * Again, if you feel the text I've proposed is inaccurate or incomplete, work with it in line with MOS and WP policies to improve it. I'm not refusing to accept your proposals; I may not have embraced your words, but the substance of the content you've highlighted has been included. If you feel something's still missing or wrong, point it out in the text or indicate what should be added. —Carter (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Plantation plan with Chépart
Hi Carter, I took time to read again your proposal and my proposal.
 * I remain convinced that the subdivisions "Nomination"  and its content is relevant to explain the context of Perier's nomination
 * I disagre with your title "Plantation ambitions" it is too vague. The title of this subdivision must point out the partnership between Perier and Chepart to install a plantation on natchez lands. It is a important point highlighted by severals authors as one of the reasons of the Natchez Revolt. You can't diminish the importance of this point as you do.
 * The quotations I want to keep from secondary sources (not primary sources as written above) providing author's own thinking (and attributed to thy authors) to illustrate some specific points are more neutral than a paraphrase which is not exactly the views expressed by the authors. Even it is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words, quotations are not forbidden and sometimes are  more accurate to avoid any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources>
 * If you constantly refuse my points of view with counter arguments (and personal interpretation of guidelines) it seems to me difficult to find consensus. Do you want to write you own article? Regard --Belyny (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Belyny,
 * Again, all of the content that you're mentioning is in the above text. I don't see anything you're mentioning being obfuscated or diminished, it's just not in the subhead. I am not refusing your points; I've amended the above text to include things you mentioned. I'm not hearing from you that anything is missing or wrong in the text, just that you want a very specific subheading. The subheads need only help organize the information, not replace it. You also want to include quotes, but the way you placed them in the below text fails to respect the chronological order of the events in question and/or fail to accurately contextualize the quote, both of which creates WP:UNDUE problems. I'd also say that if you feel any of the paraphrasing done above goes beyond the source, then let's consider fixing the paraphrasing unless the direct quote is really needed. I see two ways forward from here, 1) you go ahead and rework the text in line with MOS policies and we discuss actual text or 2) seek a third opinion. —Carter (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Carter, I wrote a new proposal which incorporates mainly your proposal ands some additions of my proposal. I think we are not far from a consensus> Regard, --Belyny (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for this. I agree that we have a consensus on the bulk of the article. I have modified my proposal above some in response to your proposal.
 * Accepted the section head "Personal ambition on Natchez land"
 * Accepted the line about an end to Bienville's indigenous policy as a replacement for the opening of the "Native American relations" section.
 * Accepted the Gallay quote (although attributed to the author Michael James Forêt, not the editor) as part of the "Aftermath and recall" section.
 * Did not include the "Nomination" section head as the material covered under it goes beyond his nomination (first three paragraphs) and starts to get into what he did as governor. Having no subhead here is cleaner and more accurate.
 * Did not include the Carter Godwin Woodson quote at the end of the "Slavery policies" section. It is WP:UNDUE and doesn't make sense in context. Read what comes before and after it in the source text. He's referring to some enslaved Africans joining in the Natchez Revolt, Perier's empowering a group of enslaved Africans to attack the Chaouacha, and then the attempted Samba rebellion/uprising. The quote doesn't support Perier's general policy of discouraging interaction between enslaved Africans and enslaved Native Americans, and rewarding Native Americans for returning people who'd escaped slavery, which is how you've paired it in the text.

I do not agree with your point of view : the Carter Godwin Woodson quote at the end of the "Slavery policies" section is not WP:UNDUE and is quite relevant in this subparagraph : Godwin Woodson is referring to some enslaved Africans joining in the Natchez Revolt but to Perier's decision to arme a band of slaves in 1729 and sent them to the Chouchas with instructions to exterminate the tribe. Godwin Woodson writes : ''Just above New Orleans lived a small tribe of Indians, the Chouchas, who, not particularly harmful in themselves, had succeeded in inspiring the nervous inhabitants of the city with abject fear. Perier armed a band of slaves in 1729 and sent them to the Chouchas with instructions to exterminate the tribe. They did their work with an ease and dispatch that should have been a warning to their white masters. In reporting the success of his plan Perier said: “The Negroes executed their mission with as much promptitude as secrecy. This lesson taught them by our Negroes, kept in check all the nations higher up the river.” Thus, by one stroke the wily Governor had intimidated the tribes of Indians, allayed the nervous fears of New Orleans, and effected a state of hostility between the Indians and the Africans, who were beginning to be entirely too friendly with each other. .. Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races, the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men''." The quote supports Perier's general policy of discouraging interaction between enslaved Africans and Native Americans. This fact is reminded by many sources . --Belyny (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Accepted the Saxon quote about ruling through fear in the "Natchez revolt and retaliation" section. It, as with the Woodson quote, in context is about the attack on the Chaouacha and his further response to the Natchez Revolt. How you placed it under "Native American relations" implies that this was the focus of Perier's policy from the beginning, but Saxon and the other sources don't support that. He ended diplomatic engagement in favor of making demands and expecting compliance, but the use of fear doesn't seem to be the primary approach until after the Natchez Revolt.
 * Setting aside the "Personal ambition on Natchez land" section, if you are accepting of the above, we can close out those sections and focus on this last one. I would like to take some time to rework it, but I will state now my concerns with how you've outlined it.
 * It's hard to tell from the sources when Perier and Chépart devised the plan for a plantation. The Davis source implies the plan came when he was first appointed; the Binder source is clear the plantation plan came after Chépart was returned to Fort Rosalie (not when he was first appointed).
 * If it's included, the "drunkard and brash" line needs to be sourced (it's not in Davis as best I can tell; I know I read something similar somewhere, but can't find it at this moment). It's also not clear that Chépart's reputation was one Perier knew before he appointed him (which is what the text you're proposing implies) or if it came out afterwards (Le Page du Protz implies Perier did not know of Chépart's reputation). If the article were about Chépart or if it was clear that the reputation was known to Perier before his appointment, it might be more relevant.
 * It's also not clear from the sources that Chépart's "presence had to be tolerated because of his friendship with governor Périer and his protection." That statement is in Patricia D. Woods' "The French and the Natchez Indians in Louisiana" (a link to the full text, instead of the snippet you linked to is here: https://books.google.com/books?id=E3v-ZPHmhnoC&pg=PA134), but other sources, including the one Woods cites for that statement (Delanglez 1934), say that Perier was persuaded to pardon Chépart, which implies Chépart benefited from the support of others more than Perier (at least at first).
 * There should be more context around Chépart facing the Tribunal.
 * "Governor Périer sided with Chépart and planted a cross on the land he sought." Of the two sources you have for this, Dumont de Montigny says that Chépart planted a missionary cross there to indicate that the move was Perier's orders (at least in the English translation I found; I couldn't find the right line the French version on Google Books). Usner doesn't mention this at all. The way you have this phrased implies that Perier planted the cross himself.
 * The large quote you have at the end of the section, after "Accusations at the time go in the same direction," mixes words from the author written in 1934 with other quotes; one of which is by an unrecorded author, the other by (when you look at the source) Raymond Amyault, sieur d'Ausseville, although that same source (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97681801/f68.item.texteImage, pp 60-61) says the comment is without proof while still accepting the content of the charge. Delanglez follows the quote you pulled with the comment that: "The habit of writing damaging letters with no other foundation than the jealousy of political and personal enemies was all too common in Louisiana during the French Period to accept on their face value all these accusations." (As an aside, this is one of my concerns with quotes like this. Unless you go back to the original source and make it clear who the speaker is or what other context there is, there is a good chance it can be used more to bias the article than to illuminate it.)
 * I hope the amended text above (excepting the "Personal ambition on Natchez land" section that I have yet to rework) is acceptable to you. I will come back with a proposal for the last section later today or tomorrow.
 * —Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have amended the above text with my revised proposal for the "Personal ambition on Natchez land" section. I've tried to address the ambiguity around when the Perier–Chépart partnership was established. Instead of "drunk and brash" I've used a quote from Gayarré calling him "rapacious, haughty, and tyrannical." More context was added about the Superior Council and the pardon without stating definitively (given that the sources aren't clear) that Perier's presumed friendship and/or business relationship with Chépart was a factor. I included mention of the cross, following Dumont de Montigny's text. I did not work in the quote from Delanglez both because of the concerns expressed above and if it were included it would logically belong with the aftermath section where the Forêt quote was already added. —Carter (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , so that this can move forward, the favor of a response is requested. Carter (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carter, I’m counting on your understanding so that we can find consensus on these sections in order to move on the last sections. Regards, --Belyny (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See above my response for the Carter Godwin Woodson quote at the end of the "Slavery policies" section.
 * In your revised proposal for the "Personal ambition on Natchez land" section you ripped  "Perier and Chepart parternship to expel the Indians in order to establish a plantation on their land triggered the Natchez revolt in october 1729. Alan Gallay wrote that the Natchez revolt "lay in a larger pattern of Franco-Natchez conflict and the greed of Perier and the commandant of Fort Rosalie". . This analysis of the facts given by Alan Gallay (and others) is important and relevant in this section to understand the result of Perier's ambition on Natchez Land. There is no reason to sweep this under the rug.

Regard, --Belyny (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Again you're misunderstanding the points. There is no sweeping anything under the rug, you're just rushing to the conclusion. The quote (which is from Forêt, not Gallay; he edited the volume, but Forêt wrote the text) is included in the aftermath section. You're ignoring the structure of the article and trying to jump to the end before backing up to lay out the sequence of events. Same with the Woodson quote. If you place it where you are insisting, it implies that this was central to Perier's policies from the beginning of his time as governor; however, the sources, including Woodson, are clear that the move against the Chouchas in response to the Natchez Revolt. It was not his general policy and, in fact, the sources show he was reluctant to use enslaved Africans as militia because he'd set the precedent of granting them freedom after such actions. If you have other sources showing that Perier commonly empowered enslaved Africans to attack Native Americans prior to the attack on the Chouchas, please point to it. I have not see that in any source thus far. That you're relying on a single instance to demonstrate a broader policy is what makes it WP:UNDUE. —Carter (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Dunbar Nelson quote
Hi Carter,
 * I agree for the quote from Fôret in the "aftermath section" as you propose.
 * I do not agree with your point of vue regarding Alice Moore Dunbar Nelson quote. It is not at all WP:UNDUE as you pretend, but perfectly relevant in the "Slavery policies" section : Alice Dumbar Nelson writes in his article "People of color in Louisiana" in The Journal of Negro History : "A friendliness, born of common hatred and despair, began to show itself between the colored people and the fierce Choctaw Indians surrounding the colony, when Gov. Perier planned a master-stroke of diplomacy. Just above New Orleans lived a small tribe of Indians, the Chouchas, who, not particularly harmful in themselves, had succeeded in inspiring the nervous inhabitants of the city with abject fear. Perier armed a band of slaves in 1729 and sent them to the Chouchas with instructions to exterminate the tribe. I'm really sorry but your that your personnal analysis and synthesis is relevant of No original research --Belyny (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Sorry, but I'm not proposing anything that WP:OR. What I have here is "To foster mistrust between the two groups, Perier used armed enslaved Black troops to attack neighboring Native Americans, and he continued the policy of rewarding Native Americans for capturing escapees and disrupting maroon communities." That states simply and plainly Perier's policy of working to keep Native Americans and enslaved Africans at odds with each other. The first half of it may be overstating the case because it too is primarily post-Natchez Revolt and centers on the Chaouacha attack. However, it is not WP:OR or incomplete in any way.
 * Adding as you want "Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races, the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men." adds nothing to the text. I'll admit I read the Dunbar Nelson article more closely this time trying to see your point. You said above The quote supports Perier's general policy of discouraging interaction between enslaved Africans and Native Americans. The quote you put in my comment above makes it clear Dunbar Nelson is talking about the attack on the Chaouacha and not a broader policy. I've tried to read the quote as supporting a broader policy, but it's not what the text says. Breaking the quote down, Dunbar Nelson is saying that Perier's attempt to intimidate the Natchez and other tribes with his attack on Chaouacha failed to cower the Natchez and instead led them to encourage slave revolts. Look at the construction of the sentence; she places the Native reaction after Perier's attack ("because he used blacks ... the Indians retaliated"). Look at the paragraph it is used in; she flows from that quote into discussion of the Samba Rebellion. The first bit "Perier's cruel logic was reactionary." adds confusion in that it seems to imply Perier was reacting to Natchez provocation, but instead is meaning that it sparked a reaction. (Looking at the etymology of the word and how the root word réactionnaire is used in French, perhaps that is causing some confusion here; the implications of the word in modern English, I'm not sure about in 1916 when the line was published, are a bit different.)
 * All that said, the quote is inappropriate here. It doesn't support the general policy. If you are using it to show the failure of the policy, it needs much more explanation and context to make sense. WP:UNDUE isn't the perfect objection because this isn't about including/excluding a minority POV. The substance of the matter at issue in the quote you want to add is already in the article. However, the quote would do more to confuse the article than it does to illuminate it. You may not share my view on this, but you haven't offered any additional source or context or explanation as to how it improves the article. What is it adding that's missing?
 * Given that it seems this one quote is the last bit you are objecting to, I propose we push the full text over — minus this quote — to the main space and if you wish to continue to discuss the quote's appropriateness we can do so, perhaps with the help of a third opinion. This process has dragged on for a month; it would be silly to refuse to replace the current mainspace mess with something where we are 98% in agreement.
 * —Carter (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carter,
 * I maintain that your point of view is not accurate and that the quote is perfectly relevant in the "Slavery policies" section.
 * I agree to push over only the section on which we have a consensus but I do not agree at all to push over your version of the "Slavery policies" section until we have a consensus on this section. However, I agree to push over this section whith the quotation you are opposed using the templates (or other we agree) while waiting for consensus.
 * Because I want to find a solution I am open to any proposal from you to put the quote elsewhere in the article, but your refusal to include a pertinent statement given by a author in a reliable secondary source about Perier use of Black slaves against Indian tribes is totally unacceptable. Regards, --Belyny (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sigh., please at least address the substance of my concern around the quote. You are making what seems to be a WP:JDL argument. I've outlined the concerns with the quote and you are not offering any interpretation or rationale that counters those concerns or provides an alternative interpretation. How is this quote relevant? What does it add to the article? What is missing that this quote provides? Why is this quote the best and clearest may to achieve the goal? Again, I ask, are you willing to seek a third opinion on the appropriateness of the quote? The favor of a prompt reply is requested. —Carter (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and pushed over the full text, including the Slavery policy section, moving the "Under Construction" box to that section. This should suffice to indicate to other editors that it is not final and still under discussion. Unless you are willing to address the content of the article and the quote (and even if you do), I strongly suggest we seek a third opinion on this. —Carter (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we do not have a consensus on this section and I totally disagree with your arguments to refute the relevance of Alice Moore Dunbar Nelson quote in this section, but as I am tired of arguing for nothing, I stop this pointless discussion on this point. Regards --Belyny (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll just point out that disagreeing is not explaining. Taking you at your word that this is the end of the process, I will remove the banner from the main page and archive this page, along with discussion on the main talk page. —Carter (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

MY (Belyny) NEW PROPOSAL :

Nomination
In August 1726, after then governor of French Louisiana Pierre Dugué de Boisbriant was recalled to France, Perier was appointed commandant general of the territory, overseeing military matters and relations with the Native Americans. He arrived in New Orleans in October 1726 and established his home at 613 Royal Street.

Despite Perier's lack of experience in colonial administration, the Company of the Indies felt they had a long-time employee who would be a pliant administrator focused on the Company’s goals. To ensure this, the Company granted him an annual salary of 10,000 French livres, 10 acre of riverfront land, and eight enslaved people a year so long as he remained in office. He sold the land, which is in the modern McDonoghville neighborhood, in 1737.

The Company directed Perier to increase the profitability of the colony, enforce discipline and loyalty, and keep the English from entering the territory. He was specifically tasked with completing improvements to secure the health and safety of New Orleans, as well as to visit the Company settlement in Natchez. Perier also sought to diffuse some of the partisan, religious, and familial cliques that had made running the colony difficult for his predecessors. In this he had some initial successes, particularly in managing the dispute between Jesuit and Capuchin missionaries.

Perier's taking office marked the end of the indigenous policy pursued by Governor Bienville.

Perier launched a large public works effort, overseeing the construction of the first levees on the Mississippi, cleared forests and brush from the land between the city and Lake Pontchartrain, and dug a canal from the Mississippi to connect the river to a rice mill on the king's plantation and Bayou St. John. He also welcomed the Ursuline nuns to the city; his wife, Catherine, laid the cornerstone for the nun's first convent in the city.

Slavery policies
Achieving these public works required the labor of enslaved Africans. The Company had a monopoly on the slave trade and oversaw the importation of more captured Africans to Louisiana when it controlled the colony than at any other point in the 18th century. With this steady supply of new captives, Perier tended to put enslaved people to work on public projects until they were auctioned off to local slavehoders. To increase the available workforce, Perier began conscripting enslaved people for 30 days at a time. In most cases, they were conscripted when the Company first brought them to Louisiana, before delivering them to their purchasers, which raised the ire of Louisiana slaveholders. Perier instituted an apprenticeship program where enslaved people were loaned to craftsmen for three years to train them as brickmakers, joiners, masons, carpenters, and other skilled trades necessary to the growth and development of the colony. He also put enslaved Africans to work on Company ships, navigating the coast and rivers.

At the time, both Africans and Native Americans were enslaved by French settlers. Perier was increasingly concerned about alliances among enslaved people, and he encouraged slaveholders to keep enslaved Africans apart from enslaved Native Americans for fear of the two groups forming alliances. He was particularly concerned that Native Americans who escaped from slavery would induce enslaved Africans to also escape and seek the protection of Native tribes. To foster mistrust between the two groups, Perier used armed enslaved Black troops to attack neighboring Native Americans, and he continued the policy of rewarding Native Americans for capturing escapees and disrupting maroon communities. Carter Godwin in The Journal of Negro History writes : "Perier's logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races, the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men"

Native American relations
Despite having been encouraged to learn from what former Bienville had written about relations with the Native Americans and recognizing the need to improve relations to forestall British advancement into the territory, Perier instead broke with Bienville's policy of diplomatic engagement with neighboring tribes. and according to Lyle Saxon "made the grave mistake of trying to inspire the Indians with fear".

Louisiana's colonial administrators at the time tried to balance the need to maintain good relations with Native Americans with demands from settlers for more and better land; however, Perier did not recognize Native American ownership of their traditional lands. This was in line with French desires to colonize New France, as opposed to earlier efforts to maintain the territory as a resource for trade.

While Perier did work to maintain positive relations with France's Choctaw and Quapaw allies, in other cases, he sought to dominate tribes unwilling to align with France's colonial ambitions. In Illinois, at the border between France's Canada and Louisiana territories, the Meskwaki (Fox tribe) in 1728 again declared war on France. Pereir, his counterpart in Canada the Marquis de Beauharnois, and the local commanders pursued a policy of complete destruction against the Meskwaki, despite the ill will it generated with other Native American tribes in the region. This approach would be seen in Perier's response to the Natchez revolt.

Personnal ambition on Natchez Land
The territory of the Natchez, on bluffs above the Mississippi River, had been noted by the Company of the Indies for its agricultural potential as early as 1717, and Fort Rosalie and several tobacco plantations were established there after the First Natchez War in 1716. After arriving in Louisiana, and with an eye on establishing his own plantation in the area,

Perier wished to establish for himself a large plantation near the Natchez village. He entered into a partnership with a sieur Chepart (or d'Etcheparre), known as a drunkard and brash person and promised him an interest in the futur plantation if he could secure the Natchez land. Together they planed to operate this plantation on the rich lands held by the Natchez

Perier appointed Chepart to command Fort Rosalie and oversee trade with the Natchez. Immediately, Chepart tyrannized the people and abused his power buy his presence had to be tolerated because of his friendship with governor Périer and his protection. Finally Chepart was summoned before the Superior Council which found him guilty, but Perier pardoned Chepart and restored him to his command. Chepart could return to Natchez to pursue his plans to establish concessions for both himself and governor Perier on Indian Territory

Chepart told the Natchez that he wished to seize land for a plantation in the center of White Apple, where the Natchez had a temple of their people's graves. Governor Périer sided with Chépart and planted a cross on the land he sought.

Perier and Chepart parternship to expel the Indians in order to establish a plantation on their land triggered the Natchez revolt in october 1729. Alan Gallay wrote that the Natchez revolt "lay in a larger pattern of Franco-Natchez conflict and the greed of Perier and the commandant of Fort Rosalie". Accusations at this time the time go in the same direction : "His tyranny and his exactions goaded the Natchez to fury. This Dechepare was a creature of Perier ... his attempt to seize the land of the Natchez and to drive the Indians out of their village precipitated the crisis. But he Commandant, though reviled by everybody, was following instructions. In an unsigned memoir, date January, 1731, we read : "Moreover, it is secretly maintained, that the cause of the Natchez massacre should not be imputed to the late Chepart alone... and that he was following written orders which some people are said to have read". Elsewhere the accusation is more clearly formulated : "The reason which led the Natchez to perpetrate such a deed, is that M. Perier having the intention of beginning a plantation in their country in partnership with Dechepare...had asked him to drive out the Natchez... in order to take the land occupied by the Indians for their plantations".

Natchez revolt and retaliation
On November 28, 1729, the Natchez Chief, the Great Sun, led his warriors into Fort Rosalie and captured the settlement, killing between 229 and 285 colonists and enslaved people and taking about 450 captives, mostly French women and enslaved people. A about a month later, the Natchez's allies, the Yazoo, made a similar attack on Fort St. Pierre. Ahead of the attack, the Natchez also recruited several enslaved Africans, arguing that driving off the colonists would mean freedom for them too.

In response to the Natchez revolt, Perier sought the complete destruction of the Natchez and their allies to ensure the safety of the colony. He began by authorizing an attack on the unaligned Chaouacha tribe south of New Orleans by enslaved Black volunteers in December 1729, rewarding the men by freeing them from slavery. He also proposed attacks against other tribes along the Mississippi, regardless of their involvement in the revolt, earning a rebuke from Controller-General of Finances Philibert Orry, who described the plan as "acting against all the rules of good government and against those of humanity."

In January 1730, French and allied Choctaw soldiers caught the Natchez by surprise and recovered 54 women and children and 100 enslaved people. Throughout 1730, Perier sought to make examples of captured Natchez men and women, including torturing them and burning them alive in public executions. Lacking enough troops to handle the revolt, and unwilling to rely too heavily on France's Choctaw allies, Perier sought reinforcements from France.

The Natchez continued to resist the French until January 1731 when Perier and colonial soldiers, along with two battalions of marines commanded by his brother, Antoine-Alexis, successfully captured the Natchez's Grand Village. Great Sun and nearly 500 more Natchez men, women, and children were captured and shipped to Saint-Domingue where they were sold into slavery. However an undetermined number of other Natchez escaped to seek refuge with (and eventual assimilation) into other tribes, including the English-allied Chickasaw and Cherokee, further straining the French's already poor relationship with the Chickasaw.

Aftermath and recall
In his reports on the Natchez revolt and his response, Perier suggested a conspiracy among the tribes, perhaps with British encouragement, was responsible for the revolt, to divert attention from the role Chépart and his orders played in igniting the conflict. However, this story did not gain credence back in France, nor in Louisiana. Instead, Perier was criticized by the Company for letting his personal plans for a Natchez plantation distract him from his public responsibilities. There were also concerns about his continued harsh approach towards even allied Native Americans and attempts to punish the Chickasaw for taking in Natchez refugees. Although at the same time, he sought to reward some Native allies, such as the Quapaw, by expanding trading posts.

In June 1731, Perier faced an attempted slave uprising, the Samba rebellion, involving enslaved Bambara peoples inspired by the Natchez revolt. As he had done with Natchez prisoners, Perier ordered torture and public executions via breaking wheel for the men and women who planned the attempted uprising.

In the end, Perier was criticized for his support of Chépart and his policies towards Native Americans, which failed to provide security and stability for the colony. Ultimately, the result of the revolt was a further weakening of the Company, which was still suffering from the bursting of the Mississippi Bubble in 1720. Due to its ongoing financial losses in the territory in 1731 the Company abandoned its charter and returned Louisiana to the king. Despite questions about his management of the Natchez revolt, Perier remained in place as governor of the colony, although the king's advisors, particularly the Count of Maupaus, sought to replace Perier.

In 1733, Perier was recalled to France to answer for his handling of the Natchez revolt, and former Louisiana governor Bienville was appointed to replace him.