Some of the Greatest explorers were Christian Missionaries;
Matteo Ricci, Pere Labat, St. Jean Vianney, to name a few, and if you want to
go all the way back, then Paul of Tarsus would be the first. He went all over
the Mediterranean world, preaching to the Jews, Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians. These men took great personal risks, going into territory that was
unmapped and where you couldn’t summon help.
A.M.A. Blanchet was the Bishop of Washington Territory
starting in 1846, at a time when there really was not Washington as we know of.
It was just a trading post, and the trade was pretty meager, given that it was
sparsely populated. In his 1849 letter to the Pope, he consoles the Pontiff for
his exile from Rome, praising him for all that he inspired in him earlier. But
Bishop Blanchet couldn’t have related to what was going on with the Pope in
Italy. The Italian states were in rebellion, and it was the kind of rebellion
that wouldn’t have happened in a place like the Washington Territory. The place
was just one big expanse of land, difficult to get to and nothing there. How
would there be a rebellion of there was nobody to rebel, nobody to rebel against,
and nothing to fight over? Blanchet describes his parish as “Indian neophytes”
so we can deduce that his people aren’t exactly discontent. Physically, the job
may have been tougher, but politically, it was far more secure.
The Bishop’s life in Washington reminds me of the book In Love With Art, about Francois Mouly in
New York. It describes Soho in the 70’s as a relatively safe place; there were
no burglaries there because everyone knew there was nothing there to steal. At
the time, my parents describe their more upscale neighborhood in the Upper West
Side as very unsafe, with constant muggings, not to mention pimps, prostitutes,
junkies, and everyone with money retreating to doorman buildings or simply
leaving the city. In a similar comparison, the life in the Washington Territory
at the time would’ve been safer than New York (darn, why is New York always
such a rough town?) and even Montreal doesn’t seem as safe in the letters to
the Bishop.
The Blanchet’s biggest complaint in his letters is
relatively tame; each Indian group has a different language, the whites corrupt
them, and he can’t get them to give up polygamy. Their practice of multiple
marriages allowed the women to pick whatever husband they wanted (even if he
was already taken) and it gave the husband more servants (talk about “mutually
beneficial” relationships!) to cook and gather. As for the Whites, he finds
that most of the soldiers passing through the territory are Catholic, despite
Catholics being a minority in the USA! This isn’t surprising to the historian;
thousands of Irish immigrants had been joining the US Army since the 1840’s
when they couldn’t find other jobs in their new nation.
By the 1850’s, the tone of the letters has changed. No more
is mentioned about the Indians, and he makes many requests for money. I deduce
that when the Civil War was through, and the railroads built, there were far
more settlers coming in, not to mention the mining companies. Previously, they
all ignored the territory because without the railroad, you couldn’t ship the
ores or lumber out. But now there were whites, Chinese, blacks, all coming in.
There were schools and hospitals to be built and staffed, and schools needed
paper, ink, furniture, etc. Churches had to be built, and they needed more nuns,
priests, and teachers. Scarcely does he mention the Indians, who I assume had
been displaced.
A.M.A. Blanchet’s letters tell the early history of Washington,
and for all those who think that Seattle is a cool city to live in, don’t
forget that only 150 years ago it was nothing! The men and women who settled it
were some of the toughest, willing to go without the resources that keep us in
comfort. These letters will no doubt inspire others who dream of the
adventurers that built this nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment