Brasseaux traces the administrative career of Denis-Nicolas Foucault and his controversial role in the Rebellion of 1768. The commissaire-ordonnateur (administrative chief) of French Louisiana from 1762 to 1769, Foucault has been maligned as the conspirator in the rebellion who escaped prosecution and almost certain execution by the Spaniards. Both Hispanophiles and Francophiles have portrayed Foucault in this same light. By incorporating French and Spanish sources, and by looking at long-term developments in French Louisiana, Brasseaux presents a more balanced, accurate view. Brasseaux convincingly demonstrates that, although “Foucault was not entirely free of complicity in the Rebellion,” he was powerless to do either side any good (p. 95).
Brasseaux opens the book with a thorough discussion of the historiography of the rebellion, and proceeds to place the uprising within its economic, political, and social contexts. Throughout the French period, Louisiana’s government lacked authority, and Foucault’s administration fared no better. During the transition period from French to Spanish rule (1763-66), “Louisiana, suffering from fiscal instability and official bickering, became an isolated, highly unstable entity, a powderkeg waiting for a spark” (p. 35). The arrival of Antonio de Ulloa, the first Spanish governor, and his subsequent administrative blunderings provided the necessary spark. From 1766 on, a vacuum in the colonial leadership and doubts about the validity of the cession exacerbated tensions within the colony. Amid this confusion, the French Superior Council reigned supreme, ostensibly headed by Foucault but actually governed by the attorney general, Nicolas Chauvin de Lafrénière. When Ulloa moved to usurp the council’s power in late 1768, the members agreed to overthrow the Spanish administration.
Traditionally, Foucault and Lafrénière have been linked as leaders of the rebellion. Brasseaux, though, shows that Foucault officially opposed the rebellion but “did not have the ability, ministerial authority, or incentive to intervene to protect Ulloa from his French colonial opponents” (p. 72). Foucault was a victim of personal vendettas. Francophiles have condemned him for lack of courage and principle, and Hispanophiles have denounced him for leading the rebellion. Peering through more objective lenses, Brasseaux reveals that Foucault was merely acting in his best interests, trying to protect and promote his administrative career. He succeeded, retiring from royal service in 1783 with a sizable pension. Although the book has some organizational problems and is occasionally repetitive, it is informative, entertaining, and balanced.
