It is not actually true that they were the first Europeans to see the Mississipi river. The first documented Europeans were the members of Hernando de Soto's expedition in 1540-1541. Even wikipedia gets it right:

"On May 8, 1541, de Soto's troops reached the Mississippi River. It is unclear whether he, as it is claimed, was the first European to see the great river. However, he is the first to document this fact in official reports."

And a brief description of the Mississipi part of the expedition in britannica.com:
"Moving northwest through Alabama and then west through Mississippi, de Soto's party was attacked relentlessly by Indians. On May 21, 1541, the Spaniards saw for the first time the Mississippi River, the

Umm, Alex....why did you change Weber's name all of a sudden to the name of his University (reread the post - it's very confusing)???

Who cares who was the first to see the river? It's a river. Big deal.

They have history professors at DeVry???

>>Umm, Alex....why did you change Weber's name all of a sudden to the name of his University (reread the post - it's very confusing)???<<

A brain fart. Sorry. I corrected the mistake.

Well, it is not so irrelevant who did it first. Jolliet and Marquette pretension to have been the first Europeans to see the Mississipi river should be taken, in the best of cases, as a hoax.

Hi,... yes DeVry University has history classes. My name is Carl J. Weber.

True enough, DeSoto should be credited as the earliest known European to have come upon the Mississippi. There's a little quirky nuance, though, with "discover." The word has the sense that the discoverer brought the news back home, made it available to other people who, if they wanted to, could go themselves to the place that was discovered. That was not the case with DeSoto's survivors. Enrique has the spirit of the thing down well... the map is a hoax because it is too correct for maps before 1813, Marquette is not known to have had training as a map maker, and there is no other map of Marquette's ever known to have existed.

I could add a few extra commnents, but most importantly, the map on this weblog is NOT the right map. See http://carljweber.com/JacquesMarquetteMapHoax.htm
for the right map.

I think skeptics may have confused your school with DeVry Technical Institute - thus the incredulity about a history professor. I'm certainly not qualified to speak as to the authenticity of the map, but ironically the Marquette Autograph map appears to be poorly drawn enough to be the real thing. Strange how the Anglo-American prejudice against crediting the French persists after all these years. Nor do we advertise the fact that King Carlos II of Spain freed all Spanish slaves in the New World in 1693.

Hi Tom,
DeVry University evolved FROM DeVry Institute. Essentially, we give degrees in addition to certifications. There is a pervasive Franco phobia

Mr. Weber is both lunatic and bad scholar. He fails to mention Dr. Lucien Campeau's extensive research into Marquette's map. He fails to tell readers the well-known fact that Marquette ascended the Illinois River from Mississippi on the return voyage--which of course explains why the map is accurate. If you look around on the web, you will find that Weber has been discredited over and over again. I found other example of his insanity by looking at the discussion of the place-name "Chicago" at the Linguist website. Weber is sham. Pay no attention to this dude. He has nothing to offer of any value to historians.

I intended to add earlier today that the map that Mr. Weber presentes on his website appear to be a strange copie of the Maquette map that he lift from a website on the history of Wisconsin:

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/tp&CISOPTR=2375

The reason for this is that the original, archived near Montreal, is not available to Mr. Weber. The archivist will not allow him to see it since she cannot trust him.

Finally, I would like to say that a study of Lucien Campeau's work on Marquette (at least two article, I believe) will answer full well all of Mr Webers concernes about authenticity of the Marquette's map, including the missionaire's background in mapmaking.

I was just told about this website this morning by friends in Canada. Mr. Daoust summary of Weber's work is correct. I have corresponded with this man on a couple of occasions. His understanding of the early history of the midcontinent is seriously limited. Moreover, his anti-Jesuit diatribes seem to have a personal twist. Weber is becoming well-known among historians and linguists for his off-the-wall ideas based on nothing but his delusions. For example, he explicitly avoids any evidence that might debunk his bizarre theories about Marquette. I will be happy to correspond privately with anyone interested in knowing the full story.

Michael McCafferty

CARL J. WEBER writes regarding the subject at hand, the Marquette map.

I'm quite familiar with the writer my detractors cite. CHALLENGE: Can they name one map expert who will argue against my thesis and take their side?. NO! My work regarding this map is recognized by distinguised scholars, for example at the Newberry Library. There is one little point about this map that will come up... you make sure you come back to see that it has no legs to stand on.

My detractors do not respond to my points. 1.The map is too perfect, 2. Marquette never was trained that we know of to make maps, and 3. there is no other map by Marquette known to exist (except that Campeau says the Lake Superior map was in part by Marquette... it falls apart)

Might these attackers a la ad hominum really think they can convince you to the merits of their side by slanderous and mean spirited "intellectual arguments," like "Weber's a lunatic." You can judge for yourself, look at my vignettes at carljweber.com.

And another thing, I'm presenting my work at the Conference on Illinois History next month. Do you, my reader, think that the committee for the most prestgious history conference in the state would invite my to present if my evidence had holes in it, or for that matter, my reputation?

I don't agree with Mr. Doust personal assessments of Mr. Weber. I think Daoust is just
venting some Gallic spleen. In my interactions with Mr. Weber he has been gentlemanly
enough. And I do think his discussion of La Salle's boat the Griffon on his webpage is
very interesting, and has its merits. However, as I said earlier on this webpage, I agree
with Daoust's "summary of Mr. Weber's work." For example, his venturing into Algonquian
linguistics in his attempt to revision the place-name "Chicago" met with embarrassment
and disaster. I can point the interested reader to websites and journal articles that
discuss this, although it is really not that interesting.

Moreover, I have to disagree with certain points in Mr. Weber's rebuttal above. No one at
the Newberry Library believes his Marquette map thesis. The Newberry folks simply
politely listened to the presentation he gave there. And I know of no map expert who
agrees with Mr. Weber, and I know some experts who certainly don't.

In fact, none of Mr. Weber's "points," noted above, about the map hold water. As I said,
I would be happy to discuss these points with interested readers.

All in all, Mr. Weber simply doesn't have enough experience, hasn't read enough, and
perhaps entertains points of view that are too biased and in favor of revisioning history
for whatever purposes to be able to judge matters correctly.

But I actually wish Mr. Weber well--I certainly hope he works more on the Griffon
project. That is a GREAT discovery to be involved in.

Also, I should add that practically *anyone* can present a paper at the upcoming Illinois
conference, and the accuracy of such papers is not reviewed beforehand. I wish I could be
there to ask Mr. Weber a few questions.

My detractors seem to be easing up in their incivilities. If they have a question, don't you think, ladies and gentlemen, that they should just ask away? right here? ... so that you, reading this, can see what's up. Notice... I made a challenge that was NOT taken up.

Questions: 1.What does Campeau write about Marquette's "background in mapmaking" (see Doust comment above). (bibliographic information please)
2."And I know of no map expert who
agrees with Mr. Weber, and I know some experts who certainly don't " - so, Mr. McCafferty, who are these experts?
3."For example, he explicitly avoids any evidence that might debunk his bizarre theories about Marquette." Can you provide bibliographic evidence to the contrary? Perhaps the books will speak for themselves. Thanks.
Emma

CARL WEBER WRITES, RE MARQUETTE MAP HOAX

Thanks Emma,
for the incisive thoughtfulness. I am quite familiar with Campeau's two relevant articles, notwithstanding the comments of Mr. Daoust and Mr. McCafferty. Yes, Emma, Mr. Daoust might give us some bibliographical info to support his -- Mr. Daoust

Mr. Weber, you are following the particular but dodging the essence of Emma's question. If you are familiar with Campeau's work why do you not tell her of the powerful evidence he presents that is so contrary to your theses?

Why pull at this tiny string of "No, Mr Daoust must tell me where Campeau says in that article that Marquette was formally trained in map-making?" What nonsense! Marquette was a Jesuit - the most educated scholars in the world at the time - we don't need a formal genealogy of Marquette's training to believe he was literate in cartography. He used instruments to record latitudes on his 1673 voyage. By focusing on whether we have documentation of Marquette's formal training in cartography you are simply avoiding admitting how powerfully Campeau rebuts your arguments, especially how he links the Marquette map in form and composition to the Jesuit's Lac Tracy map of 1669, even to the point of also having a similar latitudinal displacement (probably caused by using the same instrument). You read Campeau's article and are unaffected? More likely you hope none of the people you stir with your conspiracy theories will read Campeau. But you say you have. Can you not admit that Campeau assigns the authorship of the 1669 Lac Tracy map to Marquette and Allouez? Or does that perhaps make one of your slips show? If you did read Campeau's articles then you certainly saw these things. Why not clarify the gist of Emma's question - to elucidate the degree to which Campeau answers the question of whether Marquette could have made this map, rather than pulling at this stitch that you created as a nonsensical arbiter - whether Marquette had "formal" training. Since Campeau shows us that Marquette was clearly capable by referring us to his work on the 1669 Lac Tracy map, why would you fall back to the question of his formal training. You are not being forthright.

Likewise you are redirecting by insisting Mccafferty has to provide you with experts to argue publically with you. Campeau is the third party evidence cited - let me add to the chorus - I say you are indeed avoiding Campeau. No third party wants to be named as a champion against your one-sided rantings. Why would they - who wants to argue in public against this kind of revisionist nonsense? This is why we have journals. Since you only desire attention and never change your mind or admit contrary evidence why would anyone argue publically with you? There's no end - no goal. Go ahead and peddle your nonsense - the web is full of such things. It takes endless effort to joust with someone like you and to no apparent avail. The joust with Mccafferty in the Illinois journal clearly shows your single mindedness. He smeared you and yet you admit nothing. This is why we have refereed journals. Publish your nonsense in one of them, if you can. This forum has no meaning except as attention getting. Dominate it at will.

Whoops, I see that Emma requested a citation. The Campeau article in question is:

Writing the name of a book is not a "citation."

It is now important to indicate that Mr. Weber and his ideas about the Marquette map were utterly discredited this past Thursday the Illinois Conference of History. In fact, Mr. Weber, flustered by his own ignorance and failings, stormed out of his own lecture. The historian who had called Mr. Weber on his erroneous notions then gave an informed lecture to the audience about the authenticity of the Marquette map and of Marquette's achievements.

FROM WEBER

Not so Ms. Bertrand. I did not storm out for any other reason than, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, I had to catch the 5:07 back to Chicago. Except for the insults and derision of the speaker before me, and apparently who spoke after I left, the audience was receptive. I received complements, and have been asked for my

RE: Carl J. Weber and the Jacques Marquette Map Hoax

With reference to the two messages above,
one other thing... students of the history of cartography might find this interesting...http://carljweber.com/marquetteDeLisleCompare.htm

(Ms. Bertrand mistakenly called the Springfield Illinois event the "Illinois Conference of History." The proper name is Conference on Illinois History.)

Part I:

'm not sure if anyone reads this website beside Mr. Weber and some Canadians. I don't, but I was again referred to it this morning.

To respond to Mr. Weber's latest statements, let me say, first of all, that Mr. Weber's excuse, which he offers above, for running out on his own presentation, however true it may be in a basic way, needs to be presented to readers here within the context of what actually transpired during his presentation at the Conference on Illinois History. So, I will soon provide this website with a reliable eyewitness account of what happened. In the meantime, let just say that Mr. Weber should have done a far better of planning his train schedule in order to deal with the inevitable questions that would come up after his lecture. Isn't it a little fishy that he left no time for what would inevitably be a hardy question-and-answer session following his lecture? If this presentation by Mr. Weber was his great moment on the stage of Illinois Country history, he obviously did not prepare for it. Furthermore, I have been informed that there will be no invitation extended to him to attend future conferences. That was it. The conference was completely embarrassed by his presentation and his antics.

(I will write another message immediately since this site has a limit of 3000 words per message.)

Michael McCafferty
Indiana University

Part II:

As to the subject matter of Mr. Weber's presentation, it should be noted that his theories can all be soundly refuted in about **five** minutes. I don't plan to do that here as I'm no longer in the business of teaching Mr. Weber. I gave up on that. I tried on several occasions to lead this man to some sensible paths but it was a waste of time. Now, there is even an article, in French, which Mr. Weber cannot read and has not had translated obviously, that deftly brushes aside his ideas.

Indeed, the burden of proof for his Marquette map hoax notions rest entirely on his shoulders, but he cannot offer any. He can't even give the names of the so-called experts and archivists who he says believes his theories. In fact, he demonstrated perfectly well at his lecture at the history conference his utter inability to defend his position with facts and reasoned argument.

Finally, I'd like to say that I know no "Jesuit apologists". I don't even know any Jesuits. I don't even care about the Jesuits, or about Catholicism, or Western religions for that matter. In fact, the only Jesuit I've ever met was the great Canadian historian Lucien Campeau. And even Campeau was not a "Jesuit apologist". He was quite capable of turning his critical eye on Jesuits and non-Jesuits alike, including the Jesuit scholars Delanglez, Toupin and Hamilton.

Weber's "Jesuit apologists" lurking in the shadows are simply his own shadow. What Mr. Weber is simply running up against is experts who know the material and are not the least bit impressed by what he has to offer. Take for example, Duane Esarey, whose comments appear twice above. He is an expert on early Illinois cartography. Has Weber consulted him? Would he dare? Of course not. That would take away his game.

Finally, it's important that Mr. Weber realize that what he is confronting is not some "ad hominen" conspiracy. Mr. Weber is simply facing the experts--that's what happens in academia-- and the experts say that his theories are incorrect, misguided and worthless. And it's not that I and others didn't try to warn him. The scholarly community is not out to damage Mr. Weber in any way. We actually couldn't care less. Mr. Weber has been digging his own pit, and we've just been watching this happen, amused of course, but at the same time somewhat shocked that education can lead one to such inane depths of confusion and to what is now Mr. Weber's total lack of credibility. It's unfortuntate, since I did note in earlier discussions with Mr. Weber that he once had some potential as a student of Illinois Country history.

Once I can get to my IU email files today (the email system being temporarily out of order), I will supply the readers of this site with details about Mr. Weber's presentation at the conference.

Sincerely,

Michael McCafferty
Indiana University

Here are comments from one person who attended Mr. Weber's presentation. More will follow. As this description is too long for this website, I will have to cut it up into three parts.

Michael McCafferty

-------------------------------------------------


"In style, I graded him D+. He was jumpy, erratic, and there was no clear sense of direction in his presentation.

In content, I gave him an incomplete. He began by saying that theMarquette documents were frauds. He said they were hoaxes as Father Steck closely examined the material and found them to have been forgeries. Then he talked about the
Ellington stone, a rock some guy on the Mississippi found a long time ago that has the
date 1671 inscribed on it. He said that this remarkable find will be sent to various labs
for verification. At this point I thought it strange that he considered some stupid rock
possibly legit, yet he found the Marquette documents a hoax.

Then he jumped to some date written on the Boucherville register and said it

Cont.

Then Weber took and answered a question from a gentleman in the front row. Another man, who it turns out is a doctoral student in history,
raised his hand. Weber asked if he had a question and the man said

cont.

At this point the man was in total control of the room; the audience was all ears; they
realized the gig was up! Weber could not and would not answer ANY of the man

Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >