It has been observed by a writer who has done signal justice to the genius of Pontiac, "that we are nowhere told the causes of disaffection which _separated him from the British interest._" [FN-1] There is an allusion here to the information furnished by Rogers, who indeed states that Pontiac "often intimated to him that he should be content to reign in his country, in subordination to the king of Great Britain, and was willing _to pay him such annual acknowledgment as he was able, in furs, and to call him his Uncle._" [FN-2] But, without in the least disparaging the honesty of Rogers, we are inclined to dispute the propriety of what we suppose to have been rather his own inference than the Chieftain's declaration. A disregard to niceties of expression, on the part of both speaker and hearer, was no uncommon thing at interviews of this kind,--one party being always eager, and both frequently ignorant enough, had they even tolerable means of communicating together in language at all. * * * * * [FN-1] Discourse of Governor Cass. [FN-2] Rogers' Accounts, 242; London Edition. The context confirms this opinion. It appears singular, at first glance, that Pontiac should propose calling the British king his _Uncle._ An appellation, indeed,--as the Iroquois orators told the English at Albany,--"signified nothing," in itself; and yet, as referring to the term _Father,_ applied by Minavavana and the Northern Indians generally, to his Christian Majesty, it did signify, at least, that Pontiac meant to pay a slighter deference to the British king than to the French. No _allegiance_ was acknowledged to either. As Minavavana said, "the Indians had no _Father_ among the white men"--passing that courtesy for what is was worth--"but the king of France." That, however, did not prevent them from owning and claiming their own woods and mountains. It did not entitle the French king to command the services, instead of "employing" the assistance of their young men. It did not blind them to the fact, that although the English had conquered the French, they had not conquered _them._ [FN-1] It makes the matter still more dear, in regard to what was the understanding of Pontiac, and what ought to have been that of Rogers, that, according to his own statement, the Chieftain "assured him [on the same occasion when the language last referred to is said to have been uttered.] that _he was inclined to live peaceably with the English, while they used him as he deserved, and to encourage their settling in his country, but intimated that if they treated him with neglect, he should shut up the way, and exclude them from it._" In short, concludes the same writer, "his whole conversation sufficiently indicated that he was far from considering himself a conquered Prince, and that he expected to be treated with the respect and honor due to a King or Emperor, by all who came into his country or treated with him." [FN-2]