History of Canada 1867 to the Present

Compare and contrast the approaches and conclusions of three (3) authors of accounts of The Northwest Rebellion of 1885.

Michael Roy Ames 2011/05/02

Introduction The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 was a complex situation with many competing actors and interests, and its study cannot evince a simple explanation. This is illustrated by the three very different accounts considered here. The main conclusion of Thomas Flanagan's "Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered" is that the government acted reasonably well in its treatment of the Mtis, considering the society of the time that was rife with bigotry, slow communications, and a less developed or 'wilder' North West. He depicts the rebellious Mtis as stubborn, demanding citizens, who were too quick to take up arms rather than continue peaceful negotiations. Douglas N. Sprague makes an opposing argument in "Canada and the Mtis, 1869 1885". He portrays the Mtis as a group treated poorly by a manipulative Canadian government; a government determined to exclude the French half-breeds from political power, and to dispossess them of what little land they occupied. A more multifaceted view is provided in "Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion" by Bob Beal & Rod Macleod. They maintain that the reasons for rebellion were more complicated than simply government refusal of river-lot land titles. The uprising was caused by a combination of factors, including the challenging lifestyle changes facing the Mtis, the desperate situations of the Indians, and the frustrations of early white settlers. The following analysis focuses on three areas of historical interest: The Mtis river lots, the role of Louis Riel, and the trial of Riel. The Mtis river lots. The primary contentious issue between the Mtis and the government of Canada was land ownership. In the 1880s the government hurriedly surveyed the vast prairies, dividing them into six mile square townships, then subdividing into 36 numbered sections, each assigned for

specific usages. The system was efficient, but "easily disrupted"1, and the Mtis' demands for narrow rectangular river lots did not fit into the system. The government's plan required that the settlers improve the land, and before full title could be granted, occupy it continuously for a number of years. This conflicted with the lifestyle of a significant number of Mtis who worked away from their homes for many months each year, and cultivated less of the land than a full time resident. Flanagan details persistent government efforts to resolve this issue2, and though there were long delays in surveying and obtaining land titles, "no Mtis were forced off their chosen lands".3 According to Flanagan, the government refused the Mtis' request to re-survey land that had already been surveyed into square sections (due to limitations in time, money and surveyors), but close accommodations were made using legal subdivision to create river lots. Flanagan argues that the government did not use the land issue to oppress the Mtis but rather that there were "mistakes, misjudgements and misperceptions on both sides."4

1 2

Flanagan, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered, 28 Ibid., 21-63 3 Ibid., 57 4 Ibid., 22

In contrast, Sprague depicts the government actions as provocative, when many Mtis settlers' "claims were allowed [but] patents were denied."5 Ownership (patent) was made contingent on additional settlement duties (e.g. clearing land), future inspections, and fees. Sprague portrays the many governmental delays as deliberate inaction instigated by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald that was part of a larger plan to push the Mtis into producing an "exploitable crisis"6. The crisis, the rebellion, did appear and Macdonald used it to tremendous political advantage, allowing him to obtain additional public funding for the Canadian Pacific Railway that was in dire need of aid7. The narrative style used by Beal & Macleod describes not only events, but also opinions and viewpoints from many of those involved. For example, the Mtis leader Gabriel Dumont seemed to echo Sprague's strongly worded interpretations when he said, "They [the government] stole our land with promises and now when they've got control, they're laughing at us"8. The government's officers and representatives in the Northwest were well aware of the Mtis demands, and their trouble obtaining land grants. Beal & Macleod tell us that most of the representatives wrote reports that recommended satisfying the Mtis demands quickly, but "the government preferred to arm itself in case of an outbreak rather than take quick steps to prevent one"9. This observation coincides with Sprague's theory that a crisis was sought because it was more politically useful than a peaceful resolution.

5 6

Sprague, Canada and the Metis, 1869 - 1885, 171 Ibid., 169 7 Ibid., 176 8 Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 103 9 Ibid., 121

The Role of Louis Riel. The Mtis living along the South Saskatchewan River, called the South Branch, believed they needed to increase the level of agitation in order to force the government to deal with their outstanding claims, basically: land, self representation, and money. There was no one within their community who considered themselves able to lead such an escalation, but Gabriel Dumont suggested Louis Riel could do it, and said, "Let's bring him back from Montana."10 Before 1884, and after having been banished from Canada, Riel was living in exile in the United States.11 Riel returned to Canada with his wife and children at the invitation of the South Branch community, and was happy to be back, as were his hosts.12 The happiness did not last long as in less than a year people were dying in battle. Flanagan informs us that South Branch invitees anticipated that Riel's work would be brief and peaceful13, but they were wrong on both counts. Riel tried to find common ground between the English half-breeds, French Mtis, white businessmen, and the Indians, but this took time. He wrote a petition that would help resolve issues for all these groups, with the intention of later creating a Bill of Rights. The viewpoints of these groups were difficult to reconcile14, and nearly six months passed before the petition was sent. According to Flanagan, Riel's views were more radical than the Mtis he represented, and he believed that "[t]he Mtis were the real owners of the North-West"15. Whereas the Mtis farmers were looking for titles to river lots and some help getting started farming, Riel "envisioned a Bill of Rights amounting to a Declaration of Independence"16. Riel had his own agenda, including the issues of a Manitoba land grant he
10 11

Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 103 Sprague, Canada and the Metis, 1869 - 1885, 67-88 particularly 85 12 Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 108 13 Flanagan, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered , 97 14 Ibid., 98 15 Ibid., 112 16 Flanagan, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered , 113

had not received, and a large amount of money he insisted the government owed him17. Riel did not act simply from "disinterested motives" as he later claimed at trial18. Flanagan faults Riel for starting "the dangerous game of confrontation"19. Sprague provides a view of Riel gleaned from government records, and communications between its politicians and employees. For example, Sprague tells us that Lawrence Clarke, chief factor of Fort Carlton, "goaded the 'half breeds' into bold protest", and into recruiting Riel, in order to personally benefit from a larger police presence that would inevitably result20. Fred White, minister in charge of police, advised the Prime Minister that Riel would go beyond peaceful negotiations and aim "for something like a second provisional government". White assessed the Mtis military strength, and Riel's position as leader, concluding that he had only six hundred hard-core followers centered around St. Laurent21. To get rid of Riel, the government initially considered arrest, and then later raised the possibility of personal bribery in the form of money and a patronage appointment22. However, Sir John A. Macdonald chose a path of provocation by delaying the negotiation of Mtis demands,23 and communicated to Riel the outright rejection of his personal claims.24 Macdonald's tactic appeared to work because Riel responded quickly and formed a provisional government. When the Mtis asked Clarke if the government had answered their petition, he replied that the response would be "bullets", and that there were 500 policemen coming25. The Prime Minister had his own agenda (just as Riel had) and did not act to diffuse the situation or resolve the Mtis demands as he later publicly claimed

17 18

Ibid., 121 Ibid., 17, "Riel claimed that he had never acted except from disinterested motives." 19 Ibid., 129 20 Sprague, Canada and the Metis, 1869 - 1885, 163 21 Ibid., 164 22 Ibid., 165 23 Ibid., 167 24 Ibid., 172 25 Ibid., 174

he had.26 Riel's role was just another of Sir John's opponents, to be outmanoeuvred and beaten. In contrast to Flanagan, Sprague blames the government for callously manipulating the situation to create a politically useful conflict27. Beal & Macleod include many details about Riel's activities after joining the South Branch Mtis, providing a richer picture than either Sprague or Flanagan. The community welcomed Riel and invited him back to be a spokesperson.28 He met and spoke with community leaders, priests, and Indian chiefs, attempting to understand their issues. Riel's initial objective, as stated also by Flanagan, was to write a petition and send it to Ottawa29. The grandiose extent of the petition's demands for lands and titles discussed by Beal & Macleod also coincide with Flanagan's accounts30. However, Beal & Macleod oppose Flanagan's view in respect to Riel's claim of monies owed him by the government, stating that he "did not care for money."31 Beal & Macleod reveal additional wrinkles in the complex situation when they describe Riel's emotional volatility "especially on the topics of religion and politics".32 Riel's difficult personality turned away people, such as Reverend Father Andre, who had initially obtained a good impression of him.33 Then Riel "began presenting himself as a prophet", talked about reforming the Roman Catholic Church, and later used religious arguments to explain to the Mtis the justice of taking up arms34.

26 27

Ibid., 176 Ibid., 184 28 Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 108 29 Ibid., 103-127, particularly 116 and 122 30 Ibid., 123 31 Ibid., 126 32 Ibid., 125 33 Ibid., 125 34 Ibid., 142

Riel's self-presentation as a religious figure coincides with Flanagan's assessment that Riel was acting for personal issues not shared by the Mtis. Beal & Macleod also echo Sprague's account of Lawrence Clarke's inflammatory remarks about the Mtis petition being answered with "bullets" and "policemen", with the additional observation that Clarke was largely correct35. The rich information and multiple viewpoints provided by Beal & Macleod give a picture that de-emphasises the role of Riel and places him within the context of the wild Northwest. Despite all his past involvement with the Mtis, the well-educated and articulate Riel could seem a paradox in the middle of a tough group of illiterate mixed-blood settlers who had fallen on hard times and who felt "growing desperation"36. But both Riel and the Metis each felt they needed the other to achieve heart-felt goals. Was the rebellion Riel's fault as Flanagan suggests, or were the South Branch Mtis using Riel (and vice-versa) to force the government's hand? Should any fault be assigned to the government for its delaying tactics and provocative police reinforcements? Beal & Macleod do not appear to offer an opinion between these three players, but their account lays out enough blame for all.

35 36

Ibid., 139 Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 103

The Trial of Riel. On the subject of Riel's trial the three accounts coincide. Flanagan presents cogent arguments that Riel received a fair trial37. A key point Flanagan makes is that the legal distinction between fair versus unfair might be more clearly described as impartial versus biased. Riel was tried impartially38, and this is a legal judgment rather than a moral one. Compared with other similar trials, Riel's was not particularly fast (it took longer than most), the death sentence was not unusual, and the time until execution was considerably longer than usual39. The charge (high treason) was appropriate40, and the venue (Regina) was relatively neutral41. Even the question of Riel's sanity, both at the time of the trial and the time of the rebellion were properly judged under the McNaghten Rules, and he was found to be legally sane and fit to stand trial42. Sprague provides us again with a more distant view of the trial of Riel, commenting only briefly that the trial and execution were "controversial", meaning that the government would have preferred to avoid them43. He also imparts the insight that, although the Governor General could have intervened to spare Riel from the gallows, the reason he did not do so was to maintain consistency with the government's spin of the rebellion in the public eye44.

37 38

Flanagan, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered , 131-155 Ibid., 133 39 Ibid., 136 40 Ibid., 137 41 Ibid., 138 42 Ibid., 150 43 Sprague, Canada and the Metis, 1869 - 1885, 179 44 Ibid., 180

Beal & Macleod provide illuminating details of Riel's trial and its many participants. They concur with Sprague's interpretation that Riel's trial was rather inconvenient to the government45. They also agree with Flanagan in that the charge was correct46. However they point out that, even though the McNaghten Rules were used and likely benefited Riel's case, they probably did not legally apply47. Beal & Macleod present the trial as an orderly, well run event, coinciding with Flanagan, but go further than Flanagan. They include an account of public opinion after the trial, and say, "Within a year the trial was universally considered a miscarriage of justice."48 This opinion has persisted until recent times, and is part of the reason Flanagan used the word "reconsidered" in the title of his historical analysis. Flanagan contributes to a recurring theme in popular fiction (and non-fiction) that the law may be correctly and impartially applied, yet the result is considered unjust. Conclusion It is apparent from reading these three accounts that the key players in the Rebellion of 1885 did not work consistently toward a peaceful solution, and several schemed for personal gain. Some of the Mtis were ready for a fight, and so was the government. Flanagan, presented the government as doing a relatively good job of dealing with the Mtis demands, and responding to the armed rebellion. The resulting deaths were few, and the rebel leader's trial was impartial. Flanagan argues that the Mtis troubles were self-inflicted, at least to some extent, and the Canadian federal government cannot be blamed entirely for their difficulties. He points out that the Canadian government was close to resolving many of the

45 46

Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion, 292 Ibid., 296 47 Ibid., 301 48 Ibid., 305

issues raised by the Mtis when the rebellion occurred. Flanagan dares to buck popular understandings about the rebellion particularly where contrary evidence has been ignored. Sprague opposed Flanagan on most points. The extent of bad faith shown in government actions toward the Mtis presented by Sprague leads one to conclude that Canada pursued a policy of manipulation, one that was to further its own ends without caring for the lives of the half-breed victims it so callously treated. Although small and localized, the rebellion could be seen as a fight for power between poor French Catholic and wealthy English Protestant societies, with the English having the upper hand at virtually every moment. To Sprague, the rebellion was a cogent example of what happens when a powerful majority acts on its bigoted beliefs to squash the lives of less powerful minorities. If we accept Sprague's analysis, we would view the episode in hindsight as a loss for both Canada and the Mtis, a social situation that did not have to turn out badly. Sir John A. Macdonald was the chief architect of that loss, though at the time he believed he was winning-through complex difficulties to fulfil his vision of a greater Canada. Beal & Macleod's version of the Northwest rebellion was much more than a story about one man, Louis Riel. The multitude of actors and complexity of issues combined to make the rebellion far from a simple uprising against oppression. The events that prompted the opposing opinions of Flanagan and Sprague are seen in the words of the people of the Northwest presented by Beal & Macleod. A great value of their evocative account, over and above its realistic portrayal of events, is in its demonstration that history is about people, and people often lead complicated lives.

Bibliography Beal & Macleod, Prairie Fire - The 1885 North-West Rebellion. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1984. Flanagan, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 reconsidered, Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2000 Sprague, Canada and the Mtis, 1869 - 1885. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1988