Forget Magazine - Remember, Remember, Remember

Whose Riel? (3)
by Kevin Bruyneel

 The words of Louis Riel and his colleagues (Whose Riel 2) offered the specific and considered political proposals and vision of the Red River Provisional government and the people it represented. Words rarely stand alone. Even those in the finest fiction find their greatest resonance in how they touch something real, active and deep within readers, listeners and interpreters. So, where does that leave us with Riel and the Red River Rebellion in the wake of the Provisional government's list of rights? Good question. It leaves us with deeds, the more aimless sibling of words.

 In this case, the deed is one that defines the very heart of a sovereign government - its claim to be the only institution with the legitimate right to violence within its jurisdictional boundaries. In the Red River region, the Provisional government's first act of 'state-sanctioned' violence was its most famous; the execution of an English-Protestant prisoner, Thomas Scott, who was among those captured as they sought to invade Fort Garry and overthrow the government under its newly elected President, Louis Riel. It is not an understatement to say that no event so radically altered the future of the Red River Provisional government as the execution of Thomas Scott, because it compelled the two groups still on the wings of this conflict - the English and the French - to take a strong stand on the words, deeds and future relationship of the Red River Métis and Canada. Furthermore, the government-sanctioned killing of Scott, the English Protestant, placed in the ground the first firm stone of a path that would lead, many years later, to the government-sanctioned killing of Louis Riel, a Métis. Depending upon your perspective, the relationship between the executions of Scott and Riel rings of either tragedy or justice. By following the interpretive paths laid out immediately after Scott's death, we may be able to see how such divergent views could emerge and prevail, in some form, to this day.

 Up until March of 1870, English Canada, as represented by the Federal Government under John A. Macdonald and the English press, generally bridled its hostility and suspicions regarding the Red River Rebellion. The bridle was unfastened when Thomas Scott was tried, convicted and shot for taking up arms against the Provisional government. Louis Riel neither initiated nor took active part in the trial or execution, but he oversaw the process as President and refused to intervene on the prisoner's behalf after the sentence was declared. He felt the trial was fair and that the Provisional government had the legitimate right to the institutions and procedures of justice necessary to secure order for the young polity.(1) This event sent English Canada into a rage against Riel and the Métis, and raised suspicions about the French-Canadian influence in the region.

 Soon after the execution, an English-Canadian Member of Parliament rose in the House of Commons to condemn the "truculent rebels who have not merely demanded what they call a Bill of Rights . . . but who have dared to steep their hands in the blood of an unoffending man." He urged the Government not to negotiate with these rebels, "their hands red with blood," who: "fancy up there that they have rights in the soil, that they are entitled to have all that property, that they have a right to do with it as they please, and that we are not to go there and that we have no right whatever, and they are sending down people to treat with us, as if they had a right to treat with us." (2) The Globe in Toronto focused on the role Louis Riel and on the Métis' designs for the land, succinctly setting out the choices their presence implied: due to the "handful of armed traitors" who threaten "to sell to the foreigner lands which, by natural right and money purchase, belong to [Canada,] the question has arrived at the point of issue; and either Riel or Canada must go down."(3) The words of these English-Canadian public voices reveal not simply their scorn for the Scott execution itself, but also suggest an inherent link between the Métis' ostensibly audacious claim to sovereignty over this territory and the temerity with which they 'steeped their hands in blood.'

 It galled English-Canada that the 'truculent' Métis presumed they 'had a right to treat' with the federal government, submitted a 'Bill of Rights,' felt 'entitled' to local property, and suggested selling to 'foreigners' — ie Americans — property which both 'nature' and legal tender authorized as Canada's. As such, in this view, the truculence with which the Métis thusly and decisively rejected the presumption of Canadian sovereignty over the region inevitably led them to think they could 'dare' to kill an English-Canadian citizen. In short, the connection between land-claims and violence was not coincidental. Scott's execution made the resistance and sovereignty assertions of this 'mob of disaffected, miserable and impulsive half-breeds' very real to English-Canada. Métis' violence against Canadian sovereignty meant violence against Canadians who dared to challenge the authority of the Provisional government and their leader. The political identity, actions and intentions of Louis Riel are seen here as incommensurable to, because inherently and violently hostile to, those of the Canadian nation, as defined by the English. Thus, the theatrical stand-off — 'Riel or Canada must go down' — revolves around the notion that authority over land and its inhabitants cannot be shared. This severe and urgent view of the fundamental and unambiguous place of land for grounding a nation's sovereignty, however, was tethered in the English-Canadian argument to an escalating concern with how the more ambiguous role of culture, in the form of language and religion, influenced the clash of Métis and Canadian sovereignty.

 If, to English Canada, the Provisional government's claim to sovereignty over land represented an 'indigenous' challenge to the limits of Canadian boundaries, then the very fact that the majority of Métis, including of course their President, were French-speaking Catholics came to be seen as a threat to the shape of the nation within those boundaries. In the immediate aftermath of the initial seizure of Fort Garry, English-French tensions were present but muted. William McDougall, the man first appointed by Macdonald as Lieutenant-Governor of Rupert's Land, sent word back to Ottawa after the takeover that "the worst feature of the case is the apparent complicity of the priests. . . I regret to hear that all the priests in this country, with one or two exceptions, are from France, and have no sympathy with Canada or Canadians."(4) Though he was not greatly concerned, Macdonald concurred that "the majority of the priests up there are from Old France, and their sympathies are not with us."(5) Upon his return to Ontario early in 1870, however, Macdougall set about "spreading the view of the uprising as a French-Catholic rebellion." In a "speaking and writing campaign," he accused the priests and the French-speaking Métis of "launching the 'armed insurrection' in order to establish the North-West as a 'French-Catholic Province.'"(6) This reading of the Métis rebellion found some receptivity in Ontario, but not decidedly so, and Macdonald refused to give it credence, calling Macdougall's "foolish stories" a bunch of "nonsense" about "a plot among the French Canadians . . . to keep the British immigrant out of the Red River settlement, and make it a purely French Canadian colony."(7) Still, even this reticent reception in English Canada and from Macdonald does reveal that the French and Catholic influence was seen as an 'unsympathetic' though not necessarily threatening factor. In comparison, French-Canadian observations on the resistance in its early months offered a more ambiguous reading of the political pursuits of the Métis.

 To the French, Riel and the Provisional government served as a geographically and culturally distant 'provisional' ally and instrument in their own effort at cultural and political survival. In November 1869, prior to Scott's execution and the List of Rights making its way to Ottawa, the French newspaper Le Nouveau Monde reflected the hybridity of the Métis cause, seeing at as linked both to indigenous savagery and the historical struggles of the French in Canada:

War with the Métis would mean war with the savage tribes of the West. . . . At the bottom of the whole affair is the question of nationality and religion, and the Métis seem about to repeat the dark pages, which mark certain periods in the history of the Acadians and the Canadians, their ancestors. (8)

 Linked spatially to the indigenous tribes and temporally to historically dominated French groups, the Métis represent within this French-Canadian imaginary a political cause to be feared and with which to identify. This paradoxical vision accurately represents the ambiguity with which the French of Canada viewed the Red River Rebellion. There was neither overt support for the Métis, nor serious criticism of the federal government emerging from Québec during the early months of the Provisional government. This all started to change with the execution of Thomas Scott, which sent the English and French in opposite directions regarding their political approaches toward Riel and his government.

 After the execution, Macdougall's seeming 'nonsense' regarding the leaders and intentions of the rebellion gained greater currency, demonstrated in the words of an editorial by the Toronto Globe entitled The Murder of Scott:

In all this it is impossible to avoid seeing a determination on the part of the French Catholic clergy in the North West Territory to resist the entrance of the British Canadians. . . . According to our last advices from Red River, the clergy were still fully engaged in supporting Riel.(9)

 This view of the French Catholics as an anti-English force in the resistance - the view which Macdonald so sternly dismissed - began to take greater hold in English-Canadian popular press and political life. English-Canada's well publicized suspicions, and even accusations, would strike a familiar nerve in French-Canada regarding the domineering attitudes and actions of the English in Canadian political life. Typically, however, French-Canadian concerns about English domination in relation to colonized indigenous people like the Métis only emerged in full force when French-Canadian cultural and political interests were read into the indigenous cause by both the French and the English. Although this dynamic generated its greatest national articulation in the nineteenth-century after the second resistance in 1885, when it was a mobilizing force for Québécois nationalism, the Red River Rebellion compelled a French-English constitutional compromise to the political demands of the Provisional government.

 Statements like the one above from the Globe became more prevalent in the heart of English Canada, leading Le Journal des Trois-Rivières to conclude that "the inhabitants of Ontario want to see a policy adopted that will undermine French influence in the North-West. . . . on that point the Province of Québec will have only one answer: to protect and assist our brothers out there." (10) The ambiguous feelings of French-Canada toward the Métis expressed just months earlier rapidly transformed into a fraternal identification with the people and the cause of the Provisional government. According to one historian of the French Canadian perspective on Canadian confederation:

By the late spring of 1870, the Métis of the North-West, who had been unknown to French Quebecers a year before . . . were being found, thanks to Ontario extremists, to be civilized French-Catholic compatriots, whose struggle for local self-determination was becoming a question of 'our position' in the North-West and even the place of 'the French race in Canada.'(11)

  As the summer of 1870 drew near, the Red River conflict became of interest to groups whose respective positions were shaped by their interpretations of what the Métis fight for sovereignty outside Canada's boundaries meant for political relations inside those boundaries. This conflict, which in actions and demands straddled Canada's political boundaries, would find its resolution by expanding the boundaries of the Canadian nation and state.

  As we will see in the next instalment of Whose Riel?, the expansion of Canada's boundaries occurred both by the actions, and at the expense of, Riel as an active citizen in Canadian political life. Riel's words and deeds helped set in motion the course of events that would lead to the Manitoba Act of 1870, which, paradoxically, also marked the year he would begin his own exile in the United States from the political, cultural and physical landscape of Canada that he had helped reshape. His eventual return to Canada, however, would continue to be defined by the act over which he as President presided, the execution of Thomas Scott.

  The spectre of Scott would haunt Riel's political fortunes for the next decade and more, and it would eventually nudge him up the steps of his own gallowed destiny; that story we will broach soon enough. For now, it is sufficient to keep in mind the emergent emotions and views of the French and English regarding the Métis and Riel after Scott's execution, as these sentiments ominously though inversely foreshadow the sentiments that would swirl around Riel's ultimate fate. The fates of Scott and Riel also foreshadow present-day debates around the social and political purposes of the death penalty. Nevertheless, this seems enough food for thought for this sitting.

Kevin Bruyneel does not tolerate duplicity in his senators,  university presidents, or younger brothers.

(1) See Maggie Siggins. Riel: A Life of Revolution. (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1994, pp. 161-165). Siggins is one of the few historians who gives some credence to the notion that the execution, whether one agreed with it or not, was the legitimate act of a sovereign government. Many historians, whether generally sympathetic or not to Riel and the Rebellion, view the execution as, in the least, a rash mistake or, at worse, cold blooded murder. It is generally agreed by all historians, however, that Scott's death haunted Riel for the rest of his life by consistently hampering his ability to carry on any sort of existence in Canada, be it political, private or otherwise, without some party - governmental or not - seeking to arrest, harass, or even kill him.

(2) John Hillyard Cameron, M.P. for Peel, Speech in the House of Commons, April 6, 1870. See Hartwell Bowsfield. ed. Louis Riel, Rebel of the Western Frontier or Victim of Politics and Prejudice? Toronto: Copp Clark, l969), p. 95. (3) The Toronto Globe, 1870. Bowsfield (1969), p. 3.

(4) From the Hon. William McDougall to Sir John Macdonald. Pembina, October 31, 1869.Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald: Selections from the Correspondence of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, G.C.B. (Toronto: Oxford University Press,), p. 113.

(5) From Sir John Macdonald to the Hon. John Rose. Ottawa, November 23, 1869. Macdonald Corr., p. 106.

(6) A. I. Silver. The French-Canadian Idea of Confederation, 1864-1900. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), p. 79.

(7) From Sir John Macdonald to the Hon. John Rose, Ottawa, January 21, 1870. Macdonald Corr., p. 120.

(8) Le Nouveau Monde, Montreal, November 26, 1869. "A Question of Nationality and Religion," Bowsfield (1969), p. 44.

(9) The Globe, Toronto. "A Bloody and Brutal Execution," April 6, 1870, in Bowsfield (1969), p. 89.

(10) Translation excerpted from Silver (1982), p. 81.; Original cite Le Journal des Trois Rivières, April 18, 1870.

(11) Silver (1982), p. 82.


Return to

by Kevin Bruyneel

by Alejandro Bustos

Forget Sports
Brent Sedo

Jeff Coll

by Sandy Carruthers

Last Week












Also Showing:

Don't click if you are using Netscape.  In fact if you are using Netscape don't do anything.  The Men will be there to see you soon.

Email Staff:

Suite 1008-510
West Hastings St.
V6B 1L8
Vancouver, BC

Phone : (604) 669-7222
Fax : (604) 683-2984

Mailing List