"Among a list of 65 possible wrongful convictions currently under investigation by the federal Department of Justice, we learn from press reports, is the case of one Louis Riel, convicted and hanged for high treason in 1885. . . . . . . what else is behind the extraordinary campaign to exonerate the man who led not one but two armed uprisings against the legitimate constitutional government of Canada? Sorry, did I say exonerate? Try glorify."

"The Louis Riel Act, a private members bill sponsored by the Liberal Member of Parliament Denis Coderre, has attracted the signatures of 137 MPs from all parties. It would not only reverse Riel's conviction but formally install him as a father of Confederation. The 15th of July would be designated Louis Riel Day. There might even be a statue raised to him on Parliament Hill."

"Now if the issue were only the justice of his sentence, his defenders might have a case. There is good reason to think that Riel was insane at the time, and the death penalty is barbaric in any event. A bill to commute his sentence to life imprisonment would surely be worthy of support. But to say, no to legislate, that he did not do what in plain historical fact he did: to attempt to overthrow the government by force of arms? That he was, what is more, a Father of Confederation?"

"Here is the man whom our revisionists would place beside Macdonald, Cartier and Brown, as described by perhaps our greatest historian, the late Donald Creighton: "an able but temperamental and dictatorial man, full of delusions of grandeur, quickly infuriated when his will was crossed, and quite without compunction in the use of force." A revolutionary, in other words."

"And here is what he did. . . . A "provisional government" was declared, with Riel at its head.

It is not clear, says Creighton, what his aims were: "he may seriously have considered the alternataive of annexation to the United States." "

"Annexationist sentiments ran high in the American North-West, and Sir John A. feared that, if the dominion's westward expansion were stalled, the Americans would fill the gap."

"These were the stakes, then: beyond the issue of violent rebellion or the quasi-judicial murder of Thomas Scott, the whole future of Canada was in play. Macdonald decided to deal."

"A convention of elected delegates from the Red River community at large was called. They drew up a "list of rights," proposing terms for admission of the territory into Confederation. These were promptly ignored by Riel, who added his own demands for provincial status and separate schools: terms which, whatever their merits, very nearly scuppered the negotiation."

"Now fast-forward 15 years. Exiled to the United States, after some years in a Quebec mental asylum, Riel is persuaded to return to Canada to take up the cause of the Metis in Saskatchewan . . . . "

"Duck Lake, and the subsequent two-month campaign of terror under the inevidtable "provisional government." Eventually the revolt was extinguished, but not before scores of lives were lost."

Excerpts from
"The forest from the treason"
by Andrew Coyne.

My response:

Andrew Coyne is concerned that Riel could be glorified.

Should Riel be glorified? Historical figures must be depicted realistically because this is the first step towards general acceptance of their true worth. Glorifying a controversial person simply makes opponents to that person more upset and angry. The result of this is a lack of acceptance of the historical figure and a country which is more divided.

Riel was the key person in the creation of Manitoba, so like Joey Smallwood from Newfoundland, he deserves to be called a father of Confederation. Even though Riel was found guilty of high treason in 1885, it does not undo the fact that he was instrumental in the creation of Manitoba fifteen years earlier.

Mr. Coyne also claims that
Riel attempted to overthrow the government by force of arms.

Mr. Coyne chooses to simplify the events with the claim that Riel attempted to overthrow the government by force of arms.   In my view, this is a misleading encapsulation of everything that happened which fails to put things in context.
      Riel must be judged from a broader and more accurate perspective.
What happened in the Red River settlement was in response to the Metis finding themselves in a complex, difficult, and frustrating situation.

Without any input from the Metis, the Canadian government purchased the land the Metis had spent their lives on, began governing them without giving them any say, and then made bad decisions that had a strong impact on the Metis. When the Metis took over Fort Garry there was no violence. So, Mr. Coyne's simple statement that Riel did "attempt to overthrow the government by force of arms" does not accurately reflect what happened.

Andrew Coyne reminds us that Riel " . . . led not one but two armed uprisings against the legitimate constitutional government of Canada . . ."

In the period before 1885, Riel and the Metis did their best to solve their problems by peaceful means. It was not a time when picketing would do any good or when the news media could present the issues and demand fairness and justice on everybody's television at 6 o'clock. While we can criticize Riel and the Metis for failing to be extremely patient, we also need to appreciate that they struggled for decades with bad treatment. They faced the White "civilization" which had strong biases and which was influenced by groups who were racist. Under the circumstances, there was little to indicate that eventually the Metis would be treated fairly.

But, while we can sympathize with the Metis and Natives, we must not lose sight of the fact that treason is a serous crime.   Today, when someone becomes bitter, then makes a bad decision and commits murder, we do not sympathize with him and say he is a nice guy and it was only a mistake. For the most part, we ignore all the times he was a nice guy and the good things he has done in his life, and look at the deliberate act of murder. Then, he is sent to prison. Likewise, when people take up arms against the government, we must be careful not to sympathize too much. Many people died. In many ways treason is far worse than murder.

Mr. Coyne claims that Riel ignored the list of rights that the Metis drew up. He criticizes Riel for adding his own demands for provincial status and separate schools by saying that they "very nearly scuppered the negotiation."

Andrew Coyne continues by quoting that Riel "may seriously have considered the alternative of annexation to the United States." Later, he concludes his column with an emotional statement: "If we cannot convict a man who would destroy the country by violent means, what is left of treason?"

In fact, Riel was part of the process in 1879, when the list of rights were drawn up by the Metis, so he agreed with the list of rights. While Riel's additions could have "scuttled the process," they didn't. The fact that the additions were also accepted suggest that Riel may have known what he was doing.

Mr. Coyne says that Riel was a man who would destroy the country by violent means. But, just because one of the alternatives that Riel was considering in their complex and difficult situation was to join the United States does not mean he should be accused of destroying the country.

More from  
Mr. Coyne.      

My response:

He states that there is good reason to think that Riel was insane at the time.

He also quotes this description of Riel by historian Donald Creighton.

He claims that Riel was:

• an able but temperamental and dictatorial man,
• full of delusions of grandeur,
• quickly infuriated when his will was crossed,
• and quite without compunction in the use of force.

Mr. Coyne then adds his own conclusion: "A revolutionary, in other words."

Many writers have assumed that Riel was insane at the time, and even Riel's lawyers believed that his best defense was to claim insanity. However, we need to keep in mind that Riel was a Metis, and he was deeply religious. It is extremely difficult to understand and pass fair judgment on this, especially if you are a rational, analytical White person with different background and beliefs.

As well, Riel was living a life full of uncertainty, and he had to adjust to the extremes in his life. At one point he hit a high by helping to create a province in a dramatic fashion and being so popular that he was elected to the Canadian Parliament. This contrasts with his life immediately afterwards in which he was unable to help the Manitoba Metis while they were mistreated. As well, he had to live in the United States and avoid capture due to the $5,000 reward that was offered. [Also, Maggie Siggins in Riel: A Life of Revolution gives reasons to believe that Riel faked his insanity. p. 279]

Coyne states that "perhaps our greatest historian," Creighton states that Riel was an able but temperamental and dictatorial man. However, Riel spent months preparing the 1884 petition and trying to make it agreeable to everyone. As well, in 1879 in Manitoba he worked with other Metis to help create their "Bill of Rights." This is not the work of a dictator. Also, the natural role of religious leaders (such as a priest) is to give directions. I have not heard of anyone who has accused a Priest of being a dictator.

He adds that Riel was full of delusions of grandeur. This assumption has been made by many, not just Mr. Coyne. While in a sense this is true, we must keep in mind that Riel's dreams and plans to help the Metis were much closer to reality than what people realize. We must take into account that Riel had already accomplished the impossible, by creating a new Province in a dramatic and surprisingly non-violent way. As well, the Metis had confidence in their fighting ability, confidence that White people and some historians tend to overlook. (See details on the amazing Battle of Grand Côteau three paragraphs down.)

It is also stated that Riel was quite without compunction in the use of force. However, it was Riel who wanted to gain settlement in 1885 using peaceful means, and he is the one who told Dumont that he did not want the railway blown up. The impression that his personal diary gives is that, in spite of what Riel stated in his irrational outbursts, he had a strong preference for peace.

Some people probably label Riel as a revolutionary because they are unaware of the full story. In order to allow an unbiased evaluation of events, my account avoids detailed descriptions about Riel's strong desire to help his people, about how the Metis felt in response to all the injustices they experienced, or about their frustrations with the government. So, an unfeeling and uncaring person can still read the account and say the Metis struggles were not a big deal and that Riel was there just to cause trouble. It is time for us to put things in the context of what actually happened and give the Metis respect.