Manitoba

In the edited collection of essays contained in "Contours of a People" (see "resources" below), historian Gerhard J. Ens writes a chapter in which he articulates the events of the Sayer trial:

"In 1846–47, A. K. Isbister and four other memorialists presented a petition to the secretary of state for the colonies from 'the Natives of Rupert’s Land,' who they described as “the Indians, and HalfBreeds residing in and near the Colony of Red River,” praying for relief from the strictures of the HBC monopoly and its tyrannical rule. The petitioners, who described themselves as “les humbles et loyaux sujets de sa Majesté Victoire,” objected to the harsh administration of the HBC that kept them in a state of dependency, inhibited trade, and ignored the claims of the Indians and Metis as the original owners of the soil.

As natives they wanted the right to trade freely, and as British subjects they wanted representative government and the right to import goods. If they were deprived of these rights, they warned, discontent and violence would follow. J. H. Pelly, responding for the HBC, noted that the fact that the Metis were born in the country entitled them to call themselves native, but it neither conveyed to them any privileges belonging or supposed to belong to the aboriginal inhabitants, nor did it divest them of the character of British subjects. As such, Metis (unlike Indians) were precluded by the HBC’s charter from trafficking in furs. From the HBC’s perspective, the petition and memorial to the colonial office had been inspired by the illegal traders of the Red River Colony who employed the Metis of the settlement, and who were trying to attack the monopoly of the HBC through the instrumentality of Metis rights. In responding to Pelly, Isbister acknowledged that there was a distinction between Metis and Indians, but that this distinction did not divest the Metis of their aboriginal rights.

After some investigation, Earl Grey ruled that the petition and memorial were without foundation and no further action would be taken on the matter. Emboldened by this ruling, the HBC continued to harass the Metis to prevent them from trading in furs. The company regularly searched for and seized furs from Metis, culminating in the 1849 trial of Pierre-Guillaume Sayer and two other Metis for contravening the HBC monopoly in trading furs from Indians and smuggling them to American merchants. It was only after this trial, which found the three guilty, that the HBC realized they had no way of enforcing the court decision given that hundreds of armed Metis had surrounded the courtroom and would accept no punishment for the three. It was only after that point that the company stopped their policy of seizing illegally traded furs and initiating legal actions against Metis traders in the Red River Settlement. Thus, by the 1850s the Metis in the Red River District had developed a view of themselves as holding both the rights of British subjects and aboriginal claims to the soil. They seldom if ever used the term 'Metis Nation' in this period to articulate their rights, but it was a position that might easily be construed as 'national.' This was not a position or a sentiment, however, that was present in 1816 when Cuthbert Grant and the Metis destroyed the Red River Settlement. This sense of nationalism was spurred by the events of 1815–16, but it only emerged in any conscious way in the thirty years afterward" (pp.112-113).

In a May 1885 correspondence to the Indian Commissioner, an official states that it is his impression that Moosomin, Turtle Lake and Thunderchild bands will remain loyal, and that if they are not, that they will be discreet enough to at least appear to hold a position of neutrality. The writer was unsure regarding the loyalty, disloyalty or neutrality of Poundmaker. The writer also states, “It would seem to be matter for regret that we should not endeavour to keep well disposed Indians in hand, but the military authority superseding ours, renders it impossible to make any move in this direction.”

In a correspondence from May 29, 1885, from Indian Agent MacDonald to the Indian Commissioner, the Agent writes,

“If it can be done I would strongly recommend that the File Hill Band of indians be treated with by General Middleton, in the same manner he has done with those north - Invite the Chiefs and Head men to meet him at Fort Qu’Appelle, order the men to surrender their arms, depose the three chiefs and unruly head men and those who killed the cattle we will punish [there had been an oxen found, stripped of meat - assumedly killed by Aboriginal people, who were likely starving]. Actions of this kind will settle all difficulties in the future in this Treaty, an example should or must be made, I see no better one than to treat the File Hill Bands as having been disloyal during the troubles North had they been harshly dealt with previous to the battle of Batoche these four bands would have been on the warpath, reinforced by young bucks from other Reserves within the Treaty and by some halfbreeds what the consequences would have been no one can tell….The Northern Indians have got a lesson which they will never forget.”

In a June 2, 1885 letter from the Indian Commissioner to the Superintendent General, the Commissioner writes, “The guilty Indians should also be severely punished as an example to others in the future and the Chiefs and Head men deposed as suggested by Agent McDonald.

In a June 5, 1885 letter from the same Commissioner to Indian Agent MacDonald, the Commissioner reiterates these plans:

“In a letter from the Indian Commissioner to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the Commissioner recommends numerous ways to punish First Nations and Métis who were involved in the resistance: “I told the young men to consider over well what was going on [up] North. The Government was determined to punish all who took up arms against the Queen’s laws no matter how slight they may be, and no matter whether he was a White or Black man, Halfbreed or Indian, they would be dealt with alike.”

The following is a summary of the Memorandum for the Honorable Indian Commissioner relative to the future management of Indians (the summary is not a direct transcription but aims to use as much original phrasing as possible):

1. All Indians who have not during the late troubles been disloyal or troublesome should be treated as heretofore.

 2. It is suggested that all leading Indian rebels whom is it found possible to convict of particular crimes such as instigating and inciting to treason, felony, arson, larceny, murder, be dealt with in as severe a manner as the law will allow, and that no offence of their most prominent men be overlooked.

 3. Métis involved in the rebellion convicted will be punished in similar manner.

 4. That the tribal system should be abolished in as far as is compatible with the Treaty, ie. in all cases in which the Treaty has been broken by rebel tribes; by doing away with chiefs and councillors, depriving them of medals and other gifts to their offices.

 5. No annuity money to any ‘rebellious’ bands or individuals who joined “insurgents... The annuity money which should have been expended wholly in necessaries has to a great extent been wasted upon articles more or less useless and in purchasing necessaries at exorbitant prices, entailing upon the Department a greater expenditure in providing articles of clothing, food and implements not called for by the terms of the Treaty…”

 6. Disarm all rebels, but to those rebel Indians north of the North Saskatchewan River who have heretofore mainly existed by hunting: return shot guns (retaining the rifles), branding them as Indian Department property and keeping lists of those to whom arms are lent.

 7. No rebel Indians should be allowed off the Reserves without a pass signed by an Indian Department official.

8. The leaders of the Lakota who fought against the troops should be hanged and the rest be sent out of the country as they are certain of the settlers who are greatly inclined to shoot them on sight.

 9. Big Bear’s band should either be broken up and scattered among other bands or be given a Reserve adjacent to that of Onion Lake.

10. One Arrows band (later seen on the ‘not loyal’ list of bands in Carlton Agency) should be joined with that of Beardy and Okemasis (also considered ‘not-loyal’) and their present Reserve surrendered and dealt with by the Department for their benefit. Chekastaypaysin’s band should be broken up and their Reserve surrendered, the band being treated similar to One Arrows. Neither of these bands are large enough to render it desirable to maintain Farming Instructors permanently with them and as they are beyond assistance.

11. All Métis, members of rebel bands, although not shown to have taken any active part in the rebellion, should have their names erased from the Paysheets and if this suggestion is not approved of, by forcing anyone belonging to a band to reside on Reserves. It is desirable however that the connection between Métis and the Indians be entirely severed as it is “never productive” (Researcher observed note in margin of this document which was presumably by another official, possibly the Commissioner. The note simply says “yes” to indicate agreement.)

 12. Not applicable

 13. James Teenum, Mistawasis and Ahtahkakoop should receive some gift of government appreciation for their conduct [not participating in the rebellion].

14. Agents should be particularly strict in seeing that each and every Indian now works for every pound of provision given to him.

15. Horses of rebel Indians should be confiscated and sold, and cattle or other necessities be purchased with the profits of such sale as this would encourage an agricultural lifestyle.

First Nations were prohibited from traveling between communities following the 1885 Resistance, in attempts to discourage collaboration between bands which could result in collective action. However, some band members continued to travel covertly. Those who were found to be traveling between reserves against the government's orders were punished by having their rations and annuity payments revoked.

On 6 July 1885 Riel was charged with high treason for his leadership in the North-West Resistance. His trial began on 20 July 1885. Riel could not afford a defense attorney, so money was collected from his supporters in Quebec and François-Xavier Lemieux and Charles Fitzpatrick (two prominent Quebec defense lawyers) were hired to defend Riel. The defense strategy was to prove that Riel was insane, as denying the charge of high treason was, at the time, viewed as implausible. Various witnesses were called that either upheld Riel's sanity or considered him 'insane.' Riel's final speech ended any prospects of acquittal. Riel spoke eloquently and passionately, justifying the reasons behind the resistance. After thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury arrived at a decision of guilt in relationship to the charge of high treason, with a recommendation for clemency. Judge Richardson disregarded the request for clemency and sentenced Riel to death by hanging in Regina on 18 September, 1885.

In 1811, Thomas Douglas, 5th Earl of Selkirk, began efforts to settle displaced Scottish farmers in the Red River Valley. Settlers soon attempted to restrict hunting and freighting by the Métis, many of whom worked as provisioners (mostly provisioners of pemmican) for the North West Company (NWC). The HBC and NWC were at the height of their competition during this time. In 1814, the governor of the Red River Colony issued the "Pemmican Proclamation", which prohibited the export of pemmican from the colony for the next year. A restriction on the hunting of buffalo on horseback was also imposed. The Métis, who lived along the Red River (now present-day Winnipeg) did not recognize the authority of the Red River Colony government, but the NWC, for which the Métis were loosely employed, accused the HBC of trying to monopolize the important foodstuff. Since the Métis relied heavily on the fur trade, the restrictions were also a threat to their livelihood and economic subsistence. The Red River Colony's Scottish immigration was sponsored by Thomas Douglas, the 5th Earl of Selkirk, who also happened to be the largest shareholder in the HBC. In 1816, a group of Métis, led by Cuthbert Grant, seized a supply of pemmican which has been stolen from them, and travelled to meet North West Company traders with the intention of selling them the pemmican. They encountered Robert Semple, then governor of the Red River Colony, along the Red River at a location known as Seven Oaks (present-day Winnipeg) to the English, and La Grenouillère to the Métis. Semple was accompanied by a group of settlers from the Red River Colony. A confrontation ensued, where the Métis were victorious, Robert Semple and 19 of his men were killed. One man belonging to the NWC-Métis side also perished. The Métis refer to the victory as "La Victoire de la Grenouillère". Most of the settlers living on the Red River Colony left the area in the following days. In retaliation, Selkirk (Thomas Douglas) captured the NWC's primary base at Fort William and reoccupied Fort Douglas (which had been taken by NWC members and Métis during the conflict). Law suits and countersuits ensued. Only Selkirk's death in 1820 cleared the way for an end to the rivalry. As for the Métis, they came to see Red River as a place of permanent settlement.

The Canadian Government amended the Manitoba Act Section 32. This amendment stated that all claimants had to demonstrate “undisturbed occupancy” and “actual peaceable possession.”

The government had been informed by Henry Youle Hind that in the summer, many Metis were trying to make a living by hunting buffalo or freighting supplies for the Hudson’s Bay Company, and were not present to confirm their land occupancy.  These amendments, therefore, were used to alienate Metis and their families from a protected land base. 

The Manitoba Act was passed at the closing of the Red River Resistance in 1870, which provided for the province of Manitoba and allowed the Red River settlement to enter Confederation as Canada's fifth province. Prime Minister J.A. MacDonald stated that he would compensate the Metis in the new province in order to settle the west peacefully, although the provincial land would be owned publicly. There were also provisions in the Act which protected the French language and Roman Catholic religion. Section 31 of the Act provided land for the children of Metis heads of families, which amounted to 1.4 million acres, to be divided into tracts and allotted to Métis families by Lieutenant-Governor Adam Archibald. Section 32 guaranteed all previous settlers possession of the lots they occupied before 15 July 1870, as well as hay rights in the outer two miles of various river lots. An amendment to section 32 in 1874 provided $160 scrip redeemable by Métis heads of families. The 1874 amendment also stated that improvements needed to be made to the land in order to obtain the title. Following the creation of the Manitoba Act, Prime Minister MacDonald refused to distribute the land legally owed to Metis people. The plan of Lieutenant Governor Archibald was to allow the Metis to maintain the river lot system of farming and distribute the 1.4 million acres over a period of approximately one year. Distribution of land in fulfillment of section 31 took over a decade, however, causing many frustrated Metis people to migrate west into Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as the United States. As well, government officials changed their minds about the 1.4 million acres, stating that the claimed land was now required to be outside the province of Manitoba. They also changed the date of proof of occupation to a date when most Metis would be away from their farms hunting buffalo. Shortly after the Act was passed, MacDonald sent 1200 troops to Fort Garry (now known as Winnipeg), to surveil and control the new province. The troops, as well as the influx of settlers, terrorized the Metis residents. Many Metis individuals were murdered, beaten, and raped. Metis landholders were frequently harassed in non-physical ways as well.