[Mustang1]

WLDB WLDB:

Riel stopped the Canadian surveyers without violence. He set up the "Metis National Commitee" to speak for the Metis. He told Ottawa that any attempt by Canada to assume authority would be contested. He was ignored and a Lietenant Governer who couldnt even speak french was given control. After getting rid of the Lieutenant Governer Riel allowed anglophones to join him to help come up with a course of action. All peacefull so far.
His provisional government tried negotiating with Ottawa peacefully. It failed.

He could not be a traiter to Canada as he was never Canadian. Nor did he or his people want to be. They were sold to Canada without having a say. It all comes down to them wanting representation.

You suggested Riel was peaceful and as such, the onus is on you to substantiate this claim with relevant historical information. You’ve offered some fragmented (although it incomplete) pieces of historical information that does somewhat help your assertion but you’ve failed to address the “violent” actions that history paints Riel with. For instance, he executed Scott (with an all Metis jury and a tenuous legal justification). How is this not violent? Secondly, he took up arms against the Canadian government during the North-West Rebellion (not only that, Dumont, Riel and a band of Metis took ammunition from a store in Batoche). He tried the same tactics that were relatively successful during Manitoba’s entry into Confederation, but this time he was the sole guilty aggressor. In fact, Gillmor writes, “Riel was advocating a battle to the death.” Besides, did Riel order Dumont to stop after the bloody confrontation with the NWMP at Duck Lake? Perhaps you should address these objective challenges, as they tend to call your suppositions into question.

$1:

“He could not be a traiter to Canada as he was never Canadian”

Really? You may want to re-evaluate that conclusion, as history seems to disagree (uhh…wasn’t Manitoba part of Canada after 1870? Didn’t Riel get elected to the Canadian government?) with you.

$1:

“Nor did he or his people want to be”

Really? You may want to look that up as well.

$1:

“They were sold to Canada without having a say”

Then explain the Provisional Government of Riel and its List of Rights (which were mostly accepted by the federal government in 1870) and how they negotiated entrance into Canada in 1870? Evidently, someone (that would be Riel) was “having a say”.

[norad]

$1:

wasn’t Manitoba part of Canada after 1870? Didn’t Riel get elected to the Canadian government?)

What do you mean that Riel was elected into Canadian government, Mustang? From my understanding, if I remember my history correctly, Riel headed a temporary government, which then negotiated with the Canadian government, or should I say, negotiated the Manitoba Act with the Canadian government.

It's also my understanding that Riel, Metis and other settlers opposed the Canadian takeover.

You are correct in asking WLDB to prove that Riel was peaceful. In fact, again, I may be wrong, but I thought that Manitoba was the only province where violence was the way to confederation?

I may be wrong about this since it's been 20 some odd years that I've been in a classroom.

[WLDB]

^
Riel was elected as an MP into the federal government.

[norad]

Ahhhh....I see. It's been a long time, but thanks for the civil response, WLDB!

[Mustang1]

norad norad:

What do you mean that Riel was elected into Canadian government, Mustang? From my understanding, if I remember my history correctly, Riel headed a temporary government, which then negotiated with the Canadian government, or should I say, negotiated the Manitoba Act with the Canadian government.

After Riel’s provisional government negotiated the entrance of Manitoba into Confederation (the Canadian government had to agree with most of Riel’s List of Rights) in 1870, Riel was elected to Parliament twice (I believe there were 4 reps from Manitoba). He refused to go to Ottawa because Macdonald wouldn’t grant his requests for amnesty (for actions during the Red River Rebellion).

$1:

“It's also my understanding that Riel, Metis and other settlers opposed the Canadian takeover.”

True (in 1869 and then in mid-1880s), but he also did initially support the Manitoba Act (his “government” negotiated its terms - this meant they agreed with future federal political intrusions), but later events (and likely his mental illness) would change this alleged peaceful (you are right, he was violent) man into, yet again, taking up arms against the federal government.

[norad]

Thanks, for the info, Mustang. Much appreciated!

[Tman1]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote. How were those three viewed as traitors?

[WLDB]

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

[Tman1]

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

By British eyes not others, therefore they are not criminals, terrorists or traitors. They fought for there own country. I suppose every citizen of the U.S today are all three of those right?

[WLDB]

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

By British eyes not others, therefore they are not criminals, terrorists or traitors. They fought for there own country. I suppose every citizen of the U.S today are all three of those right?

Not just British eyes. There were "Americans" who lived in the colonies for many generations who disagreed with Washington. They were of course the United Empire Loyalists, who the Continental Army didnt mind torturing or killing because they viewed them as traitors.

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

[Tman1]

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

By British eyes not others, therefore they are not criminals, terrorists or traitors. They fought for there own country. I suppose every citizen of the U.S today are all three of those right?

Not just British eyes. There were "Americans" who lived in the colonies for many generations who disagreed with Washington. They were of course the United Empire Loyalists, who the Continental Army didnt mind torturing or killing because they viewed them as traitors.

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

$1:

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

Uhhh then why were they fighting for in the first place? Hmm maybe harsh rule by law, non-representation? Pretty good means to fight for your "own country" as I originally asserted. Your right, it didn't exist, thats why they won.........and it existed. Too simple.

$1:

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

They were hippocrits? They claimed to be fighting for assertion of their rights as colonists and when that didn't work, they fought for their lands. They only cared about themselves, any slaves brought over to the colonies was the British doings. Many things people say to get what they want turn out to be posturing and boasting and never get accomplished. The south needed slaves in order to run their Medieval industry. Its tough I know but thats the way it happend, cant change that. Share with the Brits? Thats a hoot and completely back draws on everything that works as History and what I said.

$1:

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

Oh now its decendants of traitors now hmmm. Canada wanted to split from the Empire albeit peacefully, would you consider the location you are presently living in traitorous? Is Canada traitorous to the British?

[WLDB]

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

By British eyes not others, therefore they are not criminals, terrorists or traitors. They fought for there own country. I suppose every citizen of the U.S today are all three of those right?

Not just British eyes. There were "Americans" who lived in the colonies for many generations who disagreed with Washington. They were of course the United Empire Loyalists, who the Continental Army didnt mind torturing or killing because they viewed them as traitors.

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

$1:

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

Uhhh then why were they fighting for in the first place? Hmm maybe harsh rule by law, non-representation? Pretty good means to fight for your "own country" as I originally asserted. Your right, it didn't exist, thats why they won.........and it existed. Too simple.

$1:

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

They were hippocrits? They claimed to be fighting for assertion of their rights as colonists and when that didn't work, they fought for their lands. They only cared about themselves, any slaves brought over to the colonies was the British doings. Many things people say to get what they want turn out to be posturing and boasting and never get accomplished. The south needed slaves in order to run their Medieval industry. Its tough I know but thats the way it happend, cant change that. Share with the Brits? Thats a hoot and completely back draws on everything that works as History and what I said.

$1:

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

Oh now its decendants of traitors now hmmm. Canada wanted to split from the Empire albeit peacefully, would you consider the location you are presently living in traitorous? Is Canada traitorous to the British?

Possibly. It was the British who wanted to get rid of us as well.

[ShepherdsDog]

My point in using the Americans was that had their rebellion failed, the leaders would have been hung as traitors. Riel's rebellion failed and its leaders were exucuted and branded criminals.

Whether or not British rule was harsh on the colonies and whether or not they had representation and what truly drove the leaders into open rebellion is open for interpretation and debate. These issues however, should be another thread.

[Jaime_Souviens]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

My point in using the Americans was that had their rebellion failed, the leaders would have been hung as traitors. Riel's rebellion failed and its leaders were exucuted and branded criminals.

Whether or not British rule was harsh on the colonies and whether or not they had representation and what truly drove the leaders into open rebellion is open for interpretation and debate. These issues however, should be another thread.

Hear, hear. I wanted very much to post correcting some errors on American history, but I don't want to obscure a discussion of Riel.

A difference between the colonial American situation and the Riel Saskatchewan fiasco was that the rebelling colonies were exactly that, function governments. All Riel had was a vagabond circus led by a man who had been released from an asylum who was still plagued with visions and delusions.






.

[Lord-Beaverbrook]

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

WLDB WLDB:

Tman1 Tman1:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

$1:

but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Pretty good post but I have to question this little quote? How were those three viewed as traitors?

They were rebels against British rule. Traitors, terrorists, criminals. Theyve been called many things.

By British eyes not others, therefore they are not criminals, terrorists or traitors. They fought for there own country. I suppose every citizen of the U.S today are all three of those right?

Not just British eyes. There were "Americans" who lived in the colonies for many generations who disagreed with Washington. They were of course the United Empire Loyalists, who the Continental Army didnt mind torturing or killing because they viewed them as traitors.

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

$1:

They were not fighting for their own country as their "own country" at that point did not exist.

Uhhh then why were they fighting for in the first place? Hmm maybe harsh rule by law, non-representation? Pretty good means to fight for your "own country" as I originally asserted. Your right, it didn't exist, thats why they won.........and it existed. Too simple.

$1:

The revolutionaries were hippocrits. They claimed to be fighting for freedom...yet they kept slavery for another 80 years. They claimed every man was equal. Yeah so long as they were rich and white. They just fought because they wanted the whole American continent to themselves and didnt want to share with the Brits.

They were hippocrits? They claimed to be fighting for assertion of their rights as colonists and when that didn't work, they fought for their lands. They only cared about themselves, any slaves brought over to the colonies was the British doings. Many things people say to get what they want turn out to be posturing and boasting and never get accomplished. The south needed slaves in order to run their Medieval industry. Its tough I know but thats the way it happend, cant change that. Share with the Brits? Thats a hoot and completely back draws on everything that works as History and what I said.

$1:

No I wouldnt say every american today is a traitor as the US now exists. They are merely the descendents of traitors.

Oh now its decendants of traitors now hmmm. Canada wanted to split from the Empire albeit peacefully, would you consider the location you are presently living in traitorous? Is Canada traitorous to the British?

Possibly. It was the British who wanted to get rid of us as well.

True that and I doubt they wouldn't want to risk another war... even if the odds were very low because of all the loyalists.