University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016 The Statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel Anderson, Timothy Anderson, T. (2016). The Statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28389 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3317 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel by Timothy Douglas Anderson A THESIS SUMBITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA SEPTEMBER, 2016 © Timothy Douglas Anderson 2016 ii ABSTRACT How might we better understand the Canadian regime? This inquiry provides a review of a moment in Canadian political history and its statesmen that stands as an example of the practice that shaped Canadian nationhood. Sir John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel were the only “Fathers of Confederation” to meet in pitched battle. Their conflicts between 1869 and 1885 shaped two separate and core elements of the Canadian regime: English-French and East-West tensions. Through a lens of statesmanship, this inquiry analyzes the thoughts and actions of these two men. Macdonald, eastern and English, may be understood as a transactional statesman. In brief, this means he practiced a politics of negotiation, compromise, and dedication to classical liberal principles. Riel, western and French, can be read as a transformational statesman. This is a politics of profound idealism, of discomfort with this world, and of an identification of oneself with one’s cause. The inquiry examines these Fathers, their interactions, and the outcomes of their clash of statesmanship. It shows that their statesmanship represents a fresh way for us to might understand the English-French and East-West dynamics in Canada. Further, it demonstrates that ideas and statesmanship are critical to understanding the Canadian regime. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There is a long list of people to thank for this dissertation. First, I am grateful for the guidance, advice, and lessons of my supervisor, Dr. Tom Flanagan. You have taught me to be a better writer and to be far more open minded. I am also thankful for Dr. Anthony Sayers, whose advice on this project and my academic career were immensely helpful. I want to thank Drs. Rainer Knopff and David Stewart for their willingness to serve on my supervisory committee and for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this dissertation. To Judi Powell, the Graduate Coordinator for Political Science at the University of Calgary, thank you for your assistance, friendship, and cheerfulness. It helped me to navigate a busy and daunting eight years through my Master’s and Doctorate. I am also indebted to Ms. Ella Wensel and Ms. Bonnie Walter, whose administrative help I could not have done without. I also want to thank Drs. Michael Zekulin and Dave Snow for their friendship, wisdom, and advice during my time working on this inquiry. To Mark Harding, my office mate, I am deeply appreciative of your friendship, insight, warnings, and all around good humour throughout my academic career at Calgary. You helped to make the experience of earning a PhD grand. To be sure, I owe a great deal to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas and Jo-Anne Anderson, my brother, Nicholas, and grandmothers Geraldine and Phyllis for their love and support. I also want to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for their generous financial assistance with their Doctoral Fellowship as well as a Master’s SSHRC during my previous degree. Finally, I want to especially thank my uncle Richard, with whom I have lived throughout my time in Calgary. My debt to you is unpayable. This is for you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ……………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………… iii Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………. iv Epigraph ……………………………………………………………………. vi Introduction .…………………………………………………………………… 1 Chapter 1: Statesmanship …………………………………………………… 8 1.1. The History and Present of Statesmanship …………………… 8 1.2. A Review of Social Science Research on Leadership …………… 19 1.3. Re-conceiving Statesmanship: Transactional and Transformational . 38 Chapter 2: Sir John A. Macdonald ……………………………………………. 51 2.1. Macdonald as a Political Thinker ……………………………. 52 2.2. Pre-Confederation ……………………………………………. 69 2.3. Confederation ……………………………………………………. 78 2.4. The Pacific Scandal and Political Relationships ……………………. 90 2.5. Macdonald and Statesmanship ……………………………………. 100 Chapter 3: Louis Riel, Part One ……………………………………………. 114 3.1. On the Verge of Uprising …………………………………………… 116 3.2. In the Provisional Government …………………………………… 135 3.3. After the Resistance …………………………………………… 149 3.4. Early Riel and Statesmanship …………………………………... 157 Chapter 4: Louis Riel, Part Two …………………………………………… 175 v 4.1. Riel Prior to the Rebellion ……………………………………. 175 4.2. The North-West Rebellion ……………………………………. 190 4.3. Later Riel and Statesmanship ……………………………………. 212 Chapter 5: Riel’s Madness? ……………………………………………………. 220 5.1. Views of Riel’s Madness ……………………………………………. 220 5.2. Religiosity and the Myth of Mental Illness ……………………. 226 5.3. Riel, Psychology, and Statesmanship ……………………………. 237 Chapter 6: Statesmanship in Collision ……………………………………. 241 6.1. Statesmanship during the Red River Resistance ……………………. 241 6.2. Interaction Before and During the North-West Rebellion ……. 254 6.3. Macdonald and Riel: The Clash Over Hanging ……………………. 265 6.4. Statesmanship between Macdonald and Riel ……………………. 273 Chapter 7: The Canadian Regime and Statesmanship ……………………. 285 7.1. English-French Tensions …………………………………….. 285 7.2. East-West Tensions ……………………………………………. 299 7.3. The Regime and the Ideals of Statesmanship ……………………. 316 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 319 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………….. 323 vi EPIGRAPH “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” — Genesis 6:4 1 INTRODUCTION How did Canada become the Canada we recognize today? One can answer that question in several ways and each answer is valid in its own right. One could say that Canada became a country on 1 July 1867 with Confederation. But, why is that date more important than the one where the Fathers agreed to the British North America Act, or the day Queen Victoria gave Royal Assent to the bill? I doubt there is much of a difference. One can claim that we became a country in April 1917 with Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge. While this might be the first time that Canada asserted itself in the world, to take this argument seriously is to diminish the importance of the Fathers of Confederation and early Canadian statesmen. A few Canadians suggest that Canada came into its own with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982.1 This allegedly freed the country from requiring Westminster to pass amendments that Canadians wanted to make to the BNA Act. Although the appeal of this perspective is obvious, for it to be true means that prior to 1982, the Canadian state was supine and incapable of expressing sovereignty, which would be wrong. When one questions against this problem of Canada’s origin, it becomes clear that it is incredibly difficult to answer. In one sense, this is because a country forms much the way a child does, through processes of gestation, education, inculcation, and maturation. I can say confidently when I was born, but it becomes a trickier situation to find out when I became who “I” am. Knowing the date I was conceived or first went to school teaches me little about the nature or identity of my character. Instead, it takes reflection, analysis, and genuine introspection in order to generate an answer. And furthermore, the question has to change, albeit slightly. It is better to 1 Randy Boswell, “1867 Competes with 1812, 1608 and 1982 as ‘Founding’ Dates in Canadian History.” Post Media, 24 June 2013. Available at: < http://www.canada.com/life/1867+competes+with+1812+1608+1982+ founding+dates+canadian+history/8572618/story.html >. Accessed 1 July 2016. The report shows that seven percent of Canadians identified 1982 most strongly with the Canadian founding. 2 ask how does a subject begin to become what it is, rather than when did it become what it is. Identity is always subject to modification. More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle wrote about how one’s character emerges. He believed that character comes from habit; nature did not fit us for any one condition, but we are naturally fitted to acquire various ones and thus become who we are through habit.2 Thus, “we become just by doing just actions, temperate by doing temperate actions, [and] brave by doing brave actions.”3 Furthermore, Aristotle thought that this was true of political communities too, since he claimed that good legislators make good citizens, or they can pass on cowardice and