Louis Riel is perhaps one of the most controversial figures in Canadian historiography.

Many historians claim that Louis Riel was executed not for treason, but for the murder of Thomas Scott.  The reasoning behind Scott’s execution has been the subject of many articles and books, and everyone seems to have a different version of the events surrounding the execution.  In a book published by the Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan, called Louis Riel: Justice Must be Done,  a few stories are given along with what they claim are undisputable facts.  The facts of the book are that Thomas Scott was and Ontario Orange who was one of a number of Canadian’s in the Red River who was involved in actions of a military nature designed to overthrow first, the government of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and later, the Provisional Government.  They claim he was known for his anti-French and anti-Catholic fanaticism.  He was captured for the second time, on February 18, along with forty seven other men. Grants of amnesty were offered to all the prisoners who promised to be loyal and not take up arms against the Provisional Government again.  “The only prisoner averse to taking the oath was Scott, who felt it was below his dignity to do so.”  Thomas Scott merely ‘sneered’ at Riel and ‘made fun of’ the Métis leader.  “[It] is said that he violently attacked his guards, incited his companions to do likewise and threatened the life of Riel if he ever escaped.”  This description of Thomas Scott’s behaviour matches Louis Riel’s telling of the events.  Riel stated that “Scott in prison made himself conspicuous by the violence of his conduct, particularly on March 1st.  On that day, Th. Scott and Mr. McLeod forced the doors of their prison and hurled themselves on their guards… The Métis… were so angry at theses outrages they dragged Scott outside and were ready to kill him [.]”Scott was warned that his conduct would get him executed but he “ignored this advice and persisted in his bad conduct.” Riel claimed that he executed Scott because “his execution was necessary to maintain order and to fulfill [their] duty by making order respected.”  The body of Thomas Scott was never produced after his execution, which led to theories that he was never executed.  This theory came to light when a researcher from the Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan found a statement made in 1938, by W.M. Joyce of Neepawa, Manitoba, in the Manitoba Archives. The statement claims that shortly after Scott’s second arrest they released him on the agreement that he would, for a sum of money and the promise of a permanent job, go to the United States and never return to Canada. The actual execution, he claims, was faked.  In a report from Donald A. Smith to Joseph Howe, Secretary of State for the provinces, he stated that during a discussion with Riel on the matter of Thomas Scott’s execution he proclaimed that Scott was executed because “we must make Canada respect us.”  It seems clear from all accounts that Thomas Scott was an anti-French and anti-catholic fanatic who was against Louis Riel and the Métis.  Riel's motives for the execution are still unclear, but he believed he was acting within the rights of international law.  If the Canadian government had recognized Louis Riel’s provisional government; Thomas Scott’s execution would not seem like a bloody murder, but a political act.  Riel had been promised the grant of an amnesty for the killing of Scott, by the Prime Minister of Canada; but there was much revolt from Ontario and members in the Federal government, so instead they asked Riel to go into voluntary exile. Another 15 years would pass before Riel would once again capture the nation's attention by leading yet another rebellion in the North West. This time, he would not escape, and the Canadian Government would hang him for his actions.

His years in exile would include stays in two Quebec asylums and the growing belief in Riel that he had a religious mission to lead the Métis people of the Canadian northwest.  After the Red River Rebellion in 1869 and 1870 many of the Métis grievances remained unsolved. They had moved farther west and settled in the Saskatchewan Territories. By the 1880s, European and other settlers were moving into the Saskatchewan and the Métis saw their traditional lifestyle threatened again.  Natives had signed treaties giving up claim to the whole of the territory and agreeing to settle on reserves. The Canadian Government however, did not live up to the provisions in these treaties, with the result that people who were already unhappy at having to give up much of their traditional way of life were made more angry as promises failed to materialize.   In June of 1884, Louis Riel was called back from exile in Montana to lead them. Gabriel Dumont was appointed as his military leader and in March 1885, a provisional government was proclaimed in the west. Batoche was declared its capital.  The provisional government was eventually overthrown with the capture of Batoche on May 12th, 1885.  Riel was taken prisoner and later hanged for treason, while Dumont escaped to the United States. 

         People gave many accounts to Riel’s behaviour leading up to and during the North-West Rebellion.  In the book Louis Riel: Justice must be done, the authors paint Riel as a peaceful man who wanted as little bloodshed as possible.  In their account Riel never wanted a battle to ensue.  He sent many petitions to the government which always remained unanswered.  They reported that on March 18th, 1885, a Hudson’s Bay factor, Lawrence Clark, met a group of Métis and told them that “500 policemen [were] on [their] way [there] to keep [Dumont and Riel] quiet.  In answer to [their] requests, they [had] chains for Riel and bullets for the members of his council.”  This news spurred the Métis into action, and Dumont took 30 men with him to Duck Lake to get supplies to prepare for battle; but he was greeted by 177 men led by Major Crozier of the Mounted Police.  According to the Association’s research, Riel had ordered Dumont and all his men to never fire first if encountered by the police.  Gabriel sent peace emissaries to converse with Crozier, but according to the book, Crozier fired at the men and a battle ensued.  Once Prime Minister Macdonald had heard of the battle at Duck Lake he authorized military action.  A full scale battle later ensued and by May 13th the battlefield was quiet.  The Métis had surrendered.  A few days later Riel surrendered.  In the book, Louis Riel: Justice must be done, it was stated that Riel never bared arms during the fight.  He spent most of the time going in the trenches to boost the morale of the men, and read them passages from the bible.  Much evidence was presented during Louis Riel’s trial, to show his behaviour during the rebellion; this evidence was subsequently discussed in the House of Commons in March of 1886 on the matter of Louis Riel’s execution.  In a speech given by Mr. J. Royal MP on March 12th he said that it was the white settlers of the northwest that caused the agitation which led to the rebellion.  He said Riel had received a telegram saying that a commission was being sent to the West to deal with the land question.  But the white settlers told Riel that the telegram was forged and in fact all they were sending was 500 armed police.  When compared to the Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan’s telling of the events that would mean that Lawrence Clark had lied to the Métis in order to spur a battle.  On March 15th 1886, Mr. J.J. Curran MP presented letters and testimony from the trial, to the House of Commons, to show that Riel’s behaviour during the Rebellion was that of a bloodthirsty criminal.  He said that in a letter written by Rev. Father Fourmond, a Bishop who witnessed the events, Riel is described as evil and a tyrant.  The bishop said in the letter that Riel made up the fact that 500 police were coming and he forced people into battle.  He would threaten there lives to get them to fight.  Father Andre, an acquaintance of Riel, testified at his trial that Riel would beg him to use his connections with the Government to get him $100,000 to settle the issue.  All the research paints Riel in two very different lights:  a blood thirsty-tyrant or a religious fanatic who wanted a peaceful resolution.  There’s no way to tell whether there was a white man’s conspiracy or whether Riel was out for blood.  I can only conclude that a battle took place, and after much bloodshed, Riel surrendered and faced trial for treason.  

        Louis Riel was the first and only individual in Canada ever tried for high treason.  His trial was conducted in an atmosphere of party and racial hostility.  The fairness of his trial was highly questioned at the time, among the public and within the House of Commons; and it continues to be the subject of great debate today.  There were many flaws in Louis Riel’s search for justice.  He was brought to trial on July 20th, 1885 before magistrate Hugh Richardson. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of high treason.  His lawyers, Francois Lemieux and Charles Fitzpatrick, sought to show that Riel was insane and therefore not responsible for his actions.

        The trial was moved from Winnipeg to Regina.  It was decided by the Crown that any trial of any rebel in Manitoba might produce a “miscarriage of justice.”  The move also denied Riel the chance of having a trial in French.  Riel’s lawyers argued for a venue in Ontario or British Columbia on technical grounds, rather than on the point of unfairness or injustice, which appears to have been a mistake.  Their main argument was that the composition of a jury in the North-West Territories was different than elsewhere, to the defendant’s disadvantage.  A jury in the North-West Territories consisted of only six jurors, rather than the normal 12.  This obviously reduced the possibility of a hung jury; six jurors were more likely to agree than 12.    The jury selection process also denied Riel a jury consisted of his peers.  The jury was selected from a list of 36 possible jurors; all selected by the judge. Only 5 of which were either catholic or French.  All six jury members were English Protestants.  There was strong belief that the judge was biased.  Richardson was not a tenured judge but served at the pleasure of the government.  He did not speak French, and he was receiving a salary as legal advisor to the lieutenant-governor. Bias was quite evident from his association with the Orange Lodge, and reports that his house was damaged during the excitement at Fort Battleford.   “Hugh Richardson—unimaginative, weak, inexperienced, prejudiced—was the perfect instrument form a government looking to convict and execute Louis Riel.”

        The defense seemed quite ill prepared.  They were pressed for time, and they focused on the issue of sanity too much.  They asked for a month to properly prepare their defense, and locate key witnesses; as well as, some money to fund the arrival of key witnesses.  The judge gave them a one week extension, and paid the travel fare for any witness traveling within the North-West Territories.  I believe the greatest flaw in Riel’s defense was the defense itself.  Riel wanted a defense based on “the merit of [his] actions,” in effect justifying his rebellion in terms of the misconduct of the Canadian government in the West.  The jury needed to be given some reason to defy the government and the charges that would be given it by the judge to find the defendant guilty, but the defense gave them nothing.  All the defense gave them was an ultimatum between insanity and guilt.  By pleading innocent by reason of insanity the defense gave the jury no other choice but to find Riel guilty; especially when Riel himself denied he was insane.  At that time the popular feeling about insanity was not that it was a disease but was rather, somehow, an offence, a repulsive abnormality associated with bad behaviour in general.  The jury’s recommendation of mercy showed their reluctance in condemning his actions.  A juror member once said: “[we] were in sympathy with the Metis because we knew they had good cause for what they did.”  If the defense lawyers had presented the case like Riel desired, the chances of him being found guilty would seem less likely.  

        Magistrate Hugh Richardson sentenced Louis Riel to be hanged on September 18th, 1885.  Two reprives were granted to Riel as he waited to hear the verdict of his appeals.  His appeals to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London both failed when these bodies upheld the judgment of the Territorial Court.  On Novermber 16th, 1885 Louis Riel went to the gallows.  Following his execution; press, public, and politicians drew battle lines once more, raging and stormin gin ther respective racial and religious camps.  Demands for revenge on the “murderer” and “traitor” where echoed by cries of justice and mercy for the “saint” and “hero.”  He was a madman, a hero, a metis, but to the people of Quebec he was nevertheless a French Canadian and a victim of Anglo-Saxon persecution.  Canada was once divided along ethnic, linguistic, and religious boundaries.  Quebeckers had expressed admiration for Riel’s heroic battle for the rights of his people; and his execution had great political consequences for the province of Quebec.  As a result of the execution of Louis Riel, the most conservative province in Canada swung over to the liberal party.  Louis Riel still remains in the public eye.  In recent years, a number of attempts have been made to rehabilitate him officially by proposing to grant him a posthumous pardon for his activities in 1884 and 1885.  If the government had listened to the demands of the Metis people than the entire situation could have been prevented.  The federal government’s maltreatment of the Metis subsequently caused the North West Rebellion.  Louis Riel should be granted posthumous pardon for his involvement in the rebellion, and he should be recognized for the hero he is and the martyr he became.

---