Société québécoise de science politique

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance: The Declaration of December 8, 1869Author(s): Thomas FlanaganSource: Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 11,No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 153-164Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3230524 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 18:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Political Science Association and Société québécoise de science politique are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne descience politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance: The Declaration of December 8, 1869*

THOMAS FLANAGAN University of Calgary

Although there exists a respectable literature on political thought in Canada, relatively little of this work has been done by political theorists or philosophers. Much of the research has been carried out by his- torians, sociologists, or more recently by political scientists working with sociological conceptions such as "political culture." But there is still a place in the study of Canadian political thought for one of the traditional tasks of political theory, the critical analysis of significant texts. This paper examines one such document, which deserves to be better known than it is, the "Declaration of the People of Rupert's Land and the North West," of December 8, 1869. The text is presented in both English and French versions, the background of the document is briefly discussed, and its argument is analyzed at some length.

The Text

Two renditions of the text are given below. The first is the English version which was printed and distributed throughout the Red River

Colony to justify the formation of the first provisional government. The second is a transcription of the original French manuscript, as it exists in the handwriting of Father Georges Dugas, who participated in the com- position. The two versions differ in certain important respects which will be noted in the course of the analysis.

Declaration of the People of Rupert's Land and the North West' Whereas It is admitted by all men as a fundamental principle that the public

authority commands the obedience and respect of its subjects. It is also admitted

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 1976. I am particularly indebted to Desmond Morton, William Christian, and Anthony Parel for comments which have helped in the revision of that draft.

1 The English text is that given in Alexander Begg's journal. W. L. Morton (ed.), Alexander Begg's Red River Journal (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1956), 218-20.

Begg noted: "[I]t was incorrectly printed and issued in an unfinished state at first but afterwards corrected and sent out as follows" (218). I am greatly indebted to Morton's admirable compilation.

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, XI: 1 (March/mars 1978). Printed in Canada / Imprime au Canada

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154 THOMAS FLANAGAN

that a people, when it has no Government, is free to adopt one form of Govern- ment in preference to another to give or to refuse allegiance to that which is proposed. In accordance with the above first principle, the people of this Country had obeyed and respected that authority to which the circumstances surrounding its infancy compelled it to be subject.

A company of adventurers known as the "Hudson Bay Company" [sic] and invested with certain powers granted by His Majesty (Charles II) established itself in Rupert's Land and in the North West Territory for trading purposes only. This Company consisting of many persons required a certain constitution. But as there was a question of commerce only their constitution was framed in reference thereto. Yet since there was at that time no government to see to the interests of a people already existing in the country, it became necessary for judicial affairs to have recourse to the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company. Thus inaugurated that species of government which, slightly modified by subse- quent circumstances, ruled this country up to a recent date. Whereas that government thus accepted was far from answering to the wants of the people, and became more and more so as the population increased in numbers, and as the country was developed, and commerce extended, until the present day when it commands a place amongst the Colonies; and this people ever actuated by the above mentioned principles had generously supported the aforesaid government and gave to it a faithful allegiance; when contrary to the law of nations, in March 1869 that said Government surrendered and transferred to Canada all the rights which it had or pretended to have in this territory by transactions with which the people were considered unworthy to be made acquainted.

And Whereas it is also generally admitted that a people is at liberty to establish any form of government it may consider suitable to its wants, as soon as the power to which it was subject abandons it or attempts to subjugate it without its consent to a foreign power; and maintain that no right can be transferred to such foreign power.2 Now therefore-

Ist. We, the Representatives of the people in Council assembled at Upper Fort Garry on the 24th day of November 1869, after having invoked the God of nations, relying on these fundamental moral principles, solemnly declare in the name of our constituents and in our own names, before God and man, that from the day on which the Government we always respected abandoned us-by transferring to a strange power the sacred authority confided to it-the people of Rupert's Land and the North West became free and exempt from all allegiance to the said Government.

2nd. That we refuse to recognise the authority of Canada which pretends to have a right to coerce us and impose upon us a despotic form of government, still more contrary to our rights and interests as British subjects than was that Government to which we had subjected ourselves through necessity up to a recent date.

3rd. That by sending an expedition on the Ist of November ult. charged to drive back Mr. William McDougall and his companions coming in the name of Canada to rule us with the rod of despotism without a previous notification to that effect we have but acted conformably to that sacred right which commands every citizen to offer energetic opposition to prevent his country being enslaved.

4th. That we continue and shall continue to oppose with all our strength the establishing of the Canadian authority in our country under the announced form. And in case of persistence on the part of the Canadian Government to enforce its obnoxious policy upon us by force of arms we protest beforehand against such

2 This sentence has been somewhat garbled in translation. The corresponding French sentence is coherent.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance 155

an unjust and unlawful course and we declare the said Canadian Government responsible before God and men for the innumerable evils which may be caused by so unwarrantable a course.

Be it known, therefore, to the world in general and to the Canadian Gov- ernment in particular that as we have always heretofore successfully defended our country in frequent wars with the neighbouring tribes of Indians who are now in friendly relations with us we are firmly resolved in future not less than in the past to repel all invasions from whatsoever quarter they may come.

And furthermore we do declare and proclaim in the name of the people of Rupert's Land and the North West that we have on the said 24th day of November 1869 above mentioned established a Provisional Government and hold it to be the only and lawful authority now in existence in Rupert's Land and the North West which claims the obedience and respect of the people. That meanwhile we hold ourselves in readiness to enter into negotiations with the Canadian Government as may be favourable for the good government and prosperity of this people.

In support of this declaration relying on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge ourselves on oath our lives our fortunes and our sacred honour to each other.

Issued at Fort Garry this 8th day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty nine.

John Bruce President Louis Riel Secretary

Declaration des habitants de la terre de Rupert et du Nord-Ouest3 II est admis en principe de morale que la puissance publique est inviolable

de droit; comme aussi il est reconnu qu'un peuple qui n'a pas de gouvernement est libre d'adopter une forme de gouvernement plutft qu'une autre; d'accepter ou de refuser celle qui lui est proposee: C'est d'apres ces deux principes que le peuple de la Terre de Rupert et du Nord-Ouest se contentait de gemir en silence, et de tolerer l'espece d'asservissement dans lequel l'avait [sic] place les circonstances particulieres qui avaient entoure son berceau.

Une Compagnie d'Aventuriers, connue sous le nom de Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson et revetue de certains pouvoirs par sa Majeste Charles II vint s'etablir dans la terre de Rupert et dans le Nord-Ouest pour y faire la traite. Cette Compagnie formait une agregation d'hommes qui avait besoin d'une constitution. Mais comme il s'agissait de commerce cette constitution s'y rapportait surtout. Cependant comme il n'y avait alors aucun gouvernement qui s'occupit des int'r^ts du peuple deji 6tabli dans le pays, besoin fut a ce peuple de recourir pour les affairesjudiciares [sic] aux officiers de cette Compagnie: de la1 l'origine du gouvernement qui a regi le pays jusqu'b cette epoque.

Ce gouvernement ainsi admis etait loin de repondre aux besoins de la population actuelle, qui 'B force [tue] d'energie et de devouement s'est d6veloppee, s'est accrue, et s'est 61evee au point de meriter, B cause de son nombre, de sa civilisation, et de son commerce, une place parmi les nations.

Toujours mi^ par les principes emis plus haut, le peuple de la Terre de Rupert et du Nord-Ouest supportait genereusement le susdit gouvernement et lui obeissait fidelement, lorsque, contre le droit des gens en Mars 1869 ce

3 The French text is transcribed from the original manuscript in the Archives of the Archdiocese of St. Boniface. Correct accents have been supplied where necessary. French words crossed out and placed in square brackets here had been written and then crossed out in the original manuscript. The text was printed with a few inconse- quential errors in Morton, Red River Journal, 579-81.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156 THOMAS FLANAGAN

gouvernement abandonna et transporta au Canada, par des transactions, qu'il n'a pas meme daigne communiquer a son peuple, tous les droits qu'il avait, et ceux qu'il pretendait avoir dans le pays.-

Or comme il est un autre principe [gn-ralmente.

] admis par tous4 les publicistes (parmi lesquels nous pouvons citer Berclay [sic] et Duvoisin) qu'un peuple devient libre, et peut desormais se gouverner comme il le juge a propos, lorsque la puissance a laquelle il etait soumis l'abandonne ou l'assujettit contre son gre, a une puissance 6trangere, et que de plus, elle ne transfere aucun droit a la puissance "a laquelle elle le soumet.

Nous, les representants [4]e] elus par le peuple, reunis en conseil au Fort Garry; apres avoir invoque le Dieu des nations, appuyes sur ces principes fondamentaux de morale, declarons solemnellement [sic], au nom de nos constituants et en nos propres noms, devant Dieu et devant les hommes:

lier. Que [i] Gc• ,,- c,1-ia]

du jour oif le Gouvernement, que nous avions toujours respect6 nous a abandonne en transferant 'a une puissance etrangere l'autorite Sacre qui lui avait ete confide, nous devenons libres et degages de toute obeissance a son egard, et que La Seule Seule [sic] autorite 16gitime aujourd'hui dans la terre de Rupert, et du Nord-Ouest est I'autorite provisoirement accordee par le peuple a nous ses representants.

2ieme. Que nous refusons de reconnaitre l'autorite du Canada qui pretend avoir droit de venir nous imposer une forme de gouvernement encore plus contraire 'a nos droits et 'a nos interets que ne l'a 6te le gouvernement auquel nous avons et6 soumis par n'cessite jusqu'" ces derniers temps.

3ieme. Que le lier Novembre dernier, en dle1guant une expedition chargte de reconduire au dela des bornes de notre pays, le Sieur William McDougall et ses compagnons, s'avangant sur nos terres, au nom du Canada [et] sans une notification pr6alable de sa part, et malgre une defense a lui intimee par nous, pour venir gouverner ici en despote, nous n'avons fait qu'agir conform6ment au droit sacre que tout citoyen a de s'opposer energiquement a l'asservissement de sa patrie.

4ieme. Que nous continuons et que nous continuerons a nous opposer de toutes nos forces, i l'entree du gouvernement du Canada dans notre pays, sous la forme enoncee; et en cas de persistance de sa part 'a venir nous troubler par des incursions belligerantes, nous protestons d'avance contre ces actes injustes et le declarons responsable devant Dieu et devant les peuples des malheurs incalculables qui seraient la suite de sa temeraire ambition. Qu'il sache qu'avant de voir asservir notre patrie, nous saurons tirer partie des moyens de defense que la Providence nous a mis entre les mains, et que ce n'est pas pour la voir envahir par des etrangers que nous l'avons tant de fois defendue au prix de notre sang, contre des hordes de barbares devenus aujourd'hui nos [fallit] amis et nos allies.

5ieme. Que cependant la puissance du Canada nous trouvera toujours prets B entrer avec elle [e n nGotiation] dans des negotiations favorables 'a son agrandissement et a notre prosp6rite.-

A l'appui de ces declarations, [ ur neatr scrmn, ct] comptant sur la divine Providence, nous engageons par serment nos vies nos fortunes et notre honneur.

Donne au Fort Garry le 8 Dec. 1869.

Johny Bruce President L. Riel Sec.

4 Dugas may have meant to cross out tous. I have followed Morton in retaining the word.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance 157

At the end Dugas has written:

Cette copie est la seule authentique. Nous n'avons pu la faire imprimer corectement [sic] je ne sais trop pourquoi: Plusieurs copies memes sont toutes defigurees. La copie anglaise est moins maltraitee.

Historical Background The sale of Rupert's Land to Canada was approved in principle in March, 1869. The official date of transfer was to be December 1 of the same year. But before the sale could be concluded, the Metis of Red River intervened. They refused to let the Canadian Governor William McDougall enter the Territory until they had had the opportunity to consult with Ottawa about the terms of transfer. Under the aggressive leadership of Louis Riel, the M6tis seized Fort Garry, and then invited the English of the Colony to send delegates to a Convention to discuss the future. The English complied, although without enthusiasm.

The idea of the provisional government was first aired at this Convention. Riel's private notes show that on the night of November 23 he engaged the M6tis delegates in a long discussion of the subject, finally winning their assent.5 But the English delegates balked when the idea was presented to them. The Convention dissolved at the end of the month with a tenuous and short-lived compromise.

Thereafter events moved rapidly. On December 1, McDougall is- sued his famous and ill-advised proclamation declaring the transfer complete. The Canadian faction in the Colony rose against Riel's unoffi- cial regime, and had to be put down by the threat of armed force. Bringing this tumultuous week to a close, the provisional government was established on December 8 by means of the "Declaration of the People of Rupert's Land and the North West."

The Declaration was issued over the names of John Bruce, presi- dent, and Louis Riel, secretary (of the National Committee of the M6tis of Red River). Since Bruce was a nonentity who soon resigned the presidential position he had occupied as figurehead, one might assume that the Declaration was Riel's work. But A. G. Morice, the historian of the insurrection, heard from Father Georges Dugas that the latter had written it at Riel's request.6 Dugas, an Oblate missionary at St. Boniface, was very sympathetic to the M6tis cause. It would not be surprising if he had put his talent for authorship, later demonstrated by several books about the North-West, at the disposal of Riel. Curiously, however, Dugas kept silent about the true authorship of the Declaration in his own book on the Red River troubles. He contented himself with remarking rather coyly: "La forme classique, energique et solennelle de

5 Ibid., 675. 6 A. G. Morice, A Critical History of the Red River Insurrection (Winnipeg: Canadian

publishers, the author, 1935), 162.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158 THOMAS FLANAGAN

ce document fit comprendre que Riel n'etait pas un simple chef illettr6 d'une bande de chasseurs."7 But if Dugas wished to remain in the background for political reasons, his part in the composition is con- firmed by the draft of the Declaration in his hand.

Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what Dugas' role was. Was he author, adviser, or merely amanuensis? Later in his life, Riel would never have relied on anyone else to compose such an important docu- ment; but at this early stage in his career, he might well have asked for substantial help from Dugas, particularly since there was great pressure of time.

The Canadians had only been subdued on December 7, and Riel wanted to issue his manifesto as soon as possible to stabilize the situa- tion. He probably asked Dugas to do the first draft, expressing ideas which were already current in the Metis movement." Dugas complied, writing "rather hurriedly," as he later admitted to Morice. Riel then had it translated, printed, and distributed at once.

Some interesting changes were introduced in the translation. For example, the strong statement that Red River merited "une place parmi les nations" was replaced by the much weaker assertion that it "com- mands a place amongst the Colonies." But without knowing who did the translation, and under what instructions the translator worked, it is difficult to say how significant such alterations are. We will not pursue them further, since they do not affect the main argument of the Declara- tion, which is the same in both versions.

Analysis The Declaration immediately reminds one of the American Declaration of Independence. Phrases such as "We, the Representatives of the people in Council assembled.., after having invoked the God of na- tions, relying on these fundamental moral principles, solemnly declare in the name of our constituents and in our own names ... ," and "relying on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge ourselves on oath our lives our fortunes and our sacred honour to each other," are modeled on the last paragraph of Jefferson's Declaration. The structure of both Declarations is also broadly similar: a statement of general principles followed by an enumeration of historical facts and an asser- tion of independence. But the resemblance of the two documents should not blind us to the difference in their contents. The Declaration of Independence summarized the political theory of "high Whiggery," as

7 Georges Dugas, Histoire vdridique desfaits qui ont prdpard le mouvement des MWtis a' Riviere Rouge en 1869 (Montreal: Librairie Beauchemin, 1905), 125.

8 See the letter from "deux habitants metis-canadiens de la Riviere-Rouge" to the Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, October 28, 1869, printed in Morton, Red River Jour- nal, 570-71.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance 159

John Adams called it, which was a commonplace in eighteenth-century America. It justified the American Revolution through the familiar notions of the state of nature, natural rights, social contract, consent of the governed, and the right of resistance against tyranny. The Metis Declaration, in contrast, was far more conservative. It made no sweep- ing claims for liberty or natural rights, as the following analysis will show.

The English version begins by acknowledging that "the public authority commands the obedience and respect of its subjects." The French text is at once clearer and more concise in stating that "la puissance publique est inviolable de droit." What is meant is simply that the subject owes a duty of obedience to the commands of the sovereign. Note that the principle is stated categorically, without any exception. That is important; for, as we shall see in a moment, the argument depends on an alleged absence of state power, not on a doctrine of inherent limitations on power.

The second principle on which the argument relies is that "a peo- ple, when it has no Government, is free to adopt one form of Govern- ment in preference to another[,] to give or to refuse allegiance to that which is proposed." Such a narrow principle would be acceptable to political thinkers of almost any persuasion. Even those who do not posit consent of the governed as a condition of legitimacy could accept it, if for no other reason than that it has few practical implications. As critics of the social contract theory have always pointed out, how often does it happen that a people finds itself without a government? Whether or not this occurred at the dawn of history, it certainly is unusual in the present day. The argument of the Declaration depends on showing that the people of Rupert's Land were in precisely that uncommon position.

Proof is sought in the sale by the Hudson's Bay Company of its territories to Canada. The inhabitants were never consulted in any way about this transaction, and certainly had not yet had the opportunity to approve or reject it. A vacuum of political power had thus been created which the inhabitants of Rupert's Land could fill; for "a people is at liberty to establish any form of government it may consider suitable to it wants, as soon as the power to which it was subject abandons it or attempts to subjugate it without its consent to a foreign power." Thus the community was entitled to create a provisional government to negotiate terms of entry into the Canadian Confederation.

This line of reasoning is open to objection. The Declaration speaks as though the sale from the Hudson's Bay Company to Canada were a transfer from one sovereign power to another; but a moment' s reflection shows this view to be questionable. The Company was not a sovereign power; it merely ruled its lands on delegation from the Crown. Nor was Canada a fully sovereign state at the time. The sale from the Company to Canada was really a three-party transaction in which the Company

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160 THOMAS FLANAGAN

returned its lands to the Crown, which then passed them on to Canada. From a legal point of view, this could be construed as an internal action within the British Empire which would not produce the alleged vacuum of state power.

Furthermore, it was hardly unprecedented for territory to be sold from one sovereign power to another without consulting the wishes of the inhabitants. A series of examples could be adduced from experience on the North American continent between the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the sale of Alaska (1867). In claiming that such sales were contrary to the "law of nations," or "international law," as it would be called today, the Declaration mentioned no precedents.

The Declaration's argument was not totally without force. Sir John A. Macdonald had foreseen the possibility that the Red River settlers, amidst all the political uncertainty, might erect a government; and he had written to Governor McDougall on November 27, 1869, advising him not to proclaim the end of Hudson's Bay Company rule before he was in a position to assume power, as that might encourage the creation of an indigenous government:

An assumption of the Government by you ... puts an end to that of the Hudson's Bay Company authorities.... There would then be, if you were not admitted into the country, no legal government existing and anarchy must follow. In such a case.., it is quite open by the Law of Nations for the inhabitants to form a Government ex necessitate for the protection of life and property, and such a Government has certain sovereign rights by the jus gentium .... 9

Note, however, that Sir John did not think that the sale in itself would cause the vacuum of state power. His concern was over a prema- ture proclamation by McDougall. In that respect, Sir John's reasoning differed from the Declaration. Both allowed that the settlers might of necessity create their own government, but they differed as to the conditions which would justify such a measure.

Events led to an ironic outcome. The prime minister's advice did not reach McDougall in time to prevent him from making his famous pronouncement. When he was barred from entering Red River, after having dissolved the Hudson's Bay Company regime, this seemed to create the vacuum of power which Macdonald had feared. Yet Riel and Dugas did not seize upon this situation to provide theoretical justifica- tion for the provisional government. Instead they invoked an argument based upon the sale itself. As if to show their contempt for McDougall's proclamation, they backdated the Declaration to November 24, 1869, illustrating that their claims did not merely rest upon the rash mistake of a Canadian official. The net result was a tangled legal situation defying easy resolution. It was clear that Riel's provisional government was the

9 Cited in G. F. G. Stanley, The Birth of Western Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960), 84-85.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance 161

master of Red River defacto; but it was less easy to say whether, and for which reason, the provisional government was legitimate de jure.

Thus the reasoning of the Declaration was not an entire success. The modern student may well think that Riel and Dugas would have been on stronger ground if they had not restrained themselves so nar- rowly and had made a broader argument along the lines of the Declara- tion of Independence.

Indeed there are certain rhetorical flourishes in the Metis Declara- tion which bring to mind notions like consent of the governed and resistance to oppression. The inhabitants of Rupert's Land are said to have "generously supported" the rule of the Hudson's Bay Company, even though that regime was "far from answering to the wants of the people." In fact it was never really meant to be a government since it was designed for "commerce only." Then came the great betrayal. "[T]he Government we always respected abandoned us." The sale, as carried out, was an affront to human dignity; "the people were consi- dered unworthy to be made acquainted" with the transaction. And now the Canadian government was preparing "to enforce its obnoxious policy," the "unjust and unlawful course" of sending a governor to rule "with the rod of despotism." Such an action was an invasion which would be resisted "conformably to that sacred right which commands every citizen to offer energetic opposition to prevent his country being enslaved."

These words have a certain force, but in context they are emotion- ally rather than intellectually compelling. They are not part of the main thesis of the Declaration.

The authors' restraint may have been partly due to tactical consid- erations. They wanted to appear moderate so as not to drive away possible support from the English of the Colony. But there is good reason to doubt whether Riel and Dugas would have ever resorted to the revolutionary principles of "high Whiggery." For, although they were compelled by circumstances to write a quasi-revolutionary manifesto, they were deeply conservative men.

Evidence in this direction comes from a look at the intellectual sources of the Declaration. In the French version there is a sentence which casts important light on the thinking embodied in the Declaration.

Or comme il est un autre principe admis par tous les publicistes (parmi lesquels nous pouvons citer Berclay [sic] et Duvoisin) qu'un peuple devient libre, et peut desormais se gouverner comme il le juge B propos, lorsque la puissance B laquelle il etait soumis l'abandonne ou l'assujettit contre son gre, a une puissance 6trangere, et que de plus, elle ne transfere aucun droit ' la puissance a laquelle elle le soumet.

Who are "Berclay" and "Duvoisin"? The former is undoubtedly William Barclay (1541-1605), a Scottish professor of law who spent most of his life in France. He came to England briefly when James I ascended

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162 THOMAS FLANAGAN

the throne, but went back to France because the king wanted him to renounce his Catholic faith, which he would not do. Barclay's best known works are De regno et regali potestate (1600) and De potestate papae (posthumous, 1607). His theoretical position may be charac- terized as Gallican. That is, he defended the divine right of kings against two sorts of opponents: the ultramontanes, who upheld the right of the pope to depose kings, and the monarchomachs, who asserted the right of the people to do away with tyrannical rulers. "Duvoisin" is Jean- Baptiste Du Voisin (1744-1813), a leading churchman of the ancien regime who was forced into exile by the Revolution but returned when Napoleon reestablished the Catholic faith. Enjoying the Emperor's confidence, Du Voisin was appointed Bishop of Nantes. He authored a number of works of theology, including textbooks for seminarians. His major political work was Difense de l'ordre social contre les principes de la Revolution frangaise (1801).

It is unlikely that Dugas or Riel had any first-hand knowledge of the ideas of Barclay, whose ponderous works belonged to the polemics of a vanished era. But it can readily be shown that they must have had Du Voisin's Difense de l'ordre social in hand when composing the Declara- tion. Furthermore, they must have been reading precisely the paragraph in which Du Voisin .discusses the views of Barclay about resistance to the sovereign. Consider the similarities between the one sentence of the Declaration quoted immediately above and Du Voisin's paragraph:

Declaration Du Voisin' o ... qu'un peuple devient libre, et peut ... le peuple, devenu libre h son desormais se gouverner comme il le egard, peut se gouverner desormais juge a propos. ... comme il juge a' propos ... ... lorsque la puissance a laquelle il ... En assujettissant, contre son gre, etait soumis l'abandonne ou un peuple. .. I'assujettit contre son gre. .. ... elle ne transfere aucun droit h la ... il ne confere aucun droit a celui puissance a laquelle elle le soumet. auquel il le soumet. ...

Obviously this sentence of the Declaration is little more than a pastiche of the words of Du Voisin, who in turn was paraphrasing Barclay.

Having established this connection, let us scrutinize the ideas in- volved. In the great debates of the sixteenth century, Barclay defended the power of kings against all who would depose them. He held that one rule must always be maintained: Regem honorificate. Et qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit ("Honour the King. And whoever resists his power resists the command of God.")" This maxim was valid whatever the sins of the ruler-a king was still a king si adulter, si homicida, si perjurus, si, quod damnosius et detestabilius est,

10 J.-B. Du Voisin, Difense de l'ordre social (Leipzig, 1801), 140. 11 William Barclay, De regno et regali potestate (Paris, 1600), Book III, Ch. 16, 212.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Theory of the Red River Resistance 163

haereticus fuerit ("if he were an adulterer, a murderer, a perjurer, and, what is even more damnable and detestable, a heretic").'2

However, Barclay was willing to concede one exception to his rigorous theory. A king might, in effect, cease to be a king. Barclay mentioned two instances where this could be said to occur. First was the case of monstrous rulers like Nero and Caligula who declared open war on their subjects. The other situation involved a king who, having inherited an independent realm, tried to deliver it to a foreign power. In both cases, according to Barclay, the king's authority would lapse, resulting in an interregnum, an absence of state power.'3

Like Barclay, Du Voisin believed in the absolute authority of kings, although he deduced it from a rather Hobbesian view of the social contract, not directly from the will of God. His Difense de l'ordre social argues that the French Revolution could not be justified, whatever the alleged shortcomings of the ancien regime. The only recourse for a subject oppressed by unjust rule was to imitate the example of the early Christians: to suffer in the expectation of a divine reward, enduring martyrdom if necessary. The social order was too fragile to risk allowing subjects to resist their rulers. The inevitable tumults and insurrections would be worse than any injustice a king was likely to commit.

Du Voisin's purpose was to argue that the French Revolution should never have happened. But what was the duty of Frenchmen once the Republic had been created? Should they accept it? Du Voisin could not follow his own logic quite that far. He called upon Frenchmen to rise against the Republic: "si la revolte contre l'autorite legitime, est un crime aux yeux de Dieu et de la socitet, l'insurrection contre des usurpateurs couverts du sang de leur roi est le plus saint des devoirs." (Du Voisin's emphasis.)14 Perhaps this counter-revolutionary spirit was what prompted Du Voisin to recall Barclay's border-line cases. If the Republic could be likened to Nero or Caligula, making open war on the people, an insurrection could be justified.

In fact, Du Voisin was only interested in this one of Barclay's two situations. Of the second, namely the transfer of territory to a foreign power, he remarked that it was one "which not all authorities would adopt" (que tous les publicistes n'adopteraient pas).15 This contrasts strikingly with the Declaration's assertion that Barclay's second case was admis par tous les publicistes. Riel and Dugas seem to have gone a bit beyond their mentor here. They tried to establish as a general principle a case which he mentioned only in passing and with some uncertainty.

12 Ibid., 214. 13 John Locke cited these cases from Barclay for his own purposes. See the Second

Treatise of Government, section 237. 14 Du Voisin, DWfense de l'ordre social, 108. 15 Ibid., 140.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164 THOMAS FLANAGAN

The most important point in all of this is to see that the Declaration emerges from very conservative antecedents. Dugas and Riel were not revolutionary theorists. They had to search the Catholic tradition in which they had been educated for a precedent to justify resistance against authority.

In view of this, it is not surprising that Riel later embraced the ultramontane principles of Bishop Ignace Bourget; that he sympathized with the royalist cause in France; and that he ultimately adopted views which can only be described as theocratic.16 Circumstances may have made Riel a rebel, but his true colour was blue, not red. 16 Cf. this author's "Louis 'David' Riel: Prophet, Priest-King, Infallible Pontiff,"

Journal of Canadian Studies 9 (1974), 15-26.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions