The folllowing sample essay on Red River Rebellion discusses it in detail, offering basic facts and pros and cons associated with it. To read the essay’s introduction, body and conclusion, scroll down.

This paper will look at the views of five different authors and their views on the Red River Rebellion.

The sources that surround the Red River Rebellion come from people of many different scholarly backgrounds, walks of life and opinions. To really understand an event that happened so long ago it is important to see the way that a variety of different people have viewed the issue.

Some differing approaches to this occurrence in 1 869 showing many sides and views of what happened such as the Idea that Riel could not have been behind the rebellion, the Idea that It was In fact Riel who made the Red River Rebellion happen, the involvement of the British in the conflict, blame that may be placed on the Canadian government at the time and the perspective of the M©its peoples are all very important aspects that must be looked at as one searches for Ideas about the Red River Rebellion.

The five sources that have chosen to look at which show in very different lights where the blame should be placed for the Red River Rebellion of 1869 are as follows. Thomas Flagman’s Political Theory of the Red River Resistance, written in 1978, G. En’s’ Prologue to the Red River Resistance: Prenatal Politics and the Triumph of Riel, written in 1994, J.

Get quality help now

Proficient in: Bias

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

P. Smith’s Riel Rebellion of 1869: New Light on British Liberals and the use of Force on the Canadian Frontier, from 1995, J. M. Bunkmate’s Crisis at Red River: 125 Years Ago Louis Riel Defied Canada also written in 1 995, and finally Donald Paunch’s 1988 book The M©its.

Why Is The Red River Rebellion Important

In 1978 Thomas Flanagan wrote an article In the Canadian Journal of Political Science, entitled Political Theory of the Red River Resistance: The Declaration of December 8, 1869. This article makes the major point that critical texts such as this declaration must be examined critically from the perspectives of many types of scholars Including the political scholar. The key conclusion that Flanagan draws from the political analysis of The Declaration of December 8, 1869- which is also known as the Declaration of the People of Rupture’s Land and the North West is that the billion was not actually Louis Riel’s work as so many believe it is.

Flanagan speaks of Riel and the people of Red River as being Immature and unreasonable; he says that they would have been unable to rebel in such a large way without some intense help and advice. The main source that Flanagan uses is the actual Declaration of December 8, 1869, as this Is what much of his article Is based around. However It is not the only source that he has used to help him draw the conclusions about Riel and the Red River Rebellion which he has discussed. Flanagan also sites A. G. Memories A Critical Theory of the Red River Insurrection, G.

F. G Stanley The Birth of Western Canada and John Locker’s Second Treatise of Government throughout his article. These sources all seem to do a good Job In backing up the point that Flanagan makes regarding Riel’s Inability to have been the mastermind behind the Red River Rebellion, however John Locker’s 1 OFF second I rattle AT Government, although a g source Tort many Ideas Ana writings, seems not to fit in regarding this specific topic, as it may have more to do with political actions in Europe rather than in the early days of Canada.

Flagman’s article is written very clearly from a political perspective and from this moms a clear bias. This political theory paper discusses in detail the incapability of Riel and through this argument one may see that Flanagan gives very little credit to the M©its for the planning of the rebellion which they as a community carried out. This bias is obvious and the language used shows almost a disdain for the M©its population and portrays them in a very diminutive and incapable light, giving them no credit at all for the thought behind the actions which were taken in 1869.

While Flanagan argues that Riel was not the mastermind behind the Red River Rebellion Gerhard J. En’s looks at this event in a very different light in his article Prologue to the Red River Resistance: Pre-lamina Politics and the Triumph of Riel. This article by En’s discusses the early period of the Red River Rebellion/Resistance prior to the occurrence of the barrier being erected at Riviera Sale by Riel and his men preventing the newly appointed Lieutenant Governor from entering the Red River colony.

The plight of Riel and the work that he put into this rebellion is discussed by En’s as he speaks of the competition to assume leadership of the M©its cause in the Red River colony. Riel won the leadership rights En’s tells us as he stressed the rights of French and Catholic people rather than the minimal rights of the Aboriginal community. En’s argues in his article that this leadership competition set the tone for the larger rebellion that was to come. In this sense En’s’ article and Flagman’s article differ, however En’s also says to the reader that Riel’s attempt to build consensus within the colony was impeded.

En’s uses a variety of sources to construct his argument on the Red River Rebellion. The main sources that he cites are The Collected Writings of Lois Riel, Seasonal Papers from Canada’s Parliament (House of Commons), Red River Journal by Alexander Begs and interestingly enough, Political Writings on the Red River Rebellion by Thomas Flanagan. The sources that En’s uses to substantiate his argument seem much more effective as many of them are primary sources and give perspectives from the M©its who were actually a part of the community in which the rebellion occurred.

En’s uses the writings of people such as Louis Riel to give a clear picture of what was actually going on and how the M©its viewed the issue as well as vying the perspective of the Canadian government and looking at documents that came from them to see their point of view and actions in regards to the Red River Rebellion. A very different picture of the Red River Rebellion of 1869 is given by James Patterson Smith in his article entitled Riel Rebellion of 1869: New Light on British Liberals and the use of Force on the Canadian Frontier.

Patterson Smith looks at the Red River Rebellion in terms of imperial considerations. His article discusses the British involvement on the Canadian frontier making many valid points regarding this involvement. Patterson Smith focuses mainly on the point that Britain’s official policy was to withdraw British garrisons from Canada and other self governing colonies at the time, however Canada’s commitment to the empire and belief in the value of the empire to Britain in terms of world politics drove Canada to prod Britain into Involvement In Trotter Issues sun as ten Rear Ruler Relation.

Nils article, Wendell different from the others in the perspective that it takes seems to be very important in understanding the motives and the forces behind the decision of the British to ploy imperial troops in Manitoba to end the rebellions. While the other articles focus on whom and what was the main force and brains behind the rebellions, Patterson Smith shows the other side, the British side.

Patterson Smith like En’s, references the Political Writings on the Red River Rebellion by Thomas Flanagan, he also uses a variety of documents from the Colonial Office Minutes on Young Correspondence and the Colonial Office Confidential Memorandum Regarding Disturbances in the Red River Settlement. All of these sources seem to be extremely beneficial in the writing of this article regarding British involvement as Patterson Smith has gone straight to the source of where and why the British became involved in the conflict by looking at the meetings that were held and the documents which were created.

A bias is definitely shown in James Patterson Smiths article, as it is all about the British perspective and discusses how it was the Canadian government’s idea to involve the British. This article does not really show the perspective of the M©its populations involved in the rebellion which may have been useful in showing other reasons for why the Canadian government may have needed the assistance of the British on the Canadian frontier. Bias is inevitable in article such as this however and in this article it seems as if the bias is necessary and very useful in giving the reader a look at the Red River Rebellion from a different viewpoint.

So far the Red River Rebellion has been looked at as being thought up and the fault of someone much more intelligent and mature than Louis Riel, as well as by Riel. We have also looked at the perspectives of the British government regarding their involvement in the Red River Rebellion. It is only fitting in this view of who’s fault ND the way on which different people were involved and effected to look also at the rebellion as being the fault’ of the Canadian government. J.

M. Bumpiest, a professor of history at SST. Johns College, University of Manitoba writes an article entitled Crisis at Red River: 125 years ago Louis Riel Defied Canada. This article discusses a variety of ideas regarding the Red River Rebellion and how and why it occurred. Bemused argues that the Red River Rebellion was almost inevitable as the M©its populations, as any other population would do, resisted the takeover of land by Canada surrounding the Red River Community.

It was in fact the fault of the Canadian government that the Red River Rebellion began as they were “sloppy and unwilling to let the community know what was going on” says Bemused. Although the exact sources that Bemused uses to substantiate his claims are not given it can be seen that he uses many sources such as minutes and acts passed by the House of Commons in Canada as well as proclamations made by various people such as Louis Riel and important Acts that were essential during the period of rebellion such as the Manitoba Act.

These sources give the paper an overall feeling of Ruth and reliability as Bemused frequently quotes documents and people who were present at the time of the 1869 Red River Rebellion. This article seems very different than the others in the way in which it is written, it is fairly obvious that it is the work of a historian and is a very good contrast to other articles by political theorists, anthropologists, Ana a wee variety AT toner canola’s. It Is very Interesting to see ten thoughts of Bemused as a historian and his thoughts seem to encompass those of many other historians.

A bias is very clearly presented in Bunkmate’s article as he blatantly discusses the stakes and stupidity of the Canadian government in not informing the Native populations surrounding Red River about what was happening. Bemused very obviously feels that the rebellions were not the fault of the M©its populations although they were the ones to begin the violence, but that they were in fact initiated by the natural reaction that the M©its would have had to what the Canadians were doing about the land surrounding them. The final work that will be looked at in regards to the Red River Rebellion is a book by D.

Purist, The M©its. Throughout this work the lives and customs as well as the story of the M©its is discussed in great detail. One chapter in particular however deals extensively with the Red River Rebellion. This work does not display an argument regarding the rebellion or an opinion; rather it seems to be an attempt at giving the facts of the events of 1869 from the perspectives of many, not only the government but also the M©its peoples. Purist uses many different sources in the writing of his book, everything from books and government documents to court decisions and the press.

This book is very well written and the extensive list of sources that Purist has drawn upon gives the kook credibility as he looks at various sources from Native peoples or M©its perspectives as well as those by the Canadian government and other individuals of European descent. This book while giving a seemingly unbiased and factual account of the Red River Rebellion does have an underlying bias as it is written to share the story of the M©its. For this reason the Canadian government and other people who opposed the M©its during the time of the Red River Rebellion are looked at in a very different light.

Cite this page

Red River Rebellion. (2019, Dec 07). Retrieved from

Red River Rebellion
Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7