CCHA, Historical
Studies, 56 (1989), 9-29
The Oblates, the
Métis, and 1885:
The Breakdown of Traditional Relationships
by Raymond HUEL
Department of
History
University of
Lethbridge
The Métis, or
mixed blood population, emerged during the fur trade era as a result of the
union of a French Canadian father and a Cree or Sautux mother. As “the first
born of the faith in the West,” the Métis were very dear to the Oblates of Mary
Immaculate, the dominant Catholic missionary order in the northern and western
regions of Canada. The Oblates regarded the Métis as the mediator, the trait
d’union, between themselves and the native populations.1]Archbishop Taché
of St. Boniface, the pioneer Oblate missionary, was well aware of the problems
involved in evangelizing the native populations under his jurisdiction and he
hoped to form a Métis priesthood to facilitate this objective. Consequently, in
1858, he sent three young Métis from Red River – Louis Riel, Louis Schmidt and
Donald McDougall – to study in seminaries in the province of Quebec.
Unfortunately, the high aspirations the Archbishop held for these young men
were never realized and all three left the seminaries before completing their
studies and, hence, were never ordained.
The failure of this experiment was a profound
disappointment but not a complete surprise to the Oblates who had already
observed that the Métis were indifferent to education, lacked a strong
commitment to religious life, were improvident nomads and easily corrupted by
exposure to civilization.2 Nevertheless, the Oblates continued to make sacrifices
to maintain schools
for Métis children
because they were convinced that only through education could the Métis become
truly civilized and Christianized.3
It was in Red River that the Oblates first
began to accompany the Métis à la prairie as they went on their biannual
treks in search of the buffalo herds. Father Henri Faraud appears to have been
the first Oblate who ministered to the Métis hunters in 1847. After 1849 this
practice was discontinued but, ten years later as a result of the earnest
requests of the Métis hunters for a pastor, Father C. Mestre received his
obedience to resume the ministry among them. ln the period 1863-82, wintering
camps in southern Manitoba, North Dakota and southern Saskatchewan were visited
by missionaries from St. Boniface or Qu’Appelle.4 Oblates from Lac
Ste. Anne in Alberta also ministered to the Métis hunters in their winter camps
between Edmonton and Calgary. For their part, the Métis sought the presence of
the missionary because it provided them with protection as well as spiritual
comfort. ln addition, the missionary’s presence alleviated social tension and
facilitated the grouping of extended Métis households.5 The Métis' desire
for a missionary was equalled by the willingness of the Oblates to accompany
the hunters because they literally had a captive audience for a prolonged
period of lime and this was useful for instructing the children. ln addition,
the hunters constructed a home and chapel for the missionary, fed him, provided
transportation and gave him buffalo robes. This is in sharp contrast to the
Indian missions where the Oblate had to provide everything as well as supply
his own food and transportation.6
The missionaries who wintered among hunters
very quickly realized that the buffalo were disappearing and that,
consequently, the golden age of the Métis was drawing to an end.7 In an attempt to
alleviate the sufferings of the Métis under his jurisdiction Bishop Vital
Grandin of St. Albert recommended to the federal government that the privileges
of the Manitoba Métis be extended to those of the Territories, that hunting
laws be enacted to prevent the destruction of the buffalo and that assistance
be provided to those Métis who wished to give up their nomadic lifestyle and
become farmers.8 Grandin was also very much aware of the nefarious influence
of the white presence on Métis society, and he urged the Métis to opt for
reserves to protect themselves and their lands. He feared that the experience
of the Manitoba Métis, who had abandoned their lands and retreated when
confronted by an acquisitive white civilization, would be repeated in the
North-West.9
As events were to prove, Grandin’s fears
were realized. In St. Laurent de Grandin the Métis were experiencing
difficulties in having their lands surveyed into river lots and in confirming
ownership of these lands. Former residents of Manitoba encountered problems in
receiving the allotments they were entitled to under the Half-breed Grant.
These administrative problems were compounded by economic distress in the
region. Crops had been destroyed by drought, insect infestations and early
frosts. The economic crisis had resulted in a considerable drop in freighting
which was an important activity for the Métis.10 Grandin and the
Oblates made numerous representations to the federal government on behalf of
the Métis and, while they were able to obtain minor concessions, the Métis were
becoming impatient and frustrated with governmental indifference and
procrastination regarding their land claims.
Consequently, the Métis sent a deputation
to St. Peter’s mission in Montana to ask Louis Riel to retum and champion their
cause. Upon learning of this, Grandin remarked that the Métis had committed a grosse
bétise, and he feared that they would compromise themselves and alienate
the government.11 He also noted a growing excitement on the part of the Métis and the “extraordinary
enthusiasm” with which they spoke of Riel.12 In September,
1884, Grandin met Riel in St. Laurent and noted that the Métis leader was very
excited during discussions on religious and political issues. While the bishop
doubted Riel’s sincerity he nevertheless urged him to use his influence to warn
the Métis against having recourse to violence to redress their grievances.13
While in St. Laurent, Grandin was visited
by leaders of the Métis community who complained that the clergy were not
supporting their association with Riel to redress outstanding grievances.
Grandin replied that since he did not know what the Métis proposed to do, the
Church could neither support nor oppose them, but he affirmed that the clergy
would never approve of revolution and would favour only legitimate requests. In
a conversation with Grandin, Riel accused the clergy of being the pawns of the
government and of attempting to manipulate the Métis. Riel denied that
revolution had ever been considered, and he asked that the Métis be given a
patron saint like other nations. With Grandin’s approval, Riel chose St. Joseph
but since that feast-day would fall during Lent, the celebration of a votive
Mass would not be possible and so it was decided that 24 July would be the
national day of the Métis.14
On the eve of his departure from St.
Laurent, Grandin again met with the Métis who repeated their grievances and
demands. In a letter written to Archbishop Taché a few days later Grandin,
mindful of his earlier conversations with Riel and reiterating the suspicions
of the clergy, expressed the fear that Riel had not revealed fully his plans.
Furthermore, if the government refused to accede to the demands of the Métis,
Riel might incite them and Indians to revolt and lose control of the situation.
The Métis were adopting Riel's views as well as his hatred of the government
and, while Grandin was reassured concerning the Métis leader’s good intentions,
he entertained doubts concerning the future: “peu de choses pourrait, it me
semble, mettre le feu aux poudres.”15
In the meantime, Grandin was attempting to
maintain the Métis in a state of obedience while trying to obtain justice for
them from the government. He warned Sir Hector Langevin, the federal Minister
of Public Works, against using force to coerce Riel because this would triple
his influence among the Métis and recommended instead that the government
imitate the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The Bay bought out its
competitors and Riel, being a poor family man, might be willing to negotiate a
settlement with the government. Grandin again affirmed that what most irritated
the Métis was the conviction that the government scorned them and was purposely
humiliating and alienating them. He urged the government to demonstrate its
good intentions by granting the demands of the Métis that were just and
reasonable.16
In dealing with Riel or commenting on his
actions prior to the Rebellion, the Oblate missionaries had to be very
reserved. As an indigenous leader Riel had made a significant impact on the
Métis, and his words had struck a responsive chord in their hearts and minds.
Furthermore, Riel had no association with the authorities and, hence, the Métis
readily could identify with him. If the Oblates regarded Riel as becoming
increasingly unorthodox and heretical, the Métis saw him as a Joshua, a prophet
or a saint. Any criticism of Riel by the clergy was interpreted as an affront
to the Métis and their growing consciousness as a distinct entity, and it eroded
the traditional close relationship between the Métis and their pastors. Despite
this growing polarization the clergy did not despair because they were
convinced that the Métis would remain faithful to the Church and obey its
dictates.177
Nevertheless, the Oblates were becoming
concerned with the turn of events and increasingly suspicious of Riel’s
motives. Father Vital Fourmond, for example, was favourably impressed when he
first met Riel in St. Laurent but he noted that beneath the goodness, humility
and modesty that Riel projected there was an anger that could be quickly
aroused especially when his ideas were challenged. When Riel became excited he
was no longer the same person, and Fourmond could not help but conclude: “Voilà
un homme convaincu.”18 For his part, Father Alexis André, after
having met Riel for the first time, noted in his journal that the Métis
leader’s mystical appearance, his religious tone and mannerisms were
affectations to mislead the “simple and ignorant.” While the Métis might regard
Riel as a hero and a saint, André claimed that he was motivated by a
“diabolical pride” and “an unbounded ambition.” Furthermore, André affirmed
that Riel was jealous of the status and authority of the clergy and was
attempting to turn the Métis against their religious leaders by suggesting that
the clergy were the paid puppets of the government.19 As time passed,
Grandin was not certain that he could prevent a rebellion because the situation
was getting out of hand and it was impossible to control the Métis.20
Once the hostilities had started, the
federal government sought the assistance of the Oblates. The Prime Minister,
Sir J. A. Macdonald, asked Father Lacombe to visit the Blackfoot and to
reassure them.21 Lacombe accompanied the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West Territories
to Blackfoot Crossing for peace talks, and he reported that there were no signs
of trouble or unrest among the Blackfoot.22 Some time later
Lacombe returned to Blackfoot Crossing because Cree rebels had arrived to
provoke the Blackfoot and he continued on to Fort Macleod where the Indians
were causing some anxieties to the authorities.23 On the Peace Hills
Reserve, Father Constantine Scollen met with the chief and headmen and used
“the strongest language” to advise them to control their people. After the
meeting Scollen was confident that regardless of the outcome of the rebellion,
the Indians of the Peace Hills Reserve would not take part in it.24
In view of the hostilities and the fear of
a general Métis uprising, Archbishop Taché telegraphed Father P. St-Germain to
return to Wood Mountain, and reassure the Métis who were living there.25 Father R. Rémas
was sent from St. Albert to Stoney Plain to prevent the Assiniboines from
joining the revolt.26 In the Muskeg Lake region, Father M. Paquette
heard that some Métis were considering joining Riel. He went to speak with
these individuals and was able to calm them, but he admitted that it was the
threat of excommunication that forced them to desist from their undertaking. A
few days later, Paquette heard that the Métis of Green Lake were also
contemplating joining the rebel forces, and he left to speak with them. Once
again the threat of excommunication convinced the Métis to renounce the taking
of arms.27
The Oblates. did not escape misfortune and
suffering during the North-West Rebellion. Father Paquette’s mission at Muskeg
Lake was pillaged by Indians and his church destroyed while he was counselling
the Green Lake Métis.28 At Lac La Biche, the Hudson’s Bay Company fort
was pillaged and there was a fear that the mission would suffer the same fate.
In the midst of a general panic it was decided to evacuate the sisters and
their pupils to an island on the lake.29 The mission at
Île-à-la-Crosse was abandoned because it was feared that Riel had given orders
to the Métis and Indians to massacre the Sisters because he held them
responsible for the death of his sister, Sara, a Grey Nun at that mission.30 In Battleford,
Father A.-H. Bigonesse was forced to take refuge within the fort for three
weeks while Father L. Cochin remained with the Métis who remained neutral and
who were guarding their animals and property.31 At Batoche,
Fathers V. Végréville and J. Moulin and six nuns were held prisoner by Riel and
his followers. The ultimate tragedy occurred at Frog Lake where two Oblates,
Fathers F. Marchand and F. Fafard, were among the eight killed by Big Bear’s
Indians.
Despite their energetic denunciation of the
Métis recourse to arms, the Oblates admitted that there were extenuating
circumstances that had provoked the Métis. Grandin accused local
English-speaking residents of having pushed the Métis to rebellion by
attempting to steal their lands. He also claimed that the authorities purposely
overlooked these illegal activities and this further exasperated the Métis.32 For his part, the
author of the Codex Historicus of St. Albert claimed that the trouble and
disenchantment in the North-West was due to the fact that the government had
refused to employ the Métis on reserves or to use them as interpreters. He
claimed that the Métis were well qualified to act as agents or farmers and,
furthermore, they would not have required interpreters to carry out their
duties.33 There was a general consensus on the part of the missionaries that the
government’s procrastination in dealing with the legitimate grievances of the
Métis had incited them to revolt.
On the subject of Riel’s leadership,
however, the clergy were unable to display the same magnanimity, and their
views were not only negative but very hostile. To begin with, when Riel assumed
the mantle of the prophet, he directly challenged the legitimacy and authority
of the Catholic clergy. In qualifying Riel as a “false prophet” the Oblates
were reiterating that they, and not Riel, were following in the footsteps of
St. Peter and, as such, had been entrusted with the continuation of Christ’s
great commission of teaching and baptizing all nations. Thus, there could be
no question of regarding Riel as an associate in the fulfilment of this divine
mission. In denouncing Riel as a usurper of the priestly function the Oblates
unwittingly acknowledged him as a competitor and recognized the serious
challenge he presented to their missionary activities.34 The Oblates also
realized that Riel had succeeded in doing something they had not been able to
do; he had indigenized Catholicism and expressed it in terms that were
meaningful to the Métis as a community and relevant to the crisis they were
facing.
Under Riel’s prophetic leadership, the
Métis were able to appropriate Catholicism on their terms and, hence, they
responded positively to his message. In addition, if Riel were a prophet, the
Métis were God’s chosen people, and the millenium was at hand.35 This modification
of traditional Catholic beliefs further infuriated the clergy who saw their own
position and influence among the Métis being eroded and threatened by Riel’s
success as a prophet. Unable and unwilling to recognize Riel for what he
purported to be, the Oblates viewed him as an apostate, the most fiendish of
Satan’s instruments. The clergy claimed that his religiosity was either a
brilliant piece of theatrics to deceive and delude the Métis or the product of
a deranged mind. On 26 March 1885, Father A. Lacombe affirmed: “Riel est un fou
ainsi que tous ceux qui le suivent.”36
For his part, Father André noted that the
families of the Métis who died at Duck Lake demonstrated no sorrow nor shed any
tears during the burial services at St. Laurent. He claimed furthermore that
the Métis were determined to continue the struggle and that they still had
faith in Riel despite his earlier assurances that no blood would be shed.
According to André, Riel had abandoned the mask of piety and religiosity,
renounced the Pope and broken publicly with the Church. Despite this act of
apostasy, the Métis regarded him as a prophet endowed with a divine mission.37
Bishop Grandin elaborated on this theme in
a letter to Archbishop Taché shortly before Riel’s trial opened in Regina.
Grandin claimed that Riel, unable to obtain the support of the clergy and
cognizant of the religiosity of the Métis, had adopted a façade of religious
piety and pretended to be inspired by God. He deceived the Métis and forced
them to rebel without their realizing what they were doing. Having compromised
the Métis, Riel frightened them by affirming that if they were not victorious
there would be no future for them or their families. According to Grandin the
Métis were terrified by Riel and his behaviour, the missionaries were under
surveillance and every time they spoke out they were insulted and threatened by
“ce fou furieux.”38
After the hostilities, Grandin drafted a
profession of faith which enumerated the religious doctrines which Riel had
denied and made the Métis deny. The document referred to the Métis as
“"trompés et égarés” and to Riel as “un misérable orgueilleux.” The Métis
asked God to forgive their faults which they profoundly regretted and asked
again to be regarded as His children, “les enfants soumis de Votre Sainte
Épouse l’Église Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine.”39 In a letter to his
clergy Grandin stated that the Métis, ordinarily so respectful and obedient,
had rejected the advice of the clergy and followed Riel because they had been
manipulated by an agent of Satan. The Métis had been terrorized by this madman
who pretended to be a prophet but, fortunately, God struck and healed the Métis
as they began to do evil deeds.40 Grandin recommended that this
profession of faith be explained to the Métis and renewed by them each year on
the feasts of the Holy Trinity and the solemnity of St. Peter in the parishes
of St. Laurent, Batoche and Saddle Lake.41
Bishop Grandin was keenly cognizant of his
delicate position as a mediator during the Rebellion and the fact that his
actions could compromise the clergy and the Church. Because the clergy were
opposed to violence and extra-legal means, it was easy to convince the Métis
and the Indians that the missionaries were the minions of the authorities. On
the other hand, by supporting the interests of the Métis and the Indians, the
Oblates were accused of inciting them to revolt.42 Thus, when
Father M. Biais of Lamoureux wanted to take refuge with the police in Fort
Saskatchewan in the event of an attack by Indians, Grandin informed him that
such an act would confirm the opinion of many Métis and Indians that the clergy
were traitors. The bishop advised the missionary to remain at his post and be
at the disposition of everyone. Biais was to offer support to those who were
discouraged, pacify the insurgents and prevent bloodshed.43 The “indiscreet
zeal” of Father Végréville, on the other hand, demonstrated how easy it was to
compromise the clergy. After the hostilities he accepted a mandate that
effectively made him a government commissioner and, consequently, several Métis
who were only guilty of being misled by Riel were sent to jail. Grandin
deplored this “tactless behaviour so unworthy of a missionary” which ruined
Végréville's popularity and influence in the St. Laurent district and harmed
the reputation of the missionaries at large.44
After the rebellion, the clergy interceded
on behalf of the Métis who had been incarcerated. On 24 May 1885, Father
Lacombe sent a lengthy memorandum to H. Langevin, the Minister of Public Works,
recommending ways of remedying the problems of the North-West. Lacombe also
suggested that the law deal with the guilty as leniently as possible while at
the same time serving as a deterrent to those who contemplated civil war or
treason.45 For their part, Grandin and his clergy sent a petition to the Minister
of Justice claiming that the Métis had been forced to take up arms by a
“miscreant” who used “a false and hypocritical piety” and threats to deceive
them. Consequently, the Oblates urged the Minister to pardon “these poor
ignorant people” and if punishment were necessary, to impose “the slightest
penalty possible.”46 Grandin also addressed letters to Macdonald
and Alphonse Caron, the Minister of the Militia, in support of the petition
because he felt that disastrous consequences would result if the Métis were
punished severely. He reiterated his conviction that the Métis would never have
rebelled if they had not been exploited by Riel who had undermined the
“beneficial influence of their clergy” and “forced them to take up arms.”47 In yet another
private communication, this time to Sir H. Langevin, Grandin affirmed that
there were only two guilty individuals: Riel and Gabriel Dumont and the latter
was dominated by the former. According to the bishop a rigorous application of
the law would cause the Métis to abandon the North-West in favour of the United
States. It would also generate animosities because in Quebec it would be interpreted
as a condemnation of the French Catholic element.48
Grandin confided to Archbishop Taché that
he had not hesitated to ask the authorities to be lenient with the Métis
because they had been duped and terrorized. Grandin then made a very
penetrating observation affirming that the Métis had taken up arms
“"croyant défendre leurs propriétés, leurs femmes et leurs enfants.” In
an appendix to Grandin’s letter Father André informed Taché that the Métis
prisoners were not allowed to see a priest. André urged Taché to intercede on
their behalf claiming that it was Riel who deserved to be punished.49
After Riel’s execution on 16 November 1885,
Grandin pressured the government to reprieve the Métis prisoners and to grant
an amnesty to those who had fled to the United States and he asked Taché to
make a similar requests.50 The following February, Grandin informed the
archbishop that the authorities had begun to liberate the prisoners, and he
expressed the hope that they would quickly all be reunited with their families
and ready to sow their crops. Grandin was also concerned about the Métis who
were living in exile in the United States because he feared that they would be
exposed to dangerous influences. He claimed that, as far as he knew, neither
Dumont nor the other exiled Métis were dangerous men.51 With respect to
Maxime Lépine, a member of the Exovedate, who claimed to have used his position
to prevent the execution of prisoners held by the Métis, the Minister of the
Militia asked Grandin to obtain a written declaration to that effect from
Lépine as well as assurances that he would use his influence to prevent a
future uprising. A few days later, Lépine was released from jail.52
Insofar as Riel was concerned, the Oblates
could derive some consolation from the fact his confessor, Father André,
reported that he had faced death courageously and as a Christian. André’s close
contact with Riel prior to the execution had altered his opinion of the Métis
leader’s motives. At first, André believed that Riel had affected a pious and
religious behaviour to deceive his followers but discussions with Riel had
altered his opinion. A few hours after the execution, André informed Archbishop
Taché that Riel had been mentally unbalanced, the victim of hallucinations
which prevented him from being rational on religious matters. André was
convinced that Riel sincerely believed he was a prophet receiving divine
communications.53 The opinion of other Oblates, however, was not
as generous. Father Lacombe, for example, described the imprisonment and
execution of Riel as “une tragico-comédie.” It was a farce because the scaffold
allowed Riel, the most talented of actors, to play out his role to the end.54
In the end, insanity became the official
Catholic interpretation to explain Riel’s actions in 1885. Since Riel had not
been in possession of his faculties, he could not be responsible for his
unorthodox religious views which were reduced to the rank of an inadvertent and
temporary aberration from the true faith. As a Catholic apologist, the noted
Oblate writer Adrien-Gabriel Morice went so far as to state that it was the
fury and hatred with which Orange Ontario pursued Riel that caused his
insanity.55 Riel’s reconciliation to Catholicism enabled the clergy to focus on the
political antecedents of the Rebellion and to stress the legitimate demands of
the Métis and the government’s procrastination in dealing with these
outstanding issues. The insanity theory also made it possible for the clergy to
concentrate on Riel’s contribution to the French Catholic cause in 1869-70,
thereby diverting attention away from his leadership in 1885. In an attempt to
minimize the extent of Riel’s influence, the clergy tended to absolve the
majority of the Métis of any serious complicity in the Rebellion. Bishop
Grandin used the term “apostasie extérieure” to refer to the behaviour of the
Métis of St. Laurent because he felt that less than ten of Riel’s followers
understood the consequences of their actions.56 Grandin also
felt that the Métis had been duped by influential English-speaking individuals
who affirmed that the government was responsible for all the misery they were
facing. According to Grandin, these same individuals were promoting their own
interests by inciting the Métis to revolt. The Métis were also advised that
they were poor because they allowed themselves to be led by the clergy and that
emancipation would terminate this inferior economic status.57
While Grandin’s estimate of Riel’s support
among the Métis was reassuring, his comments on the changed relationships
between the Métis and their missionaries were not. Shortly after the Rebellion,
he noted that the Métis were tense and concerned about the future. More ominous
was the fact that, contrary to past practice, the Métis no longer introduced
themselves to the missionaries when they met and, furthermore, they were going
out of their way to avoid meeting the clergy.58 Father L.-J.
Dauphin of Green Lake informed Grandin that the Métis in his district were
being told that the missionaries were deceiving them, and that the clergy had
provoked Riel to revolt to negate his influence over the Métis.59 Father Fourmond
lamented the fact that many Métis had not reconciled themselves to the clergy
and were still infected with Riel’s errors. Instead of uniting behind their
dedicated clergy as they had done in the past, the Métis were divided and being
manipulated by various political agitators.60 Even the venerable
Father Lacombe was not immune to criticism as the Métis of Lesser Slave accused
him of having sold their lands to the government.61
The situation did not improve with the
passage of time. Commenting on the first time the Métis of St. Laurent
participated in politics in 1887, Father Fourmond stated that the clergy had
not succeeded in having them vote for the Conservative candidate because it was
in their material interests to do so.62 From Batoche that
same year, Father Moulin informed the Superior General that the Métis no longer
had the same confidence in the clergy and that many of his parishioners had not
been to confession since the Rebellion. Furthermore, since many of the Métis
lived too far to attend church on Sundays and were illiterate, it was difficult
to provide them with adequate religious instruction.63 The following
year, in 1888, Father Fourmond noted that it was impossible to get the Métis of
St. Laurent to attend vespers or to receive communion frequently. Worse yet was
the fact that the younger generation was adopting this behaviour and leading a
life of dissipation.64
In 1898, Grandin noted that the Métis still
felt the effects of the Rebellion and were still prejudiced against the
missionaries – so much so that they would believe any accusation levied against
the clergy. In the Duhamel settlement, the Métis went so far as to confide the
education of their children to a Protestant minister.65 Reports from other
missionaries such as Father Lestanc were equally disconcerting and caused
Grandin to exclaim: “"Que le bon Dieu leur pardonne et se souvienne de
leurs bonnes dispositions d’autrefois.”66
While the spiritual interests of the Métis
were Grandin’s primary concern, he could not remain oblivious to their material
well-being. Most of the Métis were poor, and many were alienating their lands.
Merchants had advanced credit to the Métis and obtained mortgages on their
property. Consequently, the impoverished Métis went to establish themselves in
unsettled areas. In these isolated regions, the Métis could continue to hunt
and fish and grow barley and potatoes but Grandin predicted that sooner or
later whites would move in and acquire these lands, and the original inhabitants
would have nothing to show for their labours. The Métis who remained where they
were vegetated around the towns and were addicted to drunkenness and
debauchery.67
In view of the fact that land claims had
been one of the outstanding grievances that had precipitated rebellion the
clergy not only urged the authorities to quickly resolve this issue after 1885,
but they also advised the Métis to accept land scrip. Taché informed Father
Lebret of Qu’Appelle to reassure the Métis and have them place reasonable
requests before the Scrip Commission. Such requests would be granted and Taché
warned that afterwards no new ones were to be put forward.68 In St. Albert, the
Commission sat for three weeks in the bishop’s residence and two Oblates helped
Métis claimants by acting as interpreters and assisting in the preparation of
claims by providing information from church records. The Oblates strongly
recommended that the Métis not sell their scrip, but this advice was not heeded
and, furthermore, most of the Métis opted for money scrip rather than land
scrip.69 Métis in the Onion Lake region experienced difficulty in validating
their claims because the documentary evidence was destroyed when the church was
burned at the time of the Frog Lake massacre.70 In Cumberland,
Father Ovide Charlebois lamented the fact that in opting for scrip the Métis no
longer had a right to live on land set aside for Indians. Since there were no
other unoccupied lands in the area, the Métis decided to go elsewhere and,
consequently, the mission lost three quarters of its population.71 In 1909, the
missionary at Pelican Lake noted that the scrip buyer had received bottles of
brandy, an enticement which the Métis would find difficult to resist. The
results were predictable: the buyer had been able to purchase seven of the
eight scrips granted to the Métis.72
Since the Métis were alienating their lands
by selling scrip, the Oblates favoured the government’s proposal to offer a
block of land to the Métis of Duck Lake to establish a special colony to be
administered by the Métis. Initially, the Métis were receptive to the plan and
established a committee to study the matter. At the first meeting held in
Batoche, three Oblates were present and some Métis affirmed that the clergy
supported the plan because they sought to divert Métis lands to French Canadian
farmers. Father Fourmond reassured the Métis and, at a subsequent meeting, a
majority voted for the establishment of the colony. At a general meeting of the
Métis of the district, however, the original opponents of the scheme again
denounced the motives of the Oblates and claimed that the colony would be
nothing more than an Indian reserve. These arguments convinced a large majority
to turn down the proposal.73
It was this concern for the material
well-being of the Métis that caused Father Lacombe to submit a memorial to the
federal government on behalf of the Métis of Manitoba and the North-West in
which he painted a very dark picture of their current status. To bring about
this improvement in the well-being of the Métis, Lacombe asked the federal
government to give four sections of land to the Episcopal Corporations of St.
Albert, St. Boniface and Prince Albert to allow them to establish a religious
settlement and an industrial school. The government was also asked to lease four
townships to these institutions. This land would be subdivided into plots and
distributed to Métis families to enable them to become self-supporting under
the direction of managers appointed by the clergy. Lacombe also suggested that
the government might also provide seed and implements to start this venture.74 The Deputy
Minister of the Interior shared Lacombe’s concern for the worsening condition
of the Métis despite the government’s efforts to provide employment through the
construction of roads and bridges. He recommended the implementation of
Lacombe’s proposal as “a final effort for the reclamation of these people.”
Furthermore, the plan required no financial obligation on the part of
government and, hence, “there would be no great risk in giving the experiment a
fair trial.”75 The plan was accepted by the government which set
aside land for the reserve near St. Paul, Alberta.
In a letter to the Métis Lacombe announced
his intention of beginning the reserve with a few families who would succeed as
a result of their efforts, thus providing others with an example of what could
be accomplished. If the Métis were once again willing to “listen to the priest
who is your true friend,” Lacombe promised that they would be happy and not be
at the mercy of whites.76 Lacombe then indicated the conditions for
participating in his venture. The reserve’s land would be under the control of
the clergy who were to distribute it and utilize it as they saw fit to promote
the interests of the colony. Only the landless Métis and those who did not know
how to earn a living were invited to participate. Participants would not be
able to sell their plots of land and if they left the colony, they could take
with them only their possessions and cattle. Provisions and financial
assistance could not be promised but the clergy would do what they could to
assist those who were “determined to work and live in good accord with the
missionaries.”77
For his part, Bishop Grandin was determined
to encourage the Métis to settle in the colony, and in June 1897 he addressed a
letter to the residents of St. Paul urging them to have confidence in
themselves and reminding them that they were the equal of others. Grandin was
convinced that if the Métis were courageous and energetic St. Paul would become
a model colony and its residents would be worthy of admiration.78 Grandin and the
clergy held high hopes for the St. Paul colony because they were convinced that
the Métis could be redeemed by removing them from the nefarious influence of
civilization, settling them in groups, and offering guidance and encouragement.
While Father Lacombe was instrumental in
planning the St. Paul reserve the actual operations were under the direction of
Father J. A. Thérien who did not believe that the Métis should be given rations
as were the Indians on their reserves. Thus, at St. Paul, the Métis were to
live by the fruits of their labour and they were not to expect the reserve to
support them. The Métis were given construction work because Thérien had no one
else to turn to and when their assistance was no longer required, they would
receive nothing from him. He categorically denied allegations that he was
forced to support the impoverished Métis.79 On the other hand,
Father Lacombe became alarmed over expenses and wanted them reduced. This
placed Thérien in an unenviable position because the Métis did not like his
avaricious ways and they accused him of allowing large sums of money, destined
for their use, to stagnate in the bank.80
These rumours surrounding finances were an
indication that the Métis were resentful of clerical control and influence.
Thérien was forced to admit that the Métis no longer had confidence in the
Oblates and were turning to others for leadership because they suspected the
motives of the clergy. Thérien was convinced that the Métis could not be
regenerated without regaining their confidence and that they had to be
convinced of the necessity of uniting with the clergy. He felt that if the
Métis petitioned for schools and colonies the government could not refuse to
provide them with such institutions.81 Bishop Grandin
was also saddened by the defiant attitude of the Métis and the “sordid motives”
which were attributed to the clergy’s involvement in the colony. In the
tradition of the apostle Paul, however, Grandin was prepared to love the Métis
more even if they loved him less. Grandin reiterated that the Oblates were not
attempting to secure temporary remedies to alleviate the plight of the Métis
but to provide them with effective assistance which would ensure a better
future for them and their children.82
It would appear, however, that many Métis
did not share Grandin’s lofty goal. In expressing his disgust with the bad
conduct and dissipation of the Métis of Edmonton Father Leduc informed Lacombe
that it was this very element that refused to profit from the advantages of St.
Paul.83 A short while later Leduc, as Vicar-General of the Diocese of St.
Albert, voiced his concern over providing adequate resources for the Métis
colony. The inhabitants of St. Paul could not be counted on for support,
whereas the shortage of competent personnel made it likely that neither the
farm nor the herd of cattle would be profitable operations. He hoped that the
government would finally agree to provide a suitable annual subsidy.84
This government grant, however, never
materialized and the colony’s financial status was precarious. In 1903, Father
Lacombe was forced to appeal to the Superior General of the Oblates to obtain
the services of lay brothers for the colony.85 A few weeks later,
Leduc informed Lacombe that despite special collections taken for the benefit
of the colony, there was not enough money to meet current obligations.86 The situation was
rendered even more acute by the perennial shortage of skilled personnel. The
colony, for example, had obtained from the Lac la Biche mission the machinery
necessary to establish a saw mill, a flour mill and a threshing machine but
there was no one who could erect the machinery and suitable buildings nor was
there money available to employ others to do so. Consequently, the colony’s
grain had to be transported to Whitefish Lake to be ground and such a state of
affairs did little to inspire the confidence of the Métis in the venture or the
Oblates as managers.87 The final blow occurred on 15 January 1905,
when fire destroyed the colony’s boarding school which housed 90 students. The
fire, which claimed one life, had been set by students who no longer wanted to
attend the institution.88 Attempts were made to maintain the venture,
but on 10 April 1909 the Oblates admitted defeat, and the colony was opened to
French Canadian settlement.
The admission of French Canadian settlers
and allegations that the Oblates had profited at the expense of the Métis in
the St. Paul colony increased Métis disenchantment with and alienation from the
clergy, which had been growing since 1885. Many Métis fell upon hard times
after 1885 as a result of a recession aggravated by the CPR’s decision to adopt
a more southern route and the advancing agricultural frontier. Others like
Louis Schmidt, Riel’s school companion in eastern Canada and former secretary
of the Provisional Government of Red River, had become successful farmers and
were indistinguishable from the larger French Catholic community. Circumstances
forced the Métis who had supported Riel or had sympathized with his views and
message to keep a low profile after the Rebellion. Nevertheless, despite the
military defeat at Batoche, the loss of Riel’s leadership, the clerical
condemnation, the absorption of élite elements into the French Catholic
community, the economic distress and demoralization, the Métis did not pass
into oblivion. The Métis also remained distinct from the Indian population
despite similarities of culture and lifestyle and the pressure of the advancing
agricultural frontier. Ironically the earlier presence of the Oblate
missionaries among the Métis hunters had engendered a sense of distinctiveness
among the Métis and made them resist assimilation into Indian bands.89
As the generation after 1885 grew
increasingly conscious of its heritage and identity it became resentful of
clerical influence and direction and unwilling to accept traditional
interpretations critical of Riel. The absence of written sources from within
the Métis community makes it difficult to document the precise point in time
this new attitude emerged or to identify its precise characteristics. The
Oblates had noted a change in relationships between themselves and the Métis in
the period following the Rebellion. By the early 1900s the suspicion of the
Métis also was directed against those Métis who had spoken out against Riel and
had supported the establishment. In 1909, for example, Louis Schmidt felt it
necessary to preserve the honour of his family by formally refuting the ‘odious
calumny” that he had abandoned and betrayed the Métis cause in 1885. Schmidt, a
pillar in the French Catholic community and confidant of the Oblates, had
denounced Riel’s call to arms and his prophetic role.90
Two years earlier in 1907, Father
Adrien-Gabriel Morice engendered a controversy with the Métis of St. Vital when
he wrote a series of articles dealing with the history of Manitoba. Morice had
asked Joseph Riel, the younger brother of the Métis leader, to provide him with
information. Joseph Riel’s lengthy reply was very critical of Archbishop
Taché’s intervention in the events of 1870.91 A few months later
another Métis, Ambroise Lépine, former military adjutant to the Provisional
Government of Red River, alleged that the clergy had advised Louis Riel to
execute Thomas Scott in 1870.92
It was obvious that a proud and militant
nationalistic consciousness had emerged within the Métis communities of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the historical record would have to reflect this
new sentiment. In fact, a meeting had taken place on 31 January 1909, at the
home of Joseph Riel in St. Vital, where it was decided to establish “a clear
record of the historical events of 1869-70 and 1885.” Afterwards, documents in
the possession of the Riel family were examined, participants were interviewed
and the Comité
Historique de l’Union Nationale Métisse was created to press for a
more accurate representation of Métis history. Auguste-Henri de Trémaudan was
engaged to prepare this history.93
In the meantime, other issues came to the
fore. The Riel family criticised the Archdiocese of St. Boniface for the way in
which it disposed of the money that had been collected in Quebec for the
support of Louis Riel’s family and for keeping Louis Riel’s papers.94 Father Morice
again contributed to the controversy between the Métis and the Church in 1921
when he affirmed that he knew the location of Thomas Scott’s grave. His
allegations suggested that a member of the burial party had broken the solemn
oath of secrecy, and the Métis community understandably was very uneasy.95 In February 1925
the Comité
Historique prepared a report on the alleged errors contained in Morice’s Histoire abrégée de
l’Ouest canadien which reflected the traditional Catholic interpretation
of the events of 1885. This account was deemed unacceptable to the Métis, and
he was asked to revise it accordingly.96
The unveiling in Batoche on 10 July 1925 of
a commemorative statue with a bronze plaque containing the word “rebel” by the
Historical Sites Commission provided the Comité Historique with yet another
challenge. The committee claimed that, during the ceremonies, the Métis had
been vilified and their leader had been slandered. The committee also took
exception to a discussion of the activities of the missionaries in 1885 and
riposted that the Oblates had not waited for the outbreak of rebellion to
denounce Riel to the authorities. The committee declared its intention of
rendering justice to those who had participated in the events of 1869-70 and
1885 because the Métis had to take pride in their past and in those who had
given their lives in defence of the Métis cause.97
Since a revision of the historical record
was essential to this process of rehabilitation, the Batoche affair provided
the Comité
Historique with an opportunity to renew its opposition to interpretations of the
events of 1885 in Morice’s Histoire abrégée. Morice was asked to
substantiate his allegations against the Métis and Riel and when he refused the
controversy was carried on in the pages of La Liberté in August and
September 1925.98
Eleven years later, in 1936, with the
posthumous publication of A.-H. de Trémaudan’s Histoire de la Nation Métisse
dans l’Ouest Canadien, the final curtain fell on this drama. The Comité Historique had included a
45-page Appendix dealing with the 1885 Rebellion. In addition to suggesting
that the missionaries had acted as agents of the government in 1885, the
Appendix denied that the Métis had occupied and profaned the church at Batoche,
that they had held priests and nuns prisoner, and that Riel had apostatized and
founded a new cult.99 As far as the Métis were concerned, this was
the authoritative account of the events of 1885.
In the polemic surrounding Morice and the Comité Historique, the estrangement
of the Métis community from the clergy had reached its apex. The Métis were no
longer ashamed of their ancestry or of the fact that they had rebelled in 1885.
They had rediscovered a glorious past as well as individuals who had defended
the Métis cause. To the Métis, 1885 represented the legitimate defense of Métis
rights and interests by the Métis nation led by an indigenous leader. Within
this context, any interpretation of these events which cast aspersions on
Riel’s leadership or questioned the legitimacy of the actions of the Métis or
which attempted to incorporate the conflict into the larger framework of
French-English relationships in Canada, was unacceptable to the Métis. As a
community, the Métis had come of age fully cognizant of the fact that their interests
were not necessarily those of the larger French community which had sheltered
them for many years and which had been their spokesman. For their part the
Oblates, as clergymen, did not distinguish between Métis and French Canadian
and, hence, initially did not fully comprehend this rising national
consciousness within the Métis community or appreciate its significance.
In the decade after 1885, the Oblates were aware that the traditional relationship between themselves and the Métis had been altered profoundly, but they felt that this change was a temporary aberration and that the Métis would once again follow the direction of their pastors. In the twentieth century, however, the Oblates discarded this naive view of a return to the golden age. By then, the advance of civilization had completely undermined the socio-economic foundation of Métis society and even the northern regions of the prairie provinces and the Mackenzie basin were not immune to this influence. As these cataclysmic changes were taking place, society and government demonstrated little interest and concern for the Métis and their problems. The Oblates, however, did not abandon “the first born of the faith” as they continued to minister to their needs and bring their poverty and misery to the attention of government. It was this particular plight of the Métis as well as the fact that this group had been abandoned by society that stimulated the Oblates. In the twentieth-century Métis, the Oblates found the underprivileged community that was central to their existence as a missionary congregation.
1Missions de la
Congrégation des Missionnaires Oblats de Marie Immaculée [hereafter Missions],
1893, p. 358.
2Missions, 1863, p. 201;
Archives Deschëtelets [hereafter AD], HE 2223 T12Z 3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et
bien cher Père [Taché], 18 juin 1866; ibid., HE 2221 T12Z 234. Sr. Slocombe to
S.G. Mgr. Taché, 12 février 1864.
3AD, HEC 3586 C47C
4, C. Mestre to Supérieur du Grand Séminaire de Bourg, 5 janvier 1861.
4A.-A. Taché, Vingt Années de Missions dans le
Nord-Ouest de l’Amérique (Montréal: Librairie St-Joseph, 1888), pp. 34,
108: AD, L 301 M27R 19, Hivernements de la famille Grant; AD, L 301 M27R 18,
Hivernements à la Montagne de Bois.
5J. Foster, “Le missionnaire and le chef métis,"
parer presented before the first Oblate Symposium, Faculté St-Jean, Edmonton,
18 May 1989, p. 6.
6Missions,
1930, p. 523; 1880, 175, pp. 197-98.
7For comments on the status of the Métis consult AD,
HEC 2642 J43C 14, J.-M. Lestanc to R.P. Maisonneuve, 4 novembre 1875; AD, HEB
3297 J94C 3, A. Philippot, Decorby ms., Decorby to Mon bien cher PÞre, 3 juin
187[9?1, p. 10; Provincial Archives of Alberta [hereafter PAA], Fonds oblat de
la province Alberta-Saskatchewan [hereafter OMI], St-Laurent 5, Petite
Chronique, 1875, p. 30.
8‘Écrits
de Mgr. Grandin” [hereafter “Écrits”], Vol. XVI, pp. 37-38.
9AD,
HE 2223 TI2Z 3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 29 aôut 1872.
10PAA, OMI, St. Laurent 5, V. Fourrnond, Petite
Chronique, 1884, pp. 118-20.
11“Écrits,” Vol.
XVII, p. 212.
12AD, HE 2223 TI2Z 3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher
Père [Taché], 8 septembre 1884.
13Ibid.; “Écrits,” Vol. XVII, p. 314.
14“Écrits,” Vol.
IV, p. 315.
15AD, HE 2223 T12Z
3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 8 septembre 1884.
16“Écrits,” Vol.
XXII, pp. 222-23.
17Missions, 1885, pp.
277-78.
18Ibid., p. 276.
19Ibid., p. 280.
20“Écrits,” Vol.
XXIV, p. 338.
21PAA, OMI, PP, A.
Lacombe 1885, A. Lacombe to Mes chers Pères Legal et Van Tighem, 26 mars 1885.
22PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, A. Lacombe to S. Gr. Mgr. Grandin, 10 avril 1885.
23PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 18 mai 1885, A. Lacombe to Mgr. [Grandin], 11 mai
1885.
24PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historiens, 20 avril 1885, C. Scollen to Rev. and Dear Father,
14 April 1885.
25PAA, OMI,
Administration St-Boniface, Correspondance de Mgr. Taché 1885-89, A. Taché to
Bien Cher Père Lebret, 21 avril 1885.
26PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 9 avril 1885.
27PAA, OMI,
Dossiers Personnels [hereafter DP], M. Paquette 1882-1903, M. Paquette to R.P.
Soullier, 4 octobre 1885.
28Ibid.
29PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, D. Collignon to R.P. Lestanc, 4 mai 1885; H. Faraud
to S. G. Mgr. Grandin, 4 mai 1885.
30AD, HEF 1345 J94C
6, J. Teston to Mon Rév. et bien cher Père Maötre, 20 juillet 1885.
31PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 21 mai 1885, J. Bigonesse to R.P. Supérieur [J.
Lestanc], 25 avril 1885.
32“Écrits,” Vol.
IV, p. 281
33PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 15 avril 1885.
34J.W. Grant,
‘Missionaries and Messiahs in the Northwest,” Sciences Religieuses! Studies
in Religion 9, no. 2 (1980), p. 135.
35T. Flanagan, Louis
“David” Riel. Prophet of the New World (Halifax: Goodread Biographies,
1983), p. 96.
36PAA, OMI, PP, A.
Lacombe 1885, A. Lacombe to Mes Chers Pères Legal et Van Tighem, 26 mars 1885.
37Missions, 1885, p. 97.
38AD, HE 2223 TI 2Z
3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Tachél, 14 juillet 1885.
39PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 25 juillet 1885, “Acte de Foi et de Réparation.”
40PAA, OMI, St.
Laurent 5, Petite Chronique, Vol. II, V. Grandin to Mes chers frères en
religion, 12 juillet 1885, p. 3.
41Ibid., pp. 2-4.
42Missions, p. 311.
43C. Champagne,
omi, Les
débuts de la mission dans le Nord-Ouest canadien. Mission et Eglise chez Mgr
Vital Grandin, o.m.i., (1829-1902) (Ottawa: Les Éditions de
l'Université d'Ottawa, 1983), p. 182.
44“Écrits,” Vol. XII,
p. 397.
45AD, HEC 2142 A33L
29, A. Lacombe to H. Langevin, 24 mai 1885. The majority of Lacombe’s
suggestions dealt with Indian policy.
46PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 25 juillet 1885, V. Grandin et al., to The
Hon. Sir A. Campbell, 10 July 1885.
47Ibid., V. Grandin
to Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. Macdonald, 11 July 1885 (private); V. Grandin to l’Hon.
Carron, 12 juillet 1885 (privée).
48Ibid.,V. Grandin
to Très Hon. H. Langevin, s.d. (privée).
49AD, HE 2223 T12Z
3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 14 juillet 1885.
50AD, HE 2223 T12Z 3,
V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 27 novembre 1885.
51AD, HE 2223 T12Z
3, V. Grandin to S. Gr. Mgr. Taché, 9 février 1886.
52AD, HE 2223 T12Z
3, V. Grandin to S. Gr. Mgr. Taché, 7 mars 1886.
53PAA, OMI, DP, A.
André 1865-85, A. André to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 16 novembre [1885].
54PAA, 0MI, PP. A.
Lacombe 1885, A. Lacombe to Mon bien cher Père Lestanc, 6 décembre 1885.
55Provincial
Archives of Manitoba [hereafter PAM], MG 3 Dl, 451, A.-G. Morice to J. Riel, 15
avril 1907.
56Missions, 1886, p. 17.
57“Écrits,” Vol.
IV, p. 176.
58Missions, 1886, p. 17; AD,
HE 2223 T12Z 3, V. Grandin to Mgr. et bien cher Père [Taché], 14 juillet 1885.
59PAA, OMI, DP,
L.-J. Dauphin 1885-1930, L.-J. Dauphin to Mgr. et bien aimé Père [V. Grandin],
22 mars 1886.
60PAA, OMI, St.
Laurent 5, “Petite Chronique,” Vol. II, p. 14.
61PAA, OMI, DP,
J.-J. Dupin 1871-90, J.-J. Dupin to Mon cher Père Lestanc, 28 juillet 1886.
62PAA, OMI, St.
Laurent 5, “Petite Chronique,” Vol. II, 1887, p. 19.
63AD, HEC 3926 J94C
9, J. Moulin to Mon T. R. Père [J. Fabre], 4 janvier 1887.
64PAA, OMI, St. Laurent
5, “Petite Chronique,” Vol. II, p. 39.
65“Écrits,” Vol. IV,
1 mai 1898, p. 136. Missions, 1898, p. 224.
66“Écrits,” Vol.
II, 1 mai 1898, p. 331.
67C. Champagne, Les débuts de la mission, p. 184.
68PAA, OMI,
Administration St-Boniface Correspondance de Mgr. Taché 1885-89, A. Taché to
Bien Cher Père Lebret, 6 avril 1885.
69PAA, OMI, St.
Albert 8, Codex Historicus, 7 juin, 11 juin, 30 juin 1885.
70PAA, OMI, Onion
Lake 4, Codex Historicus, 9 septembre 1886.
71Missions, 1901, p. 32.
72AD, LC 6461
K26R1, Journal, 12 avril, 17 avril, 31 mai 1909.
73PAA, OMI, St.
Laurent 5, “Petite Chronique,” Vol. II, 1890, pp. 45-47.
74PAA, OMI, PP, A.
Lacombe, St. Paul 1893-96, Annex “B” to P.C. 3723, 28 December 1896.
75Ibid., Annex “A,”
A.M. Burgess to Sir, 28 December 1895.
76Ibid.
77Ibid.
78“Écrits,” Vol.
XII, p. 554.
79PAA, OMI, PP,
non-inventoriés, E. Legal Correspondance re St. Paul des Métis
1898-1902, J.A. Thérien to S.G. Mgr. Legal, 18 mars 1898.
80Ibid., J.A.
Thérien to S.G. Mgr. Legal, 2 avril 1898.
81Ibid.
82“Écrits,” Vol.
XVII, “Documents collectifs,” 7 mars 1899, p. 478; II Corinthians 12:15.
83PAA, OMI, PP, H.
Leduc 1901-2, H. Leduc to Rév. & et bien cher Père Lacombe, 23 janvier
1901.
84PAA, OMI, PP, H.
Leduc 1901-2, H. Leduc to Rév. et bien cher Père Lacombe, 25 novembre 1901
85PAA, OMI, PP, A.
Lacombe 1903-6, A. Lacombe to T.R.P.G. Augier, I février 1903.
86PAA, OMI, PP, H.
Leduc 1903-14, H. Leduc to Rev. et bien cher Père Lacombe, 18 février 1903.
87PAA, OMI, St. Paul
3, Codex Historicus, p. 4.
88Ibid., p. 5.
89J. Foster, “Le
missionnaire and le chef métis,” pp. l, 13.
90Archives of the
Archdiocese of St. Boniface, Fonds Taché, T29881-840, L. Schmidt, Notes:
Movement des Métis A St-Laurent, Sask., T.N.O. en 1884; Schmidt Family Papers,
Déclaration, 16 décembre 1909.
91PAM, MG 3 D 1,
616, J. Riel to A.-G. Morice, 20 mai 1907.
92PAM, MG 3 D 1,
616, J. Riel to A.-G. Morice, 25 avril 1908; ibid., 614, Winnipeg Evening
Telegram clippings, 11 February, 13 February, 8 March 1909.
93A.-H. de
Trémaudan, Hold High your Heads (History of the Métis Nation in Western Canada),
trans. E. Maguet (Pemmican Publications: Winnipeg, 1982), pp. xii-xiii.
94PAM, MG 3 D 1,
485, J. Riel to G. Clouthier, 20 septembre 1920.
95PAM, MG 3 D 1,
486, C. Teillet to A.-G. Morice, 31 janvier 1921. For a detailed discussion of
the controversy between Morice and the Métis of St. Vital consult R. Huel, “The
Clergyman as Historian: The Rev. A.-G. Morice, O.M.I., and Riel
Historiography,” Canadian Catholic Historical Association, Study Sessions, 1985,
pp. 83-96.
96AD, HF 245 A24Z
8, A. Nault to A.-G. Morice, 10 février 1925.
97La Liberté [Winnipeg], 5
août 1925.
98Ibid., 5 août, 19
août, 9 septembre, 23 septembre 1925
99A.-H. de
Trémaudan, Histoire de la Nation Métisse, pp. 175-210.