Ross concludes his list with the following entry:

4th. For various reasons, therefore, we and many others here are of opinion, that Lord Selkirk’s object was the good of the natives, and theirs alone. What else could it have been? It was not territorial acquisition: that the Company had already. It was not the exclusive right of trade: that they had already. It was not to relieve a redundant population, for that relief was but small; nor could it have been for the bubble reputation. No: he had purer motives. The only prominent objection we have to Red River Colony in a local point of view is its proximity to the boundary line on the south, and his lordship was too clear-sighted not to have foreseen, that eventually it might fall into the hands of the Americans, and should it not, the only outlet for its resources must be south, and not north. Beyond what the Company might require, its market, in the nature of things, must be south also. Hence it is quite evident that his lordship’s motives must have been what we have stated; namely, the civilizing and evangelizing of the natives: so that into whatever hands its government fell, he would have attained his end. For its value to Great Britain, if we except the interest of the Hudson’s Bay Company, was, and ever must be, small indeed; nor could the Americans expect to benefit much by it, either in a political or commercial point of view. The fears of the North-Westers were fully realized, the anticipations of the Hudson’s Bay Company fully borne out by the result, for the colony has become a nursery for its retired servants; but as to Lord Selkirk’s view of benefiting the Indians, forty years’ experience has proved it, as we shall hereafter be able to show, a complete failure.

~ Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement, p. 18-19.

If only Ross had given the colony another 20 years! He would have seen how wrong in several respects his conclusion was.

J. M. Bumsted, in his recent biography of Thomas Douglas, the Fifth Earl of Selkirk, talks a lot more about the Earl’s ideas on American expansion and the importance of Red River in countering U.S. expansion into what was in his time HBC territory. And one only needs to look at what happened to Britain’s claim to what is now Washington State and Oregon to see how important his foresight was!

The amalgamation of the HBC and NWCo. probably would have happened anyway, if either were to survive the depletion of fur stocks in the west. In fact, it was likely a hostile take-over planned by Sir Alexander Mackenzie of the North West Company with the aid of Lord Selkirk that brought the Earl into the Hudson’s Bay Company in the first place (Bumsted, Lord Selkirk: A Life. pp. 171-2)!

As for the retirement community theory, well, who were the ‘Canadians’ but the Métis families of French Canadian fur traders and bois brulés? They were settling at least part-time in the area already! So the colony was only giving structure to a population already in place to some degree, and augmenting its population. Yes, it was meant to re-enforce the HBC charter claims to an area already overrun by the NWCo. The HBC was fighting for survival, just as was the NWCo. This was undoubtedly a means of strengthening the HBC claim and lowering their operating costs.

At the same time, this goal could be achieved by aiding a population in dire need of assistance – the evicted highland tenant farmers. This is where Selkirk really failed, I think. He had plans to bring over a great many more Scots than he actually managed to transport to Red River. The shortfall was in part due to the machinations of NWCo. partners and their propaganda; and the dithering of English politicians, who also were under the influence of NWCo. propaganda, on the subject of Selkirk’s emigration proposals. The colony also lost large numbers of its colonists to migration after NWCo. interference; mismanagement of the colony and its interests by Selkirk’s officials; and floods, droughts and grasshopper plagues; and Selkirk’s premature death among other things. I’m not even sure that the failure was Selkirk’s. The idea was a good one. The timing could have been better, perhaps. But how could anyone have known that!

Ross, to the best of my knowledge, never met Selkirk. He was not an eyewitness to any of the colony’s earliest history – he was one of those retired HBC servants with a First Nations family, who had been working in the Columbia District first for the NWCo., then the HBC, prior to joining the colony in 1825 (Frits Pannekoek, Ross, Alexander. Canadian Encyclopedia). He was one of the colonists who fought hard for a Presbyterian minister, and was very active in the Presbyterian Church at Kildonan as an elder, once it was established. A good portion of his book deals with civilizing the Natives of Rupert’s Land, a process Ross tends to equate with conversion to Christianity. It was a cause that he seemed very concerned with, himself….

The third of Selkirk’s supposed motives in Ross’ list leaves me scratching my head a bit.

3rd. The next statement, in our opinion, contains his lordship’s real object, the pious and philanthropic desire of introducing civilization into this wilderness. Being a pious man himself, he felt for others. His lordship knew from long experience, that poverty and degradation were making long and rapid strides in Rupert’s Land; that the wild animals of the chase had almost ceased to exist there, in sufficient numbers, at least, to feed and clothe the aboriginal inhabitants of the soil – not that such numbers had been extirpated by the natives themselves, but by the destroying hand of civilized man. It was now, in this point of view, drawing towards the eleventh hour, when it was high time for them, not only to cultivate the ground, whereby they might live, but prepare to cultivate the mind also, as the test of their improving condition, spiritually as well as temporarily. To this end, the preparatory step with his lordship was a colony, as a nucleus or rallying point in the wilderness. The object, then, was a laudable and charitable one, strictly in accordance with the character of such a man as Lord Selkirk – a man of a great mind and a good heart – and also in accordance with the spirit of the Company’s charter.

~ Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement, p. 18.

There is undoubtedly something of Selkirk in this motive, but I can’t help feeling, as I read it, that this is more Ross’ ideal than his lordship’s. Selkirk was very much a philanthropist and a humanist, a fact that the previous two listed motives and people who uphold them tend to overlook.

Perhaps I am mistaken – there is so much material on Selkirk and the Settlement that I have yet to read! – but I think Selkirk’s main focus was on helping his fellow Scots/Europeans establish themselves sufficiently. His piety, or lack of piety doesn’t strike me as remarkable or overt. Was he pious? I think he had First Nation interests in mind to a greater degree than others planting colonies, certainly, but I’m not sure that ‘civilizing’ them was a major concern. Was it? As for the bison, certainly Selkirk’s officers saw them as a ready and plentiful food source for the colony. Did Selkirk himself worry about a radically declining bison population? Perhaps those of you who have read more widely can offer some comments!

The second in Ross’ list of reasons Selkirk had for establishing the Red River Settlement fits hand in glove with the first. Considered together, these motives set an image in the mind’s eye of a greedy British aristocrat, sitting in his counting house, rubbing his hands in glee as the gold pours in. And a lot of people still see the Fifth Earl of Selkirk in that light. But I will get to that later…

2nd. Another strong reason for establishing Red River Colony has been stated; for with reference to these matters, we must regard Lord Selkirk and the Hudson’s Bay Company as one, their interests being blended together. It is not, perhaps, generally known, that all dormant or retiring partners, and others leaving the service from time to time, carry off to other countries large sums of money, over which the Company could no longer have any control: with the view, therefore, of preventing this money from going out of the country, the Company, by means of their sub-monopolist, Lord Selkirk, founded the colony in question; that by means of it, all, or the greater part of such retiring partners and others, especially those having Indian families, – and they are many [Ross himself is an example from this group], — might be induced to settle there in preference to going home to their own countries, as being more congenial to their past habits of life. The Company well knew that a colony planted in the bosom of their own trade, must in the nature of things be more or less dependant on them for its supplies…

~ Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement, p. 17.

Ross explains that their were advantages to the company in this arrangement. All the money that was currently leaving the country with retiring servants would now be recirculated through the HBC. The HBC would also have access to all the surplus produce from the farms of the colonists to supply their outposts – with more reliability and a great savings from having to ship the like over from England or Canada! Colonists would also have a ready market for their surplus despite their remote location.

If we think about the advantages for a minute, we see that, even if this is Selkirk’s main reason for creating the colony, the situation at Red River is very much what we today would call win-win.

Some retirees did take their families back to Scotland or Orkney with them, but often they went home alone, or with select children to educate, perhaps to keep in Scotland, perhaps not. For some this would be very difficult – starting a new life in a world they had been long removed from. Their native wives may not have wanted to leave their families and homeland forever, so refused to leave for Britain with their husbands. They may not have understood that their men were leaving for good.  They often were not given a choice. The men would certainly understand that removing their native families to Britain could give rise to some very difficult situations. Some of the HBC servants might even have had families back home already!

For those men who had come to love the rugged life they’d lived during their employment in North America, though, the Red River Colony would offer them the opportunity to remain at least somewhat immersed in it, to keep the families they’d begun, and to live comfortably on their own land – something they might not have been able to do back home. All they needed to do was talk to some of the newly arrived employees to know that life in the highlands of Scotland (and elsewhere) was rapidly changing, and not to the advantage of the common folk. Remaining in Rupert’s Land opened a whole new realm of opportunity to them and their families.

We need to consider, also, what the colonists themselves had in Scotland. Yes, they were given the option of relocating to small plots to eek their livings, or to fish…. But they were tenant farmers, not fishermen. And those plots of land? Well, at Badbea, for example, the livestock and children had to be tethered often to keep them from blowing over the cliffs and into the sea. There was little if any soil for gardening there. Life was extremely bleak. Come to Red River, and they would eventually own their own land, have a ready market for their produce and a fresh start. I know which option I would choose!

So, certainly, the HBC and Selkirk had something to gain if things went as anticipated with the colony. But in a way, the colonists gained much more.

Back in December, I said I would write a series on the motivation various people have thought was behind Lord Selkirk’s establishing the Red River Settlement. Sorry to have kept you waiting so long!

I thought I would start with Alexander Ross’ list for a couple of  reasons. It’s where I first met with a published list in my own reading. It’s also probably the first widely read publication that considered all the reasons that were floating around in a period close to the actual colonisation of Red River (Ross’ Red River Settlement was first published in 1852).

1st. According to the North-West creed, his lordship planted the colony to ruin their trade. From the jealous and hostile feuds carried on in the country at the time, by the partisans of the two rival companies, the North-West and Hudson’s Bay, it was alleged by the former, and with some degree of reason, that Lord Selkirk, who was a large shareholder in the latter, endeavoured to check the physical superiority of his opponents, and by means of the new colony secure to the Hudson’s Bay Company, and to himself, not only the extensive and undivided trade of the country within their own territories, but a safe and convenient stepping-stone for monopolizing all the fur trade of the far west; which would have been a death blow to their concern.

~ Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement, p. 16.

Ross himself did not believe that this was the real motivation behind Selkirk’s philanthropic work at Red River, as we shall see later. But he does indicate that what is important is that this is what the Nor’ Westers believed, and it was this belief that led to the “hostility and enmity, on their part, [and] was the cause of all the troubles and misfortunes the colonists had to contend with for many years afterwards….” [pp. 16-17] That little word ‘all’ is surely an exaggeration, but Ross certainly makes a point!

An interesting article about Kildonan Church appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press this weekend. If you would like to read the online version of the article, please visit the Winnipeg Free Press website.

Thanks to Cathie for the heads up!

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the settlement lately. I have been for several years, but before this year, most of it was primary material – first-hand accounts written by eyewitnesses to the events. Little of that discussed Selkirk’s motives in establishing the RRS as such.

I’ve seen and heard various opinions over the years, too. The most negative ones I’ve brushed off as leaning toward racist or as NWCo. propaganda. I haven’t really thought about it that much, myself, except that I’ve always known in my heart that Selkirk was a hero and a good man. He gave my people a home when their own was taken from them and the alternative offer was starvation or, at the very least, extreme poverty and hardship. And my own family, and that of other descendants I’ve come to know, seem to hold a similar view of him. Witness all the Selkirks, Thomases, Douglases and combinations thereof in the family trees.

Oh, we know he had his faults. But in our books, well, let’s just say that our books wouldn’t have been written if it hadn’t been for Thomas Douglas, the Fifth Earl of Selkirk. He’s a bit of all right as far as most of us are concerned!

But in reading Alexander Ross, J. M. Bumsted, and, most recently, Donald Gunn, I’ve found myself questioning and considering the reasons they say Selkirk had in beginning the Red River Settlement. Time to put some of these speculations out for you to consider with me, I think!