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!

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!

I just recently finished reading this little gem of a book. I’ve had it tucked away on my bookshelf for years. About a year ago, a TLSARL friend sent me a URL that led me to a site where I could read it online if I cared to, and his thoughtfulness reminded me that mine was buried somewhere. I dug it out, but still didn’t read it for some time.

The Red River Settlers in Real Life is a valuable addition to any Red River Colony library. Although he tends to be a bit sentimental at times, and there is the odd historical error, the general insight the author gives readers into everyday life in the early days of the settlement is fascinating. I only wish he hadn’t put the writing down off as long as he did (read the introduction).

MacBeth covers everything from crops and social customs of the agricultural society at Red River, to the hunt, weddings and funerals and daily menus. Interesting anecdotes illustrate the facts, and for genealogists among readers, there is the odd mention of individual settlers! His coverage of religion at the Colony is far more sympathetic than that of Alexander Ross!

MacBeth’s book was published in 1897, and was long out of print until a print to order company began printing it again in 2007. It is not difficult to find a copy of the original edition for under $50, and if you want a copy for your library, that is what I would advise you to invest in. Then you can see the illustrations well. If you’d like to read it before you buy a copy, you can do so for free at ElectricScotland.

There is no question that dogs were essential to life at Red River. But their working days were mostly winter days. These were hardy dogs, fit and perhaps high-strung – in terms of energy, at least. So, the major problems began when the snow and ice disappeared and the main method of dissipating all that energy melted away with the arrival of spring.

Other things were going on at the settlement in the spring – it was the season for lambing. The dogs, we must remember, were probably not all that far removed from their wolven ancestors. It seems that they frequently wreaked havoc in the lambing pens, and sometimes they even went after the larger animals!

[5 May 1813] Found Delorme & the Shepherd at the Point 2 Rams Ewes &c lamb alive – likewise the Cow & Bull & calf. The Cow was injured & much bit by Delorme’s Dogs – but the Shepherd thinks she will recover.
[15 May 1813] 5 Sheep & a lamb have been Killed by Dogs – viz 2 by Neil McKinnons Dogs. & the lamb by Dond. Mcmillns. Donald McL & B Bethunes Dogs

There are other such entries in the journals. Livestock was incredibly difficult to obtain – at the time this entry was written, there was only one bull, one cow and one calf in the RRS – and the loss of such animals was a severe blow to the colony.

Unruly dogs caused other serious problems, too:

[4 March 1815] Bannerman began to make a complaint that a dog of mine had eat his Pemican & that he would kill him if I did not restore the Pemican.

The seriousness of Bannerman’s loss is illustrated by the severity of his threat to kill Archie McDonald’s dog. McDonald was a settlement official, not just another settler. Pemmican was strictly rationed at this time, and with the propaganda the NWCo. officials were using to stir up the settlers against their own settlement officials added to the mix, this particular complaint against McDonald foreshadowed bloodshed of another type than dog!

But dog problems were not confined to idle canines. Ross mentions an incident involving runaway dogs while they were in the harness:

Many a curious and amusing incident occurs at buffalo-hunting, one of which may be noticed by way of example. A friend of the writer’s, about this time, went to enjoy a few weeks’ sport in the plains, and often repeated, with a comic and serious air, a scene which took place in his own presence. Some of the hunters who were accompanying him were conveying their families across a large plain, intersected here and there with clumps of wood. When in the act of rounding one of those woody islands, a herd of buffalo suddenly burst into view, causing two dogs who were drawing a sled, on which a child and some luggage were being conveyed, to set off at full speed in pursuit, leaving the father and mother in a state of despair for the safety of their only child. The dogs soon reached the heels of the buffalo, and all were mixed pell-mell together; the dogs running, the sled swinging to and fro, and the buffalo kicking. At length a bull gored one of the dogs, and his head getting entangled in the harness, went off at the gallop, carrying the dog on his horns, the other suspended by the traces, and the sled and child whirling behind him. The enraged animal ran a good half mile before he shook himself clear of the encumbrance, although pursued by a large party, by whom many shots were tired at him without effect. The state of the parents’ feelings may be imagined; yet, to their utter astonishment, although both dogs were killed, the child escaped unhurt!

(reference: pages 16824, 16860, 16934, 18275-6 of the Selkirk Papers, M186, Manitoba Archives; Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement…. 1856. page 247)