The regular work of defending sovereignty

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 31/07/2025 (238 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In September 1885, from a prison cell in Regina, Louis Riel — Métis leader and founder of Manitoba — penned one of the most audacious diplomatic appeals in Canadian history.

Facing execution, he wrote to U.S. President Grover Cleveland, asking for the peaceful annexation of the Northwest Territories. It was a radical act, born not of betrayal but of desperation.

“Your humble petitioner respectfully asks, as an American citizen, for your kind and powerful protection… that the international line between the United States and the North-West be blotted out from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean, that the Hon. James W. Taylor, United States consul, at Winnipeg, be appointed governor-general of these vast territories… I, the undersigned, humbly ask you to appoint me as first minister and Secretary of the North-West…”

Riel’s appeal was rooted in a profound sense of injustice. He condemned the Hudson’s Bay Company’s monopoly, the illegitimate land transfer to Canada, and the deceitful arrival of armed surveyors masquerading as civil agents. His homeland, he believed, had been erased through colonial deception.

He asserted the British government was “guilty of an extraordinary crime against humanity.”

Yet even in his final days, Riel’s tone remained dignified and conciliatory. He wrote not with bitterness, but with hope — for protection, for peace, and for a future where his people might thrive.

His letter is more than a historical footnote — it’s a testament to the desperation of a visionary leader confronting the collapse of his world. Riel had few options left. His appeal to Cleveland was a last resort, not a calculated betrayal. As a naturalized U.S. citizen (Montana, 1883), he had a legitimate basis to seek protection. His proposal to erase the border and establish a new government under U.S. oversight was bold, but it reflected his belief that the Métis had been abandoned by Canada.

Still, while Riel’s appeal was understandable given his circumstances, it was also deeply misguided. The idea of annexation — however rooted in desperation — would be rejected by most Canadians today. It challenges the very notion of Canadian sovereignty and identity.

Riel’s words reflect a man who, despite facing death, still believed in the possibility of a better future. His appeal was not a surrender — it was a final act of leadership, rooted in the conviction that his people deserved protection, recognition, and a voice in shaping their destiny.

Even in chains, Riel imagined a government that could serve the Northwest with dignity and justice. His plea was not just political — it was spiritual, a testament to his enduring belief in the power of institutions to uplift the marginalized. That vision, though dismissed in his time, continues to challenge Canada to live up to its promise.

The tensions Riel faced were not isolated. His letter echoes earlier and later struggles for Canadian autonomy. American revolutionaries invaded Quebec in 1775–76. Quebec rejected American efforts to get them to join their rebellion and form a new country.

Indigenous and settler forces repelled U.S. incursions in 1812. Annexationist movements in the 1840s through 1870s stirred fears of cultural erasure. These moments reflect Riel’s desperation and the enduring tension between sovereignty and influence.

Even today, echoes of Riel’s plea reverberate. While Canada is now a sovereign middle power, recent provocations — such as U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks that Canada might be “better off as the 51st state”— serve as cautionary reminders. But threats to sovereignty are not only external.

Premier Danielle Smith’s government in Alberta has introduced legislation that lowers the threshold for triggering a provincial referendum on separation.

Her rhetoric, coupled with support from organized separatist groups, has stoked fears of a constitutional rupture. While Smith claims to support “sovereignty within a united Canada,” her actions suggest a willingness to entertain separatist sentiment to appease her political base — quietly stirring forces that threaten national unity.

Indigenous leaders have condemned these moves as a violation of treaty rights, warning that no referendum can override the foundational agreements between First Nations and the Crown. The Onion Lake Cree Nation has revived a lawsuit against Alberta’s Sovereignty Act, citing the province’s “growing separatist agenda” as a direct threat to constitutional protections.

Such developments remind us that sovereignty is not static — it must be defended not only from foreign influence but also from internal fragmentation. Riel’s appeal, though misguided, was born of desperation and a desire for justice. Today, we must ensure that sovereignty is not weaponized for political gain, but upheld through reconciliation, pluralism, and respect for all peoples who share this land.

Ultimately, Canada’s sovereignty is not just about borders or trade — it’s about justice, self-determination, and the promise of a nation that listens to all its voices.

Riel’s final plea reminds us that sovereignty is a living principle, defended in communities, courts, and the national imagination.

Martin Zeilig is a journalist and writer based in Winnipeg.