Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggarman, Chief: Saulteaux in the Red River Settlement

Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggarman, Chief: Saulteaux in the Red River Settlement LAURA L. PEERS University of Winnipeg When Miles Macdonell led thefirststraggling group of Lord Selkirk's settlers from York Factory to Red River in 1812, he had instructions to establish friendly relations with the Indians around the colony. It was hoped that these relationships would enable the settlers to make use of the Indians' country skills to sustain the colony during itsfirstdifficult years. The colony officials were surprised, however, at the apparent eagerness of the Natives' response, particularly that given by a local band of Saulteaux led by Peguis. Not only did the Saulteaux provide food and shelter at various times, they also actively supported the colonists during the North West Company's worst harassment. But their assistance was not merely given out of charity: just as the Europeans planned to use the Saulteaux, so did the Saulteaux have plans to use the colony to their own advantage. This paper examines the relationship between Peguis's band of Saulteaux and the officials of the Red River settlement during thefirst two decades of the settlement's existence, up to the founding of a Christian agricultural settlement for Peguis's band at Cook's Creek in 1833. 1 Previous biographies of Peguis as well as histories of Red River have emphasized the decline of the chief's political influence and his band's economic situation as well as the inevitability and/or wisdom of Peguis's acceptance of a Christian agricultural settlement (Cf. Dempsey 1976, Ross 1856, Thompson 1973). Peguis, however, may have seen things differently, and might have asserted 1 Several other Saulteaux bands passed through the settlement occasionally, from Red Lake, Rainy Lake, the Interlake area, and Portage la Prairie. Peguis's band, being the closest to the colony, had a more complex relationship with it. There was also, presumably, an informal relationship between members of Peguis's band and the various groups within the settlement. I would like to thank Professors Jennifer Brown and Jean Friesen for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. 261

262 RED RIVER SETTLEMENT that his band maintained a great deal of political and economic autonomy even after 1833. In fact, Peguis's motives for accepting the missionaries' proposals were related to his original desire to benefit from the colony. The Red River settlement was designed by Thomas Douglas, the Fifth Earl of Selkirk and the largest shareholder in the Hudson's Bay Company, to provide a haven for the poor of Atlantic Britain and to provide agricultural produce for the Company's inland posts. The site chosen for the colony at the Forks of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers straddled the major water routes from Montreal in the east and York Factory in the north to the western posts. For the same reasons that the site was convenient for the Hudson's Bay Company, however, it posed a direct threat to the Company's rival in the fur trade, the Montreal-based North West Company. The commercial rivalry which had been escalating since the late 1700s came to a head over the settlement as the North West Company, fearing for its survival, vowed to destroyfirstthe colony and then the Hudson's Bay Company. The objects of this rivalry were the Indians and the furs they harvested. In the Red River area by 1812, though, both fur-bearing and game animals had become scarce. This forced Saulteaux bands which had migrated into the Red River valley in the 1790s to move north and west of Red River. Peguis's band stayed in the area, having a seasonally-occupied camp just north of the Forks at Netley Creek, but their returns from the fur trade were fast diminishing. The arrival of thefirstsettlers in 1812, then, was a promising event for Peguis's and other Saulteaux bands. Within a few years, it was reported that most of the local Indians "seem very glad to see white people come to cultivate their land k they imagine that for the future they will want nothing" (HBCA B. 235/a/3, 19 October 1814). The Black Man, a Saulteaux chief from the Red Lake area, stated that his people were "pleased with the people coming to settle upon their Lands, to teach them how to manufacture European articles" (PAM MG1 D3, 16 July 1815). Other statements were made to the effect that the Saulteaux had been "afraid of being altogether abandoned by the traders" and were "pleased to see people of steady habits arrive who are to make a permanent residence, acting towards them on fair and just principles & administering to their wants" (PAM Selkirk, 8 March 1814). It is unlikely that the Saulteaux would have taken up sedentary agriculture or the manufacture of European goods in 1814-1815. What they wanted, rather, was access to the Europeans' potential material wealth and military power, which they hoped to gain through the establishment of a diplomatic relationship with the colony. Among the Saulteaux, such relationships were created and maintained by gift-giving, and involved recipro-

LAURA L. PEERS 263 cal physical and military support (cf. White 1981). Thus, the assistance of the colony by the Saulteaux was not merely done out of kindness or charity, as historians such as Alexander Ross and A.S. Morton have maintained it. In addition to these motivations, the Saulteaux fully expected their actions to be later rewarded and reciprocated. During thefirst few years of the colony, the assistance given by the Saulteaux made the difference between survival and starvation for the settlers. The supply offish, game, sugar, wild rice, and even shelter to the settlers has been well-noted in the histories of the colony. In addition to these economic exchanges, Peguis's band complied with the political requirements of their relationship with the colony by supporting it and the Hudson's Bay Company during the period of harassment by the North West Company. The actions of Peguis and his band during the crisis of June 1815 provide a clear illustration of the workings of their early relationsip with the colony. In the spring of 1815, the North West Company attempted to convince the Crees and Saulteaux between the Qu'Apelle River and Lake Superior to attack the tiny settlement at the Forks. Rumours of Hudson's Bay Company plans to enslave Indians were circulated and bribes of liquor and goods were offered (PAM Selkirk, 29 July 1816). Most of the Saulteaux, including Peguis's band, refused. 2 A group of Crees accepted and came down from Carlton House, but changed their minds after they had drunk the liquor given them as bribes by the North West Company, and instead wished the colony prosperity (PAM MG1 D3, 10 June 1815). On June 20th, after the colony's governor had been captured by the Nor'westers and the settlers ordered to leave, trader Peter Fidler sent two men "to fetch up Pigivis the Bungee Chief and young men, to see what they can do for us in making Peace and remaining here..." (PAM MG1 D3, 20 June 1815). Four days later, Peguis and another chief arrived in ceremony with 33 men and received tobacco and rum (HBCA B.235/a/3, 24 June 1815). The colony officials then appealed to the Saulteaux for help, saying that the land around the Forks belonged to the Saulteaux, and therefore only the Saulteaux could ask the settlers to leave. If the Indians wanted the settlers to stay, they would, but they needed the assistance of the Saulteaux in making peace with the Canadians. As added incentive, the colony officials referred to the the gift-giving aspect of their relationship with the Saulteaux, saying the governor had taken the Indians' pipe stems 2 John Tanner (James 1956:209) did not respond to the summons, even though he "considered [himself] as in some measure belonging to them", "because [he] thought these quarrels between relatives unnatural". Nor did an Ojibwa chief at Sandy Lake respond, even though he was offered "all the goods and Rum" in three of the Hudson's Bay Co. posts (PAM Selkirk, 22 July 1816; 20 June 1815).

264 RED RIVER SETTLEMENT with him, "in order that he may talk to our Great Father, that he may be charitable to you" (PAM MG1 D3, [June 1815]). Thus entreated, Peguis agreed to attempt to make a settlement with the North West Company. He was unsuccessful, and returned in shame for having failed his allies, but promised to seek military aid from other bands. In afinalgesture befitting their position as colony protectors, Peguis and his young men accompanied thefleeingsettlers down the Red to Lake Winnipeg to prevent further harassment by the North West Company. In return for their loyalty, as they expected, the Saulteaux were given a considerable quantity of goods by the Company just before the settlers left Red River. After the Saulteaux' expectations of their relationship with the colony had been so well met, it was no wonder that: "The day after the last buildings [in the settlement] were burnt, The Black Man an Indian Chief from Turtle River... went to the foundation of the Captain's room now in ashes and wept bitterly over it" (PAM MG1 D3, 16 July 1815). For a few years, then, the relationship between the Saulteaux and the colony officials worked as each group had anticipated. The Saulteaux provided provisions and some measure of physical protection for the colony, while the settlement supplied them with opportunities for prestige, new economic alternatives, and access to European goods in the form of gifts. This state of affairs was short-lived, however, for neither group was willing to conform to the other's expectations at the expense of its own. As the settlement was re-established and its need for protection lessened, its officials became increasingly reluctant to accomodate what the Saulteaux regarded as legitimate expectations of an ally. After 1816, the autonomy and influence of the Saulteaux in their relationship with the settlement was greatly diminished. One of thefirstsigns that the company (and therefore colony) officials were no longer abiding by the Saulteaux's expectations of their relationship ocurred in 1817 when the Hudson's Bay Company began trading with the Sioux. As the Premier's son said, "it was very hard [the Company was] giving goods and Ammunition to the other nation... to kill [the Saulteaux]" (PAM Selkirk, 27 December 1817). Much to the annoyance of the Hudson's Bay Company, the Saulteaux determined to prevent the trader from going to the Sioux. Clearly, the Company and colony officials were not about to conform to Saulteaux terms of alliance at the expense of profit. The signing of the Selkirk Treaty also eroded the status and influence of Peguis's band vis-a-vis the colony. Regardless of the Saulteaux perspective of the implications of the treaty, its signing negated the Indians' tenure and resultant authority to which the colonists had appealed in 1815. The choice of an annual payment to the chiefs is another indication of the changing status of the Saulteaux in the eyes of colony officials, for the threat of its

LAURA L. PEERS 265 being witheld for misconduct was meant to coerce the Indians into behaving well. In addition to this loss of political autonomy, Peguis's band was also losing the economic status they had formerly enjoyed in the fur trade. By 1819 the muskrats which had become the staple of the trade in the district were virtually extinct, and posts around Red River mention the Saulteaux as having "enormous Debts" by 1817 (HBCA B.22/e/l, fo. 8). The Saulteaux reacted to these changes in their fortunes by decreasing their participation in the fur trade, and by seeking new ways to gain access to supplies from the settlement. Perhaps recognizing that farming was regarded as a high-status occupation in the colony, Peguis "became determined to establish his [own] garden and village", and applied to Captain Matthey at the colony "for the seeds of Bread and Potatoes" for the spring of 1819 (PAM Selkirk, 12 September 1818). It is quite likely that Peguis had no intention of relinquishing the freedom of his lifestyle to farm; his application was made as much to curry favour with colony officials as it was to obtain wheat and potatoes for immediate consumption. The years 1818 to 1820 confirmed the changes which had occurred in the fortunes of the Saulteaux around the settlement. The winter of 1818-1819 was difficult, with little relief available for the Saulteaux at the posts because of the large debts they already had there. In 1819, a measles epidemic swept through the northwest, and while mortality rates among the Saulteaux were not as high as among the Assiniboines or Crees, the deaths which did occur compounded the difficulties faced by Peguis's band (Ray 1971:142). One of the ways in which the Saulteaux were able to cope with these disasters was by manipulating the credit system at the trading posts. Hunters would take goods on credit at the beginning of a season and later plead a poor hunt in lieu of payment, or take debt at one post and take their furs to another. These opportunities decreased substantially when the credit system was withdrawn from the Red River district after the coalition of the two fur companies in 1821. The change initially gave "mortal offence" (PAM Selkirk, 20 May 1822) to the Indians, not only because it caused economic hardship but because it was a declaration of the Indians' loss of status and power in the fur trade. To varying degrees, both the Saulteaux and the Hudson's Bay and colony officials recognized that the withdrawal of credit symbolized the end of an intimate relationship between them: no longer would the Company be as generous in reciprocation of the Natives' gifts. This was clearly voiced by Governor George Simpson around the time of coalition:

266 RED RIVER SETTLEMENT I conceive it important that the Connexion with the Sieux should be broken off as early as possible also with all the other Indian Tribes, not that there is the least danger to be apprehended from them but that they will be exceedingly troublesome and expensive (PAM Selkirk, 4 September 1821). Presented by such a reversal of their hopes, it is not surprising that Peguis became quite anxious that his daughter should marry James Bird, a trader at Fort Douglas. The marriage would have established significant kinship bonds between Peguis's band and the Hudson's Bay Company, and reinstated the Company's participation in a reciprocal relationship. The marriage did not occur, however, and the very changed relationship between the two groups was forcibly demonstrated to the Saulteaux in an incident which was almost the mirror image of the crisis of 1815. On August 30 of 1821, a group of Sioux arrived at Fort Garry, to claim presents promised them years before by Lord Selkirk and to strengthen their trading relationship with the Company. Their unexpected arrival was communicated to Peguis's band, and 53 Saulteaux met the Sioux at the Fort. Unlike the 1815 crisis in which Peguis offered to support the colony, however, colony officials prevented the battle between the two groups and debated whether to call on the Meuron troops to drive off the Saulteaux. The Saulteaux displayed "a considerable degree of irritation" (PAM Selkirk, 30 August 1821) at the incident: clearly, their relationship with the colony and the Company had been violated. As it became clear to the Saulteaux that the Hudson's Bay Company was not going to fulfill the obligations of its relationship with them, they began looking for another party within the settlement from whom they could obtain the desired benefits. It is not surprising, then, that after the arrival of thefirst Anglican missionary in the northwest in 1820 and the disillusioning events of 1821, the most significant official interaction between Peguis's band and the colony took place through the agents of the Church Missionary Society. The Saulteaux soon discovered that dealing with this different aspect of the colony meant a very different kind of relationship. Like George Simpson of the Hudson's Bay Company, thefirstprotestant missionary at Red River was an outsider who did not understand the obligations of his relationship with the Saulteaux. West, for example, was scornful of Saulteaux requests for food "their lounging habits of begging at your residence" (West 1966:114). Unlike Simpson, however, Reverend John West and his successors exercised a Christian charity which coincided with the Saulteaux' expectations of reciprocal support. This new relationship differed greatly from the previous one in that the missionaries expected Peguis's band not to give, but to receive. In a sense, the missionaries unwittingly turned the tables on Peguis's band, who found that the problem with this new relationship lay not in obtaining things, but in receiving selectively.

LAURA L. PEERS 267 The Protestant missionaries were thefirst group to not only refuse to accept Native customs, but to demand that natives adopt European ones. Reverend John West, who arrived at Red River in 1820, tried unsuccessfully to convince Peguis and some Red Lake chiefs of the value of Christianity, sedentary agriculture, and European education. He also lectured the Saulteaux on polygamy, scalping, and other customs. In return, Peguis teased West about the hypocrisy of lecturing him on polygamy when there was at least one European in the settlement with two wives. The reaction of the Red River Saulteaux to missionary attitudes and demands was initially one of indifference. The treatment they had received from colony officials in 1821 was scarcely such as to move them to cooperation, nor was the settlement in the early 1820s a favourable advertisement for the benefits of agriculture or Christianity. Thus, while Alexander Macdonell gave forty hoes and "a great deal of Grain" to Peguis's band in the spring of 1821 (PAM Selkirk, 13 September 1821), the grain was probably eaten immediately. Similarly, Reverend David Jones's school had, in 1824, only one Saulteaux student in an enrolment of 169. They also sought opportunities to turn missionary designs to their own advantage. In one instance, Peguis's sister asked West to accept her son into the school, but then re-appeared to claim the boy only a week later, saying "that they had parted from him in consequence of their not being able to obtain any provisions..." (West 1966:118-119). The famines and flooding in the years 1824 to 1826 did nothing to change the Saulteaux stance. Many of the local Saulteaux were forced to camp near the settlement "in hopes of making out a livelihood amonst the colonists" (HBCA B.235/a/7, 2 January 1826). Their increased visibility in the colony prompted David Jones to remark that while Peguis's band was "very proud and haughty,... they are become much more friendly of late" (PAM CMS A77, 28 February 1826). But while they may have been friendlier, they were no more receptive to missionary efforts. One group listened to Reverend William Cockran's lecture in 1826 "with indifference" and told him, when hefinished,that all they had come for was tobacco (PAM CMS A77, 21 August 1826). In 1828, Cockran admitted to the Church Missionary Society that the missionaries had "not yet made a single step towards the civilization and evangelization of the pure adult Indians" (PAM CMS A77, 7 August 1828). At the end of the 1820s, their own way of life still seemed far more attractive to the Saulteaux. In one incident, Peguis came upon Cockran and some others spreading manure on a field. Cockran told Peguis that it was by doing this that the Europeans had their wealth In reply, Peguis "looked at [Cockran] with a satirical smile, and pointed to the plains and river" (PAM CMS, 30 October 1828) to indicate his own, and obviously cleaner, source of wealth.

268 RED RIVER SETTLEMENT The Saulteaux attempts to manipulate the missionaries were upset when, in 1829, Cockran received permission from George Simpson to begin an experimental farm for the purpose of settling, civilizing, and converting the Indians around the colony. Atfirst,Peguis tried his old technique of evading direct answers to Cockran's questions. As late as the fall of 1830, Peguis was still stalling: his advisors were off hunting and could not be consulted; he was too much in debt to the Company to stop trapping. Furthermore, Peguis stated that it was only the Crees and Metis who could prosper by a plan such as Cockran's. Were the Saulteaux to abandon their customs, they would incur the anger of the Master of Life: "If they were to accommodate themselves to the customs of the Whites, embrace their religion, and lay aside their medicines, dreams, &; Conjurers They would soon all die" (PAM CMS A85, 28 October 1930). Peguis's response was not simply an expression of the dilemma of a group caught "between the desire for economic or material development and a fear of Christian 'contamination'" (Waisberg and Beaudry 1984:20). It was also an expression of the continuing integrity of the Saulteaux position. Having maintained for a decade that they would not subsist in the manner proposed by Cockran, they were now forced to escalate their declaration; they could not, there were powerful prohibitions against it. As well, their resistance became more defined between 1829 and 1832, despite the difficult winters of 1830, 1831, and 1832 which might have induced them to reverse their position. By the spring of 1831, Peguis's band presented a nearly united front. When asked by Cockran to fetch more seed wheat from the Settlement, all of Peguis's young men refused to undertake the task. The traditional religious leaders within Peguis's band also provided a bulwark against change. Just after the incident mentioned above, a feast was held, "to conjure... for the purpose of ascertaining whether the change [to agriculture]... would be beneficial or otherwise" (PAM CMS A85, 31 May 1831). Peguis's band realized, however, that if they were to keep any material benefits flowing from the colony, some concessions had to be made to the missionaries. In addition, they hoped that by accepting Cockran's proposal and becoming settled, they would receive the higher fur prices paid to the Metis and Cree Indians in the colony. They therefore gave permission for the experimental farm, and Peguis became one of thefirstto plant. However, very few others followed suit, and the majority of the new farmers were Crees whom Cockran persuaded Peguis to allow on the Indian Reserve. Peguis himself was mentioned as being at traditional religious ceremonies or off hunting as often as he was planting. Clearly, even when they agreed to become agriculturalists, Peguis's band had a very different opinion of what that agreement entailed than

LAURA L. PEERS 269 Cockran had envisaged. Cockran's satisfied comment on the venture the following year indicates that the Saulteaux had been successful in their plan and that Cockran had no idea of the difference between his goals and those of the Saulteaux: The Old Chief [Peguis] has been exceedingly faithful to his promise, stuck close t us, supported us in all difficulties, labored hard with us, is gradually throwing off the distant reserve, and treating us as confidents (PAM CMS A77, 25 February 1832). What Peguis's band had done was to create yet another diplomatic relationship for which they could expect material benefits and renewed prestige. Here, after all, was a conquest for Cockran which would both move him and obligate him to be charitable. At the same time, their acceptance of Cockran's proposal was simply part of the more diversified economy which the Saulteaux were adopting in the 1820s in response to the decline of the fur trade and the continuing ecological pressures. Nor was Peguis's band compelled to greatly alter their lifestyle: in 1835 they were referred to as "a vagrant band" conjuring near Lake Winnipeg, and by 1839 there were still only 15 Saulteaux children enrolled in school. After two decades, the Saulteaux still maintained the political and economic autonomy they held in 1812. The evolving relationships between the Red River Saulteaux and the Church and secular officials of the colony did not go unnoticed by other Indian groups. Members of bands from the Lake Superior area passed through the colony occasionally and maintained kinship ties with Peguis's band. When missionization began among the more easterly Ojibwa, the Red River Saulteaux had been dealing with the missionaries for some time. Other Ojibwa, however, may not have understood the nature of what they saw as Peguis's concessions to the missionaries. What they saw in Red River gave the eastern bands cause for concern. Thus, at Rainy River in 1839, an Ojibwa asked: Look here, do you see this man? He has been to Red River; again, see this one, he has been to La Pointe; both of them report that they did not see any medicine sacks in the possession of the praying Indians. What should happen to us, therefore, if we pray? (Waisberg and Beaudry 1984:12-13). While the Rainy Lake and Rainy River groups had their own reasons for refusing to allow missionaries to operate in their territory, it seems highly probable that their perception of the experience of Peguis's band became part of the collective experience of many Ojibwa bands around Lake Superior. As such, the example of Red River would have become a basis for the foretelling of history for these other bands. The experience

270 RED RIVER SETTLEMENT of Peguis's band in the Red River settlement as rich men, as poor men, as beggarmen, and as chiefs, was a lesson and a warning for their kinsmen. REFERENCES Dempsey, Hugh 1976 Peguis. Pp. 626-627in Dictionary of Canadian Biography vol. 9. Francess Halpenny, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hudson's Bay Company Archives: (HBCA) James, Edwin, ed. B.22/e/l, Red River District Report 1819; B.235/a/3, Winnipeg Post Journal 1814-1815; B.235/a/7, Winnipeg Post Journal 1825-1826 1956 Captivity Narrative of John Tanner. Minnesota: Ross and Haines. Provincial Archives of Manitoba (PAM): Ray, Arthur J. Church Missionary Society Papers, 1820-1839: (CMS); MGl D3, Journal at the Red River Settlement 1814-1815, by Peter Fidler; Selkirk Papers, 1811-1827. 1971 Indian Exploitation of the Forest-Grassland Transition Zone in Western Canada. PhD. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Ross, Alexander 1984 The Red River Settlement. London: Smith, Elder and Co. [1856]. Thompson, Chief A.E. 1973 Chief Peguis and his Descendents. Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers. Waisberg, Leo, and Marie-Ange Beaudry West, John 1984 Manitou Mounds: An Historical Evaluation of the Mission Lot. Parks Canada. 1966 The Substance of a Journal During a Residence at the Red River Colony. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [Originally published 1827.] White, Bruce 1982 "Give Us a Little Milk": The Social and Cultural Significance of Gift Giving in the Lake Superior Fur Trade. In Rendezvous: Selected Papers of the Fourth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1981, Thomas C. Buckley, ed. St. Paul, Minnesota: The North American Fur Trade Conference, 1984.