Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867-1877 (review)

Unlike the United States, Canada was largely spared from costly Indian wars in the nineteenth century. This observation is not lost on Canadian government officials who have quickly pointed out that Canada's Indian policy must have been more humane and fair than that of its neighbor to the south. Although most historians reject the self-gratifying view of these officials, few have actually tried to explain the relative absence of Indian-white conflict in Canada. Some, like Robert Utley and Robert Wooster, have argued that Canada lacked the emigration pressure that was the main cause of Indian "troubles" in the American West. Others, such as J. R. Miller and Olive Dickason, have contended that economic considerations compelled the Canadian government to seek a more conciliatory course with the Indian tribes. None of these explanations has been wholly satisfactory.

While not dismissing demographic and economic factors, Jill St. Germain takes a different approach. Comparing the Indian treaties at Medicine Lodge (1867) and Fort Laramie (1868) with the seven Numbered Treaties that Canada signed with its Indian tribes between 1871 and 1877, St. Germain concludes that there were indeed fundamental differences between the Indian policies of the two countries. But Canadian policy was not more "humane, just and Christian" than U.S. policy, as Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie had declared in 1877. Canada's policy makers, in reality, showed little interest in the well-being of the Indian population. The basic purpose of Indian treaties, these bureaucrats believed, was to obtain as much land as possible at the least expense. U.S. policy makers, however, believed that treaties were more than simple land transactions: they were also formal declarations in which the United States promised to aid the Indian tribes in the process of "civilization." The U.S. goal was to save the Indians from extinction by integrating them into mainstream American society through education, agricultural production, and Christianization. In this sense, the Americans' intentions (regardless of their flaws) were actually more humane and Christian than those of their Canadian neighbor. Ironically, the U.S. tendency to meddle in Indian affairs created more tensions and conflicts than Canada's policy of indifference.

In ten well-written chapters St. Germain elaborates on the basic differences between the policies of both countries. Canadians, for example, regarded treaties as practical instruments to obtain land titles from the Indians and saw no reason to abandon the practice. Americans, however, believed that treaties were no longer necessary after the Indian threat diminished after the War of 1812. The United States kept the treaty-making process in place only to implement its policy of civilization and to pacify the national conscience after the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864. Canada was very successful in convincing Indian tribes to accept smaller reserves by not insisting on immediate occupancy and by granting them first choice of land. The United States, by contrast, usually granted large reservations but would later push for further land cessions, much to the dismay of the Indians. Both countries believed that assimilation was inevitable, but, unlike the United States, Canada was not pushing for a civilization program because it did not wish to make any unnecessary financial commitments. Civilization clauses in the Numbered Treaties (particularly education and agricultural aid) were only included upon the insistence of the Indian tribes themselves. Whereas American Indians resisted the civilization program because it was imposed on them, Canadian tribes grew indignant and hostile when the Canadian authorities failed to provide for education and agricultural assistance. When the treaties of Medicine Lodge and Fort Laramie failed to achieve their goal of "conquest through kindness," the United States simply abandoned the Indian treaty system altogether.

St. Germain's excellent study dispels the myth that Canadian policy was more enlightened than the...