And the next in the Sir John A Fortnight,
Sir John A. Macdonald played a critically important role in founding Canada and in leading it as Prime Minister for almost 20 years. Over the past few years, however, he has fallen out of fashion. His legacy has come under sudden and severe revisionism as new interpretations of his role have emerged, and monuments in his honour have been defaced across the country. Has the new wave gone too far? In recognition of his 206th birthday on Jan. 11, the National Post will revisit the Macdonald record with pieces by notable Canadian thinkers, in a series curated by author/academic Patrice Dutil, who has written extensively on Macdonald.
At my university, I of‑ fer a course in the admittedly old- fash‑ ioned genre of historical biography and John A. Mac‑ donald is among those fig‑ ures we study. I find it grati‑ fying that prominent people are often deeply flawed: it gives me hope that my own faults do not preclude some modest contribution. To commemorate is not to idealize. Just as people in our own lives sometimes dis‑ appoint us, so it is with his‑ torical figures, even those we admire.
Macdonald’s approach echoes that of his exact con‑ temporary Otto von Bis‑ marck, who famously de‑ scribed politics as “the art of the possible.” Macdonald favoured a simple legisla‑ tive union of all the British North American colonies, rather than a federation, but compromised. He also put aside a long-standing rivalry to work with Liberal George Brown. He and Quebec’s George-etienne Cartier were friends and partners, each recognizing the need for cultural co- operation. Un‑ able to get a reciprocity deal with the U. S., Macdonald embraced the protectionist National Policy, although he continued to seek the elusive prize of free trade.
In the private corres‑ pondence of both British and Canadian politicians, I have seen identical descrip‑ tions of Macdonald’s meth‑ ods — “fast and loose” — al‑ though he inevitably won their grudging respect. His methods to incrementally increase Canadian auton‑ omy are a case in point. In 1879, Britain still claimed authority over Canadian tar‑ iff policies, but Macdonald stalled over sharing details of Canada’s protectionist new budget, relaying courte‑ ous excuses. When at last the details were released in Par‑ liament, British statesmen, unwilling to risk an open clash, decided to leave things alone.
In an era before party fundraising and election‑ eering methods were tightly regulated, Macdonald’s tac‑ tics veered into blatant cor‑ ruption. Most of his dodgy devices were dedicated to party, and not personal gain, although that hardly excuses them.
By any standard, Macdon‑ ald’s policies for First Na‑ tions failed those they were intended to help. That said, condemnations of Macdon‑ ald as the “architect” of the Indian Act are misleading. His views reflected ideas of the day about how to solve problems that we ourselves have failed to resolve. With Aboriginal nations across Canada in steep demograph‑
ic decline — the nadir was probably reached in 1881, with a census count that year of under 110,000 — every‑ one “knew” traditional ways were doomed. The influen‑ tial 1842 Bagot Commission, which predates Macdonald’s political career, set down a policy that conformed to what the Truth and Recon‑ ciliation Commission might have called “cultural geno‑ cide.”
Cultural genocide ( or at‑ tempted cultural genocide), it should be stressed, is a very different thing from actual genocide, a policy of systematic killing. Mac‑ donald undertook what he paternalistically called “the onerous duty of the protec‑ tion of the Indian inhabit‑ ants from white aggression, and the guardianship as of persons under age, incap‑ able of the management of their own affairs.”
The tragic — and expen‑ sive — failures of residen‑ tial schools and farming instruction programs fol‑ lowed. Macdonald’s suc‑ cessors continued the basic philosophy of the 1869 In‑ dian Act in later iterations. Some favoured injustice over paternalism. Pierre Trudeau in 1969 maintained that “we can’t recognize Ab‑ original rights because no society can be built on his‑ torical might-have-beens.”
Macdonald’s pivotal role in bringing about Confeder‑ ation merits a place of hon‑ our. Yet, ironically, it is also misleading to describe him as the architect of this plan. Most essentials of the plan had been put forth by Alex‑ ander Galt in 1858. While it wasn’t ideal, Macdonald ac‑ knowledged it was “the only practicable plan.”
Theodore Roosevelt, him‑ self a historian, reminded us that “credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena … who errs, who comes short again and again.”
If he fails, he “at least fails while daring greatly.” Only those who don’t act can re‑ main perfect.
Our history students are fast absorbing the lesson that it is better to adopt the prevailing mode of pious‑ ly condemning those who adopted flawed strategies, doing nothing, lest we be criticized for doing wrong. Plenty of problems in our own time require bold solu‑ tions; let’s not teach our stu‑ dents to take the way of cau‑ tion.
Barbara J. Messamore is a professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley and the author of Canada’s Governors General, 1847-1878: Biography and Constitutional Evolution. She is also the editor- in- chief and co- founder of the Journal of Historical Biography.