collective will of the Red River settlers to preserve their communitythe government breached the terms of the Manitoba Act, deliberately, repeatedly. A massive show of force would compel surrender without a fight12He further contends that the government didnt only ignore the Metis grievances, but that they were also willing to risk starting an armed confrontation with the Metis for their own political purposes! The government was less than honest in their dealings with the Metis land after 1870. Sprague says that even though Prime Minister MacDonald was well advised as to what was happening in Western Canada and that MacDonald at one time was willing to pursue a policy of conciliation; he backed away from it in order to rescue his railway dream. According to Sprague, MacDonald deliberately provoked Riel into fighting because MacDonald reasoned that he would gain financial assistance for the Canadian Pacific Railway, if he were able to get troops into the region quickly and halt the rebellion. aid for the railway after it played such a key role in breaking up the outbreak so speedily and gallantly.13Spragues interpretation of the rebellions is more sympathetic towards the Metis cause and he believed that the government wronged the Metis for their own political purposes. He also feels that the Metis were provoked into an armed conflict and that the lands were not fairly administered. The third and final book of comparison is, Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 Reconsidered, written by Flanagan. Flanagan feels that there were some serious flaws in the conventional account of the Canada-Metis relations. First of all he believe that the 1884-1885 Resistance did not relate to the movement in 1869-1870.As far as he is concerned there is no direct link between the two, except in the mind of Louis Riel. According to Flanagan, Riel considered the Manitoba Act and the promised amnesty, a kind of treaty that left the Metis free to remove themsel...
