Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Fantasies of Sovereignty

Deconstructing British and Canadian Claims to Ownership of the Historic North-West

Bibliographic Data

ID4746618
AuthorsAdam Gaudry (corresponding author), Adam Gaudry Adam Gaudry
Year2016
Volume3
Issue1
Pages46
Publication date2016-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueNative American and Indigenous Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2332-1261 • E-ISSN: 2332-127X
PublisherProject MUSE (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.5749/natiindistudj.3.1.0046
OpenAlexW4379805047, W2342354944
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited11

I N T H E S E T T L E RC O LO N I A L C O N S C I O U S N E S S of the nineteenth century, the origin of Canadian sovereignty in the historic North-West is the Hudson’s Bay Company’s transfer agreement with the Dominion of Canada in 1870. This transfer agreement was a vital step in Canada’s self-understanding as a nation a mari usque ad mare, from sea to sea. Negotiated in London under British law, the transfer paved the way for Canada to populate the region with its settlers and to act as the territory’s primary political authority. In exchange for transferring these rights, the Company was paid £300,000 and received a one-twentieth of the land of the “fertile belt” in this newly Canadian territory. All of this occurred without the involvement or consent of the Indigenous peoples who were still the numerical majority in the region. The transfer agreement presumed that British sovereignty could be asserted successfully through an act of imperial legislation half a world away, even if it conflicted with local proprietary claims. This claim reaffirmed the imperial logic of the day that Indigenous assertions of territoriality were secondary to European claims of sovereignty. Such a position has been roundly criticized, but has never been fully deconstructed in its connection to claims of Canadian sovereignty in the historic North-West. The purpose of this article is to unpack this basic claim—that the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) possessed legitimate ownership of the North-West and could sell it to Canada in 1870 without the involvement of Indigenous peoples who lived there. Contrary to the claims of European empires, Indigenous peoples in the North-West exercised more or less unconstrained political authority over most of their lands both before and after 1870. However, throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, British and Canadian institutions mobilized a complex array of legal arguments to claim possession of huge expanses of territory they “discovered” but did not control. For the most part, Canadian political institutions have traced their ownership of the North-West to the Hudson’s Bay Company transfer in 1870, which is rooted in the problematic logic of the Doctrine of Discovery. Therefore, this

Colonialism · Dominion · Indigenous · Legislation · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · Canadian Identity and History · History · Law · Legal and cultural studies analysis · Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies

  • Rebuilding Indigenous nations through constitutional development

    Open Access•Janique Dubois, Kelly Saunders•Nations and Nationalism•2017

  • Beyond Biography, Beyond Canada

    Open Access•Adele Perry•Canadian Historical Review•2017

  • Presidential Address. Starting with Water

    Adele Perry•Journal of the Canadian…•2020

  • “Triumph through Diversity”? The War of 1812 Commemoration and Settler-Colonial Myth Making

    Daisy Raphael•International Journal of Canadian…•2021

  • Métis-Crown Relations Through an International Treaty Lens

    Open Access•Brenda L Gunn, Brenda Gunn et al.•aboriginal policy studies•2017

  • From Reconciliation to ‘Idle No More’

    Open Access•Matthew Robertson, Matthew J Robertson•aboriginal policy studies•2023

  • New trends in Canadian federalism

    François Rocher, Miriam Catherine Smith•New trends in Canadian federalism•2003

  • Political theory and the rights of indigenous peoples

    Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton•Political theory and the rights…•2000

  • The Middle Ground

    Open Access•Richard White, Richard G White•Middle Ground•2010

  • Canada and Commonweath Affairs

    Open Access•D J Mcdougall•Canadian Historical Review•1949

  • The Hudson’s Bay Company Under Fire, 1847–62

    Open Access•John S Galbraith•Canadian Historical Review•1949

  • The Quit-Rent System in the American Colonies

    Beverley W Bond•The American Historical Review•1912

  • Homeland to Hinterland

    Gerhard J Ens, Gerhard Ens•Homeland to Hinterland•1996

  • Long-Distance Justice

    Hamar Foster•American Journal of Legal History•1990

  • Public Philosophy in a New Key. Volume I

    Open Access•Breena Holland, Ben Holland•Contemporary Political Theory•2011

  • Contours of a People

    M H Foster, Meg Foster•Journal of American History•2013

  • The Quitrent System in Royal South Carolina

    Alan D Watson•The William and Mary Quarterly•1976

Citations per year1.11
Citation span2017 - 2023 (7)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae