Historian offers measured defence of Sir John A. Macdonald
Patrice Dutil
Sutherland House
Here's Canada's first prime minister in 1885 talking about the United States and its land-grabbing credo of manifest destiny:
'They desire to enlarge the boundaries of the country; they would like to add Canada to the United States … they said, 'let us hold off a little longer; let us refuse them reciprocity, and Canada will fall like a ripe plum into our mouths.''
Here again, a few months later, is Sir John A. Macdonald, reviled today as the architect of Canada's residential school system, pleading in Parliament on behalf of Indigenous rights:
'Here are Indians, Aboriginal Indians, formerly the lords of the soil, formerly owning the whole of the country. Here they are, in their own land, prevented from either sitting in this House, or voting for men to come here and represent their interests. There are 120,000 of these people, who are virtually and actually disenfranchised, who complain, and justly complain, that they have no representation.'
These remarks are part of the record, and historian Patrice Dutil argues that they are but two reasons for pushing back against the blackening of Macdonald's name in recent years.
'It's hard to imagine a reputation being trashed so hatefully, so suddenly, and so thoroughly,' he writes in his new book, Sir John A. Macdonald & the Apocalyptic Year 1885. And he makes clear that he's seeking to redress a wrong.
'He was very much a man who was remarkably progressive for his times,' Dutil tells Postmedia by phone from his Toronto home. 'And I think that is something that has been underplayed when it comes to our understanding of Macdonald — especially today when politicians and activists are doing everything they can to denigrate his reputation. So I think these two quotes demonstrate that he was very much a realist politician who had great ambitions for the country.'
He argues that in the age of Donald Trump, Canadians need to be especially attentive to Macdonald's commitment to a sovereign Canada. Trump's musings about annexing Canada represent thinking that's always been 'latent' in American politics, Dutil says. In fact he's 'staggered' that Washington didn't actually move against Canada in 1885.
'The Americans had an enormous standing army but they didn't mobilize and move north,' he points out. 'The only reason they didn't was that they still had ample land they could populate.' Meanwhile, Macdonald was setting his own agenda for defence against American expansionism.
'The territories had to be taken over. Rupert's Land had to be taken over … to tell the Americans that this was 'taken' territory.' Macdonald was sending a stern message south of the border: to invade, they would be taking on the British Empire.
'Macdonald understood the American threat,' Dutil says now. 'He was always awake to it. Yes, he wanted to trade with the Americans. Yes, he wanted a free trade deal, but the Americans resisted. So his National Policy was a response to American policy.'
Dutil also suggests that Macdonald established a barrier 'that probably went a long way to protect Indigenous people out west. They would have been annihilated by an American army.'
Dutil was setting down these thoughts in manuscript at a time when statues of Sir John A were starting to come down. This veteran historian's intent was to chronicle what he saw as a crucial year in Canada's history — 'yet I felt that I was having to overcome a great deal of prejudice in our country against Macdonald. It's not the historical record that's troublesome — by and large most historians have been very complimentary toward John A. Macdonald. It's the activists and political enablers that have transformed him into an ogre and attributed to him crimes that he simply never committed.'
The resulting book, published late last year and already in its second printing, is scarcely a work of unblemished hagiography. We also witness the Macdonald who referred to Indians as savages, oversaw an expansion of residential schools, humiliated the Chinese Canadians who helped build a transcontinental railway and saw Louis Riel hanged on his watch. But Dutil argues that, although Macdonald often revealed the prejudices of his times, he must also be assessed within the troubled context of those times.
'He knew exactly what the stakes were, so in terms of being alert to the American threat, he demonstrated it time and again. His contemporaries saw that … which is why he was returned six times to power.'
Dutil knows he is pushing back against contemporary judgment when he argues that Macdonald's policies toward Indigenous communities demonstrated 'openness of spirit, dedication to democracy and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.' Yet he himself is also firm in saying that the residential schools left a shameful legacy. 'I do not deny that terrible things happened in residential schools,' he says. But, he asks, should Sir John A. be fingered as the primary villain for a policy which continued under the watch of a succession of prime ministers well into the 20th Century?
'The truth and reconciliation report demonstrated vividly that residential schools predated Macdonald,' Dutil says. 'It was part of the colonialist tradition. That's what people did. What makes Macdonald different is that he was a little more entrepreneurial. His intentions were I think noble. He want to provide an education for Indigenous children. I've tried to illustrate that in the west residential schools were part of a wider range of policy innovations that included model farms and massive budgetary expenditures.'
But what about the famine which ravaged the plains during that decade? What of charges that the government was prepared to allow Indigenous peoples to die of starvation? This book offers a Macdonald in genuine anguish over famine in the west. 'Rations did run out,' Dutil concedes. 'But I have real issues with the demonization of Macdonald as some sort of genocidal maniac who purposely withheld rations to starve people. That's not the case.'
Dutil chose to write about the year 1885 because it confronted Macdonald with a perfect storm of challenges — a predatory America, armed rebellion in the west, financial crises threatening the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, protests against Chinese immigration, a smallpox epidemic in Montreal, pushback against his attempts to expand the franchise, and famine among Indigenous populations in the West.
'I chose to write about that year because to me 1885 seemed inescapable. I thought it would be a useful literary device to see how Macdonald performed as one issue cascaded after another. I wanted to bring out the dynamism of the era and show how he dealt with it — 1885 seemed to crystallize everything by crystallizing Macdonald in action.'
Still the fact remains that Dutil is writing about a polarizing figure in our history. So you ask him the inevitable question. Is it currently possible to have a nuanced conversation about Sir John A. Macdonald?
Dutil's answer is simple and to the point. 'Well, I'm hoping that my book can help.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Senate passes aid, public broadcasting cuts
On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: The Senate has passed another legislative victory for President Donald Trump. USA TODAY National Correspondent Trevor Hughes breaks down a new Trump policy that will keep immigration detainees locked up longer. Trump signed a bill making tough sentences for fentanyl trafficking permanent. Execution is back on for Texas inmate Robert Roberson who has strong innocence claims. Last year, we spoke with Brian Wharton, the former police detective who led the investigation and subsequent arrest of Roberson. Wharton said he got it wrong and Roberson is innocent. Listen to or watch that episode here. Gun groups want a law reversed on mailing through the postal service. USA TODAY Reporter Andrea Riquier takes a look at how the president has been amping up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and how investors are reacting. Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Thursday, July 17th, 2025. This is USA TODAY. It's The Excerpt. Today, the Senate passes another victory for Trump and Congress, plus what a new administration policy means for keeping immigrants detained longer, and a lawsuit deals with mailing handguns through the Postal Service. ♦ The Senate earlier today approved President Trump's plan for billions of dollars in cuts to funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. It's his latest legislative win. Most of the cuts are to programs to assist foreign countries suffering from disease, war, and natural disasters, while the plan also eliminates all $1.1 billion the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years. Standalone so-called rescissions packages have not passed in decades. Lawmakers have typically been reluctant to cede their control of spending, but Republicans in Trump's second term who hold narrow majorities in the Senate and House have shown little desire to resist the President's policies. Now that the Senate has signed off, the bill returns to the House where lawmakers must approve the upper chamber's changes. They're expected to do so before an end of week deadline. You can read more throughout the day on ♦ A new Trump policy will keep immigration detainees locked up longer. I spoke with USA TODAY national correspondent Trevor Hughes to learn more. Hello, Trevor. Trevor Hughes: Hey, good to be here. Taylor Wilson: Thanks for hopping on. So just what is this new Trump immigration policy? How does it change the existing detention landscape? Trevor Hughes: Really, this comes down to a difference between criminal court and immigration court. And criminal court, which most Americans are familiar with maybe from Law and Order operates differently than immigration court. And in the immigration court, the administration controls basically everything, the judges, the prosecutors, the custody, and so they have a lot more power over exactly how things run. And in this case, what's happened is the Trump administration has essentially said, we are no longer going to hold bond hearings for detainees, which means they can no longer ask a judge to release them on personal recognizance or maybe a $50,000 bond or a $5,000 bond or even GPS monitoring while their immigration case is pending. So that means more or less, most of the people who get detained by immigration authorities now will stay in custody until their case is disposed of either through a decision to release them back into the community with permission to remain or deportation. Taylor Wilson: And Trevor, what are you hearing from immigrant advocates about all this? Trevor Hughes: Well, there's a real concern that this is a solution in search of an actual problem. Statistics show that something like 85, 90% of people who are released on bond show up to their court hearings, because again, these are people who are being considered for release by judges. Many times they're being released with GPS monitors. These are not folks who are considered a danger to the community, right? Folks who are considered a danger are kept in custody. And so immigrant rights folks really are making the point that this is a loss of due process. We're locking up people who don't need to be locked up. They're not a flight risk. And it's sort of pulling apart families, pulling apart the people who are earning the money, and making it harder for people to fight their immigration cases. Taylor Wilson: Well then Trevor, if statistically they're not a flight risk, they're not, again, statistically speaking, committing crimes on a mass level, why does the Trump administration push for this? Trevor Hughes: Well, the Trump administration has been arguing for years that people who are living in this country without permission should not be living in this country without permission. And they've changed a lot of rules to increase the number of people targeted. But at the end of the day, the Trump administration's argument is if you want to live in America, you have to have come through the correct immigration process. And their argument is none of these folks did. Taylor Wilson: We should say that these detentions cost US taxpayers as well, right? Trevor Hughes: Oh, they're terribly expensive. But again, it's really important to remember, President Trump ran on a very specific platform of increased immigration enforcement. Everyone knew this would cost a lot more money. He said it would cost a lot more money. And the new federal spending plan contains billions of dollars to make that happen. Huge numbers of new ICE agents, huge numbers of new detention beds. But this is the priority of the current United States government. Taylor Wilson: Trevor Hughes is a national correspondent with USA TODAY. Thank you, Trevor. Trevor Hughes: You bet. ♦ Taylor Wilson: President Trump has signed a law that extends tougher prison sentences for fentanyl trafficking surrounded by relatives of people who died from overdoses and lawmakers who approved the bill. Donald Trump: We'll be getting the drug dealers pushers and peddlers off our street, and we will not rest until we have ended the drug overdose epidemic. Taylor Wilson: The law places fentanyl on the Drug Enforcement Administration's list of most serious drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The list includes drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD. Fentanyl has been temporarily assigned to the Schedule 1 category since 2018. The law makes the designation permanent. It also makes permanent mandatory minimum penalties of five years in prison for trafficking 10 grams of fentanyl and 10 years for 100 grams. ♦ A Texas judge has rescheduled the execution of a death row inmate who won a rare stay of execution last year as prison officials were poised to administer his lethal injection. The judge set Robert Roberson's execution for October 16th, almost exactly a year after the Supreme Court in the state granted him a stay on his last execution day. Roberson is imprisoned in the 2002 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki. Despite strong evidence that suggests he is innocent, he was convicted based on shaken baby syndrome, which has since been largely debunked. Last year with hours left to live, Roberson's life was spared following an effort by a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers. We explored this case last year on a special episode of The Excerpt. The lead investigator in Roberson's case, Brian Wharton, told me that Robert is a completely innocent man and they got it wrong. Brian Wharton: Robert is a completely innocent man, and we got it completely wrong because we were looking for the wrong things. Taylor Wilson: You can go back and listen to or watch that episode with a link in today's show notes. ♦ Two gun organizations are challenging a 1927 law prohibiting mailing handguns through the Postal Service. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, together with Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve have filed a lawsuit in the Western district of Pennsylvania against the US Postal Service. Shreve wants to mail her father a handgun as a gift according to the filing, but is prohibited by federal law and Postal Service regulations. In their filing the plaintiffs argue the Postal Service allows businesses and government officials to ship handguns and that individual Americans should be able to do the same. Private shipping companies like UPS and FedEx have policies prohibiting shipping a handgun. A spokesperson for the Postal Service said it is USPS policy not to comment on pending litigation. ♦ President Trump is amping up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I caught up with USA TODAY Reporter Andrea Riquier for more and a look at how investors are reacting. Thanks for joining me, Andrea. Andrea Riquier: Sure. Always a pleasure. Taylor Wilson: All right. So how is President Trump amping up the pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell? Andrea Riquier: Trump has been putting the pressure on the Fed Chair ever since the start of this year as he was inaugurated for a second term. But what's been going on over the past couple of weeks is that he's sort of started to enlist other people to bring the pressure. His budget director is one example. Other congressional Republicans are another example. In speaking with reporters, the president initially seemed to suggest that he was really getting ready to fire Jerome Powell, but then also sort of walked it back a little and sort of seemed to deflect some of that back onto Congressional Republicans saying, "I wouldn't fire him, but when I polled members of Congress, they all said they would fire him." Taylor Wilson: Well, you mentioned Congressional Republicans. I mean, what do we hear from lawmakers on this? Trump clearly is saying that at least some Republicans support firing him. Andrea Riquier: So another example is not just Congressional Republicans, but Bill Pulte, who is the Director of FHFA, the Federal Housing Finance Agency which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, the Office of Management and Budget Director, who among other things is talking about a headquarters renovation. The Fed has been spread among several different buildings in Washington DC. This renovation was planned for years and years and years, actually even pre-pandemic. And it's actually seen as a long-term money saver because it's going to modernize a lot of buildings, which we've also heard from other Trump administration agencies that they're working in very old, very dated, in some cases slightly unsafe buildings. So this was the Fed's very well-vetted effort to modernize, streamline and cut costs. But just about any construction project you've ever heard of, it has gone over budget. This spans the pandemic period when things were very difficult. The cost of labor was crazy. The cost of getting materials into the country was awful. So it's not surprising that this big project had cost overruns, but now it's sort of being used as a political tool to say, Powell's overseeing this project that's just gone completely amok. That's important because in order to be fired, in order to be removed from his seat as Fed Chair, there has to be cause. And so the idea is, while this is a very political step, it is seen as one step towards firing for cause. Taylor Wilson: Andrew, is this new terrain, the idea of a president pressuring the central bank in this way? Andrea Riquier: It's not new at all. President Nixon apparently rode hard on his Fed Chair. President Lyndon Johnson really wanted to bring interest rates down when he was fighting a war in Vietnam. What is different, at least what my sources have told me, is that Trump, as we know, does things very publicly. In some cases some people say that there is a private Trump who will often reassure people to their face and be friendly and polite and professional in one-on-one or small group settings, but then he kind of lashes out in public. Taylor Wilson: How is all this landing with either Powell himself or just kind of inside the Fed more broadly? Andrea Riquier: So my sense is that Powell is just sort of keeping his head down and trying to be professional and stay above the fray. He has said publicly that he will not resign. Nobody knows if he could be forced into something. He probably doesn't even know what kind of pressure could be coming from the White House. But one sort of telling moment came a couple days ago when the Fed put out a big response to these critiques about the headquarters that we just talked about. They went through an FAQ of frequently asked questions about the renovations, and pointed out what I just said. This was approved. It was vetted. Yes, there are cost overruns, but there's very good reasons for it, and ultimately it should save taxpayer money. And so a lot of people watching this think that this is the Fed sort of being really forced to respond, being backed into a corner as it were. Taylor Wilson: Well, all eyes are on the markets and investors. How have investors been reacting? Andrea Riquier: So markets yesterday did have an initial response to this discussion. Both stocks and bonds sold off when Trump was initially talking around the idea that Powell could be fired. But then when he's clarified and sort of walked it back a little bit, assets recovered. What we have not seen yet is we've not seen the kind of big freak out that we saw, for example, in April after the tariffs were first rolled out, that really caused politicians to sit up and take notice. So I wrote a piece saying, who knows when we'll see that, but we're not there yet. Taylor Wilson: Another interesting piece from you, Andrea. USA TODAY reporter, Andrea Riquier. Thanks for stopping by. Andrea Riquier: Thank you, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: And coming up later this afternoon, what if your hospital room had a view of trees instead of a parking lot? Turns out it could change your recovery. Dr. Jay Maddock: People with a view of the park-like setting, got out of the hospital faster, used less painkillers, and had less post-op complications. Taylor Wilson: Public health expert Dr. Jay Maddock joins my colleague Dana Taylor to share the surprising health benefits of greening our medical spaces. Catch that conversation today, beginning at four PM Eastern Time, right here on this feed. ♦ And thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. And as always, you can email us at podcasts@ You can find a link to that email in today's show notes. I'm Taylor Wilson. I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
A new mural in France shows the Statue of Liberty covering her eyes in a swipe at Trump
ROUBAIX, France — As statements go, it's a big one. A towering mural in France of the Statue of Liberty covering her eyes is racking up millions of views online with its swipe at President Trump 's immigration and deportation policies. Amsterdam-based street artist Judith de Leeuw described her giant work in the northern French town of Roubaix, which has a large immigrant community, as 'a quiet reminder of what freedom should be.' She said 'freedom feels out of reach' for migrants and 'those pushed to the margins, silenced, or unseen.' 'I painted her covering her eyes because the weight of the world has become too heavy to witness. What was once a shining symbol of liberty now carries the sorrow of lost meaning,' de Leeuw wrote in a July 4 post on Facebook, when Americans were celebrating Independence Day. Her depiction of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French people in the late 1800s, has inspired some sharp criticism. Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican lawmaker from Tennessee, wrote in an angry post on X that the work 'disgusts me.' He said he had an uncle who fought and died in France, where U.S. forces saw combat in both World War I and World War II. In an interview with the Associated Press, de Leeuw was unapologetic. 'I'm not offended to be hated by the Donald Trump movement. I am not sorry. This is the right thing to do,' she said. The town stood by the work, with its deputy mayor in charge of cultural affairs, Frédéric Lefebvre, telling broadcaster France 3 that 'it's a very strong and powerful political message.' Since returning to the White House amid anti-immigration sentiment, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him. People from various countries have been deported to remote and unrelated places like South Sudan and the small African nation of Eswatini. Polling by Gallup released last week showed an increasing number of Americans who said immigration is a 'good thing' and decreasing support for the type of mass deportations Trump has championed since before he was elected. The mural in Roubaix is part of an urban street culture festival backed by the town. Roubaix is one of the poorest towns in France. It was economically devastated by the collapse since the 1970s of its once-flourishing textile industry that used to attract migrant workers from elsewhere in Europe, north Africa and beyond. Plazy writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Ahmad Seir in Amsterdam and John Leicester in Paris contributed to this report.


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump's immigration approval ratings sink to new lows
President Trump's approval rating on immigration plummeted to a new low since his White House return, according to a new poll. Why it matters: Curtailing illegal immigration was the backbone of Trump's reelection campaign, but his ratings have cratered across several recent polls as Americans confront the reality of his mass deportation push. Trump's crackdown sparked nationwide protests and pervasive humanitarian and legal concerns. A clash between protesters and federal agents during an immigration raid at a Southern California farm is one of the most recent symbols of discontent in a statethat's central to Trump's efforts. Meanwhile, illegal border crossings have plummeted. Driving the news: Trump's approval on immigration fell to 41% in an Ipsos-Reuters poll that closed Wednesday. Fifty-one percent disapproved in the poll. In May 16 to 18 polling by Reuters-Ipsos, 47% of Americans approved of Trump's immigration policies, a number that has gradually declined. Zoom in: In the Reuters-Ipsos poll of 1,027 U.S. adults, 54% disagreed with the statement "immigration arrests at places of work are good for the country," while 28% were in support. Another 18% were unsure or did not answer. There was a clear partisan divide on the issue, with 56% of Republicans backing the statement compared to just 7% of Democrats. Case in point: The Department of Homeland Security on Monday announced federal officers had arrested more than 360 people at two Southern California marijuana farms. Last month, Trump indicated his administration would pause raids hurting the agriculture and hospitality industries, but quickly reversed, Axios' Marc Caputo and Russel Contreras reported. Zoom out: A Gallup poll conducted June 2-26 of 1,402 U.S. adults found that many more Americans disapproved than approved of Trump's handling in immigration. Thirty-five percent approved of his handling of the issue, compared to 62% who disapproved. But there is a sharp partisan divide: 85% of Republicans approve of Trump's handling of immigration, compared with 28% of independents and just 2% of Democrats. In February, 46% approved of his handling of immigration, per Gallup polling. In Quinnipiac University polling released Wednesday, 40% of voters approved of Trump's handling of immigration, while 55% disapproved. And an NPR-PBS News-Marist College poll from late last month showed 43% of adults overall approved of Trump's handling on immigration, while 52% disapproved. That poll found that 54% overall — and 59% of independents — thought Immigration and Customs Enforcement had gone too far in enforcing immigration laws. In the Reuters poll, 42% said they opposed immigration officers wearing masks, compared to 38% in support. Seventy percent of Republicans supported masked officers, but only 15% of Democrats agreed.