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

Abstract

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

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.