1. Was Louis Riel and the Metis justified in using violence?

PRO Louis Riel and Metis were justified in using violence. There is a similar circumstance with Riel’s rebellion; Gandhi’s nonviolence resistance. Gandhi’s nonviolence resistance was successful, but it brought a great loss. Since India has a large population, they could keep their tradition and had a less apprehension about losing their culture during the great repression. However, Metis is a minority race. They have the risk of losing their identity and traditions if they had done the same thing which Gandhi and his people did. Also, Wilfrid Laurier said,* “If (I) had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan when the rebellion broke out, (I) would have take up my arms (myself) against the government … Riel’s execution was a judicial …show more content…
He loved his country, its’ nature, and its’ place. He wouldn’t have claimed his innocence if he actually planned the innocence. People have a feeling for themselves to figure out how earnest the person is by their instinct. Riel wouldn’t be so popular if he wasn’t earnest with what he was doing.
3.Should have the government have killed Louis Riel?

PRO The government should have killed louis Riel. Riel is a leader of Metis. In ancient times, many nations used the strategy to capture the leader of opponent to make the opponents to surrender. Riel’s execution was a good strategy to warn the Metis and make them surrender. The government had warned Metis in a drastic but effective way. For the second reason, the government had made a good choice since Riel was a dangerous person to the government. If they had not executed Riel, he might have made a rebellion again. He is a danger to the country. Why would you let someone stay free if he might cause you a great harm? The government had to kill Louis Riel to protect the citizens. Nobody knows if Riel is going to make a new rebellion if the government frees him.