Sunday, 12 June 2016

Six Nations Treaties and Land Claims: Key Information Posted to this Blog

Among the 200 postings to this blog, I have included considerable material directly relevant to a discussion of "treaty rights" and "unsurrendered land".  For example there are photographic copies of each of the three "treaties" to which Six Nations refers when discussing certain entitlements within the geographic area of Southwestern Ontario.  These documents are placed within a historical and cultural context in order to achieve the closest possible approximation to the objective truth.  Similarly, I have included photographic copies and transcripts of the most important documents, with an analysis using all available sources, that pertain to the claim of unsurrendered (unceded) land still belonging to Six Nations.  In a nutshell, the data clearly and unequivocally shows that there are no treaties relating to the Six Nations, and there is presently no unsurrendered land outside the boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve (I.R. 40).

It occurs that this documentation is now scattered throughout this blog to the point where it may be difficult for general readers and Government officials to locate specific records which I have included in relation to treaties and land claims.  To rectify this problem, and thus allow ease of access, I have included links to the most important postings here.  There is some repetition in the various postings listed below.

For those just embarking on their question to learn more about the subject, the best "first read" outside this blog would be the excellent study by Garry Horsnell referenced below.  Click here and go to the blue "Download" button on the right to obtain a pdf copy of the document.

First it is important to note that the Six Nations are not aboriginal to Ontario:

Click here.  It is essential to realize that Six Nations are aboriginal to what is today New York State, and not to Ontario where their status is that of Loyalist refugees residing on Crown Land formerly owned by the Mississauga.


Summary Article on the various documents claimed to have treaty status or be related in some fashion to treaties, and an introduction to land claims:

Click here.  This posting includes photographic copies of the original Nanfan and Two Row Wampum documents.  It also includes some useful information on land claims.

General consideration of Treaties relating to Six Nations:

Click here.  It is important to note that a recent map of all treaties in Ontario sent to the schools does not show any treaty with the Six Nations.  The posting also includes an overview of the "Nanfan Treaty" and the "Haldimand Proclamation".

Click here.  A specific exploration of treaty "rights" and the "right" to hunt in Southwestern Ontario.

Click here.  An examination of how the claimed "treaty rights" will impact developers and others in Ontario.

Click here.  The falsely claimed treaty rights (as well as false claims about unsurrendered lands) will hold corporations (e.g., wind turbine) to ransom.

Click here.  Further data re the above.

The above is a mere sampling of the topic - but highlights some essentials for understanding the issues.

Two Row Wampum of 1613:

Click here.  The validity of the Two Row Wampum agreement, and the "ship and canoe" inference is considered.  It also is brought forward in the discussion of treaty status and sovereignty by Six Nations.  Included is a photocopy of the original document (although the authenticity of this document has been questioned).

Click here.  The value of oral history, and the fallibility of  human memory is discussed.

Click here.  How the Two Row Wampum concept has impacted thinking and decisions is described.

Nanfan “Treaty” of 1701:

Click here.  This posting, noted above, includes the most detailed information about the Nanfan document that I have included on this blog to date.  It includes photographic copies of the original document, front and back.

Click here.  Here the document that Six Nations believes gives them entitlements throughout all of Southwestern Ontario is further examined.

            Reality sets in:

Click here.  In utter frustration a Six Nations land researcher is forced to admit that the Nanfan "Treaty" is not exactly what most there believe it to be.
Royal Proclamation of 1763:

Click here.  Since this document is often "brought into the picture" in any treaty discussion at Six Nations, it is examined here.

Haldimand Deed of 1784:

Click here.  Once again this posting has been noted earlier (many include multiple related topics). The Haldimand Deed as well as the Nanfan Document are discussed.  A photograph of the original Haldimand Deed is included.


General Information:

Click here.  A very general overview of the subject.

Surrenders of Land in Haldimand Tract to 1840:

Click here.  Here we explore the various land surrenders from the 1780s to 1840.

Click here.  In this posting the author explores how the Six Nations refusal to acknowledge a valid land surrender of the 1830s has adversely impacted the lives of one Ontario family.

Surrenders of Land 1841 to 1850:

Click here.  A photographic copy of the 1841 surrender of all lands outside the present day Six Nations Reserve is presented, along with a printed transcript.  It is this document which the Federal Government believes (correctly) that dissolved all future Six Nations land claims outside I.R. 40 (Six Nations Reserve within Tuscarora, and parts of Onondaga, and Oneida Townships, as well as 200 acres surrounding the Mohawk Chapel and the Mohawk Institute in Brantford Township).

Click here.  More information relating to the above document is presented.

It needs to be emphasized that although the 1841 Surrender was valid, the Colonial officials of the time (consistently vilified by Six Nations) allowed the Chiefs to reconsider.  This went on for almost 10 years where the Chiefs would change their mind, then recant.  The problem was that hundreds of Six Nations members had sold land and improvements (on their own authority) to White buyers, then moved on to another piece of property and repeated the same process.  Ultimately these buyers could not simply be termed "squatters" and summarily removed, they had deeds of sale from Six Nations members.  Thus when considering whether to keep say the lands near Burtch, the Chiefs acknowledged that the White people would have to receive compensation for their purchased lands and the monies would have to come from the Six Nations Trust (since Six Nations members were the sellers).  Ultimately, the original surrender was considered to be the best of all compromises, and was fully confirmed by Lord Elgin's Report and map of 1850.

So in essence, the people of Brant and Haldimand Counties (and Ontario in general) are being made to suffer because the Six Nations people of today refuse to acknowledge the truth, the well documented evidence that 170 years ago their Chiefs made a decision that was in the best interests of the Six Nations at the time.  It shows a complete disrespect for the decisions of the earlier Chiefs who were doing what they could to keep the community from fragmenting and departing to points westward.  Their wisdom is what allowed the Six Nations to stay as an intact community in the lands granted to their forefathers in 1784.

Surrenders and Land Claims:

Click here.  An overview of the 29 land claims submitted by the Six Nations Lands and Resources Department is explored.

Douglas Creek Estates Lands (Oneida Township):

Click here.  A general consideration of the Oneida Township claim is outlined.

Click here.  Some assert that the Chiefs would not have signed away so much land.  Here the author provides the Nation and Tribe of many of the 47 Chiefs who signed the surrender of the property in Oneida Township in 1844.

Click here.  Here will be found photographic copies of the surrender of 1844 which included the Douglas Creek Estates property.  Also included is a transcript of this handwritten item, and a contemporary map of the Township.


The author has posted information on a number of the 29 claims.  In addition to the above, one more may be instructive - the lands on which the former Burtch Correctional Center are located.

Click here.

            A caveat:

Click here.  It is imperative to note that for any land negotiations to proceed, it needs to be acknowledged that Six Nations have stolen some key materials, particularly those from the Indian Office in Brantford, and mircofilmed them.  To the best of my knowledge these items have not been made available to the negotiators for the Federal Government - who are then at a disadvantage.  In my opinion no negotiations should take place until there is a level playing field where the Six Nations return the stolen documents which include, for example, the Land Inspection Returns for Seneca Township 1844 (where the McClung / Avalon housing development is situated).

How the myth of treaties and unsurrendered land is impacting:

          Green Energy Corporations in Southwestern Ontario Click here.  The lands noted here are in Norfolk and Oxford Counties, entirely outside the old Haldimand Proclamation lands.  Thus Six Nations are leaning on corporations (often after a short show of force), claiming rights under the (bogus) Nanfan Treaty.

          Green Energy Corporations in the Haldimand Tract Click here.  The false claim here is that there are unsurrendered lands in for example South Cayuga Township, Haldimand County and that Six Nations are owed a stake in any project established within the old Haldimand Proclamation lands.
If a corporation does not play ball, then the strong arm (extortion) strategies begin with "occupations" and the like to send the message that if you want the development to go smoothly, you need to have Six Nations on board (and paid big bucks).  The above are just two examples of many relevant items posted here.

Thus corporations have been adversely impacted by the fictions of BOTH treaties and unsurrendered land.  The same is true for land developers.

          Land development:  Some examples -

                 2006:  Douglas Creek Estates Click here.  "Infamous" situation.  Numerous other postings, many with photographs, are found in this blog.  Other such actions were attempted in for example Cayuga and Hagersville.  However, the hammer was dropped in 2009.

                 2009:  Ontario Supreme Court ruling on trespassing and the enforcement of Court Injunctions.  In this year Justice Harrison Arrell considered the violation of a Court Injunction by certain Six Nations members in relation to lands in Brantford.  He made it clear that should the matter of land claims come to Court, Six Nations would have a very "weak" case based on the evidence (as seen in the report of Joan Holmes and Associates noted below).

Click here.  An overview of the matter.

Click here.  The penalty phase of the proceedings.

                 2016:  McClung / Avalon Development Click here.  Although the number of work stoppages has diminished, the belief at Six Nations that they must be "accommodated" (by law it is voluntary - click here) and that they have rights to the lands being developed within the Haldimand Tract has not abated.  The issue continues to this very day.

Knowledgeable parties on all sides know that the outstanding issues are about monetary compensation, not about land (surrendered 170 years ago):

Click here for a perspective on the focus of negotiations.  Unfortunately, although the Lands and Resources personnel are well aware of the truth, the average person at Six Nations is still operating under the same old false beliefs which have continued to poison negotiations.  If the Federal Government would send copies of the Nanfan document and the various land surrenders to each elected and hereditary councilor they would in essence be laying their cards on the table.  Meetings where attempts to negotiate with both elected and hereditary councilors present in the same room have consistently led to friction and animosity - and one or the other group walks out.  The Federal Government needs to adopt a new strategy, and once again announce that they stand by the evidence - there are no valid treaties and no unsurrendered land - period. 

Key documentary sources:

                Garry Horsnell – Short History of the Six Nations:

                Joan Holmes and Associates – Report to the Corporation of the City of Brantford, 2009:

Click here.

Hopefully the above material will be useful to all those who are interested in obtaining the objective truth, which can only be determined by the careful consideration of all the documentary (or other) evidence.  Other than some Government researchers, and Six Nations land researchers representing the Band Council, Garry Horsnell, and the Joan Holmes group, the present author is likely one of the few persons to ever review the full extent of the evidence.  In my case this involved forays into the documentation in the RG10 (Indian Affairs) Series at the National Archives, as well as other pertinent sources - hopefully leaving no stone (document) left unturned.



  1. Dy: You are to be congratulated for all of your fine efforts and meticulous research over many years; unfortunately the resistance and stonewalling continue even from those groups which profess to also be seeking the facts and truth; what I have learned from such as the Shorthills Wildlife Alliance is that their particular VERSION of the truth has become more important than achieving common goals; sadly this is a "habit" all too often encountered when trying to initiate and open up dialogue involving aboriginal issues; it also involves the willful blindness and egotism of those very same groups who believe that the only viable solutions are the ones they come up with themselves, even though they have done nothing but "spin their wheels" and play the same game of political correctness they accuse others of playing; BTW chief Nepinak is headed this way with his motorcycle entourage to Niagara in early July (they actually were Gofunding to help pay for part of the trip!) Nepinak has already stated that his agenda involves working on developing a process for nation to nation talks, the abolition of the Indian Act with direct references to the Treaty of Niagara and Two Row Wampum as sources which support sovereignty and independence (or whatever...)

  2. MyOrenda, once again I find myself in agreement with what you are saying. It is sad to have to acknowledge these realities, and I unfortunately don't have a solution. My role as I see it is to present what is veridical, in other words what squares with objective reality. This allows us to find ourselves in very close quarters with the truth, which is the goal - I know of no other way of going about it. As to Nepinak, well I guess I now need to assemble all of my postings about "sovereignty" in one place. Hopefully this data can be used along with the facts in relation to the Two Row Wampum and even the wording of the Nanfan document ("our Great Father the King of England") to show that sovereignty and "nation to nation" dialogue is an illusion and does not fit the facts. BTW I am all for dispensing with the Indian Act, as long as that means dissolving the Reserves and assigning property in fee simple. Indian people will never be truly equal until the albatross of the Reserves is removed.