Grand River Notification Agreement - Blessing or Curse?

For some time now I have been hearing about the "need to consult" with representatives of Six Nations when it comes, particularly, to land development.  I was not sure if there were formal or informal agreements in place, the scope of the mandate, and how binding the fruits of "consultation" were on the parties involved.

It was the manuscript by Garry Horsnell (2010), found here, which alerted me to the underpinnings of what is called the Grand River Notification Agreement (GRNA) - which seems to be involved in the "demands", confrontations, transfer of monies and so on which I read about in the media, and have experienced via my own work.

It has proven to be a difficult task to locate materials to shed light on the genesis of the first agreement dated 3 October 1996.  One article which did precisely that, is now removed from the Internet, but can be viewed as a transcript here.  Basically over the years leading up to the agreement, there had been numerous disruptions or protests, primarily at sites where developers where attempting to build homes.  The protesters were primarily members of the Hereditary Band Council, now known as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) or their representatives.  So in order to address the issue, representatives of various groups such as the Crown (Federal Government), Ontario, municipalities in the Grand River Watershed, the Six Nations, the Mississaugas of New Credit, and other interested parties prepared a joint agreement.

Apparently the negotiations were acrimonious, but in the end, all parties at the table signed this agreement, with one notable exception - the HCCC or their representatives who, ironically, were the prime reason for installing the agreement in the first place.

The GRNA was renewed two years later, on 3 October 1998 as seen here, although the original Government link only yields a "Page Not Found" message.  Here the documentation pertaining to the renewal, prepared by the Federal Government, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), provides a comprehensive clause by clause record (7 pages) as to just what the parties were signing.  The signators included INAC, Ontario, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), various municipalities along the Grand River from The Corporation of the Township of South Dumfries, south to The Corporation of the Town of Dunnville, along with the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of New Credit.  There is a lot of verbiage here, but the parties agree to consult on matters that might impact the Grand River Watershed, including economic development, land use, and the environment.  The document for example lists "Activities for Which Notification Will Be Given", such as when a municipality is "considering approval of a plan of subdivision", "passage of a new zoning bylaw, plus development of any lands effected by the Environmental Assessment Act, and related activities.  It was further noted that the Term of the Agreement was to "remain in effect for 5 years ......... ".  Also interesting is that in terms of what is termed, "No Legal Effect", clause 9. (a) reads, This Agreement in not legally binding on any of the Parties, nor will it affect a whole host other other matters such as, the validity of any act of any of the Parties.  So basically this document is just a set of guidelines, and there is nothing at all which would require any party to comply with a request submitted by another party. 

The Six Nations Land and Resources, Eco/Centre, see here, informs that, The Grand River Notification Agreement was renewed on October 3, 1998, October 3, 2003, and is in the process of a third renewal with an expected date of October 3, 2008.  In addition they report that, The Six Nations Wildlife Management Office/Land Use Unit will continue to be involved with the GRNA ....... However the real issues of the unresolved Six Nations Specific Claims and the effects of uncertainty and impediments to economic development in Municipal communities continue to be a contentious issue.  So I take from this that once again the oft cited issue of "unresolved" land claims issues is a roadblock to real progress, but that the agreement is a positive step.

Sometime in 2011 a draft was written, with the date left out, apparently to be used as a framework for a further renewal, as seen here.  The document includes the logos of the Six Nations Elected Council, and that of the Corporation of the City of Brantford.  If the 5 year renewal clause is still in effect, then the date of the next agreement would be 3 October 2013 - a date that has come and gone.  It appears that the Federal Government was no longer an active participant, but as of February 2013 talks were still pushing ahead, as seen here, with the City of Brantford to try to bring the Federal Government back into the fold.

Reading between the lines, while the original intent was very positive, it must have become very evident after the events in Caledonia in 2006, that the agreement was something of a sham - or so it would seem.  Clearly it was all a paper tiger, and by not including the HCCC, or any of its constituents such as Men's Fire, or the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), or the independent minded Mohawk Workers, or who knows who else since there is a montage of players each claiming a stake, but some have no "standing" with other groups at Six Nations, or with a municipality or Government office who probably don't know what to make of them, so are reticent to act.

So the protests, and blockages of construction, and similar actions have continued, but rather ad hoc rather than via consultation.  Of course groups such as the HDI are only too willing to "consult", as long as the "application fee" is paid.  What developer would voluntarily tolerate working in such a chaotic environment?  An agreement forged with one group may simply irritate another group, and work stopages will happen irrespective of an agreement signed with say the Elected Band Council.  Developers must conclude that they are frequently beat no matter which way they turn.  Brant County and Brantford have recently been beset with further efforts to stop one or another development project, such as at Tutela Heights, and Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.).  It really does not matter whether the land developer contacts the representatives of the Elected Council (parties to GRNA), unless all the "right" people or groups are contacted, it will likely be a no-go, or problems will surface.  What a nightmare.  One can see why Brantford is now fully geared up to obtain Superior Court Injunctions - but there are still those willing to test the limits and see if the law has any teeth.

The "need to consult" seems to be morphing, sending out tentacles to engulf previously unimagined efforts.  The present legislation, as it relates to any development that might have an adverse impact of the archaeological resources of the Province, makes provisions to include those at Six Nations and New Credit trained as Monitors by the Association of Professional Archaeologists (see here).  They will be consulted when a site is known to, or suspected to, include a Native component, even if the site is in Hamilton (see earlier blog posting).  The above newsletter also mentions the difficulties (not resolved) as to how to work with both the Elected and Confederacy Councils since while the first is the legal entity of record, the second wields considerable authority, and a mechanism needs to be place to include them in the consultation.  In the past the HDI have sent their Monitors to sites - how well trained or not these individuals are is a matter of conjecture.  Native consultation is required by professional consultant archaeologists, but that does not stop "unrecognized" monitors from showing up and expecting a slice of the pie - holding the archaeological consultants as virtual hostages (with work stopages) until a fee that is deemed acceptable is forthcoming.  I have discussed the matter recently with one consulting firm and a City Planner who were involved with a site that was owned by a member of my family, situated well outside the Grand River Tract. I know "from the horse's mouth" what is going on in this aspect of land use - even outside the Grand River Watershed - probably justified by the Nanfan Treaty of 1701. 

Nothing is ever straightforward at Six Nations, factionalism is endemic, a point that is noted in almost every issue of every paper published at Six Nations (presently Turtle Island News and Two Row Times).  The bottom line is that there is a general feeling even on the Reserve that unity will continue to prove illusive.

So, one might imagine that for example the developer of the McKenzie Meadows Project (see earlier blog post) across the road from Kanonhstaton (Douglas Creek Estates), is at the nail biting stage.  Both abut Argyll Street.  The new project is situated on the south / east side of Argyll Street, but with the first phase being slated for a location on the property that is furthest away from Kanonhstaton).  So, having negotiated in good faith with the representatives of the Elected Band Council, in this case Six Nations Future, the developer would have the reasonable expectations that by following the new protocol, things will go smoothly.  Their agreement was undoubtedly done with the hope, on both sides, of avoiding the "unpleasantness" of an event such as occurred 7 years ago just across Argyll Street.  There must be lingering fears.  What if the HDI demands their cut of the action?  Will all the hard - earned good work be for nought?  One can only wait and see, because in this neck of the woods, expect the unexpected.

Therefore, to answer the question posed by this post, the GRNA is neither a blessing or a curse, it is really a non-entity in the sense of anything meaningful.  It does, however, give the illusion that something proactive is being done, so people can believe that consultation is occurring - so rest easier.

DeYo.

"Financial Justice" - Legitimate Claims by Six Nations?

As far as I am concerned, one thorny matter can largely be dispensed with, based on the facts of the matter - most Six Nations Land Claims.  For example, the "Holmes Report" of 2009 (see here), which was outlined in detail with annotations in my earlier post, seems to be the basis by which the matter should be settled - if one is willing to focus on the "weight of evidence" - which in this case is rock solid.  The only clearly proved land claim is Number 1, "Canadian National Railway Right-of-Way, Oneida Township (CNR Settlement)".  It is the only one of the 29 claims which has been resolved, and may in fact be the only valid land claim.  The good news for Six Nations is that on 24 December 1985, 259.171 acres were added to the Reserve (no. 40) lands to settle Claim 1.  See here for a list and description of all 29 claims - each of which will now have to be reviewed in light of the "Holmes Report".

It should be noted that the "Holmes Report" has been submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford.  His recent rulings reflect the content of this document.  One can be sure that the Report has made its way to the negotiators of both the Federal and Provincial Governments.  Hence, any further attempts to make claims that are unsupported will run up against the brick wall of facts and the truth.  Both the concepts "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" would likely apply here.

The other broad category of claims has to do with Six Nations Financial Justice (as per the above booklet).  In my experience, the biggest festering sore for Six Nations has to do with the Grand River Navigation Company (GRNC), the investment of Six Nations monies by their three Government appointed trustees, and the possible misappropriation of Six Nations Trust Funds in relation to this Project.  As an example of the pressing concerns relating to the GRNC, the following statement in the booklet published one year after the 2006 "Caledonia crisis", speaks volumes.  In, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006, a list of grievances is presented.  One of the conclusions arrived at by the author is that, The Crown was systematically inducing the sale of Six Nations lands without lawful surrenders and misappropriated land payments into the works of the Grand River Navigation Company (and other Government expenditures) against the constant protests of the Six Nations of the Grand River Indians (p. 32).  The bold print here is that of the present author.

Frankly, a good case could be mounted that in fact the Government, and or the trustees appointed by the Government, had botched their fiduciary responsibility in a very serious manner.

First, the entire project was touted as likely to bring large dividends, in a works that was "close to home", so the trustees sank perhaps an inordinate amount of Six Nations trust funds into the scheme - which to the trustees, and those higher ranking in the Government, was bound to bring prosperity to the Grand River Valley.

I would be the first to argue that the scheme was ill conceived.  I have canoed from the Elora Gorge to the mouth of the Grand River.  In summer, we spend almost as much time out of the canoe walking it down the River (due to its shallowness) as we do actually paddling.  The only respite from this grind are in the areas backed up by the dams in the Kitchener - Waterloo area, Brantford, Caledonia and Dunnville.  So anyone truly familiar with the River surely had trepidations about a scheme to harness the River and make it navigable from the mouth at Port Maitland, to Brantford (by then a Town).

The scheme was kick started by the dam at Dunnville and the feeder to the Welland Canal.  The River was navigable to Dunnville.  In an age where it was believed that navigation was the necessary ingredient to prosperity, the era of dam building "caught on" in Canada and the United States.  Not wanting to be left behind in some sort of backwash, some local entrepreneurs began public meetings on 15 December 1827.  The focus shifted to Brantford, where those meeting at Lovejoy's Inn decided to commission a study of the feasibility of improving the navigation along the Grand River between Brantford and Dunnville.  As a consequence, the Grand River Navigation Company came into being, and was incorporated in 1832.  There was,  however, a rather large problem.  The Province was deep in debt, and there were few sources of ready cash at the time to fund mega projects of this nature.  However a "solution" was found.  It was William Hamilton Merritt, the founder of the Welland Canal, who suggested to Lieutenant Governor Sir John Colborne that Indian funds held in England (by then a fairly considerable fund of ready cash) could be used to finance the GRNC.  It does seem that Colborne honestly believed that the Indians, then quite impoverished, would benefit from the opening up of the region, thereby increasing prosperity, and in turn increasing the value of Indian lands and so creating more wealth for the Six Nations.  It all made such good sense, but it rested on a house of cards.

For detailed information about the GRNC, see Cheryl MacDonald (Ed.), Grand Heritage: A History of Dunnville and the townships of Canborough, Dunn, Moulton, Sherbrooke and South Cayuga, Dunnville, Dunnville District Heritage Association, 1992.  The definitive study on this subject is, Bruce Hill, The Grand River Navigation Company, Brantford, Brant Historical Publications, 1994.  Unfortunately it is long out of print, and largely unavailable.

By 1833 Colborne was willing to recommend that the Six Nations take, "stock to a very large amount nearly the whole of the Charter".  Apparently he would use W.J. Kerr and Augustus Jones, both of whom had Indian wives,  to induce the Indians to "sanction the undertaking" (Johnston, p. 298).  Discussions in the Executive Council of Upper Canada in 1840 make it clear that there was absolutely no intention to fleece the Indians, rather the Executive Council actually sided with the Six Nations stating that they, never would or could have advised the investment of Indian funds in a commercial speculation ...... Yet these funds are involved to the amount of three fourths of the Stock, - the Indian Interests are not represented in the direction.  Most prominent men believed that ultimately, the affairs of the Company can thereafter be managed with an exclusive view to the interests of the Indians.  It appears that they must have had concerns, though, since the Executive Council recommended an investigation by a "disinterested Engineer" (Ibid., p. 303).

It was decided that of 8000 shares, 2000 would each be held by Merritt, David Thompson of Indiana (on the Grand River), and the Six Nations.  The other 25% would be sold to other interested parties.  It would be one thing if the Six Nations got behind the project and it could clearly be shown that they were keen to invest in this plan, but this was not the case (MacDonald, p. 277).  When Merritt and Thompson saw that the project was going sour, they were able to use their legislative influence to get the Government (Colborne) to buy out their interest in the GRNC, by using more of the Six Nations' trust fund.  However, based on the testimony of Superintendent of Indian Affairs James Winniett and others in 1842, the, sum of  38,000 [pounds] has been invested upon the Authority of Sir John Colborne in the Grand River Navigation Company, in which they hold three fourths of the Stock.  This investment, which was made by Lieutenant Governor, in the expectation that it would not only yield an early profit, but greatly enhance the value of the remainder of the Indian Lands, has proved very unfortunate.  It has absorbed all their funds, for the last Seven years, leaving no surplus for distribution in money or provisions, as formerly ...... The Indians have frequently complained of the transaction and have petitioned the Government to take the Stock off their hands (Ibid., p. 311).  Despite owning, ultimately, over 80% of the stock of the company, the Six Nations saw not one penny of a dividend for their investment (MacDonald, p. 278).

Chief John Brant and others complained directly to the Legislative Assembly about their worries that, their land would be flooded, their corn fields ruined and their fisheries destroyed (MacDonald, p. 277).  Unfortunately Brant was unable to reverse any decisions due to his untimely death of cholera in 1834, and the project began the construction phase in that year.  Dams, canals, locks and related projects were constructed, all on the cheap.  While boat traffic did increase, and trade was expanded, and some locals such as sawmill owners prospered, the toll on the environment was catastrophic.  Everything predicted by Brant occurred and eventually the infrastructure became unstable and in constant need of repairs - which the tolls could not adequately cover.  So the GRNC languished, and in 1851 hammered out an agreement with the Town of Brantford to issue debentures to keep the entire project from collapsing.  In 1854 the railway arrived in Brantford, thereby signing the death sentence for the GRNC, which was 35,000 [pounds] in debt.  In 1861 the company was acquired by the Town of Brantford.  While things looked grim for the Company, there were local men who had a particular interest in its success, and became officers a new company, the "Brantford and Hamilton Navigation Company Limited", which formed in 1872, and succeeded in obtaining grants from the Government to keep the project going.  It was a futile enterprise at this time since the railways were capable of shipping all of the goods going down the Grand River more cost effectively and efficiently.  So by the 1880s traffic ceased and the Company folded (MacDonald, pp. 278-9).

The facts are very clear here.  The funds were invested without the full knowledge of the Six Nations of the risks involved, and the degree to which they were consulted is an open question, so the evidence appears to be rather obvious that due to mismanagement by their trustees and others, they were made to pay the price - yet with absolutely no say in the matter from beginning to end.  Their protests appear to have fallen on deaf ears.  In other words, the Six Nations were ripped off in this instance and have every right to be angry and demand compensation.  The one aspect which, at least for my part, needs further investigation, is whether the Six Nations received any form of compensation prior to or after the formation of the successor company in 1872.  If the answer is in the negative, then fairness and justice would demand that an equitable settlement be reached. 

While the Statute of Limitations (see here) may legally come into play in this instance (the matter is 150 or so years in the past), this will probably not wash at Six Nations.  There are also the intangibles, for which it would be difficult to address.  The GRNC made a mess of the environment, and was a destructive force whose only benefits were commercial, with entrepeneurs benefiting the most.  The local farmers, be they Natives, Whites, or mixed, all suffered the same fate.  Law suits came from a variety of quarters. Quite by chance, while at Osgoode Hall to explore legal papers in an unrelated matter, I came across a petition from a son of one of the original Loyalist families who settled on the Grand River via the 1787 "Mohawk Deed".  He complained "bitterly" of the "depredations" of the GRNC which, due to neglect, flooded his land every spring, ruining his crops on prime river flats land, and creating a mosquito infested swamp.  There is no indication that he ever got one penny in compensation, nor did the GRNC rectify the problems. 

All along the River the scar of the old canals, locks and dams still haunt the landscape.  Although some see this as part of the history of the area (including some members of the "York Grand River Historical Society"), those of us whose ancestors only suffered from the presence of the GRNC, and in some cases were forced to leave their lands because they became virtually uninhabitable, see it all very differently.  The good news is that today there are efforts, for example by the Kinsmen and the Rotary Club, to create public walkways along the old tow path and old Highway 54.  The canal is filling in over time by the forces of nature and often farmers who find it inconvenient and still a cause of flooding (after all these years), and this deep scratch on the landscape is now a mere shadow of its former self in most places.  The land is healing.

I hope that Six Nations are given true justice here.  A full investigation needs to be completed with all sides at the negotiation table to enact what is fair and reasonable (of course this may be a sticky point).

It has just come to mind that perhaps the above injustices against Six Nations, and the more recent injustices in Haldimand County, can be resolved in one package.

I propose that the Provincial and County officials tally up the damages caused by the 2006 crisis in Caledonia.  There is the market value of the land formerly known as the Douglas Creek Estates, and to the Natives as Kanonhstaton, to factor into the equation.  Other questions will need to be answered such as, what were the costs of policing, including the staggering overtime required?  What is the assessment of the damages such as the burning of the Stirling Street Bridge, the destruction of the Hydro towers, the 24 hour security to the Hydro sub- station for 5 (or so) years, the destruction of the pavement along Argyll Street, and other related costs?  Then there are the properties that were bought out to compensate the families most directly impacted by the events of 2006.  The list is quite lengthy, but the compensation likely due to the Six Nations by virtue of the GRNC depredations will also amount to a hefty bill.  Why not call it square, with the Six Nations receiving Kanonhstaton to be included as Reserve land, and developed or not in any way that Six Nations sees fit.

Without any doubt nothing can ever be exactly equal.  What about the intangibles such as the pain and suffering of those most directly in harms way in 2006?  There is really no price (money) that can remove the nightmares - but the goal here is "peace and reconciliation".  So Kanonhstaton as compensation for the lost revenues due to the unfortunate investment in the GRNC?  Will this work?  History provides me with an answer - but I would love to be proved wrong.  Fair is fair.

DeYo.

The Mohawk Warriors and the Mohawk Workers at Six Nations

Many believe that the following two groups play a key role in promulgating the agenda of the Six Nations.  One wonders if the facts suggest otherwise, with each asserting their own agendas which are largely self serving.  It is a debatable point.  Neither appear to have a working relationship with the other; and while having names that sound roughly similar, their goals bear little relationship to one another.

The Mohawk Warriors group tend to show up at Six Nations when matters involving occupations come to some sort of crisis point, or their grandstanding (such as at the the "parade" with radical White supporters in the spring of 2012) would give texture to an event. They have a stated mandate in defence and security.  Specifically they state that, their purpose is to defend and protect the citizenry and territory of the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.  The gnarly flag of the "Warriors" is, however, seen everywhere on the Reserve, or protest sites where threat and intimidation can be suggested just by its mere presence.   It is as welcome in local off - Reserve communities as a Hell's Angels patch to the citizenry of Niagara Falls. A history of the flag is given here.

The Mohawk Warrior group tend to be centred at the Eastern Mohawk Reserves such as Akwesasne and Kanesetake (Oka), but are willing to travel on short notice. The flags can be purchased locally, and one does not know who is the "true" MW without a programme. A sense of their widespread militancy can be seen in the following article here.  They also have a strong presence at Kanawaki, as the following will show here.  Many hope that the "Warriors" do not set up a chapter at Six Nations and add to the already complex stew.

The Mohawk Workers, are a group local to Six Nations, not to be confused with the "Mohawk workers", generally from Kanawaki, who are employed in dangerous "high iron" building projects, and are nicknamed, "skywalkers".  The Mohawk Workers at Six Nations seem to have first come to the attention of the public when, in 2007, they took over the Kanata Village Tourist Centre across the road from the landfill in Brantford.  The Centre was slated to be turned over to De dwa da dehs neye's Aboriginal Health Centre.  The two best known figures are Bill Squire, and Jason Bowman (a non-Native leftist group leader who provides "legal advice").  Since then they have been a bone of contention for the City of Brantford, and threats and action by the latter to turn off their utilities with over $50,000 in unpaid bills outstanding - see here.  One of the best descriptions of the genesis of the group that I can find can be seen here.  The Kanata Iroquois Village Centre is shown below.

They are now moving ahead with various land deals, initially the return of the Burtch lands, and now the property on Erie Avenue in Brantford, on their own authority (e.g., see Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2).   A U-Tube video of this confrontation is found here.  Their expanding role from Kanata occupiers, to activists intent of directing the return of the Burtch Tract, to a "force" at Six Nations can be found in this video and the text that goes with it here.

At least at the beginning, the Mohawk Workers did not recognise the authority of either the Elected or Hereditary Councils, maintaining that the Haldimand Tract was given to the Mohawks, and the Mohawk should have the say in matters pertaining to land reclamation.  A website devoted to the Mohawk Workers (and a lot of radical rants) can be found here.

It appears that the Mohawk Workers may have been responsible for the recent visit to Canada by the "Special Rapporteur" to the United Nations, James Anaya.  His goal was to "investigate Canada's treatment of the indigineous people of this country".  See here.

However, things continue to get more complicated when for example, The Men's Fire, made up primarily of Mohawks, were upset at another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3).  A recent statement by Bill Squire gives a flavour of what is on their agenda 6 years after the take over of Kanata Village.  He says that the Mohawk Workers, maintain, a recognition of the underlying title the Mohawk Nations have on the land through the Haldimand Deed, which they believe belongs to the Mohawks first and Six Nations at large by way of the Mohawks (Two Row Times, November 6th 2013, p. 7).  Some idea of their stated views and role, as articulated by Bill Squire, can be found here and here. For info on the "legal advisor", "spokesman" and leftist activist, Jason Bowman see here and here.

Whether the group will survive, or implode from within, remains to be seen.

DeYo.

Surrenders of Land by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council from 1841 to 1850

Undoubtedly, if one were only to go to the published set of, Canada: Indian Treaties and Surrenders, 1680 to 1890, Volumes I and II, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1891, one would be left with significant questions about the legitimacy of some of the land transactions upon which so much hinges in terms of settling outstanding Six Nations land claims. Clearly it would be worthwhile for someone other than the negotiating terms for Six Nations and the Federal Government to sift through everything and see what conclusions can be arrived at by a third party, independent of the other two. This has actually been done in the reports of Holmes (2009), which is the focus of most of what is written below, and Horsnell (2010) noted in previous blog posts.  Over a period of over 30 years, I have examined not only the specifically relevant documents, but also related records, and the diaries and letters of Indian Department officials such as James Winniett and David Thorburn, which provide an indication as to whether they were working in the best interests of the Six Nations, or rather to enrich themselves, or were little more than toadies or "yes men" in supporting the position of the Lieutenant Governor or other Crown agent.  I am entirely satisfied that Winniett and Thorburn were diligently working in the best interests of the Six Nations.

The Surrender of 1841:  This document begins with a preamble from the Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis.  The first problem here is that he is associated with investing trust funds in the very controversial Grand River Navigation Company.  The second is that due to allegations of misappropriation of funds, he "retired in disgrace" - as shown here.  Many at Six Nations, however, maintain that he "was suspended from office" - as shown here.  Be that as it may, it would be difficult to show that the deed that followed is compromised or tainted in some way.  Jarvis was following the explicit orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada.  The surrender was signed by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, and was overseen by Commissioner David Thorburn, who has an unblemished record in his dealings with the Six Nations.  I have read all of Thorburns diaries (a stack of very small books) in which he recorded every transaction, and every possible detail of the work he was doing.  He was the consumate civil servant who believed that it was just and proper that he play his role to the best of his ability in ensuring that the Six Nations were provided with justice and compassion.  Ultimately the decision made by the Six Nations Chiefs was theirs and theirs alone.  Jarvis was essentially a go between.  The Six Nations would be given advice by the local Indian Department officials, but if the facts didn't add up, some of the Chiefs (e.g., John "Smoke" Johnson) were far too shrewd to be duped in this way.

The preamble and document itself are long, too long to be included except in excerpt form.  For the full set, please see either Johnston (pp. 187-92), or ITS (Vol. 1, pp. 119-23).  First Jarvis makes it clear that he is relaying a message from the Lieutenant Governor, who had recently received a delegation of Six Nations Chiefs.  Cutting to the chase, Jarvis said that the problem is largely the occupation of Six Nations lands, "by white people without authority".  The Lieutenant Governor not only blames the squatters, but also "the interference of the Indians themselves, continuously".  In the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor the only feasible solution is if the Six Nations, "surrendered into the hands of the Government the whole tract, with the exception of such part of it that may chose to occupy as a concentrated body, so that the same may be disposed of by the Government".  He recommended that the Six Nations choose the part that would best suit their needs, and include 100 to 200 acres of land for each head of family or single man.  The residue would be disposed of, "for the exclusive benefit of the Indians".

The bottom line is that in complete and utter frustration, the deputation of Six Nations asked for advice from the Lieutenant Governor, and this was the recommendation, which if implemented would also make it easier to expel intruders.

Jarvis found it necessary to further explain details of the above plan, there being some worries on the part of the Chiefs, and so he met with the Chiefs on 15 January 1841 in Seneca.  He told them that, "the income of the Six Nations can be immediately increased by a sum varying from 3,000 to 5,000 [pounds] per annum", and the plan implemented to, relieve the present embarrassed state of their affairs".  What he meant was that the problems stemmed from the Indians having invited and introduced these white intruders onto their lands in the first place, and some had collected large sums for the sale of their own property.  The Government refused to forcibly remove these white men because there are as many as there are Six Nations (about 2000), and many were put upon the lands with the approval of the Indians.  Jarvis further stated, that the proposed plan does not require those Six Nations living on a farm presently in their occupation to remove, only if and when he chooses to do so.  In addition to the presently owned farms, the recommendation is to include a further 20,000 acres to be reserved for their use.

Apparently the "Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations Indians upon the Grand River assembled at Onondaga Council House" saw the wisdom in this course of action as, on 18 January 1841, they agreed to the proposal.  However they stated that they wished to reserve, "that tract called the Johnson Settlement, unless what is available to be sold as town lots in the immediate neighbourhood of the Town of Brantford".  The document was signed by two Mohawks and one representative of each of the other Five Nations, "being deputed by the said Six Nations in full Council".

That sounds pretty final.  There were still some i's to dot, and t's to cross, but everything was finalised in the report of Lord Elgin, dated 1850. 

As noted in a previous blog, the Indian Department sent out teams of representatives to inquire into the history of ownership of each lot of land in each Township in the Haldimand Tract where Six Nations still held land.  The inspectors added sketches of the "improvements" to each lot, and each Township was fully surveyed.  Then the unpleasant task of removing the squatters from the lands reserved for the Six Nations began.  If the white owner could show that they had made improvements, these were purchased by the Indian Department, and an eviction notice only was placed on the property if the occupier failed to comply.

In the end, it seems that the Six Nations obtained the only viable solution to the problems they were facing.  By virtue of the Government's decisions, the Six Nations still remain together as a community.  In my opinion, had the Government not acted in this manner the Six Nations would have scattered.  Many of their people already had gone, going to locations in the Ohio country where the author has found people seen in Six Nations records, who are documented as living there.  Examples found quite by chance include Chief Joseph Dequania of the Senecas, Peter Pork and John Slink of the Cayugas, and John Froman of the Mohawk.

Many Six Nations did in fact remain on their lands for varying periods of time.  Generally between 1851 and 1871, as reflected in the Census of Ontario, the majority had moved from lands as far as South Cayuga (e.g., Curley), North Cayuga (e.g., Latham), Oneida (e,g, Styres, Beaver, Thom), and Brantford (e.g., Powless) to new homes on the consolidated Reserve.  I have documents relating to the children of a member of the Delawares, Hannah (nee Thom) Dochstader, showing that if a family did not move by about 1871, even if in this case they only lived a few miles to the south at Mt. Healey, they were struck from the Pay List - so there was an incentive to sell to a White person and join their kin on the consolidated Reserve.

Ultimately, some Six Nations became disatisfied with the terms of the Surrender, and a consensus was reached that it needed to be amended.  Here is where a problem surfaces for some Six Nations today.  Some are not aware that the original Surrender of 1841 was little more than a first pitch in a long drawn out game that lasted until 1848.  The only way to find out the validity of the land claims of today is to go beyond 1841, and wade into the "heavy reading" of Council Minutes in the key interval where leading up to Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.

Sundry Deeds and Documents Relating to the Decisions of the Chiefs in Council, 1843 to 1850:  By the time of the Caledonia "Reclamation", it had become clear that the parties (Government and Six Nations) held differing views as to what was surrendered, and when (if at all).  The Six Nations became more vocal in asserting that their people had never alienated their rights to the Haldimand Tract, and specifically not the lands in and around Brantford.  This position may have set in motion a plan by the City of Brantford, concerned about possible stoppages to development that would occur there, if the Caledonia occupation spread further.  The City at some point decided to employ a team to research all available documents that pertained to the matters of land surrenders since the General Surrender of 1841 noted above.  As a result, Joan Holmes & Associates set to the task of finding relevant records in the National Archives (where the RG10 Indian Affairs records are housed), and presenting a report on the findings of this study.  The major findings of the "Holmes Report", can be seen online here.  I am guessing that this may have been a privately commissioned document not for "public consumption".  Their website indicates that most of the publications they produce are confidential.  Hence, for unknown reasons, it is possible that someone took it upon themselves to upload the report to the Internet.  Joan Holmes & Associates is a large, Ottawa - based, firm specialising in conducting research pertaining to First Nations, matters.  Her team consists of over 20 individuals, with varied backgrounds, and offers comprehensive services.  See their website here.

As someone who has researched these same files and many others at the National Archives, it is my opinion that the report by Joan Holmes includes data that is valid and pertains directly to the land claims now before the Courts. 

First I will present the conclusion of Holmes, followed by excerpts from the relevant documents.  All of these records are provided with suitable RG10 reference tags which would allow anyone at large to verify each and every one of them, should there be a wish to contest any for one reason or another.

The conclusion:  The Elgin Proclamation of 1850, which extended the provisions of An Act for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the property occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury  to Indian lands in Upper Canada, indicated that the land reserved to the Six Nations of the Grand River was limited to land in the Townships of Tuscarora, Oneida, and Onondaga and a 200 acre block in Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township. Similarly, the report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate Indian Affairs, tabled in 1858, showed that the lands reserved for the Six Nations of the Grand River did not include any land in the Township of Brantford with the exception of the 200-acre block. These 1850 and 1858 documents indicate that all of the other land in the Haldimand tract, which would have included the Johnson Settlement, Eagle's Nest and Oxbow tracts, had been surrendered by the Six Nations prior to 1850 (p. 9).

The events of the following years reflect the shifting tides of opinion of the Chiefs, basically changing their minds and reversing or altering previous decisions.

1841:  Holmes provides information equivalent to what the present author has included above. 18 January 1841 can be considered as the key date initiating the series of amendments and culminating in a full Surrender on 18 December 1844 for all but the Burtch Tract lands and any outliers, all of which were fully addressed by 1848 and capped off by the Land Inspection Returns and Township surveys of 1845, and Lord Elgin's Report of 1850.

1843:  Two years after making the original surrender of land, the Chiefs, upon discussion and reflection, decided that they would like to make an amendment to the original provisions.  As a result, the Committee of the Executive Council noted that the original reservation was to have consisted of 20,000 acres and that the petitioners were now asking for over 55,000 acres composed of lands on the south side of the Grand River, along with the Oxbow tract (1,200 acres), Eagle's Nest (1,800 acres), the Martin tract (1,500 acres), the Johnson settlement (7,000 acres), and a church lot in Tuscarora. Nearly all the lands in the Oxbow, Eagle's Nest, Martin and Johnson settlements were said to be in the possession of White settlers under titles given by individual Indians (p. 10).

1844:  Here the Chiefs, again after many days of consultation, From this answer they unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold.  The chiefs further desire that there be reserved at or near the Mohawk School two Hundred acres of land for the use of the said school so that the Scholars may then be Ensured agricultural pursuits. [Located in the Eagle's Nest, Brantford Township] ....... They also desire that the Indian cleared lands on the north side may be exchanged for those on the south side thus recompensing the possessors of improvements from Burtch's to Lot No. 72 on the River. [Located along the Grand River below the Oxbow and adjacent to the boundary between Brantford and Tuscarora].  Holmes added the brackets in accompanying information.  The date of the Council meeting was 18 December 1844 - it should be considered as the correct date of the Surrender of all lands outside the boundary of the present day Six Nations Reserve.

Furthermore, The Six Nations are desirous that 3,600 acres of land may also be reserved for the Tuscarora Tribe on the north side of the River in the Township of Onondaga in and around the Church and mission establishment of the New England Companies provided that such Reserve may not be prejudicial to their reserve on the south side the River as here on desired (p. 12).
The signatures of 45 Chiefs are appended to the above documents, all being certified as eligible signators by Thorburn.  In the accompanying Minutes of the meeting of the Chiefs in Council, 47 signatures are attached.  Five days later, in the presence of David Thorburn and James Winniet, 45 Chiefs were present and affixed their signatures to the Minutes taken at that time.  Here Holmes concluded that, It is my opinion that the report of Thorbum, signed by the chiefs and the minute of the two Council meetings show that the Council was properly called, time was given for consultation and deliberation, an interpreter was used and the document carefully reviewed before signing.  In summary, The document indicates that the Six Nation Chiefs in Council agree to have the Township of Tuscarora set aside as their reserve, along with a reservation of 200 acres at or near the "Mohawk School", and a reservation of 3,600 aces in Onondaga Township on the north side of the Grand River for the Tuscaroras. In addition they wanted to retain a range of lots from Burtch's Lot to Lot 72 (p. 14).  The Chiefs had, unanimously recede and therefore agree that the same be sold is the terminology found in the Council Minutes.  Also included are procedural details such as the reading paragraph by paragraph of each surrender or decision by the interpreter, Jacob Martin, who functioned in this capacity as early as the 1830s and appears to have been well respected and trusted by all sides.

1845:  The primary outstanding matter was the Burtch Tract.  According to the Government, The Governor General regrets to learn that the chiefs still desire to have induded in their proposed Reserve the land in the Township of Brantford between Burchs [sic] Landing and the lot 72 on the
River in Tuscarora upon which there are so many settlers the value of whose improvements will amount to a considerable sum and whose removal if it should be practicable which is at present
doubtful cannot be effected without causing very general dissatisfaction amongst them and a heavy expense upon the funds of the Tribe (p. 15).

Sixty chiefs were present at a Council meeting of April 8, 1845. At that time they indicated that they had deliberated extensively and receded from their former position regarding the 3,600 acres on the north side in Onondaga Township except for a tier of river lots beginning at lot 45 and running to their council house which was on Lot 60 or 61 (p. 16).
 

The next part has the most direct relevance to the lands in the vicinity of Caledonia.  The Council met again on September 17 and 18, 1845. Sixty-six chiefs were in attendance on September 17. The following is recorded,
 

... After much time spent in discussion, [illegible word] the submission it was finally resolved [illegible word or words] reserves should consist of the lands adjoining, the tier of Lots on the west side of the Plank road in the township of Oneida and the whole of. the Township of Tuscarora and such Lots or portions in the Burtch tract in the Township of Brantford as the White settlers thereon could not on an Examination (before the Chiefs in council at this place) shew that they had an equitable claim.

 

It is critical to note that the lands west of the Plank Road which are being referred to here are those which presently adjoin the consolidated reserve, those lots bordering on Tuscarora Township.  There has never been any question about these lands, but the description does not refer to the lands in the rest of Oneida Township bordering the Plank Road or elsewhere - only what is on the present day Reserve.  The above also included the following clause:

 

And that in the said Township of Brantford at the Mohawk Mission School Two hundred acres and
further in the Township of Onondaga a tier of River Lots from forty five to Sixty one inclusive.

 

Holmes concluded that, Lands in the Township of Tuscarora, 200 acres at the Mohawk mission
school, and lots 45 to 61 in Onondaga were requested for reservation, as previously indicated. Lands in Oneida Township had been added and the Council had indicated consent to reserve only the portions of the Butch tract on which settlers could not establish a legitimate claim (p. 16).

 

More amendments were in the offing as things were fine tuned so that everyone would be content with the surrenders.

 

1846:  In February 1846 the Six Nations Chiefs sent a lengthy petition to the Administrator of the Government in which they acknowledged that they had surrendered specific lands subsequent to October 1843, including lands in the Oxbow, Eagle's Nest and Johnson Settlement.

Thorburn reported that, Your Excellency's Petitioners were induced to surrender for sale all their land on the South side of the Grand River situated between the Bridge at the village of Caledonia and the Townships of Dunn; and also tracts of their land of considerable extent in Martin's settlement, the Ox-bow, the Eagles' nest and Johnson's Settlement (p. 19). 

Furthermore, another description described the lands to be reserved as of 1846,

In the Township of Oneida, from the Tier of Lots on the West Side of the Plank Road to the boundary line of the Township of Tuscarora, and the whole of the Township of Tuscarora, and a parcel of 200 Acres lying adjacent to the Mohawk Institute, in the Township of Brantford, and on the North side of the Grand River, in the Township of Onondaga, a tier of River Lots, from No. 61 to 45, .both inclusive.. (p. 20).

If there is any fuzziness in the understanding of what the Chiefs meant in relation to Oneida Township, this can be addressed by referring to the Land Inspection Returns which I discussed in length in a previous blog, where the survey and descriptions show that the only lands reserved here were in the tract West of the Plank Road, where the Reserve exists today. All other lands, except those occupied by individual Indians, were surveyed and Crown grants given to purchasers.

1848:  The lands at the Burtch Tract still remained something of a thorn for the Chiefs.  Finally though, the Chiefs relented to the argument that it was in their best interests to grant the Burtch Tract, primarily because the compensation of the tenants then living on the land would seriously compromise the funds of the Six Nations.  So, At the Council meeting of March 8, at which 31 chiefs were present, Commissioner David Thorbum relayed a message stating that the "governor general ... is pleased to accede to the request for a deed confirming the Reserve to the Six Nations not including the Burtch tract (p. 20).

Thus, all were in agreement with, His Lordship in saying they might have 55,000 acres; evidently meant if such could be had in conformity with the request of the Council, that their settlements should be entirely Indian and compact. This has been done as far as existing circumstances at the time would permit & a compact settlement could only be given from the west side of the tier of Lots on the Plank road in Oneida stretching westward to the Line separating the townships of Tuscarora from the Burtch tract in Brantford ..... (p. 21). 

As to Caledonia:  Hence the intention was to reserve only those lots of land in Oneida from the west side of the tier of lots behind the Plank Road.  This does not include the lots on the Plank Road, only those beyond the six lot deep tier ending at the present day Reserve in Oneida.  I am not sure how much more clear the records have to be to allow Six Nations to understand that the Douglas Creek Estates property was ceded in 1841, and further described in various documents (be they the above or the Land Inspection Returns and survey records or what is on title in the Haldimand County Land Records Office).

As to the Burtch Tract:  Since the Burtch Tract is also such a contentious matter at present, it is noteworthy that again, on March 25 [1848] they [Six Nations Chiefs in Council] agreed to the sale of land in the Burtch Tract, Having.thus surrendered to Her Majesty for sale the Burtch tract of land in the manner set forth the council desire that no further surrender of any portion of their Land take place within the declared general Reservation in Oneida Tuscarora and Onondaga tract that the same be confirmed by Deed to them and their posterity for ever (p. 22).

1850:  The final description of the entirety of the reserved lands is found in proclamation of the Governor General for Upper Canada, Lord Elgin's Proclamation of 1850  (Statute of the Province of Canada, 13 & 14 Vict. Cap 74) for protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, and the properly occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury, which had been assented to in August 1850. Elgin's proclamation specifically extended the protection of Sections 10, 11 and 12 to Indian lands in Upper Canada including the following lands in the Haldimand Tract:

... certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ... comprising lots numbers one, two, three, four, five and six in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, River lots numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township. ... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA .. Also, to that certain parcel of Land containing Two Hundred Acres more or less, adjacent to the Mohawk Church, and known as LOT NUMBER FIVE, in the Eagle's Nest, in the Township of BRANTFORD, in the said county of Wentworth. ... Township of ONONDAGA ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight,
forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five, fifty- six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-one in the third Concession, of the same Township (pp. 22-3).  A sketch accompanies the above description.  I have not seen the original documents here.  The original with various attachments including a map, is the foundation of the Indian Land Registry system and thus Federal Government authorities could presumably produce this document, and preferably publish it so there will be no questions left hanging about the series of surrenders during the 1840s.

Conclusion of Holmes:  It is my opinion that the historical documents cited above dating from the 1840s, indicate that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council expressed their intention to reserve particular lands for their exclusive use and surrendered the remained for sale. By February 1846, they had agreed to allow the sale of lands in the Martin's and Johnson Settlements, Oxbow tracts, and Eagle's Nest, with the exception of a 200-acre block variously described as being in the vicinity of the Mohawk mission or school. In 1848 they finally agreed to the sale of the Burtch Tract. The Elgin Proclamation of 1850 appears to accurately describe the lands that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council had resolved to reserve for their exclusive use as of 1850. The lands not intended for reservation were to be sold (p. 25).

In my opinion, there is absolutely no wiggle room.  The above description is the extent of the reserved land as negotiated by the Six Nations and representatives of the Government. This is entirely supported by the attached list of documents.  The documents have been assembled in a very thorough and comprehensive report by Holmes who has sorted through the documents to arrive at what can be the only conclusion based on factual evidence.  As Hornell has stated, since Lord Elgin's report was done with the approval of Queen Victoria (the Crown), or it would not have been submitted at all, then the Crown was exercising its legal mandate, not disputed by Six Nations, and so the terms of the Proclamation reflected the agreement of all parties (p. 11).  Hence the giving of a Crown deed in 1848 for the parcel upon which the Douglas Creek Estates is situated, and registering it on title in the Land Registry Office, is entirely consistent with all of the evidence.  The property indeed belonged to Henco Industries Ltd. until purchased by the Provincial Government.

It seems evident that the following land claims, based on the above evidence, have no support in fact:  Claim 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 21 as described in the booklet of the "Six Nations Lands & Resources" branch of the Six Nations Council.  See here for this document.  Some of the other claims, relating to land and resources, deserve a closer inspection.  I will explore each of these in later blog postings.

Any changes since the date of 1850 must be considered, but this rules out most of the present land claims being asserted by Six Nations.  Were it not for the efforts of people such as Holmes, willing to sift through mountains of old documents contained within the vast collections of the Indian Affairs Papers, we would forever be faced with those who would assert their beliefs as reality and the truth would be sacrificed.  The work is unassailable and the Six Nations will eventually have to face facts.

DeYo.

Surrenders of Land by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council to 1840

Here I will begin with an overview of the years leading up to 1841.  Elsewhere I have blogged about the Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784, and the Simcoe Deed of 1793.  For example, I noted the "Mohawk Deed" of 1787 where the Chiefs granted 999 year leases to various members of the Nelles, Young, Huff and Dochstader families, with the understanding that these lands were to "be possessed by their recipients forever", and "never to be transfered to any other".  I know many members of these families who would be only too pleased to have these lands returned to them, however the lands were surrendered and sold (not necessarily in that order) and eventually the Crown deeds placed on title in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga, and many buyers of these lands have come along right up to the present day, counting on the validity and security of their registered title.  This matter has been addressed in detail in previous blog posts.

Alas, the apparent order to things did not last, as will be seen in the Council Minutes below.    Although Brant maintained that the lands belonged in whole to the Six Nations, as an independent people, this view was inconsistent with that of early proclamations, and with the view of Whitehall (the Crown) - particularly Governor Simcoe who was certain that if Brant got his way, American "Land Jobbers", such as those in New York State, would soon get their hands on these valuable lands and sell them to undesirable elements - none of which would be in the interest of the Crown, nor, Simcoe believed, that of the Six Nations.  Simcoe wanted to eject all White people off Indian lands, but knew that the opposition from Brant was adamant, and that Brant wielded considerable power to influence affairs in the Colony.  When the Colony caved in to Brant's demands, the latter began in 1789 to seek out buyers for the lands above present day Paris, to be sold in Blocks.  Brant was aware that there was insufficient land to maintain a life of hunting, and that many of the Six Nations had not made progress on his vision of an agricultural utopia guided by some of his hand picked chums from "the old days".  The only other way to obtain monies on which to survive was to use the resources on hand - which meant selling as much land as was required to obtain annuities which would result in interest payments to the Six Nations to supplement what they obtained from any hunting, fishing or other activities which brought in cash or barter. 

Please refer to Charles M. Johnson, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, Champlain Society, 1964 for the best available collection of relevant records, and interpretation of their meaning.  The chapters, C. "A Disputed Title", and D. "The White Man's Frontier" include most of the relevant papers to allow an informed assessment of the history of land transactions along the Grand River Tract.  For a similar listing of relevant claims and records and the interpretation of the Six Nations Lands and Resources document, Six Nations of the Grand River: Land Rights, Financial Justice, Creative Solutions is included here.

Throughout the years after the death of Chief Joseph Brant in 1807, the Chiefs in Council were faced with many challenges.  First, they had to determine what to do about the many "Brant Leases" which often pertained to large tracts of land, leased for 999 years for a yearly rent of one peppercorn.  Clearly Brant wished to give these lands to the parties involved, but was blocked from doing so by the terms of the Simcoe Deed which barred him from gifting or selling land without the say so of the Crown.  In the Crown's defence, they well knew that once land was sold in fee simple it was gone forever, and once the monies derived from the sale had been spent, there would be nothing left.  Soon the Six Nations would be left impoverished.  Since they has already seen it happening, it was realised that the process would snowball and ultimately the Six Nations, left penniless and without a land base, would be forced to move on - probably west to an uncertain future.  This is not paternalistic, it is realistic - it was already a common practise, one which needed to be nipped in the bud if the Six Nations were to survive as a people.

It was really not until 1835 when the deeds were given formal Crown approval.  In the meanwhile the situation in the Six Nations territory was becoming very chaotic.  Individual Indians, for example in the lands of the Lower Cayuga and Delawares down River from the Nelles and Young settlements, would claim a section of land, make some "improvements" by clearing the land of trees and building a cabin, then would, when ready cash was needed, sell their improvements to White purchasers, giving them a deed in return.  During the 1830s, members of the Lower Cayuga tribe sold their lands above present day Cayuga to buyers (largely David Thompson who built Ruthven), then moved across the River established a new Longhouse, and begin the whole process again, this time moving in the 1840s to the area of the Plank Road in Oneida Township, and within a short period of time selling these lands to White buyers to move to the consolidated Reserve after the squatters there had been cleared in 1847. 

Some of the squatters had good deeds from Six Nations members and others had rather "iffy" titles if any.  None the less, it became the responsibility of the Government, after numerous complaints by the Chiefs, to investigate the claims of the squatters on the lands that were to be reserved for the use of the Six Nations (e.g., in Tuscarora Township), compensate them if they could proved a valid claim, or ultimately eject them (seldom done in practice).  This did not entirely work since many continued to dwell there for many years afterwards, some with the permission of the Six Nations, others more in the guise of defiant intransigent squatters.  It is quite sobering to see how difficult it was to get rid of these elements within the lands of the Six Nations.  It must be acknowledged that just as occurred in the Ohio country, despite the pleas of many Indians for the Government to take charge and eject those who were living on Treaty lands, many Indians were enablers, pleading to allow these Whites to remain - especially if they were purveyors of desired goods - such as liquor (a problem that loomed large in the 19th Century).  It was the same situation at Six Nations.

In the Council Minutes of 1 March 1809 at Onondaga, the Chiefs examined every parcel of land known to be in the possession of Whites, and attempted to understand what rationale Chief Brant used to make his decisions, and factor in their own observations as to how each of these parties had behaved and whether they were good neighbours and were honouring the original terms of their deed.  They accomplished this in terms of a set of resolutions that reflected their wishes pertaining to the farms.  For example Mr. Mallory's claim was disallowed.  The lands marked out for individuals such as Mr. Kennedy Smith they allowed, "because we were made acquained with it".  However those at the Mt. Pleasant settlement were expected to occupy their lands based only on a 21 year lease, and after the expiry of same, the lands would revert to the Six Nations.  Considering John Nelles, they did not know upon what basis he was given a "Brant Lease", and further that he had, "behaved very improper to some of our people", so they left it to the discretion of the Deputy Superintendent General as to whether to remove Nelles or ensure that he reforms.  They also expressed concern that the grant to John Huff was for the good of his children born to a Delaware mother, but he was selling off the land, these sales to be forbidden, and the intruders to be ejected.  They seemed particularly displeased with Mr. Canby who was sold land of John Dochstader, much more than they would approve of, but that as long as the monies were put into the hands of Dochstader's children, it would be consistent with their wishes.  The farms possessed by said children (born to Six Nations mothers) were confirmed.  The Chiefs further discussed the lands of Lord Selkirk and Mr. Dixon further down river, and sundry other plots of land and their view on what is legitimate and what should be approved.  In this document, the 38 chiefs and warriors who signed also stated to the Crown agents that, We are tenacious of our lands because they are a gift from our beloved Father the King - and because we want to live under his protection - we are sorry that our Chiefs have hitherto been too lavish - and therefore desire to undo whatever we can without committing injustice (Johnston, 110-2).  I have also seen the original to this document in the National Archives.

Soon thereafter, on 1 February 1812, the Administrator of Upper Canada, Isaac Brock, issued a Proclamation to the effect that it is illegal for White people to reside in Indian villages or on Indian lands without "due authority or licence".  And whereas it is further represented to me that among the white people resident upon Indian Lands there are divers to whom it may be expedient to grant Licences to remain - All persons desirous to obtain such Licences are hereby required to report themselves to the Honourable William Claus His Majesty's Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, together with the Circumstances of the time place and condition of their respective residences (Johnston, pp. 113-4).

Brock's Proclamation triggered a flood of applications from those with Brant Leases, and others with Indian titles. 

Following Johnston, and skipping to the Surrender of 1835 to pick up the thread of formal surrenders by the Six Nations (although gifts, leases and sales extend back to 1787), when on the 26th of March of that year, upon the recommendation of the Chiefs who met in Council 29 January 1835 at the Mohawk Village attended by James Winniett, Superintendant of Indian Affairs, the Chiefs or Principal Men of the Mohawk or Six Nations Indians residing, on the Grand River Tract," do surrender and yield up to Our Sovereign Lord the King's Most Excellent Majesty, His heirs and successors, all and singular the serveral parcels or tracts of land so leased or intended to be leased by the Captain Joseph Brant.  The Six Nations surrendered, all the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim and demand whatsoever.  It was further stated that the lands was surrendered by, the said Chiefs and Principal Men and of the said people of the Mohawks or Six Nations Indians and their posterity forever.   This surrender was effected so that the Crown could issue free Crown Grants and Letters Patent to the leasees.  I cannot see how this document could be any more clear. 

Subsequently a procedure was established to validate all sales of land between individual Six Nations Indians and White buyers where the purchaser presented an application to the Indian Department, often with the Indian deed or suitable affidavit about the issuing of the deed, as well as a survey, and the matter was considered by the full Chiefs in Council.  If the latter were satisfied that all was in order, they, and often the original grantor(s), would put their signatures on the document which the grantee would submit to the Superintendent of Indian Affairs or his representative, and a Crown deed for the property would be issued and the deed placed on title first with the Indian Office, then with the land titles office in the county where the parcel was located.  I have personally seen hundreds of these documents, and examined the names of the Chiefs, correlating them to other documents such early census records at Six Nations.  I can see no reason to question the deeds.  The Chiefs always made note in the wording of the deed that the transaction was to be honoured by their descendants.

By 1840, the numbers of such deeds was staggering, it is a wonder that the Indian Department was relatively good at keeping record of just about everything.  They tended to be excellent bureaucrats.  IThere are excellent examples of the extreme diligence of members of the Indian Department and the staff whose job it was to keep organised records (Bill Russell, The White Man's Paper Burden: Aspects of Records Keeping in the Department of Indian Affairs, 1860-1914, Archivaria, 19, Winter 1984-85).  The situation had also become chaotic, with Indians residing in scattered locations along the Grand River Tract, surrounded by increasing numbers of White neighbours with legal titles or not.

This brings us to the Surrender of 1841 - one of the most contentious documents in the history of Canada.  It warrants its own blog post.  I will include in this posting a consideration of a number of pertinent subsequent documents from 1841 to 1850.

DeYo.

Why Caledonia has become the Focus of so many Six Nations Protests

Caledonia is a small, rural community of about 10,000 individuals, situated along both banks of the Grand River south of Hamilton along old Highway 6.  The end of town straddling the north bank of the Grand River is like any quaint Southern Ontario town of its size, with the main street (Argyll Street) lined with commercial buildings whose brick facades date back to the 19th Century, as seen in the following photo:

The southern half of Caledonia is very different from its northern aspect, however.  Across the picturesque 9 spans of the bridge over the Grand River one finds that the "look" is much different.  There are two early buildings which have been preserved, namely the Old Caledonia Mill (built circa 1853) and the Haldimand House (a wooden structure, now an antique store, built circa 1865).  However much of the rest of the town along Argyll Street is the same sort of functional yet characterless sprawl of car dealerships, strip malls, and both the LCBO and The Beer Store (which for my American readers are the only places where alcoholic beverages can legally be purchased).  It is also here that the schools and library are found.  At the southern most aspect of Caledonia is the Zehr's grocery store and the Canadian Tire store.  Then the great abyss - the lands most vulnerable to being the subject of "actions" by members of the Six Nations.  It is here that developers had bought land in the 1990s, on which they planned to construct fairly large housing developments (well beyond 200 units).  It is here at the "south end" that the events since February 2006 (the "reclamation" of Douglas Creek Estates), right up to October 2013 (the blockade of Highway 6 near the 5th Line), have all taken place.  See here for the utter frustration of elected officials and others at the way in which the OPP handles such situations; and at Six Nations using Caledonia as a punching bag.

So the question might be posed, "why Caledonia"?  In a few words, proximity and easy direct access to the Six Nations Reserve No. 40.  Of course Brantford is also close, and includes a series of contested sites, but it is a medium sized city of almost 100,000 people, and 5 or more miles via a tangled network of roads from the Six Nations Reserve.  The logistics of conducting a mass protest here more or less ensures that only relatively minor and local confrontations (as at Erie Ave. in the former Eagle's Nest Tract in November 2013 but largely involving two factions of Mohawks from Six Nations) will break out.  Also the City has a critical mass of residents who could arrive en mass to surround the protest site.  The entire dynamic is vastly different from what is seen at Caledonia.

The response of the Courts has also doubtless played a role in "toning down" things, at least to a degree.  In 2008 Superior Court Justice Harrison Arrell rules that the efforts to stop development at the Wingate Site in Brantford by members of the Mohawk Workers, and the HDI (among others) were illegal, and the Court Injunction issued a fine in the amount of $325,000 levied against the defendants - see here.  A more recent case heard by the Superior Court inolves the Mohawk Worker's attempt to stop development at Tutela Heights. Justice Arrell ruled that the developers, the Walton Group, are the rightful owners and thus issued an injunction preventing them from in any way disrupting the project. The developers are contemplating bringing suit of close to a million dollars against the primary defendants, including Bill Squire, and Ruby and Floyd Montour. This was in November 2012, see here.

So what about Hagersville?  It is smaller in size than Caledonia, with a population of about 3,000, located 10 miles south of the latter along Highway 6 (the old Plank Road).  It is situated at the southwest end of the Reserve, directly adjoining the Reserve, while Caledonia is situated even further from the Reserve boundaries, at the northwest end.  It is here one finds the only hospital in the area.  While "actions" have occurred here, such as that in 2007 at the site of the old Northview Elementary School, where the Editor of Turtle Island News was assaulted by a protester for reporting the facts of the events of late (see here).  Things seemed to calm down, and little of any significant inconvenience really, except to the developer (although I may stand corrected on this).  A likely major reason for backing off any further protests in Hagersville is the March 2009 Court ruling by The Honourable Mr. Justice J.R. Henderson that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council and the Men' Fire have no legal reason to block John Voortman & Associates from proceeding with the construction of the townhouse complex on Main Street.  His lengthy reasoned argument included the fact that neither of the defendants (HCCC and HDI) had a legal right of any sort to the property.. Voortman et al., however possessed legal title.  The Judge ordered the OPP to enforce the Court injunction (in other words forget about being "peacekeepers"), and permitted Voortman or associates to use "reasonable force" to eject the trespassers, as shown here. 

One of the factors shielding Hagersville, and inhibiting protests, is that it abuts not the Six Nations Reserve, but the New Credit Reserve (Mississauga, Anisinnabe).  It is the Six Nations who have a bone to pick, and it is just a bit too complicated and inconvenient in relation to Caledonia.

Thus Caledonia is the "perfect" spot to stage an effective and efficient protest.  It has all the necessary ingredients, particularly the fact that within minutes, people from Six Nations could funnel across the Stirling Street Bridge (at one time, but it was torched by Natives during the 2006 protest), and particularly 6th line (closest) and 5th Line, or even the railway tracks for walkers.  Ease of access.  It is also vulnerable because its south side is only accessible to the north side via one single bridge.  It has all the necessary ingredients.  Twitter messages go out to Six Nations members from Turtle Island News and other sources and within literally minutes a critical mass can be assembed anywhere along the Highway 6 corridor between Caledonia and Hagersville.  Given that fact, and knowing the topography of the area, I am not sure why the Ontario Provincial Police did not block the 5th and 6th Lines at the Reserve edge to prevent the amassing of large numbers of protesters in rapid time back in 2006.  Of course hindsight is always 20/20.

The residents of Caledonia are in large part do not have long roots or a strong sense of "community" - nothing which would compare to the Six Nations Community.  So people are as likely as not to do nothing, to leave matters to the police (that is a sick joke), or just ignore it and hope it will all go away soon.  Only small groups of angry non-Native protesters have been able to challenge the will of the Six Nations people when as a group they feel threatened - whether the cause is just or not, is not the point.  This will not change, so one does not have to be a rocket scientist to predict that any further significant protests by Six Nations activists are more likely to be staged at Caledonia than any other location in Ontario.  An excellent example is the "parade" organized by Communist supporters of Six Nations, with some minimal Six Nations participation, which shut down Caledonia from the north to the south along Argyll Street in the spring of 2012.  Lucky Caledonia. 

The Six Nations have continually thumbed their noses at the Court Injunctions issued by the Ontario Superior Court, so we know that this will not work without the prospect of real policing, and real fines.  Caledonia is perceived as a "tinderbox", and so what goes in Hagersville does not necessarily fly in Caledonia.  Again, it is a combination of factors at play here, but simple geography would seem to be paramount in understanding the different responses.

Unless strong determined action such as the above is taken, one would not be in the least cynical to ask when will the next riot, parade, or protest happen?  That remains to be seen - there appears to be no awareness by the "usual suspects" at all that Caledonia has been hard hit by these repeated protests, and that the humane thing to be would be to back away to let residents at least attain the "illusion" that things are better now, and that life can go one as it does with people who live in "normal" regions such as say Bowmanville or Port Hope.  What must it be like to live in such a place, we in our dysfunctional part of Ontario can only dream.

Update:  In a letter to the editor of The Sachem & Gazette dated November 14, 2013 (p. 6),  entitled, "We need to take pride in our united community", Marnie Knight, a Haldimand County resident, makes some poignant comments.  She used three examples, that of the Douglas Creek Estates "occupation", the Provincial Government's decision to "shove down our throats" the wind turbines, and the recent decision of Haldimand Council to close down one of the High Schools, to illustrate her point that by in large, people here don't get involved unless they are personally affected.  I have seen the same tendency, and even the lack luster response of Caledonia to the "parade" of 2012 reflects the same lack of willingness to get involved - but in this case even when it was directly affecting the people there - with oursiders preparing to close down Argyll Street - no more than a handful were there to challenge the organizers.  This is the Achilles heel that separates Haldimand County residents from the Community at Six Nations.  With the latter, despite all the factionalism, if they feel that Community members are being threatened in some way, such as by the OPP in Caledonia in 2006, the word goes out via social media or telephone trees and bingo, cars are flooding down 5th and 6th Lines to engulf the parties seen as a threat.  Hence the OPP were outnumbered by a very determined group of people and they saw no choice but to retreat.  Does this sound in any even remote way as to what the citizens of Haldimand do in response to a threat?  I can answer that from personal experience - NO.  What I have seen is largely apathy, an unwillingness to get involved, and a wish that the whole thing would just go away.  This rather than confront threats directly.  The exception is the dedicated group of followers of 5 or so locals willing to challenge the Six Nations or the OPP, for example in relation to the latter, for the two - tiered policing system in place where "Aboriginals" are treated with kid gloves, while the Haldimand residents risk arrest for conducting themselves in the same way as the Native contingent.  Double standard.  Hyporicy.  Most on this group in later blog posts.  Thus I agree entirely with the author of the letter, that the mind set is, "oh well, it is not my problem".  There seems to be no empathy for fellow citizens, nor a willingness to stand one's ground to fight tyranny.  So Haldimand, you get what you deserve.

DeYo.

Do the Mohawk have Special Status Among the Six Nations in Canada?

I have long heard it said that the Mohawks have a swagger, something of a chip on their shoulder.  Perhaps this is due to being known as "skywalkers" from their famed skills as fearless iron workers on some of the tallest buildings in North America.  Also they have been indispensable in the logging industry, and were known as famed canoeists in running the rapids - mostly along the St. Lawrence River.  Well, what do the early historical records say about the power and prestige of the Mohawk?

In the earliest days of the Condederacy (some say beginning in the 12th Century, others the 15th Century), it was the Mohawk Hayonwaghtha who worked with the Huron (Wyandot) Dekanawida, to establish the Five Nations Confederacy to bring peace to the then Five Nations of what is today Upstate New York.  Since then, in the roster of Chiefs, the Mohawk are first on the list. The Mohawk became known as the "keepers of the eastern door" of the metaphorical longhouse.  This was to be a key position since when the Dutch first became established in the area after 1608, it was the Mohawks who were able to establish a primacy in trade relations with the people of Fort Orange (Albany) and later Schenectady - after eliminating or weakening the role of their rivals the Mahicans.  To trade with the Dutch, others of the Six Nations had to cross Mohawk territory.  The Mohawk were frequently used as middlemen to transport goods to French Canada - this being technically smuggling as there was supposed to be no trade with the enemy France.

Mohawks had always had a fearsome reputation as warriors.  If their presence was detected in enemy territory often tribes fled in fear.  Their raiding (for loot and captives) extended from the New England States in the east, to Hudson's Bay in the north, to Michigan in the west, and to North Carolina in the south.  Some say that the word Mohawk (Maquasse) etc., means "man eater", although this is not confirmed by any reliable source.  The Mohawk call themselves, Kanienkayhaga or "People of the Flint" (likely referring to the Herkimer diamonds found in their territory).  Some of the individual Chiefs of the Mohawks were the most powerful of any in dealings with the French, Dutch and the British successors to the latter.  Two examples are Chief Hendrick Thayanoguen who was known as "King Hendrick", whose power was so great that in 1753 he was able to break the Covenant Chain.  Then there was Chief Joeph Brant Thayendinagea, a Captain in the British Military who was considered head chief of all the Six Nations and allied tribes.  Brant was the one who assisted the move from New York to Ontario after the American Revolution.  He pretty well called the shots.  It was he who dignitaries wished to see for any matter involving the Six Nations.  It was Brant who in 1796 was given power of attorney for Six Nations land dealings.

The Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 reads that due to the, early Attachment to His [Majesty's] Cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians, & Loss of their Settlement they thereby sustained that a Convenient Tract of Land under His Protection should be chosen as a Safe & Comfortable Retreat for them & others of the Six Nations who have either lost their Settlements within the Territory of the American States, or wish to retire from them to the British ..... (Johnston, pp. 50-1).  This appears that the Haldimand Tract was first and foremost given to the Mohawk, but others could join them if they wished.

The first deed at Six Nations was signed in 1787, and is known as the "Mohawk Deed" (it was written in the Mohawk language) whereby land was leased to certain Loyalist colleagues already settled there for 999 years (to his consternation, Brant was not permitted to gift or sell the land as according to the Crown the Six Nations did not possess it in fee simple).  It was signed by 9 Mohawks, but only 12 other Six Nations and one Delaware.

The Mohawk Village was the hub of the Six Nations Tract, with the Council House being situated there.  There is the Mohawk Chapel built in 1786 (the first Protestant Church built in what is today Ontario), and the Mohawk Institute, a church run school which ultimately became the Woodland Cultural and Educational Centre.

In all years since their arrival in 1784, the Mohawk far outnumbered any other group of Six Nations along the River, unless one combined the Upper and Lower Cayuga (e.g., Census of 1810, Johnston, p. 281).  Although the most numerous of the non Six Nations (Iroquoian) people at Six Nations, in the past there was no egalitarianism.  The Delawares were frequently reminded by the Mohawk that they were under the direct control of the Six Nations, and should consider themselves nothing more than women (something that today would be considered sexist, and denying the undisputed role of women as Clan Mothers in Iroquoian society).  Later deeds, even at Six Nations, referred to the Delaware as, "Our Nephews".  Second class citizens?

In Ontario, the list of Iroquoian - speaking Reserves includes, Six Nations, Tyendinaga (Mohawk) in Hastings County, part of Akwesasne (Mohawk) near Cornwall, Wahta / Gibson (Mohawk) in Muskoka District, and Oneida of the Thames.  The Mohawk do seem to predominate in the Province.

In the 19th Century the Six Nations most familiar to the Indian Department, the general community, and frequently Six Nations too, are individual such as George Martin, Chief John (Smoke) Johnson, Chief G.H.M. Johnson, Pauline Johnson, Dr. Oronhyateka - all Mohawks.  There is no denying that Chiefs such as Deskaheh (Cayuga), and John A. Gibson (Seneca) were much respected locally, and did have a wider constituency.  The former was an advocate for the Confederacy at the League of Nations; and the latter was known in lacross circles, and more generally by anthropologists as the person most knowledgeable in the rituals and constitution of the Confederacy.

At Six Nations today one sees the presence of two particular, but very different, Mohawk bodies - the Mohawk Warriors and the Mohawk Workers.  These two will be the focus of a subsequent blog post.

So are the Mohawks in effect the "head of the Six Nations" at Six Nations (Reserve No. 40), or is it a much more egalitarian situation than the evidence above would suggest?

DeYo.