The Six Nations Land and Resources describes the nature of the claim here. The claim is for the flooding caused by the creation of the Dunnville Dam, and the consequent back up of water. The map of the claim shown here, indicates that the lands were along the Grand River from Dunnville to Cayuga. The claim was for 2415.60 acres that were flooded. There were some Seneca, Delaware and Lower Cayuga residing in these areas of North Cayuga and South Cayuga Townships - and a lot of White people whose property was also impacted. It appears that the Land and Resources researchers have found evidence that individual Indians were given compensation for 290 acres of improvements lost to the flooding, but the Six Nations had not been compensated for the general flooding itself.
Based on the evidence shown on the Land and Resources page for this particular claim, over the years between about 1829, through 1890 various claims were tabled. In the latter year, a claim was placed before the Exchequer Court and filed, but was never brought before the Courts as was the required procedure. An additional claim was filed in 1943, but appears to have gone nowhere. Finally, on 13th May 1994, John Sinclair, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for claims through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, told then Chief Steve Williams that the Government of Canada would assume responsibility for this matter and offer compensation. It all sounded very promising, but ..............
In 2007 the Federal Government of Canada offered $26 million dollars as compensation. In 2008 both the Confederacy (HCCC) and the Elected Band Council (SNEC) agreed that they should speak as "one voice" for Six Nations people. The Land and Resources Office requested feedback from Six Nations Community members. As far as the website information goes, it stops here. So what has happened since 2008? For those who have followed this blog, you can probably figure out the answer.
It appears that in the interval between 2008 and today, lawyer Aaron Detlor, a Director and legal advisor to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (about which I have spoken elsewhere) came up with a figure he considered more acceptable - one billion dollars. No, he was not kidding. See here. Needless to say, the Canadian team withdrew their offer, which they consider as "fair and reasonable" and as far as I know there have been no further talks. Once again the controversial Detlor, who to the best of my knowledge is not a member of the Six Nations Community, has been able to hold sway and as a consequence, Six Nations may end up with nothing.
If I was a member of the Canadian negotiating team, the one billion figure would be a gross insult, and entirely unrealistic for damage done back in 1829, so time to fold em and go home. The offer was made in 2008, and I have not heard anything further about the matter in the media via online searches. So it will probably die a natural death. What if the present information relative to the validity of surrenders during the 1840s comes to light (meaning reaches the levels of Government where something could be done), and the obvious decision is made - that all of the major land claims are without merit. Then what becomes of the $26 million that would have been in the bank, and put to the service of the Six Nations Community. So how will Six Nations feel when they see this and other monies go up in smoke? Guess we shall see - eventually.
DeYo.
Saturday, 21 December 2013
Six Nations Land Claim Number 9: Burtch Tract, Brantford Township
Please see a general introduction to this subject here, if you have not already done so.
This Land Claim submitted to the Federal Government but the Six Nations Land and Resources Department, includes 5,223 acres situated between Tuscarora Township (present Reserve) and the Township of Brantford. The specifics of the claim can be seen here, and the associated map here. The Six Nations researchers assert very little in the way of specifics, only that there was never any surrender of the lands by Six Nations to the Crown.
This particular property has been contentious for some time, perhaps because of its direct proximity to the modern Reserve and Brantford. If successful, this claim would result in a very significant addition to the Six Nations land base. However the location here of a large number of farms owned by non-Natives, as well as the towns of Burtch and Newport, are but two impediments standing in the way of a resolution in favour of Six Nations.
Apparently, after the 2006 crisis in Caledonia, the Provincial Government, as negotiated by David Peterson, promised to return lands in the Burtch Tract if the barriers came down in Caledonia. This questionable "deal" is noted here, but the details of the supposed agreement have remained obscure (or died a natural death). Actually, to be fair, the Provincial Government of Ontario have kept the matter front and centre, at least on their website - see here. Basically, in terms of status of the "facility transfer", The environmental assessment of the Burtch property is complete and remediation is ongoing. The province is discussing the transfer of ownership of the Burtch land to the Six Nations people. Updated 31 July 2013. I wonder to whom the land will be transferred.
This Tract has been of particular interest to the Mohawk Workers (about whom I have spoken in a previous blog posting). They appear to anticipate that once the site has been cleared of any toxic substances left over from the days when the Burtch Correctional facility was located there, the lands at least at this site will be transferred to the possession of the Mohawk Workers. It goes without saying that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, Men's Fire, Haudenosaunee Development Institute, as well as the Six Nations Elected Council might have other ideas about the matter. A bit of a sticky wicket or what.
Well, if we allow the evidence to speak for us it will be much ado about nothing. There is no unceeded Burtch Tract land to bargain over. None the less, the belief that the lands have never been ceeded appears to be as strong as ever, so we need to explore the evidence and determine whether the Land and Resources people have made a mistake or not.
In examining the documents from the first surrender in 1841, to the middle of the decade, it is clear that the Chiefs did intend on keeping some lands here - at least at that point in time. Hence if one looks at some of the minutes of Council meetings, the Chiefs held firm on this particular property for longer than any of the other parcels. In a sense it was "last to go". Here is the data, showing how the Chiefs were wishing to retain some lots in the Burtch Tract, but sometime between 1846 and 1848 they realised that there were simply too many White people to make a viable block of land for use by the Six Nations, and they authorised the surrender of all the Burtch Tract.
(David Thorburn, Minutes of Council, Council House Onondaga, September 17, 1845. LAC, RG 10, Vol. 152, pp. 87852-87854) - bold print mine.
It seems that the matter dragged on a bit, but was finally settled once and for all by March of 1848 when the Chiefs in Council met on March 25th.
Further confirmation of the surrender is found when,
So a done deal, one would assume. So why do various Six Nations groups continue to press for the return of lands on the Burtch Tract, or for monetary compensation (the latter it would appear would constitute "double dipping" as the monies from the sales were presumably added to the annuity fund).
DeYo.
This Land Claim submitted to the Federal Government but the Six Nations Land and Resources Department, includes 5,223 acres situated between Tuscarora Township (present Reserve) and the Township of Brantford. The specifics of the claim can be seen here, and the associated map here. The Six Nations researchers assert very little in the way of specifics, only that there was never any surrender of the lands by Six Nations to the Crown.
This particular property has been contentious for some time, perhaps because of its direct proximity to the modern Reserve and Brantford. If successful, this claim would result in a very significant addition to the Six Nations land base. However the location here of a large number of farms owned by non-Natives, as well as the towns of Burtch and Newport, are but two impediments standing in the way of a resolution in favour of Six Nations.
Apparently, after the 2006 crisis in Caledonia, the Provincial Government, as negotiated by David Peterson, promised to return lands in the Burtch Tract if the barriers came down in Caledonia. This questionable "deal" is noted here, but the details of the supposed agreement have remained obscure (or died a natural death). Actually, to be fair, the Provincial Government of Ontario have kept the matter front and centre, at least on their website - see here. Basically, in terms of status of the "facility transfer", The environmental assessment of the Burtch property is complete and remediation is ongoing. The province is discussing the transfer of ownership of the Burtch land to the Six Nations people. Updated 31 July 2013. I wonder to whom the land will be transferred.
This Tract has been of particular interest to the Mohawk Workers (about whom I have spoken in a previous blog posting). They appear to anticipate that once the site has been cleared of any toxic substances left over from the days when the Burtch Correctional facility was located there, the lands at least at this site will be transferred to the possession of the Mohawk Workers. It goes without saying that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, Men's Fire, Haudenosaunee Development Institute, as well as the Six Nations Elected Council might have other ideas about the matter. A bit of a sticky wicket or what.
Well, if we allow the evidence to speak for us it will be much ado about nothing. There is no unceeded Burtch Tract land to bargain over. None the less, the belief that the lands have never been ceeded appears to be as strong as ever, so we need to explore the evidence and determine whether the Land and Resources people have made a mistake or not.
In examining the documents from the first surrender in 1841, to the middle of the decade, it is clear that the Chiefs did intend on keeping some lands here - at least at that point in time. Hence if one looks at some of the minutes of Council meetings, the Chiefs held firm on this particular property for longer than any of the other parcels. In a sense it was "last to go". Here is the data, showing how the Chiefs were wishing to retain some lots in the Burtch Tract, but sometime between 1846 and 1848 they realised that there were simply too many White people to make a viable block of land for use by the Six Nations, and they authorised the surrender of all the Burtch Tract.
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 to a pre Emption by Leases or otherwise the submission of the Re Examination to be laid before His Lordship the Governor General for his decision on each case, 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. The council adjourned at dusk.
(David Thorburn, Minutes of Council, Council House Onondaga, September 17, 1845. LAC, RG 10, Vol. 152, pp. 87852-87854) - bold print mine.
It seems that the matter dragged on a bit, but was finally settled once and for all by March of 1848 when the Chiefs in Council met on March 25th.
Finally, on March 25 they agreed to the sale of all of the 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.
(Council Minutes dated March 25, 1848. LAC, RG 10, Vol. 170, p. 98627).
Further confirmation of the surrender is found when,
A few months after these council meetings a public notice, dated June 16, 1848 was issued announcing the sale of lands in the Burtch Tract, with the.exception of lots "whereon Indian families reside, who do not for the present desire to remove".
("Notice", June 16, 1848. LAC, RG 10, Vol. 458, p. 91).So a done deal, one would assume. So why do various Six Nations groups continue to press for the return of lands on the Burtch Tract, or for monetary compensation (the latter it would appear would constitute "double dipping" as the monies from the sales were presumably added to the annuity fund).
DeYo.
Six Nations Land Claim Number 5: Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca and Oneida Townships
In a sense, there were two general surrenders. The first was in 1841, and the second in 1845. Further more circumscribed surrenders (e.g., to the Burtch Tract) occurred between 1848 and 1853. However, after the submission of Lord Elgin's report in 1850, which was included in the Indian Registry System, there were only minor adjustments.
The Six Nations Land and Resources provide the facts and allegations pertaining to Claim 5 here. The map that is included can be found here.
Once again, the research did not go far enough. If one only sifts through the documents to 1844 and comes to a grinding halt here, well the Chiefs at this date were still requesting that they keep lands which they surrendered one year later or at least by 1848. Those years between 1845 and 1848 are absolutely key. "Avoiding" them, or omitting them, will create a distorted and false picture of the sum total of the lands which were surrendered and entered into Lord Elgins Report.
The discussion and data presented in the previous post applies directly to Claim 5. Claims 16 and 5 could and be combined based on my reading of the evidence. One again, as with Claim 16, there is no basis in fact to support the validity of Claim 5. It was surrendered in 1845 and registered in the Indian Registry System in 1850. The Chiefs did not for example come back in 1856 and report that the surrender of 1845 was in error, and that they wanted justice - it did not happen because the surrender was valid. Whatever 21 year leases there may or may not have been in relation to this property became a moot point in 1845 - the land was surrendered for sale by the Crown - said monies to be added to the Six Nations annuity fund. I am not in a position to speak to potential irregularities in the monies distributed to this fund - it is an area well beyond my research experience. There may or may not be injustices here - I simply don't know.
Please see my previous posting here, as it applies directly to Claim 5.
DeYo.
The Six Nations Land and Resources provide the facts and allegations pertaining to Claim 5 here. The map that is included can be found here.
Once again, the research did not go far enough. If one only sifts through the documents to 1844 and comes to a grinding halt here, well the Chiefs at this date were still requesting that they keep lands which they surrendered one year later or at least by 1848. Those years between 1845 and 1848 are absolutely key. "Avoiding" them, or omitting them, will create a distorted and false picture of the sum total of the lands which were surrendered and entered into Lord Elgins Report.
The discussion and data presented in the previous post applies directly to Claim 5. Claims 16 and 5 could and be combined based on my reading of the evidence. One again, as with Claim 16, there is no basis in fact to support the validity of Claim 5. It was surrendered in 1845 and registered in the Indian Registry System in 1850. The Chiefs did not for example come back in 1856 and report that the surrender of 1845 was in error, and that they wanted justice - it did not happen because the surrender was valid. Whatever 21 year leases there may or may not have been in relation to this property became a moot point in 1845 - the land was surrendered for sale by the Crown - said monies to be added to the Six Nations annuity fund. I am not in a position to speak to potential irregularities in the monies distributed to this fund - it is an area well beyond my research experience. There may or may not be injustices here - I simply don't know.
Please see my previous posting here, as it applies directly to Claim 5.
DeYo.
Six Nations Land Claim Number 16: Oneida Township
The map that accompanies Claim 16, Oneida Township based on the assertions of the Six Nations Land and Resources Department is found on their website here. It is a shame that I cannot put this document directly on my blog, but the webdesigners have found every possible way to exclude that option. This violates my view on "open access". If one has nothing to hide, and it is a government or related public document, it should be readily available for display. But I digress. Basically Six Nations are claiming not only the part of Oneida Township which is presently part of the Six Nations Reserve, but the Township in its entirety.
There is a basic observation to be made here, and which applies to other claims in equal measure. If one takes matters out of context, it is possible to "prove" just about anything. In fact during the period between 1841 with the General Surrender, and 1853 when the move of most of the Six Nations members to the consolidated Reserve had taken place and the squatters had by in large removed and were compensated, there were many occasions when the Chiefs in Council changed their mind. If one wishes to only focus on their first perspective, then it would be easy to make a case of there still be vast tracts of unceeded land. However, all of the documents between 1841 and at least 1848 must be read in order to determine why the Ontario land Registry system includes the lands being claimed over 150 years after the fact by the Six Nations.
In this specific instance, it is true that as late as 28 March 1844, there are documents stating that the lands between Burtch's Landing and "Cayuga" (which would thus include the Township of Oneida) were to be included in lands reserved for the Six Nations. This turned out to be an error, perpetuated by Samuel P. Jarvis, which was rather obvious since there were huge blocks of land (e.g., Cook Block, Nelles Block, Dennis Block, McKenzie Block, Anderson Block, etc.) already in the hands of White men, and approved by the Chiefs in Council in a general review of lands along the Grand River as early as 1809. So Jarvis tripped up, but the error was caught and the correct description approved by the Chiefs in Council was registered.
In 1845 the matter was cleared up to everyones satisfaction. The Indian Superintendent here was David Thorburn. Here follows excepts from the relevant Council Minutes:
In this specific instance, it is true that as late as 28 March 1844, there are documents stating that the lands between Burtch's Landing and "Cayuga" (which would thus include the Township of Oneida) were to be included in lands reserved for the Six Nations. This turned out to be an error, perpetuated by Samuel P. Jarvis, which was rather obvious since there were huge blocks of land (e.g., Cook Block, Nelles Block, Dennis Block, McKenzie Block, Anderson Block, etc.) already in the hands of White men, and approved by the Chiefs in Council in a general review of lands along the Grand River as early as 1809. So Jarvis tripped up, but the error was caught and the correct description approved by the Chiefs in Council was registered.
In 1845 the matter was cleared up to everyones satisfaction. The Indian Superintendent here was David Thorburn. Here follows excepts from the relevant Council Minutes:
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 ..........
(David Thorburn, Minutes of Council, Council House Onondaga, September 17, 1845. LAC, RG 10 Vol. 152, pp. 87852-87854) - bold print mine.
To ensure that the somewhat imprecise language (at least from a surveyor's point of view) was put on record, the following description of the lands were recorded such that a notice could be posted to alert squatters as to what lands were affected. Here follows the notification:
The Council minutes of the 'following day, 18 September 1845, have not been located, however a public notice describing the lands reserved for the Six.Nations is consistent with the intention indicated at the September 17 meeting. The public notice described the reserved lands:
Lying on the South side of the Grand River, West from the tier of Lots adjoining the Plank Road, in the Township of Oneida, including the Township of Tuscarora ........
("Notice" [prior to January 1, 1846] LAC, RG 10, Vol. 458, p. 78. The document is damaged.and the date is not discernible) - bold print mine.
At a Council meeting of 8 March 1848, David Thorburn reported that,
His Lordship in saying they might have 55,000 acres; evidently meant if such could be had in confonmity 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 tome 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. At that time the Burtch Tract was still an outstanding matter - as will be discussed in a later posting.
(Council Minutes dated March [9], 1848. LAC, RG 10 ,Vol. 170 , pp. 98607-98610) - bold print mine.
Finally in 1850, Lord Elgin's Proclamation seals the deal for all of the reserved Indian lands in the Haldimand Tract:
Finally in 1850, Lord Elgin's Proclamation seals the deal for all of the reserved Indian lands in the Haldimand Tract:
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, Riveir 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 ..
("Proclamation extending the provisions of 13 and 14 Vict. Ch. 74 to certain lands in several townships in U.C. in the occupation or enjoyment of various tribes of Indians, November 8, 1850". INAC Indian Lands Registry Registration No. 8740-292).
The above lands described as being in the Township of Oneida are those included in the present consolidated Reserve.
So again the Chiefs in Council heard the boundaries discussed and there was no dissent noted. No where are any lots along the Plank Road in Seneca mentioned, the chiefs laid no further claim to them or any lands in the Township of Seneca at any time after 1844.
The key here is understanding where "the tier of Lots adjoining the Plank Road" is situated. It can be seen on maps of Oneida Township. Although there is a survey map dating to 1845 when the Land Inspection Returns of Oneida Township were submitted, the present author did not copy this document, only the land descriptions. One example from a later date will however suffice. It is from the H.R. Page Atlas of Haldimand County of 1879:
Above is the 1879 map of Oneida Township, which, in addition to the part seen as "Indian Reserve", is claimed by Six Nations as "Claim 19". The only lands to which a legitimate claim can be made are those already included in the Reserve, west of the tier of lots behind the Plank Road seen as running in a slight diagonal from the middle of Caledonia at the top of the map, to the town of Hagersville is shown at the very bottom where two rail lines cross near the Plank Road.
Conclusion: There is no basis in fact for the claim that Six Nations never surrendered what is today the Township of Oneida. The Chiefs in Council surrendered all of the Township of Oneida, including the lots along the Plank Road, in 1845. The only section that was reserved was the part that is presently included in the consolidated Reserve.
DeYo.
An Examination of Each of the 29 Land Claims Submitted by Six Nations to Date
There are 29 land claims filed against the Federal Government of Canada, all but two within the geographical bounds of the Haldimand Tract, and reported in the website of the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations. The said website can be accessed here.
It is the intention of the present author to examine the factual basis of each of the claims via individual postings to the present blog with the exception of those outside the Haldimand Tract, namely number 2 Innisfil Township, and number 3 East Hawkesbury Township. At this time I do not believe that I am well enough versed in either of these two claims to be in a position to either support or challenge them.
The sources I will use include the following:
1) My own forays, primarily in a 20 year period between the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, into the original records pertaining to the claims. These records and sources are primarily found at the National Library and Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives of Ontario in Toronto. Other important repositories whose collections I accessed were those at the Library of the Woodland Cultural Centre and the Brant County Library, both in Brantford; and the Haldimand County Museum and Archives in Cayuga.
2) Sally Weaver's research and ethnographic notes between 1963 and 1975 as published in the following article: Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978. I have also read most of the original research articles published in journals and books and referenced in this publication.
3) Joan Holmes, Reports of Joan Holmes (Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Motion). Report dated 19 January 2009; Supplementary Report dated 2 February 2009.
It appears that the above report was prepared for the Corporation of the City of Brantford, but has not been "officially" released. A copy of both reports has been placed online by person or persons unknown, and can be found here. The documents which Joan Holmes cites are those which the present author has also researched, and cross validates with these efforts, as well as those of Sally Weaver who employed the same cited source material. In my opinion the "Holmes Report" is spot on accurate. The credentials of the author, head of Joan Holmes & Associates Inc., a research and analysis firm which since 1983 has offered services to First Nations, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as law firms, can be found here.
The Six Nations Land and Resources website indicates that it is current to 2008, although there is information about the 2009 offer made by the Federal Government to address the Welland Canal flooding claim.
The present author knew the former Six Nations researcher, Phillip Monture and has visited the forerunner to the present Lands and Resources office, recalling clearly the metal file cabinets bound with chains and padlocks. I don't recall meeting the new researcher, Lonny Bomberry. As far as I know, all of the background work as to what is found in the website was done by Phil Monture. For the record, I have always had respect for Mr. Monture and his work, although we disagree on the assessment of the evidence relating to most of the land claims.
On the page including the Six Nations Land Claim Summaries (Basis and Allegations), as seen here, there are statements with which I disagree. There is one which particularly distresses me, so it warrants at least a comment or two. It is stated, As set out in the grant of land the Crown had a duty to protect Six Nations lands for their sole use. In many cases not only did the Government fail to do so, the officials of Crown actively encouraged the settlement upon those lands. Based on my reading of all of the official correspondence, nothing could be further from the truth. Very early in the settlement of the area, in 1793 Governor Simcoe forbade the sale of lands in the Haldimand Tract to White people, and threatened to have all of them removed. It was the Six Nations who fought to leave things alone as they valued the presence of former neighbours from the Mohawk Valley who could be a valuable asset in helping the Six Nations males learn agricultural methods, and who would establish mills to grind the grain and cut the lumber for the benefit of the Six Nations. Later Government officials were tearing their hair out as more and more settlers moved on to Six Nations land, typically after paying a Six Nations member for their "improvements" and securing a deed for this property. Hence the Six Nations were setting up a situation which totally overwhelmed the ability of the Indian Department officials to act. While some Six Nations did indeed want the White settlers removed, this was hardly the case for many who were making a tidy living occupying then selling land as a commodity. So to blame the "colonialism" of government officials is to completely miss the point of what all were facing at Six Nations. The officials despaired as to what to do about the matter. It is not as if they could call in the army or send the squatters to some old prison scow moored in Lake Ontario. It was in fact the recognition by the Government officials that the Six Nations way of life would be unsustainable with the status quo that led to their recommendation that the Six Nations live together as a people, in close proximity, and free of settlements of Whites which were interspersed all along the Tract. In fact there are multiple documentary sources which show the deep concern felt by these officials to whom so much venom is cast. It is not fair, because it is not correct. See for example the collection of small diaries of David Thorburn at the Archives of Ontatio, for some of the concerns he had seeing what was happening to the Six Nations, or review the correspondence of officials at every level who saw the same problems surfacing. Probably the most accessible reference for the latter would by Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Totonto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
The bottom line through all of these claims is that there is a major omission. In 1850 Lord Elgin submitted a report based on all of the negotiations registered to that time. In the case of the Six Nations, it was to be considered as a final summation which included the description (and a map) that showed all of the lands to be reserved for the Six Nations. If lands are not included in Lord Elgin's Report then one can consider that they should not be there, unless negotiated after that date. Hence this document which formed the basis of the Six Nations Reserve 40 entry in the Indian Land Registry System must be considered the standard by which all else is assessed. As I have said many times, there was no formal back tracking by the Chiefs. What they decided in Council was to remain as a reflection of their wishes - that is until 150 or more years later some decided to second guess all of the documentation and the express wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. Hence, here is the description of the true boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve:
... 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, fiftyfive, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one in the third Concession, the same township.
While I will attempt to explore the evidence relating to each of the land claims within the Haldimand Tract, this will not be done in the numbering sequence used by the Lands and Resources Department. In my opinion, there are some that require immediate attention due to the social, political and other problems they have created.
I will begin with 16. Oneida Township then tackle the related number 5. Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca & Oneida Townships.
DeYo.
It is the intention of the present author to examine the factual basis of each of the claims via individual postings to the present blog with the exception of those outside the Haldimand Tract, namely number 2 Innisfil Township, and number 3 East Hawkesbury Township. At this time I do not believe that I am well enough versed in either of these two claims to be in a position to either support or challenge them.
The sources I will use include the following:
1) My own forays, primarily in a 20 year period between the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, into the original records pertaining to the claims. These records and sources are primarily found at the National Library and Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives of Ontario in Toronto. Other important repositories whose collections I accessed were those at the Library of the Woodland Cultural Centre and the Brant County Library, both in Brantford; and the Haldimand County Museum and Archives in Cayuga.
2) Sally Weaver's research and ethnographic notes between 1963 and 1975 as published in the following article: Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978. I have also read most of the original research articles published in journals and books and referenced in this publication.
3) Joan Holmes, Reports of Joan Holmes (Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Motion). Report dated 19 January 2009; Supplementary Report dated 2 February 2009.
It appears that the above report was prepared for the Corporation of the City of Brantford, but has not been "officially" released. A copy of both reports has been placed online by person or persons unknown, and can be found here. The documents which Joan Holmes cites are those which the present author has also researched, and cross validates with these efforts, as well as those of Sally Weaver who employed the same cited source material. In my opinion the "Holmes Report" is spot on accurate. The credentials of the author, head of Joan Holmes & Associates Inc., a research and analysis firm which since 1983 has offered services to First Nations, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as law firms, can be found here.
The Six Nations Land and Resources website indicates that it is current to 2008, although there is information about the 2009 offer made by the Federal Government to address the Welland Canal flooding claim.
The present author knew the former Six Nations researcher, Phillip Monture and has visited the forerunner to the present Lands and Resources office, recalling clearly the metal file cabinets bound with chains and padlocks. I don't recall meeting the new researcher, Lonny Bomberry. As far as I know, all of the background work as to what is found in the website was done by Phil Monture. For the record, I have always had respect for Mr. Monture and his work, although we disagree on the assessment of the evidence relating to most of the land claims.
On the page including the Six Nations Land Claim Summaries (Basis and Allegations), as seen here, there are statements with which I disagree. There is one which particularly distresses me, so it warrants at least a comment or two. It is stated, As set out in the grant of land the Crown had a duty to protect Six Nations lands for their sole use. In many cases not only did the Government fail to do so, the officials of Crown actively encouraged the settlement upon those lands. Based on my reading of all of the official correspondence, nothing could be further from the truth. Very early in the settlement of the area, in 1793 Governor Simcoe forbade the sale of lands in the Haldimand Tract to White people, and threatened to have all of them removed. It was the Six Nations who fought to leave things alone as they valued the presence of former neighbours from the Mohawk Valley who could be a valuable asset in helping the Six Nations males learn agricultural methods, and who would establish mills to grind the grain and cut the lumber for the benefit of the Six Nations. Later Government officials were tearing their hair out as more and more settlers moved on to Six Nations land, typically after paying a Six Nations member for their "improvements" and securing a deed for this property. Hence the Six Nations were setting up a situation which totally overwhelmed the ability of the Indian Department officials to act. While some Six Nations did indeed want the White settlers removed, this was hardly the case for many who were making a tidy living occupying then selling land as a commodity. So to blame the "colonialism" of government officials is to completely miss the point of what all were facing at Six Nations. The officials despaired as to what to do about the matter. It is not as if they could call in the army or send the squatters to some old prison scow moored in Lake Ontario. It was in fact the recognition by the Government officials that the Six Nations way of life would be unsustainable with the status quo that led to their recommendation that the Six Nations live together as a people, in close proximity, and free of settlements of Whites which were interspersed all along the Tract. In fact there are multiple documentary sources which show the deep concern felt by these officials to whom so much venom is cast. It is not fair, because it is not correct. See for example the collection of small diaries of David Thorburn at the Archives of Ontatio, for some of the concerns he had seeing what was happening to the Six Nations, or review the correspondence of officials at every level who saw the same problems surfacing. Probably the most accessible reference for the latter would by Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Totonto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
The bottom line through all of these claims is that there is a major omission. In 1850 Lord Elgin submitted a report based on all of the negotiations registered to that time. In the case of the Six Nations, it was to be considered as a final summation which included the description (and a map) that showed all of the lands to be reserved for the Six Nations. If lands are not included in Lord Elgin's Report then one can consider that they should not be there, unless negotiated after that date. Hence this document which formed the basis of the Six Nations Reserve 40 entry in the Indian Land Registry System must be considered the standard by which all else is assessed. As I have said many times, there was no formal back tracking by the Chiefs. What they decided in Council was to remain as a reflection of their wishes - that is until 150 or more years later some decided to second guess all of the documentation and the express wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. Hence, here is the description of the true boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve:
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 number 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, fiftyfive, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one in the third Concession, the same township.
("Proclamation extending the provisions of 13 and
14 Vict. Ch. 74 to certain lands in several townships in U.C. in the occupation
or enjoyment of various tribes of Indians”, November 8, 1850. INAC Indian Lands
Registry Registration No. 8740-292). See "Holmes Report" pp. 14-15.
While I will attempt to explore the evidence relating to each of the land claims within the Haldimand Tract, this will not be done in the numbering sequence used by the Lands and Resources Department. In my opinion, there are some that require immediate attention due to the social, political and other problems they have created.
I will begin with 16. Oneida Township then tackle the related number 5. Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca & Oneida Townships.
DeYo.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
The Grand River: Highest Concentrations of Artificial Sweeteners in the World - Environmental Impact?
I have written before about environmental issues relating to my ancestral Grand River Valley. As a young person, I worked with the Haldimand Norfolk Organization for a Pure Environment (HOPE) to defeat the Provincial Government's intention to place a toxic waste dump in the Township of South Cayuga. I have cheered on Six Nations activists such as Ruby and Floyd Montour in their efforts to support the residents of Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River where the Provincial Government wished to dump tons of human sludge from waste water facilities. I have cursed the Six Nations groups who are behind the Samsung and other "wind farm" projects in the Grand River Tract. What was particularly galling was the claim that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and other groups at Six Nations could negotiate directly with the off shore (e.g., Korean) interests since the land (for example in South Cayuga) was unceeded Six Nations land. That is a false claim, and I can easily dispell this erroneous assertion with irrefutable evidence from documents of the 1840s. I see these horrid eye sores on the horizon, slowly creeping east from Norfolk, as about as far from "green" as one can go. Just the sheer number of migratory birds that will die from the blades is unacceptable. There will never be support from myself or like minded individuals concerning these "initiatives" of the Haldimand County authorities, the Land and Resources Department at Six Nations, or others such as the HDI intent on cashing in by making hay while the sun shines. This is where I stand on the above issues.
There is a new (in the sense of recently recognized), if unlikely, potential environmental hazard impacting the Grand River Tract - artificial sweeteners. First some background. I think that many assume that the waste water treatment facilities along the Grand River are sufficient to remove anything hazardous such that those downstream can safely use (with proper filtration systems) the water of the Grand River. It is known that, for example, pharmaceuticals or their bioactive metabolites can pop out of the treatment facility virtually intact. One known to stay firm is Viagara. So depending on the number of men who use this drug in say Fergus, those in Elora will be exposed to varying levels of the drug in the River water. One can imagine the number of muskrats that must be walking or swimming around with major stiffies after consuming enough of the Viagara saturated fish from the River :-) There is a more pressing or urgent concern around medications such as vicodin or adderal and what effect they might have on humans who consume water from riverine sources. This subject could be a topic for a subsequent blog post, but the focus here is on a study published 11 December 2013 which specifically focuses on the Grand River.
The article of interest is, John Spoelstra et al,, Artificial Sweeteners in a Large Canadian River Reflect Human Consumption in the Watershed, PLOS One, Vol. 8, Issue 12, December 2013. The paper can be accessed here, and in pdf format here - all free (open access).
The following map from the above article nicely summarizes the problem:
There is a new (in the sense of recently recognized), if unlikely, potential environmental hazard impacting the Grand River Tract - artificial sweeteners. First some background. I think that many assume that the waste water treatment facilities along the Grand River are sufficient to remove anything hazardous such that those downstream can safely use (with proper filtration systems) the water of the Grand River. It is known that, for example, pharmaceuticals or their bioactive metabolites can pop out of the treatment facility virtually intact. One known to stay firm is Viagara. So depending on the number of men who use this drug in say Fergus, those in Elora will be exposed to varying levels of the drug in the River water. One can imagine the number of muskrats that must be walking or swimming around with major stiffies after consuming enough of the Viagara saturated fish from the River :-) There is a more pressing or urgent concern around medications such as vicodin or adderal and what effect they might have on humans who consume water from riverine sources. This subject could be a topic for a subsequent blog post, but the focus here is on a study published 11 December 2013 which specifically focuses on the Grand River.
The article of interest is, John Spoelstra et al,, Artificial Sweeteners in a Large Canadian River Reflect Human Consumption in the Watershed, PLOS One, Vol. 8, Issue 12, December 2013. The paper can be accessed here, and in pdf format here - all free (open access).
The following map from the above article nicely summarizes the problem:
There are clear "hotspots" shown, and these reflect the urban density of the population in the area (e.g., Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford). The source is humans who for example consume artificial sweeteners such as saccarin to avoid natural sugar in an attempt at weight loss, and dietary control of diabetes. So imagine all those packets of artificial sweeteners dumped in your Starbuck's coffee (I don't know what Tim Horton's uses for their double double). After a series of way stations in the body and enroute to the sewage disposal plant, the sweetener ends up virtually intact being ejected out of the waste water pipe from the treatment plant in say Brantford, and may be found in the tap water at Six Nations or Caledonia.
The study is fascinating for a number of reasons. One is that it allows scientists to track chemical used only by humans (last I checked, Starbucks was not serving lattes to bovine customers). The problem is likely eclipsed by far by the phosphate run off from agricultural operations in the Grand River watershed, although some substances that are used by humans may be having unknown adverse effects.
As I have said on many occasions, it is counter productive and highly detrimental to argue about claims that are without merit. Ultimately any "gains" will be offset by losses in other areas (the cooperative spirit between all those living as neighbours). In my opinion, it is these environmental issues that Six Nations and their non-Native neighbours should be addressing, working together to ensure the health of our River system, and the entire surrounding ecosystem. Surely there is common ground here.
DeYo.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
McKenzie Meadows Development Project: Update, No Surprises Here
In an earlier blog posting I provided considerable background material in relation to the McKenzie Meadows Development Project which was slated to begin at McKenzie Road, and in the later phases of development, reach Argyll Street immediately opposite the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) which was such a sore point for Six Nations and Caledonians back in 2006 (and continues to the present). See here for this posting. Here I predicted that the whole "deal" between the Six Nations Elected Band Council (SNEC) and Michael Corrado et al. the developer would turn sour once the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its "enforcement" wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) got wind of this. As par for the course, despite the fact that SNEC are the group that by Canadian law are empowered to negotiate, the HCCC stepped in and was able to influence events. Although "officially" defunct as of 1924, the HCCC have been and continue to be a power to contend with in any negotiations involving lands in the Haldimand Tract or Southwestern Ontario. They can effectively shut everything down if they or the HDI are displeased with the way things are being handled (or for any other reason).
True to form, the whole agreement whereby $1250 from each home in the development would go to fund a Six Nations language immersion school, crumbled. Here follows what is found in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, p. 7, Community gives thumbs down to the McKenzie Meadows project. Ultimately now both SNEC and HCCC have jointly axed the deal. The three community feedback sessions noted in my earlier posting brought forth 69 responses, and only 15 were positive - so no go. SNEC Land and Resources Director Lonny Bomberry cited that the "emotional aspect" due to the proximity to the DCE and the "land reclamation" issue was the deciding factor. In other words, having the project immediately across the road from the horrible situation of 2006 that left scars in both communities would, in the minds of some, just throw gasoline on the fire - thus it would be best to just leave things be, at least at this point. In reality, it could be little more than the vocal opposition of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) that tipped the scales, who asserted "bad faith negotiations" with the developers. Translation here, the HDI was not approached, and they are the self appointed "recognised" authority in the Community. The developers, did not respect the Haudenosaunee Process, and due to a number of deaths in the Longhouse Community, no negotiations could take place. The finger was also pointed at SNEC for not following protocol as HDI sees things. The perception was also that by accepting this deal, Six Nations would be giving up land and treaty "rights".
As to what would happen next, Bomberry believes that this will end the possibility of the development proceeding. I don't think they can proceed reports Bomberry. While the wording of the article is a bit confusing, it seems that the opinion here is that the entire development will just grind to a halt, since Six Nations has not given their approval. It should be recalled that this "deal" was in part to offset the developer's intention to obtain an injunction to allow the work to proceed. Considering the recent rulings by judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, it is highly likely and even probable, in my opinion, that the developer will apply for an injunction and if anyone tries to interfere with his right to develop his land, they will expect to be heavily fined just as those involved in a similar action in Brantford were - and the fines in that matter have not been paid to this point.
As I have noted time and time again, if the evidence ever goes to Court, there is one and only one outcome that will emerge from a test of Six Nations claims of unceeded land beyond the present Reserve boundaries. That decision would be that there is no factual basis upon which these claims rest. Since this evidence has been available to the Courts since 2009, I am wondering when the boom will be lowered. There are going to be a lot of jaws dropping when the evidence is presented, and a ruling is made and all appeals exhausted. My question, posed elsewhere, is whether Six Nations will be forced to make reparations for the extreme damage caused by the 2006 Douglas Creek Estates land "reclamation" - the effects continue to this day, as the acrimony has never gone away.
Stay tuned, this situation is primed for a confrontation.
DeYo.
True to form, the whole agreement whereby $1250 from each home in the development would go to fund a Six Nations language immersion school, crumbled. Here follows what is found in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, p. 7, Community gives thumbs down to the McKenzie Meadows project. Ultimately now both SNEC and HCCC have jointly axed the deal. The three community feedback sessions noted in my earlier posting brought forth 69 responses, and only 15 were positive - so no go. SNEC Land and Resources Director Lonny Bomberry cited that the "emotional aspect" due to the proximity to the DCE and the "land reclamation" issue was the deciding factor. In other words, having the project immediately across the road from the horrible situation of 2006 that left scars in both communities would, in the minds of some, just throw gasoline on the fire - thus it would be best to just leave things be, at least at this point. In reality, it could be little more than the vocal opposition of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) that tipped the scales, who asserted "bad faith negotiations" with the developers. Translation here, the HDI was not approached, and they are the self appointed "recognised" authority in the Community. The developers, did not respect the Haudenosaunee Process, and due to a number of deaths in the Longhouse Community, no negotiations could take place. The finger was also pointed at SNEC for not following protocol as HDI sees things. The perception was also that by accepting this deal, Six Nations would be giving up land and treaty "rights".
As to what would happen next, Bomberry believes that this will end the possibility of the development proceeding. I don't think they can proceed reports Bomberry. While the wording of the article is a bit confusing, it seems that the opinion here is that the entire development will just grind to a halt, since Six Nations has not given their approval. It should be recalled that this "deal" was in part to offset the developer's intention to obtain an injunction to allow the work to proceed. Considering the recent rulings by judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, it is highly likely and even probable, in my opinion, that the developer will apply for an injunction and if anyone tries to interfere with his right to develop his land, they will expect to be heavily fined just as those involved in a similar action in Brantford were - and the fines in that matter have not been paid to this point.
As I have noted time and time again, if the evidence ever goes to Court, there is one and only one outcome that will emerge from a test of Six Nations claims of unceeded land beyond the present Reserve boundaries. That decision would be that there is no factual basis upon which these claims rest. Since this evidence has been available to the Courts since 2009, I am wondering when the boom will be lowered. There are going to be a lot of jaws dropping when the evidence is presented, and a ruling is made and all appeals exhausted. My question, posed elsewhere, is whether Six Nations will be forced to make reparations for the extreme damage caused by the 2006 Douglas Creek Estates land "reclamation" - the effects continue to this day, as the acrimony has never gone away.
Stay tuned, this situation is primed for a confrontation.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)