The 1841 Surrender of All Lands Except the Present Day Six Nations Reserve I.R. 40

The Federal Government has stated on a number of occasions that it stands by the Surrender of 1841.  That being the case, it will be important to see and assess just what that surrender entailed.  For this purpose I have appended here all 14 pages of said surrender, followed by a typed transcript which is considerably easier to read since most handwritten documents can be trying on the eyes as one attempts to read handwriting from 170 years ago.

1)  The Original 14 pages comprising the Surrender of 1841:

(LAC, R216-79-6-E, Surrender by the Chiefs of the Six Nations Indians of certain Lands to Her Majesty in Trust for the Use of their Tribes - IT129, Online MIKAN no. 3963846).

2)  Printed Copies of 1841 Surrender:

A Snapshot of Six Nations 20 Years After Surrender

The testimony for the information below is from David Thorburn the Superintendent of Six Nations, and Messrs. Nellis and Elliot Anglican ministers at Six Nations.  If there is any bias in the data it is not apparent, and all of the information included herein tallies with the original records in the RG10 Indian Affairs records that the present author has reviewed.

One of the facts that is noteworthy is that in 1858, ten years after all of the refining of the 1841 surrender had been accomplished between the Canadian Government officials and the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, the size of the Reserve was fixed.  It is precisely the same as is in say 1958 before Six Nations began purchasing parcels of land to add to the Reserve land base, or before the Six Nations had decided without a shred of documentary support or legal rationale, to "reclaim" parcels of land such as Douglas Creek Estates based on nothing more than beliefs.  Here follow, after the pages providing reference material, the documents showing important details of the Six Nations Reserve in 1858:

 The key question to ask here is IF there was discontent among the Chiefs about what lands were and were not surrendered during the 1840s and earlier, why is there nothing whatsoever in the records that reflects any concern, or perception that they were misunderstood or hard done by.  Nothing.  Then in the 1980s a land office is established at Six Nations and the goal is to see what might be gained by contesting the wisdom of their ancestors, and establishing a series of claims for various parcels of land.  Anything I have seen in the way of claims for land are based on an incomplete reading of the record.  There is NOTHING to suggesting that the Chiefs were unhappy about a surrender which was reviewed repeatedly in Council throughout the 1840s, although it took until 1849 before they receded to the 1841 Surrender and the Minutes of Council and the signatures and marks of all the Chiefs present at the time reflect their wishes as recorded by the documents now found in Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa.  As far as I can determine, the land researchers (P.M., and L.B.) have agreed that any outstanding issues are not about land surrenders, but about trust fund monies.  Particular sore points are the possible misappropriate of funds by one official; and the poor investment advice given such that they would put all their eggs in one barrel and invest in the Grand River Navigation Company.  It was Six Nations that took it on the chin and lost all when the company went bankrupt.  There is definitely something "fishy" about this matter, although it remains to be see whether 150 years later the statue of limitations would allow for any examination of this issue at this time.  For the record, I consider the trust fund matter to be a legitimate concern based on the documentary evidence I have seen.

DeYo.





Documentary Evidence of the Surrender of the Land Where Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) is Situated: Signed by 47 Chiefs in the Year 1844

There are numerous posts in this blog and in the media across the country which profile the 2006 take over and occupation of the land where Henco Construction had begun the development that was to be known as Douglas Creek Estates (DCE), perpetrated by activists from the nearby Six Nations Reserve.  Those who took it upon themselves to re-write history claimed that the land was never surrendered and still belonged to the Six Nations and should be incorporated into their land base.  This despite the fact that since 1847 the properties along the Plank Road (where the DCE is located) have been entered into the Ontario Land Registry System.

As noted previously, Six Nations land claims researchers agree that there is no legitimate claim to land that has been surrendered (170 years ago), however there are outstanding claims relating to the use (possible misuse) of the money that, after the land was sold, was placed in trust for the benefit of Six Nations.  I argued that were it not for any sort of reasonable interpretation of "statute of limitations", it would be prudent to provide a cost accounting of the trust fund monies including the monies deployed in the investments in the Grand River Navigation Company.

None the less, many activists at Six Nations and their supporters, clearly have not read the original documents that demonstrate the lead up to the formation of the present day Reserve.  The Reserve of today includes Tuscarora Township and part of Onondaga Township in Brant County; and a strip of land on the western boundary of Oneida Township.  The Chiefs also asked to reserve a 200 acre plot of land around the Mohawk Institute in the City of Brantford.  This mutually acceptable agreement was signed, sealed and delivered by a series of surrenders by the Chiefs in Council culminating in the report of Lord Elgin in 1850 which received Crown ascent.  Since then, there have been recent purchases to add to the Six Nations land base, including lands acquired via the highly questionable agreement between the Ontario Government and Six Nations representatives in 2006.  The latter agreed to remove the barricades blocking Argyll Street, if Six Nations was granted the land where the former Burtch Correctional facility (between the Reserve and the City of Brantford) was situated.  This sounds a lot like extortion.  However the core Reserve has, since 1847 been only the land noted above involving Tuscarora Township and parts of Onondaga and Oneida Township, as well as a 200 acre parcel in the City of Brantford. 

To this day, the former DCE is occupied by Six Nations members, and a fence has been erected around the perimeter of the property, and a gate was installed crossing Surrey Street, which is owned by the County of Haldimand.

The goal of the present posting is to provide photographic copies of the original documents proving that DCE (Kanonhstaton) was surrendered prior to 18 December 1844.  After reading the entire series of documents pertaining to the surrender of the various parcels of Grand River land , the present author has been led to an inevitable conclusion.  That is to say, the common belief that the commissioner and superintendent were enacting "colonialist" and "paternalistic" policies which were meant to ensure "cultural genocide" could not be further from the truth.  These dedicated civil servants, David Thorburn and James Winniett, were attempting to ensure the survival of the Six Nations as a people.  At the time the population of about 2,000 was scattered throughout the Grand River Territory from about Dunnville to Brantford, and they were selling their improvements to White settlers then moving somewhere else.  At the time of the surrender of 1844 there were about 2,000 non-Native residents living on the land belonging to the Crown, but held by the Six Nations under right of occupancy.  Clearly the trend for Six Nations people to move west to the Ohio country, or elsewhere, was escalating and soon the Six Nations people would be scattered to the four winds.  Their own lands were dotted with White settlers ("squatters") who generally held title by virtue of a land sale from a Six Nations member.  To save the Six Nations from extinction as a people ("cultural genocide"), the government officials came up with a plan to consolidate the Six Nations settlement to a compact area where they would be a community, and would be safe from encroachments by those wanting the very land on which they lived.  The government made it very clear that no Six Nations person would be required to sell their property and move to the new Reserve, but if at a later date they did wish to sell their property and move to the Reserve, they would have the right to reside there amongst their own people.  Hence the old chestnut of finger pointing at the Government officials, accusing them of trying to destroy the Six Nations as a people is wrong - it was these officials who had the best interests of the Six Nations in mind when they recommended a consolidated Reserve, with the sale of other properties to be placed in a trust fund.  There would be compensation for the "squatters" who had built homes and cleared land which would then be used by incoming Six Nations people, and that money would come from the trust fund.  Hence the understandable confusion about what was placed into, and removed from, the trust fund account.

Here follows the individual pages of one small part of the entire series of Council meetings and surrenders between 1841 and 1849.  The focus here is on the part where the Chiefs gave up their initial idea to lease lands along the Plank Road, and instead reserved only the lands on the west side of the "tier of lots" along the Plank Road.  In other words they reserved only the far western strip of Oneida Township, which is today part of the Six Nations Reserve.

However, I must ask the question:  "Why has it taken so long for these key records to see the light of day?  Why has the Federal Government not released them to show all interested parties why they consider the surrender of 1841, which was capped off by Lord Elgin's report in 1850, valid?  Six Nations must come to the realization that to continue going down the same path, under the delusion that there is a legal basis upon which they could recover lands within the Grand River Tract, is folly.  It would seem incumbent on the Government to "show their cards" so that the Ontario Provincial Police will see the evidence which refutes any claim to "unsurrendered" land.  Furthermore, residents of Caledonia and other communities impacted by Six Nations illegal take over of lands will realize that, for example, the occupants of DCE do not have a leg to stand on.  The Province of Ontario needs to stand firm in the assertion that their Land Titles System (e.g., the deeds registered on title in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga) is valid, legal and secure.  Also the citizens of Ontario whose land is being eyed by those who would take steps to acquire it outside the land registry system, need to stand up for their legal rights without being intimidated by false claims backed up by militancy - bullies and thugs.

The evidence is arranged as follows:  First the handwritten Minutes of Council Meetings and associated documents.  Second a transcript of the handwritten documents.  Third, a map showing the boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve in 1842 in relation to the "tier of lots" west of the Plank Road.  At one point the Chiefs had wished to reserve the lots on the west side of the Plank Road for leasing purposes, however they later "receded from" this temporary position, as seen in the documents below, and unanimously agreed to maintain the eastern boundary along the present line in Oneida Township.

1)  Handwritten Documents Relating to the Surrender of the Lands West of the Plank Road:

 

 

(LAC, RG10, Volume 144, pp. 286-300 [83269-83287]).





2)  Transcripts of the Above Documents Added for Clarity:

 

Since the above handwriting leaves something to be desired, a transcript of the key parts of these documents are included below, from a transcript made by Garry Horsnell and published in his online, "A Short History of the Six Nations", in 2008.  Click on image to enlarge:

 

3)  Map of the Six Nations Reserve and Oneida Township Showing the "Tier of Lots" West of the Plank Road:

 

 

 

 

Note that this map dated 1842 was received by the Department of Indian Affairs in 1896.  As the marginal note on the right indicates, the Indian Reserve as agreed upon in various Council Meetings was the line running between B and E.  The Plank Road is shown as a red line running diagonally north - south.  The "tier of lots" noted in the above documentation refers to the lots situated between the Plank Road on the west side, and running west to the line marking the eastern boundary of I.R. 40, the Six Nations Reserve.  In effect this is the wedge shaped area bounded by D to C (along the Plank Road), and B to E (present day boundary of Six Nations Reserve)  (LAC, RG10M 78903/78, Plan of part of the township of Oneida, date 1842 [1896], Online MIKAN no. 3669668). 



"Naughty Boys, Write 'I Have Broken the Law' on the Blackboard 10 Times"

When I attended school, a good few years ago, there were a number of punishments that could be administered by the teacher in school, ranging from a reprimand to the "strap" (a form of physical assault and abuse against a helpless child).  Only once can I recall getting Mrs. H's dreaded "pointer across the knuckles" approach to behaviour management.  Most often, if I did not complete an assignment on time or any such "infraction" I would have to stay after school and write some sentence that was in some way relevant to my misdeed on the blackboard 50 or more times.  Well, apparently our venerable Courts are willing to meet out much more laughable "punishments" for crimes committed which were highly disruptive for not just one person, but many members of the community and over a protracted period.

Last fall, before I took a "blogging hiatus", I wrote how overjoyed I was that the Ontario Provincial Police were laying charges against the three leaders of the brilliantly creative initiative to address a perceived wrong - blocking Highway 6 (once again).  Here a group of Six Nations members decided that the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women in other parts of Canada warranted creating chaos in the lives of innocent Haldimand residents, and many confused travellers from elsewhere, by shutting down the main artery between Port Dover and Hamilton.  The same action (blocking Highway 6) was used by a group of largely youthful Six Nations members, primed and egged on by social media, who wanted to protest the fracking in New Brunswick (although at the time these socially responsible protesters there were pitching Molotov cocktails at RCMP officers), in October of 2013. 

In considering the two above incidents of blocking Highway 6 there was one difference.  In the 2013 instance all of the perpetrators were given a pass - no charges were laid by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), sending a very clear message to those who might consider following the same path (you will probably get away with it - if you are Native).  Of course there is not a shadow of a doubt that if Caledonia residents had done precisely the same act, for whatever reason, they would have been arrested on the spot, and charged and punished by a Court of law.  It is hardly a secret hereabouts. 

So when the perpetrators of the 2014 incident were not arrested on the spot this was seen as highly predictable in light of the OPP's two-tiered policing of Haldimand County (one set of rules for "aboriginals" and another set of rules for "non-Natives").  However, at a later date the ringleaders were charged and required to answer to the changes in Court (giving some credit to the OPP for at least doing something).  So the expectation was that some sort of meaningful punishment would be administered which would act as a deterrent to others who might consider blocking Highway 6 yet once again.  See here for further details.  However, in addition, the person responsible for erecting the gate blocking the Haldimand County owned Surrey Street was also brought to Court at this time.  The details of the "punishments" were reported in "Turtle Island News", June 10, 2015, p. 4 in an article entitled, Charges dropped in MMIW protest, and Kanonhstaton fence.

The matters were heard in the Provincial Court in Cayuga, and in a jaw dropping development, Mischief charges against a number of Haudenosaunee men have been dropped after they agreed to give donations to local charities as part of a joint resolution between the Crown and defence.  The reporter correctly calls this an "unusual move", which evolved during alternative dispute resolution discussions.  It is noteworthy that the lawyer for the "defence" was the legal representative of the militant and highly controversial Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI). 

So the obvious question here is, "would this option have been available if the person being charged was a non-Native resident of Caledonia.  No head scratching is needed here, the answer is a resounding NO!  This is another example of the double standard that is being applied in Haldimand County, which is decidedly to the advantage to those who possess a "Status Card".  The Indian is seen as a victim of some sort (don't forget the Residential Schools, and any of a number of other such matters), and so accorded special and preferential treatment.  To rub salt into the wound, The charges [of mischief] were withdrawn and there was no finding of culpability in terms of any wrongdoing.

So, since the majority of those inconvenienced by the blockade were residents of Haldimand County, was there any stipulation in relation to the "local charities"?  I don't think that many (any) would be surprised to learn that no one opted to donate to a charity that would benefit all (e.g., to cancer or diabetes research), or specifically those who reside in Haldimand County. 

Two of these worthies donated $300 to the Hamilton Regional Indian Friendship Centre, and a third donated $360 to Six Nations Minor Softball.  The individual originally charged with "mischief over $5000" in relation to the installation of the gate resulting in the destruction of County property donated $500 to Six Nations Minor Lacrosse.  Is it possible that the HDI will pay these "fines" and that the perpetrators will get away scot free?  That is certainly a likely scenario, but we will never know since the HDI is among the least transparent organizations (despite persistent complaints from the Six Nations community), and the books are closed - as far as anyone knows.

It should also be noted that Haldimand County residents who attended the Court proceedings reported complete and utter respect toward the Court being shown by the Natives in attendance.  For example they did not stand when the Judge entered the Court.  This would NEVER be tolerated if the people had been non-Native.  Once again the double standard prevailed here.  There are never any consequences for courtroom misbehaviour, as was the case during all proceedings relating to the DCE situation from 2006.  It would be understandable if anyone present at these Court sessions concluded that people from Six Nations are complete and utter boors, with no class and showing no respect.  However when things are turned around, these same people expect complete respect for their culture and traditions - but they are not willing to give respect to others, only demand it for themselves.

This "agreement" is but another slap in the face of Haldimand residents, and a tap on the wrist of Six Nations activists who have yet again learned that there are no or minimal consequences for their actions. 

At the moment I sit here thoroughly disgusted, and with a monumental feeling of betrayal.

DeYo.

Things that Go Bump in the Night: Mysterious Disappearances Around and About Six Nations

On a relative scale, matters around Caledonia and the Grand River Territory have been rather quiet of late - hence the relative lack of postings.  Those of us well inured to the experience of protest rallies, road blockades, and friction of one sort of another largely traceable to the events surrounding the contentious issue of the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) in 2006, have been pleasantly surprised of late.  We have had a winter and spring free of any bitter acrimony between some of the residents of Caledonia plus other Haldimand County communities, and some of the residents of Six Nations.  While this turn of events appears to be something to celebrate (while it lasts), there is something rather unsettling lurking in the shadows of this apparent blessing.  Specifically, things have gone missing, without a whisper, let alone any fanfare.  Quietly disappeared they have - no explanations available - just no longer present and accounted for.  Strange unexplained mysteries.  So what, specifically, are these puzzling events and circumstances?

1)  Online transcripts of the Six Nations Council Minutes between 1841 and 1849 documenting the surrenders of land by the Chiefs in Council have been removed.  While the originals are still to be found at the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) in Ottawa, and the microfilm copies of this documents that can be accessed at the LAC, and the Archives of Ontario at York University in Toronto, the transcripts which were appended to  "A Short History of the Six Nations" (2011) by Garry Horsnell were the only version that could be seen on the Internet.  I became alerted to this removal by clicking on a bookmarked link to the document and seeing "404 Error File Not Found" from the website that used to host the document.  A Google search did not even reveal a cached copy available. However, someone using the handle "feisty2" did upload the 2008 version of "Short History" to the Scribd site here.

2)  Similarly the "Reports of Joan Holmes Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Notice" has disappeared from the same webhost.  Fortunately, it can be found uploaded to a "Voice of Canada" WordPress site seen here.

Thus there remain tenuous links to the very documents which unequivocally undermine the credibility of the claims to properties such as Douglas Creek Estates (DCE).  There are many hard copies of the above documents in circulation, and should there be further "removals" these important resources will pop up somewhere else.  None the less, there is a story as to why the documents were removed from the primary site.  Alas, the present author has no information as to what initiated the disappearance of what might be viewed as "contentious" documents.

3)  A group called "Solidarity with Six Nations" has sputtered out of view.  It was last seen in 2012, and there have been no postings to their website here since then.  The group was composed largely of non-Native university students including radicals of every stripe (communists, anarchists, etc., etc.,).  It had become a very controversial group at Six Nations, and was every bit the "provocateur" to the people of Haldimand County that Gary McHale had been to the people of Six Nations.  It's disappearance from the landscape hereabouts has been one of the reasons why a calm has descended.  None the less, the real story of their demise has not been told.

4)  Those deemed to be "agitators" by one community or another have also "vanished" or kept a low profile.  The "Solidarity" leader T. K., a radical communist - anarchist, who has been a part of the pain and suffering of the Haldimand community since 2006 has not been seen in these parts for some time.  He appears to be involved with one of the two Reserve newspapers in an administrative capacity - but uncharacteristically quiet.

This brings me to Gary McHale, who some might say is the greatest thorn in the side of Six Nations (at least that is the perception of many there).  Since 2006 he has been a familiar figure standing up against the "two - tiered policing", and the illegal land grab / land reclamation by Six Nations at DCE, and the many hypocrisies that local residents have endured.  The Internet has not been helpful in determining his whereabouts or activities since his last appearance in Caledonia in 2014.  This begs the question as to whether he has given up on Caledonia, or simply moved on to other pursuits (perhaps those that would permit making a living).  He was such a prominent and consistent figure for so many years, and now, who knows ....................

Since we are on the theme of persons or things that have "disappeared" of late, it would seem apropos to review a few others that have not yet been solved.

5)  The papers and records donated by one of my contacts to the Haldimand County Museum and Archives circa 2002 have still not surfaced.  These amounted to about 10 archival boxes of documents copied from the originals in New York and Ontario pertaining to the Six Nations.  The collection included all of the deeds, "treaties" and other documents which were signed by the Chiefs of the Six Nations between about 1613 and 1850.  In 2009 my contact inquired about their donation, and they were shown a single archival box containing the "dregs" of the collection - everything else was gone and was not found despite a thorough search of the building.  By chance, three years later, the contact met the former curator of the Museum, who accessioned the collection, and in response to the obvious question about the possible whereabouts of the material, the former curator said something rather interesting.  The documents were last in the possession of "two women from Ohsweken".  Humm.

6)  While the above has a air of mystery about it, the following disappearance is more clear cut.

The theft of the records in the possession of the Indian Office in Brantford has still not been admitted by anyone, and so the perpetrators are "officially" unknown.  All of the records were by law to have been sent to the Library and Archives Canada so that they could be preserved and microfilmed for access to researchers.  After a large part of the collection had been sent to Ottawa, a friend complained to the Indian Office that this material is of importance to local genealogists and should stay in Brantford so that they could be consulted by researchers.  Unfortunately, according to the friend, her efforts backfired because representatives of the --------- Council entered the Indian Office and demanded the records, which were duly handed over to them.  The result was that important records are not only unavailable to local researchers, but are also not available to the Federal Government who is supposed to be responsible for land claims and so are hamstrung by this theft.  What I know is that the records were taken to the Woodland Cultural - Educational Centre (as it was called then) for microfilming.  I know because I saw the records there with the Indian Office label on them.  The records were later removed to their present location in Ohsweken.  No one is allowed to view them without the permission of the Band Council, which is never given.  The only way to see a particular item of interest is to provide enough information that the employees can search the collection to find the piece of information needed (assuming it is not "sensitive") - I know, I went through the process and paid the stiff fee.  This would / should have all been free for anyone to research (the Archives staff redact anything that is recent and not appropriate for public viewing - such as personal information about living people).  The upshot of this is that both the Six Nations and the Federal Government can view the Land Inspection Returns 1844 - 1848 for Oneida Township in the original or microfilm, but only Six Nations have any access to the comparable data for adjoining Seneca Township. 

My friend termed it (asking that the records remain locally) was the worse mistake of her life, and it caused her a great deal of grief.  At a broader level it also means that the Federal Government is unable to "play with a full deck" since Six Nations retain sole possession of key records (which by law should be in the hands of those who generated it - the Federal Government).

DeYo.