The Battle Lines are Drawn Between Reporters Lynda Powless and Christie Blatchford

The publisher of "Turtle Island News", one of the two newspapers serving the Six Nations Reserve and wider Native community, is Lynda Powless.  She is also a reporter and photographer for her paper.  During the "Caledonia crisis" which began 28 February 2006, Ms. Powless was front and center and she and her team took some really excellent photographs which she assembled to include in a separate publication, Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictoral History, Ohsweken, Turtle Island News, 2006.  At the end of the array of photos, Ms. Powless offers her interpretation of events.  In reading this material I was very surprised to find that it was more of a "rant" against the government than anything resembling a dispassionate assessment of the facts - especially considering the lawlessness shown during the events of the "reclamation".  Clearly Ms. Powless is passionate about her home territory and its people, and this emotion permeates the writing.  The article includes a list of grievances of the Six Nations people against others. 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 (p. 32).  Please note that this publication was written before the submission of the "Holmes Report" (in 2009) which blows out of the water any of these land claims.

The present writer was unable to find any detailed description or review of the above publication anywhere on the Internet.

At a later date, after considerably more atrocities had been committed, Christie Blatchford published her book on the subject, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010. Her book is illustrated with photographs taken at the time.   Blatchford's book was much more controversial than that of Ms. Powless.  It appears that if you describe facts that paint Six Nations in a "bad light" you can expect to be on the receiving end of a lot of anger and venom.  Ms. Blatchford received death threats, and she was banned from discussing her book by the University of Waterloo (see here).  So much for freedom of speech in Canada in the early 21st Century.  The "anti - Blatchford" movement was largely orchestrated by the young White Marxist "supporters" of Six Nations,  who apparently do not believe in free speech - or even the presentation of factual material if it might paint a less than positive picture of indigenous people (see here for the experiences of an academic who was targeted by the same sort of self righteous fanatics that infest universities these days).  Some bloggers, of the far left (or is it right) persuasion, go to extreme lengths to try and undermine the credibility of Ms. Blatchford.  See here for a "classic" example, which include the author's "credentials" which are as follows: "Harsha Walia (@HarshaWalia) is a South Asian writer and activist based in Vancouver, on unceded Musqueam, Skwxwú7mesh, and Tsleil Waututh territories. She is involved in anti-racist, migrant justice, feminist, anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements and has been active in Indigenous solidarity for over a decade." 

So now we have not only home grown university students who with a knee jerk reflex step up to support Native people, but also recent immigrants to Canada who somehow come to know more than those of us educated at Canadian universities and who live on or near Canada's Reserves.  But I digress.

Here is a description of Ms. Blatchford's book from the Amazon.com site:

It officially began on February 28, 2006, when a handful of protesters from the nearby Six Nations reserve walked onto Douglas Creek Estates, then a residential subdivision under construction, and blocked workers from entering. Over the course of the spring and summer of that first year, the criminal actions of the occupiers included throwing a vehicle over an overpass, the burning down of a hydro transformer which caused a three-day blackout, the torching of a bridge and the hijacking of a police vehicle. During the very worst period, ordinary residents living near the site had to pass through native barricades, show native-issued "passports", and were occasionally threatened with body searches and routinely subjected to threats. Much of this lawless conduct occurred under the noses of the Ontario Provincial Police, who, often against their own best instincts, stood by and watched: They too had been intimidated. Arrests, where they were made, weren't made contemporaneously, but weeks or months later. The result was to embolden the occupiers and render non-native citizens vulnerable and afraid. Eighteen months after the occupation began, a home builder named Sam Gualtieri, working on the house he was giving his daughter as a wedding present, was attacked by protesters and beaten so badly he will never fully recover from his injuries.

Also roughing up of American ATF officers, and local Hamilton CHCH reporters could be included.  Vandals, becoming more lawless, and emboldened by the lack of consequences was the result of the "police paralysis" at Caledonia.

Reviewers (with the exception of Communist anti - Western university students and immigrant radicals, obsessed with seeing "racism" and "colonialism" under every rock and behind every tree, and the Six Nations as victims irrespective of the evidence) tend to agree as to lack of bias and objectivity in the writing of Ms. Blatchford.  Ms. Blatchford is a respected Canadian journalist who has seen the many injustices related to the Caledonia situation, and who has decided to make this her "cause celebre".  While the acrimony by Ms. Powless toward Ms. Blatchford appears to have been triggered by an incident involving a "puppy", I strongly suspect that it is just a reflection of the long simmering anger over the strong stance taken by Blatchford over the Caledonia situation. Her grit determination to keep the Caledonia "embarassment" in the public eye may be at the bottom of things.  Two articles will serve as examples.  First, Judge finds Six Nations' land claim 'exceedingly weak', (see here) published in the "Globe and Mail" in 2010; and  Caledonia, the issue that dare not speak its name, (see here) published in the "National Post" in 2011 (the same newspaper that published the "puppy article" that triggered a strong reaction in Ms. Powless).
 

The Blatchford story on the theft of a vehicle in Ancaster, subsequently located at Six Nations, was highlighted in an article by Lynda Powless in "Turtle Island News", December 18, 2013, pp. 2-3, Analysis: Story of a stolen car, a missing dog and national media anti - Six Nations storm. In the Turtle Island News article, Powless expressed indignation that once again, Blatchford was taking a cheap shot at Six Nations without having all the facts at her disposal. While agreeing with most of the facts on the car theft as reported by Blatchford (or at least the skeleton or framework of the chronology and so on), Powless reports that Blatchford is merely continuing her theme of bashing the OPP and Six Nations at any opportunity - and having a puppy involved in the story allowed her to obtain more sympathy of the family and the situation they found themselves in. Here it appears that Ms. Powless is attempting to dispel any perceptions, as a result of the Blatchford article, that some areas of the Reserve are lawless and dangerous. It seems to the present author that the real underlying concern is that people are going to get the idea that Six Nations is not a place one would want to go without a very specific reason – it is too risky. Well, if the shoe fits …………….. Ms. Powless stated that the "National Post", where the Blatchford article appeared, fully supported Blatchford, Believe it or not.

Ms. Powless gets a second opportunity to castigate Ms. Blatchford in her editorial on page 5 under the banner, Time for Six Nations to speak up for itself. Apparently the National Post espouses, very narrow upper middle class Euro-Canadian thinking. As to Blatchford, she just doesn't get it. So instead of fetching the truth, she rolls over and fails to look at facts. Ms. Powless asserts that the real problem is the failure to recognise that at the base of it all is the matter of land - the failure to recognise the true Six Nations claim to land they have been denied. Needless to say, I completely disagree with Ms. Powless - in fact, there are no legal outstanding land claims, that is a misconception that is widely believed but has absolutely no basis in fact - as can be seen in any of the half dozen or so postings where I discuss the "Holmes Report", presented to the Corporation of the City of Brantford, and used by Justice Harrison Arrell in recent judgements on the legitimacy of the land claims. I may have understood the misperception from someone in Ms. Powless’ position in 2007, but not today, when a great deal more is known about the legitimacy of the Six Nations land claims.

I get the sense that we have not heard the last of this clash of two very determined women.
 

DeYo.

Six Nations Land Claim Number 8: Johnson Settlement, Brantford Township - 7000 acres

Details of this claim can be found on the Six Nations Land and Resources website here.  The associated map of the lands involved in this claim, between Colborne Street and Power Line Road can be seen here.  According to the Land and Resources research:

By Order-in-Council of October 4, 1843, the Crown acknowledged that the lands which comprised the Johnson’s Settlement tract, some 7,000 acres and other lands were reserved out of the lands purportedly to be surrendered for disposition to the Crown under the January 18, 1841 document. Six Nations had indicated their consent that these lands would be let on short leases. Nevertheless, the Crown subsequently sold these lands and all of the proceeds from the sales were not paid to Six Nations. Six Nations have never consented to an absolute surrender of these lands.

As has been observed in the previous claims discussed in this blog, the surrender of 1841 was little more than a work in progress, a draft plan which was altered later as the Chiefs changed their mind and so the early document was supplanted by later ones.  It has been the experience of the present author that for reasons that one can only speculate about, the Land and Resources personnel ignored the documents to 1848 which spoke to these changes requested by the Chiefs. 

On 18 December 1844, after much discussion during the ensuing years, the Chiefs in Council reported their wish to sell all of the lands in the Johnson Settlement.  The Holmes Report submitted to the Corporation of the City of Brantford (see here) presented all of the relevant evidence pertaining to the matter.  Holmes quoted from the various Council Minutes, listed the numbers, names, and tribal composition of the chiefs present, provided all the correspondence including petitions between the Six Nations Chiefs in Council and the Government, between Government officials, in short all of the pertinent data is included.  Holmes and Associates provide an assessment of the data of record between the surrender of 1841 and the Council meeting on 18 December 1844.  The work is comprehensive such that if there is a document that lies hidden somewhere (documents can and are misfiled and missing - which is typical), this case seems to prove the exception with a complete or virtually complete set of records, with what survives allowing an unequivocal conclusion as to what transpired between 1841 and 1844, and what was at various points in time the wishes of the Chiefs in Council.  The bottom lines is that by the end of 1844 all of the I's had been dotted, and the T's crossed such that there is not a shadow of a doubt that the Chiefs in Council saw it in the best interest of their people to move to a compact Reserve, and not lease lands but instead sell those that were not required for the Reserve such that the monies could be put in Trust for the benefit of Six Nations.  I have done similar research in the same set of records (RG 10 Indian Affairs collection) and can attest that Holmes has done an excellent job, and that it will be difficult if not impossible to challenge the substance of this report using contemporary data.

Conclusion:  The Chiefs in Council did not reserve any lands in the Johnson Settlement, they requested that lands within this parcel be sold for their benefit.  There is no factual basis upon which this claim by Six Nations Land and Resources can be challenged.

Present Situation:  Despite the "air tight" work of Holmes, and the fact that it has been presented to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Supreme Court who has used the data therein to make rulings pertaining to injunctions within the City of Brantford, it is surprising (in a sense) that people continue to ignore the facts, and revert back to their unsustainable beliefs.  It is unclear to the present author whether Six Nations parties have read the "Holmes Report".  If they have, their behaviour might be seen as major denial.  If not, then it behoves all to ensure that all at Six Nations become aware of the work of Joan Holmes so that futile endeavours based on false assumptions are not perpetuated.

The present author must also question whether the municipal officials of Brantford and Brant County have read the report - their actions make me wonder if they are even vaguely aware of its existence.  It seems that the County is annoyed at the City for annexing good farmland.  They appear prepared to use the old Johnson Settlement claim as a bargaining chip to gain leverage against their more urban neighbours.  They are even insisting that the Six Nations be included in the negotiations (this petulance would be amazingly short sighted, and doubtless backfire), and asserting that Six Nations holds title to the Johnson Settlement, and would see 5,000 acres of the 7,000-acre Johnson Settlement Tract signed over to the city from the country for $16.3 million in compensation according to an article in Two Row Times, 18 December 2013 - see here.  Talk about opening up a can of worms - now the Six Nations Elected Council (Chief Ava Hill) wants in on the deal.  In the Comments section to the article, local activist, Garry Horsnell astutely says, I still don't get it. Why is Brant County consulting with the Six Nations of the Grand River?  He then provides a detailed analysis using the Holmes Report and other evidence to show, conclusively, that Six Nations as of 1844, has no claim whatsoever on the lands of the Johnson Settlement.  Big mystery.  Stay tuned.

DeYo.

Six Nations Land Claim Number 6: Welland Canal (Feeder Dam)

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.