The "Mohawk Workers" Have Now Morphed into the "Mohawks of the Grand River"

Well, well, well, will the surprises never cease?  I have blogged on a number of occasions about the "Mohawk Workers", one of the many factions at Six Nations vying for power and a say in negotiations over land that was ceded in 1840 to 1848 by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council to the Crown so that the land could be sold, with the proceeds being put in the Six Nations Trust Fund.  Six Nations have had no legitimate claim to these lands outside the present boundaries of the Reserve for 170 years.  The indisputable facts have yet to stop a series of runaway trains, constantly on the move, and if impeded in any way will simply jump the track to initiate chaos (recall Caledonia 2006), or morph into some entity that can form alliances with other factions to try and make more headway by other means.  Now we have Bill Squire of the former "Mohawk Workers" forming a union with former band councillor Claudine VanEvery-Albert under the new rubric of the "Mohawks of the Grand River".

I have previously discussed the power play between the Mohawks and the others of the Six Nations.  The Mohawk have traditionally thought of themselves as the "head of the Confederacy" (this goes back to Colonial days) when they controlled trade as "Keepers of the Eastern Door" of the metaphorical longhouse in what is today Upstate New York.  In addition, as the new group asserts, the Haldimand Proclamation specifically states that the land was given (actually permission to "occupy") to the Mohawk, with an "and others" of the Six Nations mentioned as some sort of apparent afterthought by Governor Haldimand.  It is also true that most of the dealings with British authorities in the early days were with the Mohawk, and specifically Captain Joseph Brant Thayendanegea.  As a descendant of Mohawks in the maternal line, I will be quite honest and say that there is a certain "special pride" about being a member of this Nation which is also found at Akwesasne, Kahnawake, Kanesetake, Wahta, and Tyendinaga.  Frankly, at Six Nations, there is not the same cachet in saying your are of Delaware descent.  There is no "Delaware Warrior's Society", for example - although the Delaware were actually settled on the River with the Mississauga a number of years before the exodus of 1785.  So I am not at all immune to this "phenomenon" whereby the Mohawk are considered as "a cut above" or in a "loftier category", or at the very least "special". 

One must also ask, however, is there really anyone at Six Nations today who cannot claim some Mohawk heritage?  The inter-marriage between tribes / nations (as well as with Whites and some Blacks) began soon after the move to the Haldimand Tract in 1785, and has accellerated in frequency to this point in time.  The Mohawk (Lower, Upper, Walkers, Bay of Quinte, etc.) were the most numerous group.  The problem is that without a Status Card that says "Mohawk" it would be, for some, a challenge to actually prove this heritage - should that ever be a requirement to "join" the "Mohawks of the Grand River" group (faction).

Despite the above, the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts - and they (should) take precedence over any affiliation with the Mohawk.

According to the article entitled, Mohawk group holds Six Nations land; says it will work with band council, reported in the Turtle Island News, 19 February 2014 (p.3), this new / old group wants to work with Band Council, as they embark on development projects on unceded Six Nations lands in the hope of regaining title to the land.  Since there is NO unceded land left (as of 1848), this is going to be an uphill battle.  Apparently they have yet to meet with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), but plan to "when the time is right".  That might be a bit problematic since there has been no love lost between the Mohawk Workers and the HCCC - and a lot of downright acrimony (see previous blog postings) - particularly with the Men's Fire.

Apparently, according to Ms. VanEvery-Albert, there is a process that they plan to follow to meet their ends.  She says, What we are trying to do is develop a process such that we can talk with developers and ask them to retrocede certain amounts of land to us before they go forward on developing.  This is sounding more and more like the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) which is an arm of the HCCC, and which has extracted money from developers by threats, basically that if they wish to have a smooth sail, not work stoppages, they will have to make "application" and "pay the fee".  The emphasis of course has always been on the latter.  It is about the money plain and simple.  This opening emerged as an unforeseen "blessing" of the Caledonia 2006 crisis where developers were frightened into "cooperating" to avoid another "action".  We have not heard much from the HDI in the last couple of months, probably because they are trying to assemble the 300 grand plus in fines levied at them by Brantford Superior Court Justice Harrison Arrell in November 2010.  Thus I would question how the new group hope to engage in the same behaviour and yet escape the "long arm of the law" when a developer requests a Court injunction.  The 2010 precedent will ensure that developers have the upper hand here - unless they are very naive.

The representatives of the Mohawks of the Grand River emphasize that the transfer of land out of the Ontario Land Registry system to the Mohawk Land Registry system will be "peaceful".  If history is any indication, "peaceful" is a goal that is unlikely to be maintained.  They claim that 12.5 acres in the Eagle's Nest Tract (by the way, this Tract, with the exception of 200 acres around the Mohawk Chapel and the Mohawk Institute, was surrendered by the Six Nations in 1844) has been handed over to them by the Guswhenta project noted previously.  Ms. VanEvery-Albert also reports that, the group were recently given a 42-acre parcel of farmland on the outskirts of the reserve's boundaries east of Oneida Road and Sixth Line.   Surely they are not speaking about the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) property that was "reclaimed" by Six Nations (illegally) in February 2006 ......................... 

Furthermore, the group has the goal, To negotiate a new relationship with Ontario and Canada.  I believe that this is the responsibility of the Elected Band Council, with doubtless the HCCC being parties to any agreement, but adding another group to the mix - is mind boggling.  What is surprising, to the present author, is that Councillor Helen Miller "agreed with the group's idea".

Adding some sober second thoughts, Elected Council Lands and Resources Director, Phil Monture, cautioned the group that, 'You've got to be careful of individuals claiming to represent people, cutting side deals to line their own pockets', he said, 'I know that's going to come up'.  Sage advice.

I expect that there will be many more posts on this subject - unless of course the Federal Government comes forward and says, "Look, the land was surrendered between 1840 and 1848 and there is nothing left over.  End of story".  I don't think this is going to happen.  Politics you know.  Bad press and all that.  I am convinced that the Federal Government is dedicated to just keeping a lid on things, and that facts and the truth are irrelevant and can be safely ignored.  I would love to be proved wrong.

DeYo.

Have the British and Successors Failed to Appreciate the Contribution of the Six Nations to the American Revolution and the War of 1812?

The following is a response to a comment to the previous posting by Tony, to whom I am thankful for his bringing this matter to my attention.  It has spurred an update to an earlier posting, and is the stimulus for the present, and the previous posting.

There is still a widespread, almost universal, belief that the Six Nations got the short end of the stick at the end of the American Revolution, and that their contribution to the War of 1812 has not been adequately recognized. This viewpoint is expressed, for example, in a comment by R. Walker to a post on the blog,“Niagara at Large”, entitled, Shorthills Protests are Short on Patience with the Hunters by Six Nations member Karl Dockstader, 13 November 2013. The post and comment can be found here.

Here the author of the comment states the following: I am grateful that we were allies at the time of the American revolution and accompanied the the Mohawks to Canada when their river settlements in the New York colony were seized by the revolutionaries like Washington. As allies your people defended Canada in the war of 1812 which was recently celebrated by local governments who seem to forget this fact when it come to this hunt which is important to sustain your culture and way of life.

The comment got me thinking about how distorted some information is that is being fed to the general population, and hence my theme of beliefs versus facts applies here.  The above quote seems to imply the belief that Canada "owes" Six Nations a great debt in relation to the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  It is undeniable (the evidence is overwhelming) that the statement is true of the Mohawk in relation to the Revolution.  However, when it comes to the War of 1812, the situation is far from clear.  We are presently in the midst of the Bicentennial of this War, so it has taken a higher profile of late.  The problem is that there is a distortion in the beliefs about the specifics of the participation of the Six Nations, and as well, how Six Nations were "treated" by virtue of their assistance.  The whole set of circumstances was little different than that of their neighbours in the Norfolk and Lincoln Militia, except that the help of the Six Nations could not be depended upon to the degree that was true of the Militia - something that is seldom mentioned in relation to this subject.  However, both the Militia and the Six Nations did receive compensation for their efforts.

The "Treatment" of the Six Nations After the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812:

I must also allow some latitude here concerning Mr. Walker's take on the Six Nations role in the above conflicts. Few have spent 30 or more years sifting through the relevant records pertaining to this subject that would provide first hand balanced account of the Revolution and the War of 1812. Thus it is easy to "fall for" well established beliefs, and to form an opinion based on limited and biased data. Here follow the facts which can be verified.

A) Revolutionary War - The Six Nations, and all First Nations peoples, were in fact ignored by the British in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolution and dictated peace terms. That part is true, but the impact of this unconscionable "oversight" was felt primarily by the Indians of the American Northwest (the Ohio Country). Hence the feeling among some Six Nations and their apologists is that there should be some justice (compensation) for this "slap in the face", and this seems to be the overarching attitude driving some of the "sympathy" for the Six Nations. Any such emotion is very much misplaced, and should be saved for those Native peoples who ended up under American rule.

There is no doubt that the Revolution of 1776 to 1783 involving His Majesties disobedient children, was devastating to the Six Nations. The Council fire at Onondaga was extinguished in 1777 when it was apparent that some tribes were supporting the King (the Mohawk and most of the Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca), but a significant number supported the Colonists (the Tuscarora and Oneida in particular). Six Nations losses were immense, however after the War not only the Tuscarora and Oneida, but also many of the Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca decided to stay in their old homelands in Upstate NY and tried to make the best deal they could with the victorious New York and Federal Governments. The most consistent supporters of the British, with the exception of four families who espoused neutrality as the best way to protect their valuable possessions, were the Mohawk of Fort Hunter and Canajoharie (Lower and Upper Mohawks) who were unwavering supporters of the British.

Before detailing compensation packages offered by the British, it will be helpful to note what the Six Nations, and particularly the Mohawks, possessed at the beginning of the conflict. Over the years the Mohawks had sold almost all of their land, which had then been granted by the Crown to White purchasers. Millions or acres were voluntarily surrendered for monetary or other considerations, but the bottom line is that by 1777 the Upper and Lower Mohawks owned some Appalachian lands and only a few hundred acres of arable land - and even these small parcels were under claim by Abraham Van Horne et al. and the Corporation of the City of Albany, respectively. So even the land under their feet had been sold and granted to White persons in the 1730s. Since then the Mohawk had complained bitterly to the Indian Commissioners in Albany (where they got no sympathy), and later Sir William Johnson the Superintendent of Indian Affairs (Northern Department) who did try to obtain justice for the Mohawk (while enriching himself in the process). However at the time the War broke out, the Mohawk owned very little land.

There are numerous references to the sale of land by the Mohawk. I have noted a number of them in previous posts. Here I will offer a source that shows all of the patents to land on the south side of the Mohawk River extending in a time frame from the 1600s to the 1770s.  See Map of the Head Waters of the Rivers Susquehanna & Delaware Embracing the Early Patents on the South Side of the Mohawk River from the Original Drawn about the Year 1790 by Simeon De Witt, Esq. Surveyor General Etc., State of New York, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, Vol. 1.

British Grants of Land, Presents, and Money After the Revolution

While the Treaty of Paris of 3 September 1783 may have ignored the needs of the Native peoples (and the Loyalists), the local officials in Quebec certainly did not. They felt honour bound to grant reasonable compensation to those who had served with His Majesty's forces. The major reference for the participation of the Six Nations in the Revolutionary War is, Barbara Graymont, The Iroquois in the American Revolution, Syracuse, University of Syracuse Press, 1972. Here follows a list of the compensation to the Mohawks for their services:

1) Claims for land and property lost in the conflict: When it became apparent that the outcome of the War was not going to be favourable to the British, they offered to compensate individual Mohawks for their losses. Governor General Sir Frederick Haldimand must be given credit for this decision, as he felt strongly that the Indians who served as soldiers, particularly the Loyal Mohawks, deserved compensation. The Lower Mohawks filed claims at Lachine Quebec, and the Upper Mohawk and some Lower Mohawk filed at Niagara. Some Mohawk were very wealthy and owned up to 200 acres of land, horses, oxen, pigs, sheep, houses made of clapboard with every imaginable type of furniture, barns, horse tack, and silver jewelry. Each Mohawk claimant was given a cash settlement no different from what would be assessed for their Loyalist neighbours some years later. An example is the claim of Katerine, filed at Niagara 22 April 1784, so likely an Upper Mohawk.  Her claim included a house worth 80 pounds, 60 acres of land worth 250 pounds, as well as numerous other items such as 4 horses for 26 pounds, 6 large kettles and 8 small kettles. Her total claim was for 447-3-0. See Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Colonial Office Records, Q Series, Vol. 24, pt. 2, pp. 307-325 for claims submitted at Niagara (Mohawk, Tuscarora, and Aughquagas); and LAC, MG11, CO42, Vol. 47, pp. 240-242 for claims submitted at Lachine (Mohawk).

2) Two large tracts of land: While the Mohawks had been compensated monetarily for the loss of their individual land holdings, Haldimand, for whatever reason, decided that he could justify the gift of a tract of land to replace some of the holdings of the Mohawks in New York - although objectively this was extremely generous of him and likely reflected his respect of the Mohawk and an acknowledgement of their contribution to the War effort, and their loyalty. Thus he supported the choice of Captain John Deserontyon, Village Chief of the Lower (Ft. Hunter) Mohawks, for a tract of land at the Bay of Quinte. Captain Joseph Brant Thayendanagea (Village Chief of the Upper, Canajoharie, Mohawks), preferred a location on the Grand River, ostensibly so he could be closer to the Senecas. However it was no secret that the Lower Mohawks and the Upper Mohawks were significant factions within the broader community and it would have been impossible to the two Chiefs to "share power". Thus Haldimand purchased both tracts for the Mohawks from the owners, the Mississauga. So Brant's Mohawks were granted the opportunity to possess the Grand River Tract, which by agreement was six miles on each side of the River from the mouth to the headwaters. Unfortunately Haldimand did not purchase the headwaters from the Mississauga, and this omission was to become a bone of contention for years (and still to this day). The area was not well known so only a rough description could be offered until an official survey was completed which occurred in both 1790 and 1793, which showed the land to end at the far end of what was termed "Block Nichol" (see various chapters in William C. Stutevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1978; and Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964).

Haldimand worded the proclamation such that not only the Mohawk were invited to settle here, but also others of the Six Nations (and allies) who wished to move here. The area is huge, and is situated in an area of highly valuable land in what is today Southern Ontario.

Over the years there have been arguments as to whether the Mohawk and others held the land in fee simple (and so could dispose of any of it forever without consulting the Crown), or whether it was held by the Crown for the exclusive use of the Six Nations. All rulings have supported the latter interpretation, and hence all sales must be enacted with the knowledge of the Crown.  I can guarantee that had the British not chosen to establish the "ownership" in this manner, the land would have been sold piece meal by individual members (as happened in much of Oklahoma) and the Six Nations would have been dispersed - and there would have been no Reserve here today.

3) Rations and presents: From the time the British took over New Netherlands from the Dutch in 1664, regular "presents" (including rations, rum, ammunition, jewelry and assorted supplies) to the Six Nations, and "upped the ante" during any conference for example at the home of the Indian Superintendent Sir William Johnson, or at Albany or Oswego. The practise continued unabated during the Revolution where the British supplied even wavering and uncooperative Natives with "presents" to "keep up their spirits" and for sundry other reasons. The amount spent on this practise was staggering. In 1785 the Six Nations and other refugee tribes (e.g., Nanticoke) settled on the River. There were distribution centres established in Burlington, Niagara and the Mohawk Village. This was an expected "perk" that had a long history, and was necessary to ensure the cooperation of the Six Nations. There was still a "Census for Presents" at Six Nations for 1856. After this date the term was "Pay Lists". Also annuity monies were paid to Six Nations. All of these payments were usually on a biyearly basis (see reference below).

4) Land grants for military service: There was still more coming to the Mohawks. Those who served in the Six Nations Indian Department, along with Capts. Nelles and Dochstader, and Lt. Young who lived on farms along the lower Grand River, were eligible for half pay, and for individual land grants. Captain Joseph Brant hit the jackpot here with this grant in Burlington where he built Brant House (a reproduction home still stands on this site near Joseph Brant Hospital). A good summary of monies or grants, well referenced, can be found in David K. Faux, Understanding Ontario First Nations Genealogical Records: Sources and Case Studies, Toronto, The Ontario Genealogical Society, 2002.

Not only was compensation forthcoming from the British, but the Americans wanted to ensure that their title to the land was secure so in two meetings with the Mohawks formerly of the Lower and Upper Villages along the River that bears their name, the State and Federal Governments paid monies for this purpose.

New York and American Grants Relating to the Revolution

The State of New York wanted to secure its title to the Mohawk lands so sent Jelles Fonda (a merchant well known to the Mohawk) to negotiate a "final surrender". Thus on 9 July 1789, at the Council House in Niagara, two deeds were signed, one for the Mohawks formerly of Ft. Hunter, and another for the Mohawks formerly of Canajoharie. Here the "Sachems, Chiefs, principal Men and Women" of these villages yielded all "rights, title and interest" in the lands they formerly owned in the State of New York. The Lower Mohawk group received 700 pounds of New York currency, and the Upper Mohawks 516 pounds. As an example, there were 39 recipients among the Ft. Hunter group (some residing at Tyendinaga and some at Six Nations) - about half were women, and most signed both their Indian and White names. The three clan symbols (turtle, wolf and bear) were placed on the back. I have photographs of each of these documents. To show that I have references for each item I mention in this blog, I will take the time here to give detailed references to the above two documents:

1) Lower Mohawk - Library and Archives Canada, MG19, F21, "Treaty between the Indians formerly resident at the Mohawk Castle ............... and the State of New York."

2) Upper Mohawk - New York Historical Society, "Miscl. Lansing, John Jr., Power of Attorney to Jelles Fonda to Recover lands Granted to Abraham Van Horne and others Nov. 13, 1731." (see Indians, Mohawks" in catalogue).

Sundry payments continued to 29 March 1797 at Albany when the Upper and Lower Mohawks were each given 1000 dollars as further compensation for all Mohawk who resided in traditional lands before the War - and 600 dollars for each negotiator (Joseph Brant and John Deserontyon) for expenses and work done to bring the treaty to fruition (American State Papers, Vol. 1, p. 636).

So any illusion that somehow the Mohawk and Six Nations were ignored by, or suffered due to the indifference of, the British should be dispelled. The facts show quite the contrary. Their favour was even courted by their former enemies, with substantial payments for land that was in United States territory which was won by conquest. However this revelation does not quite meet the political agenda where the White authorities must be demonised, and the the Six Nations must be seen as "victims".

B) War of 1812 -

Grants and Payments by the British During and After the War of 1812

An excellent overview of the contribution of the Six Nations during the War of 1812 is, Carl Benn, The Iroquois in the War of 1812, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.

First I wish to make a very clear statement of fact about the contribution of the Six Nations during the War of 1812. It is undeniable that the outcome of the Battle of Queenston Heights in October 1812 hinged on the support of the Six Nations, led by John Norton. After this date, it was more and more difficult for Norton, or any other leaders such as John Brant, youngest son of Capt. Joseph Brant, to enlist (and keep) the support of Six Nations warriors right through the end of the War in 1814. There is once again no denying that Norton and the Six Nations he was able to bring to the field, made a very valuable contribution to the Battle of Chippewa in July 1814 - but after the losses of the day, they simply could not be arm twisted in any way to return to the field. Thus they were not in attendance at the Battle of Lundy's Lane. Reading the diary of their War leader, John Norton, is illuminating. See, The Journal of Major John Norton, 1816, Carl F. Klinck (Ed.), Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1970.

War of 1812 payments:  Payments and presents to the Six Nations continued throughout the War of 1812 and beyond.  Some payments were questionable.  In effect, the British went the distance in their compensation payments to the Six Nations - even when unjustified. For example, by 1813 a controversy had divided the community over how much assistance to give the British. Many were upset over the spectre of fighting their own people since the Seneca were beginning to participate on the side of the Americans. A list of the most intransigent lack luster Six Nations was written by the Six Nations Chiefs, with the recommendation that these individuals not be the recipients of "His Majesty's bounty", and most were Mohawks (see Johnston, p. 219). Presents continued to flow even during the times when the British could ill afford to maintain this "tradition" - when even basic food supplies were in danger of running out.

Though there is a list of the names of 80 Mohawks (and other Six Nations) who were at Beaver Dams 24 June 1813 (Johnston, p. 203).  According to their leader Major John Norton, as written in the above Journal, the Caughnawagas (led by a French - speaking Indian Department officer) from a Reserve across from Montreal did the fighting, the Mohawks got the plunder, and Fitzgibbon got the credit. It appears to have been at times easy to get an assembly of volunteers from Six Nations, but it was typical to see them peel off en route so that by the time the battlefield was reached there may have been less than a handful left - which was also the case at the Battle of Stoney Creek. A lot more primary source information is copied in Johnston (1964).

By 1814, the "support" had withered to a handful including Major John Norton, Chief John Brant, and John "Smoke" Johnson - all Mohawks. Given this tepid help (although acknowledging the essential assistance provided in the early years, such as the Battle of Queenston Heights), it is amazing that in 1817 the British chose to offer almost every adult member (head of family) of every tribe residing on the Six Nations Reserve substantial compensation for War of 1812 "loses". The payments were in three instalments, over 20 years, the last payment being in 1837 (Journal of the Legislative Assembly, Appendix GGG, Province of Canada, 2nd Part, 1st Session, Vol.4, No. 2, 1844-1845. Pay lists of Indian claimants for losses during the War of 1812).

The Recognition of the Role of the Six Nations in the War of 1812 Today

Reprinted copies of the above noted book by Benn, and the Norton Journal, which are available in places such as Fort George in Niagara on the Lake, are literally flying off the shelves. There is a lot of interest in the role of the Six Nations in the War of 1812. I have purchased 6 DVD's about the War of 1812 that have been made recently, often with the financial support of the Federal and Ontario Provincial Governments, and all place a very sharp focus on the role played by Six Nations and Aboriginal peoples (e.g., Delawares and Ojibway). Native leaders such as Major John Norton (Capt. Joseph Brant's adopted nephew), and Tecumseh (Shawnee Chief) have been quite rightly acclaimed as heroes in each. The one I have at my current location is, War of 1812: A 4-Part Documentary Series produced by the National Film Board of Canada in 1998. Two of the three panels on the jacket cover show Natives, including one where a warrior is in hand to hand combat with an American soldier. Their role is clearly "front and centre".

It is simply untrue that the role of the Six Nations has been downplayed in any way, shape or form. Frankly, some Six Nations leaders are ensuring that the Six Nations get plenty of "good press". I observed this in Niagara at the ceremony at Brock's Monument celebrating the Bicentennial of the Battle of Queenston Heights. Here the two representatives from Six Nations seemed to be shown a type of reverence, even adulation, by those assembled, and the applause for the description of the participation of Six Nations ancestors was profound. At this event R.H. and K.J. also brought out the "Two Row Wampum" belt and explained to the crowd about Six Nations sovereignty (the generally accepted, but lacking in evidence version of same). I took close note of the "audience reaction". They seemed to accept everything said as the gospel (at least no one said, "this is bull#@%&") - again more enthusiastic applause.

Update 1 - The 12 February 2014 issue of the Turtle Island News (p.5) has a headline, War of 1812 to be taught in the schools. Here we find an announcement that, If all goes according to plan, Ontario students from grade one to 12 will learn about the War of 1812 from a Haudenosaunee perspective beginning this fall. Keith Jamieson, the coordinator of the Six Nations Legacy Consortium, headed the group pushing to have this addition to the curriculum. That is indeed good news. Canadians, in my opinion, need to learn more about how our ancestors shaped Canada during the War of 1812. Of course the question on my mind is whether the accurate or "sanitised" version will be inserted into the curriculum (along with a dose of politics - for example comments about "self determination" and "sovereignty"), and whether it will be a distorted "how we won the War for you White folks" perspective. Time will tell.

Update 2 -  The 19 February 2014 issue of the Turtle Island News (p.16) includes information on a talk by the above noted Carl Benn to the 17th Annual Grand River Conservation Authority's Heritage Day celebration.  Here, in an article entitled, War of 1812 part of Haudenosaunee '60 Years War', historian says, Benn said that, The biggest misconception I think is how complex and sophisticated the native response was.  There are still a million mysteries still.  Perhaps something of an exaggeration, but his point is on the mark, as any serious student of this era will agree is true.

Conclusion: Thus, while Mr. W. is very supportive of Six Nations, it does not appear that his reference to a lack of compensation and recognition for their contribution during the American Revolution and the War of 1812 is warranted, and thus the opinions appear to fall within the "widespread beliefs" category.  The truth is far more nuanced.

Revised - 19 February 2014.

DeYo.

Present Six Nations "Way of Life" and the Off Reserve Deer Hunt

The following is a response to a comment to the previous posting by Tony, to whom I am thankful for his bringing this matter to my attention.  After some consideration, I realized that it was so characteristic of beliefs in relation to the matter, that it was possible to use the comment around which to frame two postings (this and the next) - and the first part of the comment in order to update my recent posting on the bogus and fraudulent Nanfan "Treaty" (see here).

A comment by R. Walker to a post on the blog, “Niagara at Large”, entitled,  Shorthills Protests are Short on Patience with the Hunters by Six Nations member Karl Dockstader, 13 November 2013 is most interesting.  The post and comment can be found here.   Mr. Walker is "speaking" to Mr. Dockstader of Six Nations in the following comment.

Here the author of the comment states the following:  I am grateful that we were allies at the time of the American revolution and accompanied the the Mohawks to Canada when their river settlements in the New York colony were seized by the revolutionaries like Washington. As allies your people defended Canada in the war of 1812 which was recently celebrated by local governments who seem to forget this fact when it come to this hunt which is important to sustain your culture and way of life.

The Deer Hunt as a Way for Six Nations to Sustain their Culture and Way of Life:

The statement by Mr. Walker, which I underlined above, can only partially be supported with available data.  It appears that Mr. Walker does not live in Indian Country (the Haldimand Tract near the Six Nations Reserve).  Six Nations members who live in the northeastern part of the Reserve tend to shop at Zehr's in Caledonia, those at the western end shop in Brantford, and those residing at the southeastern end (including those from New Credit Reserve) tend to frequent one of the two grocery stores in Hagersville.  Pretty much the same as the White folks in the vicinity.  Eating venison is something that only some do on anything resembling a regular basis - although more than would be the case in relation to the citizens of St. Catharines.  Also, not every Six Nations member hunts, and not every resident of rural Haldimand County hunts.  It should be noted that in Haldimand there is a bow hunting season and there are families who have participated in the deer hunt for generations - probably to 1785 just as some at Six Nations.  At Six Nations, those who belong to the Longhouse Community are more likely to try to keep certain ties to ancient cultural practises - but things are just not that simple. 

A fair number of White people come to the Rez to hunt deer (requesting permission of the land owners) - which is a bit ironic in that Six Nations members are going to places such as Dundas  ..................  Anyway, two years ago a White hunter was killed on the Rez by a Six Nations member (who is a former professional hockey player) - taking a shot from the road and mistaking the well marked (wearing an orange vest) hunter for a deer. 

The Longhouses, associated with the "conservative" element at Six Nations (supporters of the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council), are located in the eastern end of the Reserve, not many miles from the village of Ohsweken, but culturally, a whole different mind set.  I have alluded to this major factional division on many occasions in this blog.  Bottom line - Mr. Walker is simplifying things to the point of employing stereotypes.  Hunting as a "way of life" has receded into the background, and off the radar for many families.  Personally I cannot justify terminating the life of brown eyed forest creatures - and have conveyed that perspective to all my children.

DeYo.

 

The Ontario Provincial Police Refuse to Press Charges in the 17th October 2013 Blockade of Highway 6

In a sense this blog has come full circle with the latest turn of events.  Here, in the 80th posting to this blog, I will provide information about the blockade, as per the title of this posting.  However I will also review my reasons for commencing this journey using a blog to convey factual information to counteract the prevalent beliefs.  Also embedded in this post is a precis of some of the major points made since day one.  Thus it will depart somewhat from the more focused content of earlier postings; and in the tone of what is written where to accentuate the content here, emotional reactions and opinions are much more in evidence.

I started the blog in October 2013, after I had been caught in the traffic nightmare caused by the blockade on the 17th initiated by Six Nations.  In effect the actions were perpetrated against all people of Caledonia and surrounds - supposedly in support of a New Brunswick First Nations group who at the time were pitching Molotov cocktails at passing cars.  As a result of how this blockade affected me personally, I decided to "spill the beans" and tell all who would listen what I knew of the Six Nations, and break through the wall of silence with some insider information combined with objective data.  I decided to let the world know that Six Nations have continued to capitalise on the brutal and irresponsible acts they foisted on the residents of Caledonia and surrounds beginning in February 2006.  No one at Six Nations has ever taken responsiblity for these actions, and no one has ever issued an appology.  No more would I keep my mouth shut about what I knew were taboos, or would be considered "disrespectful".  In my world, the truth trumps concepts of "the Community" or any similar concept.  Come what may, I felt the need to give up information that admittedly does not paint a positive picture of Six Nations - but to the best of my knowledge is absolutely correct (I include references wherever possible). 

Had the events of the 17th (or similar event) not taken place, I doubt very much that this blog would ever have emerged.  So the organizers of the "event" are in a sense responsible for the copious flow of information from this source.  As a consequence of being pushed "over the top" by the blockade, my goal, quite frankly, is to saturate the Internet with facts that can be verified via the references provided here, in order to dispell the many misconceptions in relation to Six Nations.  For example one belief is that by virtue of colonialization, the residential schools, and the "forced" change from hereditary to elected governance in 1924, Six Nations are "victims".  In no sense of the word is this perception true - and over the course of 80 posts I have proved it to be false with verifyable data.

The blockade of 17 October 2013 amounted to a direct assault against the innocent people of Caledonia, who once again had to endure the antics of Six Nations whose criminal behaviour since 2006 was inconsistently punished, or more typically not punished at all.  Being caught in the middle of this latest "action" assaulted my sense of fairness and propiety, and haunted me with memories of being blocked by bullies when I was a child.  While immersed in the traffic chaos I still had a wee bit of hope, and fantisized that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) would somehow, and in some manner, have found their way and would act as police officers whose role was to "serve and protect".  I of course knew deep down that nothing had changed, and that Six Nations would be able to do as they pleased.  The OPP, as was the case since 2006 and all subsequent policing involving Six Nations members, had surrendered their role as police officers for the role of "peacekeepers".  They are no longer police, but simply "crowd managers" who will immediately arrest non-Native individuals, and ignore Natives who are engaging in the same or worse behaviours.  I have lost ALL respect for the OPP.  I don't trust them, at least in the Haldimand - Brant area, and it is clear to me that if I need to be protected, it is my own resources that I will need to rely upon.  I have personally watched as they stood frozen as Natives ran rampant - appearing to be paralysed with fear or some form of immobility issue.  Instead of the awe I felt for them when I was younger, all I felt, and feel now, is disdain and disgust.  Whether they wish to blame it on the policy of their superiors or not - officers are not doing their job.  Caledonia has been left to fend for itself when there is a Native - related matter to address, and nothing has chanaged in 8 years.

The most recent and comprehensive study of the changed OPP role whenever a situation involves Natives is superbly narrated in the book by Gary McHale, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2013.

In the 22 January 2013 issue of "The Sachem and Glanbrook Gazette" is an article entitled, OPP not laying charges in connection to Highway 6 block.  Here the reporter states that, The Ontario Provincial Police will not be laying any charges in connection to the blockade on Highway 6 in October.  So while in the past they would have taken videos of those who led the protest, and waited until a week or so later to arrest and charge the perpetrators, not so this time.

So while a group of 40 or so Six Nations members successfully blocked Highway 6 near 5th Line south of Caledonia for hours, the OPP at the time acted as "watchers" and "directors of traffic".  There was no attempt to break up the illegal actions or in any way intervene.  They were there, apparently, to minimise the fallout and keep the lid on things by ensuring that no pesky non-Natives created trouble.  So the whole illegal incident was allowed to "run its course" without police intervention. Here is more detail from the Sachem article.  At a Police Services meeting Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt was clearly upset at the decisions made by the OPP:

“It’s your choice to decide whether charges are laid, so you, on the opinion and discussion with the Crown and your superiors, decided not to lay charges?” asked Mayor Ken Hewitt at the meeting.

Cayuga detachment commander Inspector Phil Carter confirmed that the OPP would not be laying any charges.

“Every individual peace officer has the ability to charge someone,” said Carter, but he added that it would be up to the prosecution to decide if they wanted to carry out that charge, and from the feedback he’s being getting from the Crown, he feels they wouldn’t.

“We understand this is not proper behaviour,” said Hewitt, referring to the protest that blocked the main road in Caledonia for four and a half hours, “but what the Crown is saying is that it is okay.”
He wanted to know where the line was between legal protesting activities and illegal protesting, and asked if another group would be given latitude if they had blocked the road for several hours.
“It’s not a black and white issue,” said Carter, adding that he wished he had a clear answer for the board, but he doesn’t.

Even if the "feedback" is that a conviction was unlikely, the mere act of taking the perps into Court would send a message - but even this small act was not on the police agenda!

I am left furious at this moment.  Even this rather strong word does not fully capture the intensity of my sentiments.  Specifically, the anger and disgust is directed toward Six Nations for perpetrating this anti-social and insensitive act against local people; and toward the OPP for failing to do their duty.  I am however heartened by the fact that the Mayor of Haldimand, Ken Hewitt, has taken this matter seriously - it speaks well for him in standing up for the rights and interests of his constituents.

There is not a shadow of a doubt that those who blocked Highway 6 should, after a suitable warning, have been physically removed in paddy waggons, and taken to jail.  That is what would happen to White folks.  The whole situation is particularly galling because since the illegal "reclamation" in 2006, the  Six Nations have been getting away with all sorts of bogus scams due to the mistaken belief that there is a legal requirement to consult with them for any proposed development not only in the Haldimand Tract, but anywhere within Southwestern Ontario.  There is no such requirement.  Most of these schemes fall under the umbrella of the fraudulent Nanfan "Treaty" (it was nothing of the sort) of 1701 and are falsely labelled "treaty rights" - which don't exist.  It must be emphasized that in 1701 only the Mississauga had ownership rights here.  Furthermore the Six Nations are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, only Upstate New York, and as with the Loyalists were refugees fleeing the wrath of the Americans after the Revolution.  Then there is the failure to acknowledge the legal realities, such as the fact that as of December 1844 they had surrendered all of the lands of the Haldimand Tract outside the present Reserve, with the exception of the Burtch Tract which was surrendered to be sold by the Crown in 1848.  Thus the violence of Caledonia 2006 and subsequent work stoppages at development sites in Haldimand and Brant Counties are "justified" only in the minds of Six Nations, and White people unaware of the facts.  Does the truth and the facts matter to anyone, or have unquestioned and unsupported beliefs, such as "First Nations people are victims", captured the hearts and minds of Canadians outside Caledonia?  Has objective reality become irrelevant?  In the crazoid world in this neck of the woods, the true victims, the citizens of Haldimand and Brant Counties, are labelled with the term "racist" and other such epithets if they question their own victimization.

Had the OPP acted in a manner consistent with their professional standards, in all probability this would have ushered in the first steps towards again perceiving the Provincial police force in a more postive light.  Alas, that did not happen.  In a previous post I had "jokingly" said that perhaps residents of Haldimand and Brant will need to make a point, and see how the OPP respond if say Highway 54 at Chiefswood Road was blocked for the exact length of time Highway 6 was blocked, thereby inconveniencing many at Six Nations.  The question then becomes, "what would the OPP response be in a hypothetical scenario of this nature"?  If they were to arrest Haldimand and Brant residents for the exact same behaviour which they "tolerated" in Six Nations people, then we would have clear evidence of a double standard, and proof (if any more is needed) that there still exists a "race based" policing policy in Haldimand and Brant.

DeYo.

Canadian Taxpayers Slapped with Another Bill from the Caledonia 2006 Fallout

As is the theme here, I wish to explore beliefs, in this instance in relation to a series of huge taxpayer funded "gifts" as a result of the violent Caledonia 2006 land grab.  Then I will contrast these beliefs, which seem "infectious" in that obviously some White taxpayers buy into the erroneous rationale for "consultation" and "compensation", with the very inconvenient facts.

While the construction of a $41 million water treatment plant to serve Six Nations should be a cause for celebration (as it was, see Turtle Island News TIN, January 28, 2014, pp.2-3), it is the source of the funding that would be at issue for many who suffered through the pain and indignities of the attack on the area between the 6th Line Oneida to and including southern Caledonia by Six Nations members and the Mohawk Warriors in 2006.  As a consequence there is the multi - million dollar costs that resulted from the takeover by force of the primary target, the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE), renamed Kanonhstaton (The Protected Place).  There is also the $26 million of Provincial tax dollars used to purchase the property, and untold millions of overtime dollars for the Ontario Provincial Police - and that just for starters.  What is the connection?  As reported in TIN, The need for a new water treatment plant was a major item on the Six Nations/Haudenosaunee land rights table discussions that evolved from the 2006 land reclamation.  "Land rights", now that is easily shown as being a false assertion.  There are no legitimate land claims which need to be discussed.  This is a straw man that is easily toppled.  All one need do is to read all of the correspondence, Minutes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council, and related documents between the years 1840 and 1850 seen in the RG10 Indian Affairs collection at the Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa (available on microfilm there, and at the Archives of Ontario at York University).  All of this has been discussed with the relevant references, and quotes relating to the specific documents, in a number of my earlier blog postings.

So as I take it, the new water treatment plant was but another bribe by one of the enablers who have ensured that there will be no end of "demands" from those who continue to "require" Canadian, Ontario as well as Haldimand and Brant County taxpayers to cough up more and more.  The irony is that the perpetrators are dictating the terms and deriving the benefits.  The innocent have been coerced into providing a continual stream of money based on what is a very ironic and bizarre twist of justice.

I am well aware of the need to a water treatment plant for 700 establishments (homes and businesses) at Ohsweken, although most of the Reserve is rural.  The goal here is to get "city water" to all 2,000 homes on the Rez - which will require another $100 million dollars. I wonder where that money is going to come from - actually I don't wonder, the answer is Canadian taxpayers.

The fact is that the Rez is primarily rural.  Just as I did, most live with wells and cisterns for their water.  That is standard in rural communities across Ontario.  Somehow I/we managed all those years without any "big city" amenities.  No one had water that arrived in pipes, except via the iron pipes sunk 90 feet into the limestone to tap into potable water from our wells.  The rest came from rainwater which flowed from our roofs (bird pooh and all) into a 2000 gallon cistern.  During dry spells or winter freezes we had water delivered by tanker truck.  Drinking water was generally from bottled water. 

What is most upsetting is that Six Nations pays nothing into the economy.  The largest on Reserve employer is Grand River Enterprises (GRE) who provide jobs for about 380 people.  They now pay some money to the Federal Government who is no longer entirely willing to put up with illegal cigarettes which not so long ago were smuggled from Akwesasne near Cornwall, and not taxed and not regulated.  So some kind of token payment is made.  As far as I know GRE pays no taxes to the Provincial Government and certainly not to Brant or Haldimand Counties.  The GRE does not pay taxes to the Six Nations - taxes are a dirty word at Six Nations.  Instead GRE has (grudgingly) "donated" money to help build for example a fire hall.  However this is all a drop in the bucket compared to what any comparable company off Reserve would be paying (in taxes).  So where does Six Nations Council get the money for esssential services such as infrastructure and education - yes, the Federal Government via Canadian taxpayers.

Six Nations who are NOT aboriginal to the Grand River Tract (that honour goes to the Mississauga - Anishinabe people) but get all these perks to which their fellow refugee Loyalist families in Haldimand and Brant have no access.  I am not sure how this is fair, unless it is part of the trust fund established in the 1790s to 1849 for lands surrendered to the Crown which then granted them to White people or Six Nations descendants who wanted their own land off Reserve.  It appears that this scenario is not the case here - it is "new" money, extracted under pressure subsequent to the illegal takeover in Caledonia.

Those who have followed this blog will not be surprised to learn that once again, the project was born in spite of the extreme factionalism at Six Nations.  It was first the Confederacy Chiefs (HCCC) who, had negotiated a new plant at the table and shortly afterwards the band left the table.  Within a few short months the band and MP McColeman [Brant MP] announced the new plant that had been born at the land rights table.  McColeman then made a puzzling statement that, This project is very important for the future economic growth and development opportunities in our community.  "Our community"?  That is a stretch, except for the fact that Six Nations are potential voters.  It was further reported that Brant MPP Dave Levac said, although the province didn't provide any funding for the plant, he will continue to raise his voice at Queen's Park to try and help Six Nations get piping extended to the entire reserve.  As far as recollection takes me, neither MP or MPP of Brant said anything in relation to the Caledonia crisis, that task fell to Haldimand MPP Toby Barrett, the only politician to make any attempt to seek justice for the event which triggered all this largess to the perpetrators of the violence.

I will be very blunt here.  There is no reason on this planet that one can give that would make a lick of sense towards giving non - taxpayers Canadian and Ontario taxpayers money without reparations being made for the most egretious act of arrogant illegal behaviour perpetrated hereabouts.  No money should be given until such point as an appology is issued from both the Elected Council (SNEC) and the HCCC, an acknowledgement that the Surrender of 1844 is valid, and after a tally of the costs to taxpayers all monies are paid in full to the aggrieved parties (individual and group).  In other words "Truth and Reconcilliation" works both ways.  We need to see the parallel with the residential school situation and run a parallel path with what was done here.  The citizens of the Caledonia area who were most impacted must be compensated.  Then for example the Ontario taxpayers who paid for the purchase of the DCE property must be compensated by recognizing that the Ontario Land Registry system is valid, and all associated costs such as policing and damages to the infrastructure (e.g., to Argyll Street, demolished towers and security charges), paying the Province of Ontario and Hydro One as starters.  Other Caledonia - related fees must also be returned, such as the money paid under duress or otherwise by wind turbine companies who falsely believed that it was necessary to consult and compensate Six Nations by virtue of the fraudulent Nanfan Treaty of 1701, and the belief instituted under threat that they were building towers on "unceded" land.

When all of the above are cleared up satisfactorily, then talks can begin about assisting with projects that may have some merit.  However, whether either the Federal or Provincial Governments should be paying for mega projects when the parties do not pay taxes is a matter that has to be on the table.  The bottom line here though is that I want the "average Canadian taxpayer" to ask themselves, "is it fair to be funding, with your money, projects relating to non - taxpayers?"  Recall that Six Nations are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, and they are fully responsible for the multi - million dollar violent debacle that was Caledonia 2006.  This is a group that maintains the legitimacy of proven false "treaties" such as Nanfan 1701.  They will not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Surrender of 1844 whereby the lands they claim became Crown land and was sold to third parties 170 years ago.  Furthermore they claim false "rights" to consultation.  So by simply giving them what they want, are taxpayers not acting as enablers such that the demands will escalate and become more outlandish - with the veiled threat of, "you surely don't want any more Caledonia's do you" hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damocles.

DeYo.

The Deepest Roots of the Six Nations Sovereignty Debate

The perception by most Six Nations (Haudenosaunee) in Canada (e.g., Six Nations of Haldimand and Brant Counties, Ontario) and the United States (e.g., Onondaga of Syracuse, NY area) is that they are a sovereign people.  This means that they should have their own passports and representatives at the League of Nations (now United Nations).  The debate is long standing, and often acrimonious when descendants of the Six Nations must come to terms with a wall of facts that do not support their interpretation of events.

TWO ROW WAMPUM

The earliest purported evidence of a "sovereignty agreement" dates to 1613, and is composed of three items - each of which underpin the concept of sovereignty that exists to this day.  There is the Two Row Wampum (Kaswentha), the Tawagonshi Treaty, and Haudenosaunee oral tradition relating to agreements between the Dutch and the Mohawk.  While I have addressed this matter in earlier postings, a summary will help here as the Two Row Wampum is intimately intertwined with the more formal Covenant Chain agreement with the British Colonies in 1677.  It should be noted that whatever version of the truth one wishes to accept, the British Crown took New Netherlands from the Dutch in 1664 by conquest and established their own administration.  At that point any agreements that had been made with the Dutch, formal or informal (the latter applying to the supposed 1613 agreement) were terminated and would need to be renegotiated.  This is particularly so because the 1613 document, even if it was valid, was only between Dutch Colonists and the Mohawk - the Dutch Crown was not involved.

I discussed the Two Row Wampum in a previous posting (see here), and an entire issue of  the 2013 "Journal of Early American History" (see here) was devoted to this subject.  In summary, the use of the Two Row Wampum cannot in any way be construed as supporting Haudenosaunee sovereignty.  This will not stop "believers" from perpetuating their viewpoint in public forums where the solemnity and conviction of the speakers will continue to convince the audience of the validity of the claim.  Just the way it is.  The fact that the Crown neither ratified nor recognized the Two Row Wampum, including the Tawagonshi Treaty, is what is most important.

COVENANT CHAIN

However there is a second, related, concept that is trotted out to bolster the Two Row Wampum.  Here in 1677 the British did indeed establish a "Covenant Chain" between them and the Mohawk (to later include the Five then Six Nations) that symbolized their relationship.  At this time there were two groups who recognized agreements between sovereign parties - but these are European powers, in this case the British and French (the English Crown and the French Crown).  Never was there any concept in England of a sovereign Native America, or a sovereign Five Nations.  The latter were subjects of the Crown.  The British as well as the French instituted various agreements and treaties between themselves and those of their subjects who were their military allies, generally mutual aid agreements.  There was never any illusion of equality, the arrangements were made with "our Great Father the King" and other such expressions clearly indicating that the Crown retained suzerainty over all the proceedings, and over all of the lands which they claimed for the King - including the lands occupied by the Five Nations.  The Two Row Wampum and the Covenant Chain are conflated by some authors, as seen here.

The Covenant Chain was conceptualized as an agreement between the peoples of the British Colonies and the Five Nations whereby the British wished to ensure peace, the support of the Five Nations against the French, and trade.  A good general article on the Covenant Chain can be found here.  Thus the treaties beginning in 1676 and 1677 were between for example the colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New York; and the Mohawk or the Five Nations.  The metaphor used was a linked chain connecting the British ships in the harbour of New York and the Great Tree of Peace near the Onondaga Council Fire and Longhouse.  The links were conceived as being made of silver (although iron was sometimes brought into the picture along with rust), which needed to be "brightened" from time to time (e.g., yearly).  This was usually done via a meeting where copious "presents" were distributed to the Five Nations Chiefs - then all was well.  On one occasion however, in 1753, the chain was broken by a very frustrated Mohawk Chief Henry Peters Thoyanguen.  This created quite a stir and Colonial officials did all in their power to repair the chain and renew the friendship.  Damage control was attempted by the Colonies at the Albany Conference of 1754 where every Six Nations individual of any consequence attended.  Nothing was really settled however until Sir William Johnson took the reins of the British Indian Department (reporting to the Crown), and his diplomacy skills, along with family connections to the Mohawk (via children from liaisons with a number of Mohawk women, the most notable being Molly Brant), were able to re-establish the Covenant Chain, with the metaphor being of attached to "immovable mountains", and let the Six Nations know that he intended to brighten and strengthen the Covenant Chain of friendship (by a liberal distribution of presents).

There is nothing in the concept of the Covenant Chain that can in any realistic way be interpreted as being a successor to the Two Row Wampum, and an agreement between two sovereign peoples.  The British Crown did not recognize sovereignty within its realms, or sovereign subjects.  The Crown claimed all of North America between the French and the Spanish possessions.  There was no room for sovereignty involving those who were regarded as subjects in the same way as the Colonists were subjects - although the specifics of the relationship was obviously different. 

To this day, despite the insurmountable evidence, the Six Nations see themselves as a sovereign people, but are no more so than the descendants of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and early Celtic Britons are sovereign peoples within England.  This is not even an idea that can be adequately conceptualized in this day and age, any more than Six Nations sovereignty can be envisaged in this day and age.  That will not deter those determined to put forward this agenda in any way and any where they can.  In reading the above Wikipedia reference for the Covenant Chain, here follows the very last paragraph in an otherwise objective and referenced account:

In June 2010, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain renewed the Covenant Chain Treaties by presenting 8 silver hand bells each to Band Chiefs from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory and Six Nations of the Grand River in commemoration of 300 years of the Covenant Chain. The bells were inscribed "300 Years" + "of Peace and Friendship" (which was a common term often used throughout history when the Chain was renewed). This marks the most modern renewal of the Covenant Chain Treaties between the Haudenosaunee and the Crown of Canada and provides a legal basis recognition of Haudenosaunee sovereignty and international trade between the 2 nations.

Here it is evident that someone with an agenda did an unreviewed edit.  There is no reference given here and the statements do not meet the standards expected of a Wikipedia article.  So wherever we turn, we will continue to see false claims of sovereignty with evidence that only the naive would accept - but that is sufficient to keep the issue in the public eye and meet the political agenda.

NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY IN CANADA TODAY: AN OVERVIEW

The present author maintains that these sovereignty matters will simply never go away, they will always resurface as long as the Indian Act of 1876 and successors are in force.  The goverment of the day does not want to create civil disobedience by telling the truth, and laying out the facts, so will attempt to come to some accommodation that will ensure that the Crown never relinquishes that which is its natural right.  It is the Courts that will ultimately decide the issues of sovereighty.  The terms sovereignty, self determination, inherent rights are really those which reference to historical fact, and legal presedence, can settle.  The bottom line is that the Crown is sovereign across the length and breadth of Canada, but that "arrangements" can be made to accommodate Native self governance withinCrown sovereignty the framework of .  A recent article (Peach, 2011, see here) provides a good perspective on matters as they stand to date, written by a law professor who appears to be well versed in the subject.

DeYo.

False "Treaty Rights" Claimed by Six Nations - Developers and Others Take Note

The most recent issue of Turtle Island News (15 January 2014, p.7) included an article, Treaty rights flexed in HWHA harvests, 70 deer taken.  Here the reporter quoted a representative of the Haudenosaunee Wildlife & Habitat Authority (HWHA), who stated that the most important thing to come out of the annual deer harvest in Dundas, St. Catharines, and the Royal Botanical Gardens in Burlington conducted by Six Nations bow hunters was actually not the meat that can be distributed to the Longhouses for ceremonies and to feed those in need - which I thought was the point of permitting Six Nations to participate in a cull of deer in these locations.  According to the HWHA representative, what is of greatest consequence is that Six Nations were able to "flex" their "treaty rights".  So the primary goal to be achieved was that, treaty rights were exercised and affirmed.  While some in Dundas and St. Catharines probably believe this fairy tale, there are a growing number of very well educated people in these communities prepared to do their homework, and publish their findings to the Internet.

I have been harping on this subject for some time (even as recently as a few days ago, noted here), but it is going to take probably years, and a Court case, to get the message out to the general public.  As it stands, the majority of developers and others still believe Six Nations when they talk about treaty rights and "obligation to consult".  The public needs to know that Six Nations are either lying, or they are very sadly mistaken.  I will come up with a bottom line here, at the end of this post, because of my strong belief in, "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions".

As I have stated, even recently, if you ask someone at Six Nations about the name of the treaty which gives them these perceived rights, you will probably get a blank stare or an evasive answer.  Many at Six Nations know that some members of the public are "on to them", and know that the treaty to which they refer as documenting their "rights" is fraudulent.  It is an embarrassment, and those in the know would likely rather not discuss the inconvenient details and keep things in the generality arena.  As long as someone does not bring forward a formal challenge, they know that they are safe and can depend of precedent and two unfortunate Court rulings by judges who appear not to have viewed the primary evidence, only transcripts which obfuscate rather than clarify.  Also the Provincial Government, who, if they are retreads from the McGinty era, are dinosaurs who would do anything possible to placate Six Nations, even if it meant ignoring the evidence.  So for the moment those at Six Nations, such as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, can hide behind a smoke screen.  What they will soon realize is that smoke is ephemeral and will disperse, showing what has been covered over or disguised.  The agent in this case will be a collection of facts that paint a detailed picture of the truth.

As noted elsewhere, I have sifted through the vast collections of the Indian Affairs (RG10) Series at Library and Archives Canada for the original copies of census records, land deeds, surrenders and surveys, as well as all of the Six Nations Council Minutes.  Also accessed have been the survey records (all historical maps and survey diaries pertaining to the Grand River Tract), and Indian Agent notes and diaries at the Archives of Ontario.  Also explored have been the records at the County Land Registry Offices in Ontario.  These are only a few representative examples of the work completed in Canada.  Then there is the work at the archives in Albany, Cooperstown and New York City; plus the local archives in Upstate NY.  If anyone has done more work in these collections, I salute them (as I have done re Joan Holmes & Associates).

As a function of this study, I am in a position to assess claims such as "treaty rights", and ask the obvious question - "what treaty is it you are speaking about"?

A few examples of those impacted by the improper use of the term "treaty rights" include:

1)  Federal, Provincial and local goverments.
2)  Land developers.
3)  Hydro One.
4)  Power companies constructing wind turbines.
5)  Archaeological consultants.
6)  Conservation agencies.
7)  The taxpayers of Canada.

It is almost certain that the "treaty rights" are being claimed via the Nanfan (Fort Albany) "Treaty" of 1701.  This is a fraudulent arrangement since the Five Nations knew that as of June 1700 they had no further claim on the land in what is today Southwestern Ontario, subsequent to making peace with the French allied Ojibway (Anishinabe) groups, in particular the Mississauga.  The Five Nations tried to assert "ownership rights" by establishing 8 village sites on the north shore of Lake Ontario beginning about 1681.  By 1696 all were destroyed, and the Iroquoian people killed or forced back to their homeland in Upstate NY.  Thus it was presumptuous and fraudulent to negotiate for lands that they in fact did not possess, or hold any claim to by whatever rationale one might wish to apply.  It was Mississauga land in 1701, as it was in 1784 when Governor General Frederick Haldimand purchased the lands along the Grand River (Haldimand Tract) from the Mississauga to offer as a home to the Six Nations.  Also, based on the Treaty of Ryswick of 1697 the English acknowledged the right of the French to lands on the north side of Lakes Ontario and Erie.  This agreement stood until the Treaty of Paris in 1763, when it became an English possession.  So the Nanfan Treaty is actually a meaningless document, where the Five Nations yield to the King lands that they do not own or possess in any manner, but are actually under the direct ownership of the Mississauga, and the sovereignty of the King of France.

The document is not a "treaty", it is a "request" by 20 Five Nations Chiefs that the British Crown ("our great Lord and Master the King of England") exercise sovereign rights over the lands used as the "beaver hunting grounds", which were obtained "four score years agoe" (1621 would be in error) "totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country".  In fact the "them" were the aboriginal former occupants, who were conquered by what amounted to an almost complete genocide.  These included the Huron / Wyandot, Petun, Attiwandaronk, Erie, and Wenro (circa 1641 to 1657).  All that the Five Nations asked in return was to be able to use this land for hunting (no requests as to fishing are noted).  The document has the totems (clan symbols) of each signator (I recognize the names of all 6 of the Mohawks whose names appear), and a mere listing of the White people who were present, including Robert Livingston the "Secretary for the Indian affares".  The Governor attested to the names of the Whites who were present, but he did not use his own personal seal, nor any official government seal, and could not have even consulted the New York legislature since as acting Governor, Nanfan had dissolved it before the instrument was signed (19 July 1701).

A local researcher ordered a copy of the "treaty" (which was eventually located in England), with photographs of the front and the back of the parchment - which shows the context of the document and how it does not in any sense meet the standard of a "treaty" - instead it is a piece of paper gifting land to the King, with the hope that he will chose to confirm to the Five Nations a right to hunt beaver here.  The wording is, it is hereby expected that wee are to have free hunting for us and the heires and descendants from us the Five nations for ever.  There is a big difference between "expected" (i.e., hoped for) and something stronger like, "we require" which does not appear at all.  Robert Livingston was charged with the responsibility to take it to England to present to the King.  There is no evidence that the King or any of his inner circle ever saw it, and the English legislature never ratified the "treaty".  There is no Privy Council seal, nothing at all to make it into an official document.  Hence the request for confirmation of hunting rights amounted to nothing.  In essence the document was simply ignored, and placed into storage.

Anyone impacted by or merely interested in this subject can be directed toward a number of very well researched studies - all of which reach the same conclusion.  These include:

1)  Garry Horsnell - "Short History of the Six Nations", with a discussion of the Nanfan Treaty, see here.

2)  Alex Westwood - "Haudenosaunee deer hunting in Dundas Valley - history and legal aspects", see here.

3)  Thomas Kennedy - "The Nanfan Treaty 1701 - Hoax of History" from Alex Westwood's blog, see here.

4)  Alex Biegalski - "Haudenosaunee deer hunting in Dundas Valley - a 'treaty right' or a fraud?", see here.

5)  Alex Biegalski - "Conveyance of lands by the Native American Chiefs of the Five Nations", see here.

6) DeYo - For an earlier look at this topic by the present author see here.

Thomas Kennedy does not pull any punches in the above "Hoax of History" paper.  He concludes that the Nanfan "Treaty", does not reflect true historical facts. It is instead, a false term fabricated and used for fraudulent political purposes.  Furthermore, All agreements and protocols based on this hoax should be immediately challenged and revoked.  Alex Biegalski, the author of the "'treaty right' or fraud'" article sates that the so called "treaty" is a,  fraudulent interpretation of historical facts and a legally invalid claim of "treaty rights" that was, never intended, recognized or confirmed by the Crown as a valid treaty.

In my opinion, if any one of the parties impacted by the "treaty rights" set out a Court challenge in the Superior Court of Ontario against these purported "rights", the whole sordid business would topple like a house of cards, and most importantly, justice would be served. Frankly, however, it will be necessary to address two earlier Court cases, specifically Regina v. Ireland and Jamieson 1990, as well as Regina v. Barberstock 2003, which unfortunately did not have the original document to use in the respective decisions.  The upshot is that both judges concluded that both Robert Livingston and John Nanfan signed the document, and hence the agreement is valid. 

The matter has to be brought back to Court, but this time with the full weight of the entire body of evidence. I have no doubt as to what the outcome will be, but it will be necessary to show why the earlier judges were led to made some unfortunate conclusions, which rulings can be amended by virtue of the evidence now available.  The problems in past Court rulings were the facts that:

a)  Only a transcript of the 1701 document was then available.  The original document (photographic copies now being available locally) does not show what the judges claimed as fact.  Robert Livingston is merely listed (no signature), and Nanfan only signed attesting as to who was present on that occasion as witnesses, and to the authenticity of the document.  Nanfan included no seal, and no title, and nothing but his name.  When the document reached England it was given no further consideration.  There is no Privy Council seal affixed to it, and nothing at all added by the Crown that would give it any weight as a legal document.  It appears to be an item of historical interest only.

b)  There was apparently no formal historial research revealing a chronology, and key details showing it was not a treaty of any description.  In short, by 1701 when the document was signed, the Five Nations had been entirely driven from this land, the Mississauga owned it by right of conquest, and thus the Five Nations could have no legitimate claim here - making the document a fraud.  The document is nothing more than a surrender of any rights to land ownership, with a request to the King to be permitted hunting rights (the request was never confirmed by the Crown).  In the recent ruling by Ontario Superior Court Justice Harrison Arrell (November 2010), he was privy to a report by respected historical researchers Joan Holmes & Associates, which was used in arriving at a firm conclusion.  In my opinion, comprehensive research done by historians can provide evidence useful to judges in arriving at a fully informed decision.

c)  I would recommend citing a critical legal principle which will almost certainly seal the case, bolstering the hard evidence above - namely "nemo dat quad non habet", which I discussed in my earlier posting.

The present author agrees with the above assessments by each of the authors, and would add that all agreements between Six Nations and various groups (e.g., wind turbine power companies) be considered null and void, and all monies paid based upon the belief that the Six Nations had valid "treaty rights" should be returned to the group or individuals who have unnecessarily paid money to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, the Mohawk Workers, the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council, or the Six Nations Elected Council.  If advantageous, these parties could re-negotiate using a different rationale - we now know, and can prove, that "treaty rights" is not a legitimate reason.

Update - The "solidarity" view of many White people to the Nanfan or any supposed treaty and supposed "treaty rights" is seen in a comment by R. Walker to a post on the blog,“Niagara at Large”, entitled, Shorthills Protests are Short on Patience with the Hunters by Six Nations member Karl Dockstader, 13 November 2013. The post and comment can be found here.  Here Mr. Walker states:  

There is a tendency to construct treaties as some kind of paper document and not a living document which is an arrangement between peoples. This arrangement was necessitated when Europeans “strayed far from their roots” and the “two row wampum” treaty was long before the “Albany treaty”. Furthermore, some of us support your “inherent rights” as first nations and certainly recognize and honour “our” treaties without any nit picking.

There are in fact no“inherent rights” of one group of Canadians that trump those of another group of Canadians. This is a far left wing concept which is politically correct at this point in time but has no grounding in objective reality, and therefore the only true feature here is that there are some who would without justification give to Six Nations (who are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario) more than the first Loyalist settlers who were generally of German descent. Furthermore, as far as Six Nations are concerned, there are no legitimate "treaty rights" - their lack of aboriginal status, and their lack of any treaty arrangement here are seemingly insurmountable problems.  So apparently the facts and the truth are less important than keeping up a pretext, a solidarity with the beliefs (very convenient ones) held by Six Nations.  So for some White people for whom Six Nations and Native people in general can do no wrong, the facts and the truth are quite irrelevant, they are apparently just a form of "nit picking".


DeYo.