Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council in Chaos: Internal Disputes Placing the Entire Hereditary System in Jeopardy - Calls for Dismantling of the HDI

One does not have to search far in this blog for discussions of the extreme factionism at Six Nations. A swirling kaleidoscope of groups emerge when any issue involving land (e.g., the "return" of the former Burtch Correctional Center) or money (e.g., who gets what in deals with wind turbine "green energy" corporations) comes into view.

Six Nations is riddled with factions, each vying for power - it has ever been thus.  The only group empowered by law to deal with the Government of Canada is the Six Nations Elected Council. However this "inconvenient truth" does not in any way diminish the belief of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) from asserting their right to govern at Six Nations.  They are the hereditary conservative group who claim a historical right to rule being in theory direct descendants of the system of governance established in the Great Law by the Peacemaker in the days before contact with Europeans.  In 1924 this group had become so dysfunctional that educated Mohawks petitioned the Government to establish an elected system.  Even after the doors to the Hereditary Council House were locked, the group continued to function as a parallel system, and continue to this day to maintain that they are the only legitimate authority at Six Nations.  There has been no compromise between the two groups, only an entrenched digging in of the heels of their respective positions.  Add to this other bodies who claim that for example, only the Mohawks have the right to negotiate land claims under the Haldimand Proclamation.  The truth of the matter is that just about everyone at Six Nations is part Mohawk and part descendants of a number of the other Six Nations or Delaware groups.  Being assigned to a band such as Lower Mohawk or Upper Cayuga or Tuscarora etc. is set by the Indian Act of 1876 which follows the father's (paternal) line.  The Hereditary Council (in theory) follow the maternal (clan) line (although relatively few at Six Nations have any awareness of the clan to which they belong, and if they have a White maternal ancestor, as many do, this complicates things immensely).

So, just off the top of my head, in addition to the above two groups there is the Men's Fire, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, the Mohawk Workers, the Mohawks of the Grand River (formerly Kanata Mohawks).  So many claim to be in charge of this or that and there are those who oppose them, so inevitably inertia keeps things static (nothing gets done).

Now there is a new factionalism problem, internal disputes from within the HCCC, which are ripping and shredding the oldest governing body at Six Nations. There are two newspapers at Six Nations, one who favours the HCCC, and one which is more neutral and hence likely to report on a factual non - biased basis.  In the 8 July 2015 issue of "Two Row Times", page 8-9, is an:

A) Article: Mohawk Chief Allan McNaughton abruptly closes second Confederacy meeting in a row.  The author was aware of mounting tensions within HCCC, but a lot of it has been kept under wraps until now, or just dribbled out - there did not seem to be a meltdown over the horizon - but that is precisely what has occurred.

The series of problems came to a head when Chief McNaughton "stormed out of the longhouse". Some of the emerging issues, concerns and problems as of July 20015, as I see them expressed in this article, are as follows:

1)  The failure to observe protocol and its consequences.  As anyone who has read the "Great Law" (Kayenkeragowa) would know, there are tribes, clans and moieties.  It is imperative that the council come to a consensus, and this is done by following a well established system of rules.  Proposals are discussed by one side (say the Elder Brother side) and passed across the fire to the other (Younger Brother) side for discussion.  If those matters brought before Council have not been resolved satisfactorily, then they must be, as the author of the article says, "placed under the pillow" and held over for the next meeting.  However the current Chief, in acting out of human frustration, effectively closed the meeting and nothing further can be discussed until the next meeting.  With the head Chief (Tekaihogea, Turtle Clan, Mohawk) just walks away from a meeting, leaving everyone "bewildered", and the female clan members sent to bring him back were unsuccessful in even finding him - well this breach in protocol might at worse signal a death knell for the system, even if one understands the frustration that had built up.  Apparently this is the "second time in a row" that this behaviour has occurred.  If there is a groundswell of opinion that the Chief has not behaved acceptably there are procedures to remove him and replace him (the process is known as "dehorning"), but that is a very serious business - and for the head chief, that would signal serious internal strife.

2)  There is a serious downside to protocol as it now exists.  It should be noted that meetings are not as regular as they would be with other systems such as the elected system where as long as a quorum is reached (say 60% of Councillors present), the meeting can go on.  However here, as noted in this article, the death of someone in the family of a Chief can result in a series of steps, required as per protocol, but which could delay any work getting done indefinitely.  In a case such as this where some sort of reasonable timetable would be needed in order to work effectively with the Federal Government, the Hereditary Council falters badly.  This is 2015, and we are in the social media electronic era, yet protocol requires the Chiefs to react as if it was 1415.  When protocol is coming apart at the seams, you get fissons from within, which is precisely what we are seeing at the Longhouse.

3)  The proposed Tobacco Law is highly controversial at Six Nations.  The Hereditary Council (and Six Nations in general) refuse to accept Canadian Bill C-10 which would criminalize the contraband tobacco industry and severely penalize the individuals involved with it.  The problem is that this industry is a mainstay of employment at Six Nations.  Thus, a group led by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) has proposed that Six Nations regulate the industry on their own, and enforce instances where the law is broken by a Haudenosaunee person (defined as anyone who has an ancestor who was a member of the Six Nations of the Grand River).  The HDI emerged after the 2006 illegal take over of the Douglas Creek Estates near Caledonia, with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and all levels of government leaving the residents of Caledonia and surrounds to their own devices.  They soon realized that their brand of militancy (use of fear and intimidation with thugs and enforcers showing up at say a new housing development site in Hagersville, or the repair of the bridge in Cayuga and forcing a shut down of all work) tended to have the desired effect, and with impunity.  So through the use of extortion tactics, this group has been able to get developers and various levels of government to see the wisdom of "consultation and accommodation".  The fact that this group has zero authority to do what they are doing, does not seem to phase many people - except the residents of Brant and Haldimand Counties.  The exception is with Judges such as Harrison Arrell of Brantford who dropped the hammer on HDI individual members and issued severe fines. Few officials at any level of government have had the determination to do what Justice Arrell did in 2010.  It appears that the government, and the OPP, fear the HDI (and so will not for example enforce the legitimacy of the Ontario Land Registry System) - which is precisely the desired response.

The problem for some members of the HCCC, even though the proposed law is being orchestrated by their own authorized (more on this later) body the HDI, they see serious flaws which would mean that instead of the Canadian Government making the rules and enforcing them, some sort of cloned system would be put in place by the HDI who would make the law, enforce the law, establish licencing fees, and perhaps profit from the fines issued when a law is broken.  Most controversial of all is the "banishment clause" with the power to "expel anyone from Six Nations of the Grand River territory not complying with the tobacco law".

According to the "Great Law" a Chief or Clan Mother does not have the authority to invoke any such punishments on members of other Clans.  The view is that the new law would be nothing more than a "Canadian style" system, and would circumvent the traditional powers of Chiefs and Clan Mothers.

Protocol dictates that if a matter (such as the proposed Tobacco Law) is presented three times and there is no consensus, the matter is "abandoned".  Two meetings have come and gone, so there is in theory one more try then the whole business is dumped and what happens after that is anyone's guess.

4)  The former Burtch Correctional property is creating considerable dissention.  The previous Council had been prematurely closed. Thus the important business of how to approach the transfer of the former Burtch Correctional property back to Six Nations, which was not addressed then, was also shelved for another day - yet a solution is needed now.  This too may succumb to the "three meeting rule".  There is the Ontario Government putting the lands into a trust (since the Band Council is being challenged by HCCC and by law only the Elected Band Council can deal directly with Government in such matters); and the dispute over who gets to farm the land.  A great deal of acrimony has been created over this matter, and now HCCC is unable to offer a clear response.  Although not required to do so, the Ontario Government has sent a letter to the HCCC seeking their input on the matter, and requested a reply by 16 June - which came and went without the matter being acted upon - and now it is closing in on 16 July and still silence.

5)  The proposal to dismantle the HDI is gaining momentum.  In June some of the younger Chiefs had expressed their very serious concerns about the HDI, and they "called for all work involving the Haudenosaunee Development Institute be halted", and the staff, including the legal representative, be dismissed. Apparently "secret documents" about the HDI agreement clauses with Samsung were shown to these Chiefs.  This matter concerns the wind turbines and solar panel farms on lands not owned by Six Nations, but in order to avoid "trouble" Samsung and other "green energy" corporations have thought it prudent to just pay up so that work delays will not be inevitable.  The "deal" would mean perhaps $200 to each band member over 20 years, but if the deal was with the Haudenosaunee, and the definition was anyone with a Haudenosaunee ancestor this would include Wahta in Muskoka, Oneida of the Thames, or even people across Ontario or beyond who have Six Nations ancestry.  So then the pie would have to be sliced infinitely smaller depending on who would be in this net, and the money would be meaningless except to the administrative staff (presumably HDI) who would obtain funds for their efforts.  So some Chiefs and Clan mothers were questioning the HDI in broader terms since the latter has been involved in a lot of money generating activities of late (e.g., kickbacks from developers and corporations) - so, "where is the money"?  Where are the books so that Six Nations citizens can see where the expenditures are going and who is being paid what.  In what little has been given to the band members, they have seen expenses such as the HDI spending $280,000 in "travel costs".  On the surface this seems astronomical, and some members are demanding that the books be opened for full inspection.  Some have called the expenses. "outrageous in light of the poverty many of the Chiefs and Clanmothers endure on a daily basis".

In summary, there are a lot of very unhappy individuals at Six Nations who want answers from the HDI.  These are not just HCCC supporters, but also those affiliated with the Elected Council, and citizens across the Territory.  A simple question, "what is happening to the money"?  Last month the HDI responded assertively (some would say aggressively) to those who were questioning them.  It seems that while this worked for a short while, the heat is being turned up across a wider spectrum and questions of this nature are not going away - they require the HDI to open its books at the very least to all members of the Elected and the Hereditary Councils.  With true transparency, the books would be open to all.

Also, and most disturbing, is whether the Hereditary - Confederacy system itself can show sufficient flexibility to address problems such as what to do with the Burtch property, and how to respond to the "Haudenosaunee made" Tobacco Law - or will it shatter into many small pieces and disappear as an effective entity, a tangible link to the past.  Is it simply not possible to deploy a system designed in circa 1415 to successfully address complex issues in the modern world.  All successful governing systems from the Middle Ages have been forced to change or simply disappear into history books.  Can the Hereditary system remain a living breathing entity capable of carrying on the business of matters rooted in 2015, or at the very least a useful ceremonial role.  Six hundred years or so, the endurance has been astounding, but in the end it is "change or dissolve" - so we will see what happens over they next few months.  The HCCC (and HDI) appears to have reached a critical juncture.

B) Letter to the Editor:  Reflecting the tenor of the above article, a respected Turtle Clan female elder sent a letter entitled, Mohawk Turtle Woman Speaks (p.7).  She wrote that, We can no longer pretend that the current longhouse governance has the best interest of the community at heart.  Therefore we have no alternative, but with great sadness and remorse, have made a decision that the present governance cease all action and begin to repair the present system of the Six Nations Confederacy.

It appears that the Confederacy Council has made inappropriate decisions regarding the Haldimand Tract, without consultation and accommodation with the Six nations community.

We now request that HDI will now cease and desist and make a truth and reconciliation statement to the community .......................  May the Spirits be with us as we clean and repair our house.

That is a very strong indictment of the Hereditary Council and particularly the HDI and is another of the mounting demands that the HDI stop all operations and provide the community with what it has requested, honesty and transparency, which can be accomplished by "opening the books".  As voices mount, how long will it be that the HCCC will wish to retain its present affiliation with an "agency" that is perceived has having gone rogue?

I would certainly NOT like to see the demise of the HCCC, but people within and without are clamoring for change.  The ball is in the HCCC's court.

DeYo.

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

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

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

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

2)  Printed Copies of 1841 Surrender:

A Snapshot of Six Nations 20 Years After Surrender

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

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

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

DeYo.





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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





2)  Transcripts of the Above Documents Added for Clarity:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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