History of Resistance

1701 - Nanfan Treaty

.Deed from the Five Nations to the King on their Beaver Hunting Ground

1784 - Haldimand Proclamation

Sir Frederick Haldimand granted to Six Nations and their descendants six miles deep from each side the Grand River as compensation for nearly four million acres sacrificed by Six Nations in their alliance with the British during the American War of Independence.

1755

The first Indian Department is created as a part of the British military.

1763 - Royal Proclamation

Lands possessed by Indians and their hunting grounds were to be reserved for the Indians and were under British protection. The Haudenosaunee never consented to this imposition.

Early 1800’s

Joseph Brant authorizes sale and lease of some parcels. Many settlers are squatters. Six Nations petition the Crown and ask for their removal.

1812

Proclamation - Against white people residing on Indian land and particular at the Grand River.

Instructions for the Good Government of the Indian Department dated May 1, 1812, to Sir John Johnson, Superintendent General and Inspector General of Indian Affairs, affirms the specifics required to be followed for the legal alienation of Indian lands. Sections 32, 33 and 34 defines the specifics that must be followed for the legal alienation of Indian lands. (PAC, RG 8 Vol. 271, Pgs. 28-39)

1829

On October 14, 1829, upon the recommendation of the Governor, Six Nations acknowledged their willingness to a proposed surrender for a village plot at Brantford upon the condition that the Governor remove the squatters from the land as he had promised. The issue of leasing the unoccupied lands for the benefit of the women and children was also concurred with. (PAC, RG 10 Vol. 5, Pgs. 2265-2272)

1830

The purported land alienations of the Town Plot of Brantford (April 19, 1830) and part of the Township of Brantford

(April 2, 1835) to resolve the problem of squatters on Six Nations lands are deemed by Six Nations as void as their purpose was never fulfilled.

1831

By agreement on September 28, 1831, Six Nations would consent to a land transaction to allow for the construction of the Talbot Road from Canborough Township to Rainham Township (North Cayuga Township) upon condition an Indian Reservation would be made for Six Nations of two miles back on each side of the Grand River where the Talbot Road would cross the Grand River. The terms of this condition was not honoured in the purported surrender for the area.

1832

By Statute of January 28, 1832, the Grand River Navigation Company was incorporated to make the Grand River more navigable from the works of the Welland Canal to Brantford. Between March 10, 1834 and 1847 recorded transfers show more than £44,292 ($177,168.00) was taken from Six Nations Trust Funds by Crown Agents and invested in the Grand River Navigation Company through stock purchases; contrary to protests of Six Nations. An additional amount yet to be determined was collected from the Government controlled sale of Six Nations lands and used to pay the day-to-day operating and maintenance expenses of the Grand River Navigation Company without being deposited into the Six Nations Trust. In addition, free Crown Grants were issued to the Grand River Navigation Company for 368 7/10 acres in 1837 as well as for lands elsewhere and at various periods of time.

1835

Public Notice - All persons in possession of Six Nations lands are to report to the trustees of the said Indians so leases might be granted.

1836

Six Nations Chiefs petitioned his excellency Sir Francis Bond Head, reminding him of promises made by General Darling and Sir Isaac Brock, to remove all the squatters from their lands in light of past conditional surrenders, (PAC, RG 10 Vol. 109, Pgs. 120-129). They reiterate previous requests that improvements to the Indian lands not be made. Request that all Whites below Brantford Bridge be removed leases or not.

1838

Indian Council held at Mohawk Village. Request the removal of squatters. Complaints of insults from squatters. Concerns of fraud on behalf of the trustee. Grand River Navigation agreement misspending. Request a law be made punish seller and buyer of Indian lands. Selling off land that taxes are required.

On July 18, 1839, the Executive council recommended that the Act of Parliament as passed May 11, 1839, be acted upon with respect to the removal of squatters, prior to the Public Notice as proposed by Samual P. Jarvis, being published. (PAC, RG 1 E1 Vol. 57, Pgs. 100-101)

1840

On January 8, 1840, Samuel P. Jarvis directs John Gwynne to report on the issue of Trespassers on the Six Nations lands. (PAC, RG 10 Vol. 503, Pgs. 290-291)

On July 14, 1840, Samuel P. Jarvis authorized John Gwynne to proceed to Six Nations to investigate the trespassing and enforce Chap. XV 2nd Vict. May 11, 1839, for the legislative removal and punishment of the squatters. (PAC, RG 10 Vol. 504, Pgs 118-119)

In view of Gwynne’s September 7, 1840, report, Samuel P. Jarvis reports to the Executive Council on September 12, 1840, with his recommendations to reduce the existing holdings on Six Nations in light of the white squatters on their lands, and proposes a leasing system on the lands the Six Nations previously do not occupy. (PAC, RG10 Vol.504, Pgs.147-154)

On November 27, 1840, the Executive council, in reference to Gwynne’s report, objected to the leasing system proposed in the report. In fact, the Executive council recommends the surrender of the whole Six Nations Tract with the exception of such parts as they may choose to occupy as difficulty would arise with the expulsion of squatters. (PAC), RG1 L1 Vol.39, Pgs.576-580)

1841

1841 Purported General Surrender - Samuel Jarvis, chief superintendent of Indian Affairs, tells the Six Nations that the Crown will not forcefully evict the 2,000 squatters. Caledonia’s population is about 300. He proposes that the Haudenosaunee surrender their lands to the Crown to prevent further encroachment in return for cash and a 20,000-acre reserve. The Crown obtains the disputed “general surrender” under those terms after six chiefs sign the document. Fifty-one chiefs and warriors protest the surrender a month later, saying Jarvis coerced or manipulated those who signed.

On October 4, 1843, an Order-in-council is passed acceding to the lands as petitioned by the Six Nations Indians on the south side of the grand river as being reserved for them. Thus, Oneida township being on the south side of the grand river and lying between Burtch’s landing and Cayuga is considered as not having been surrendered, but reserved. (PAC, RG10 Vol.714, Pgs.1-29)

1844

Public Notice, Governor General ordered squatters off the Lands on the south side of the Grand River between Brantford and Dunn Townships as they were “exclusively appropriated” for the use of Six Nations

On January 9, 1844, Jas Winniett, superintendent of Indian affairs, acknowledges the petition from the chiefs of the Six Nations Indians to this excellency identifying that portion of land situated between Burtch’s Landing and the Cayuga bridge on the south side of the Grand River as reserved for them. This conforms to the October 4, 1843 Order-in-council. (PAC, RG10 Vol.132, Pg.74666)

On January 22, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis, the chief superintendent of Indian affairs issued a Public Notice that the lands on the south side of the Grand River between the townships of Brantford and Dunn are exclusively appropriated for the use of the Six Nations Indians. (PAC, RG10 Vol.73, Pg.67893)

On February 7, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis reports upon the January 9, 1844 Six Nations petition, confirming that the governor general has confirmed all the lands on the south side of the Grand River between Brantford and Cayuga bridge as reserved for the Six Nations Indians. (PAC, RG10 Vol.717, Pgs.249-252)

On February 20, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis informs Mr. George Quen that no portion of the tract on the south side of the Grand River between Brantford and Cayuga is to be sold and that Mr. George Quen will probably be required to remove there from during the summer. (PAC, RG10 Vol.508, Pg.71)

On March 12, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis responded to J.M. Higginson Esqr. in reference to the January 28(22), 1844, Public Notice on persons claiming to Indian lands in the areas as identified are not justified in claiming purchases of those lands were made under the authority and cognizance of the Indian department. (PAC, RG10 Vol.508, Pgs.85-86)

On March 23, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis writes David Thompson, special superintendent to Six Nations advising him that the whole of the land on the south side of the Grand River between Brantford and Cayuga has been directed by his excellency and council to be reserved for the exclusive use of the Indians. (PAC, RG10 Vol.508, Pgs.137-139)

On March 28, 1844, by command of the governor general, a Public Notice is issued relative to the six nations lands notifying the public that purchases made from the Indians will in themselves confer no title to pre-emption, nor will any alleged occupation, since the inspection and valuation of these lands be recognized under any circumstances. Further notice that the Indian lands on the south side of the grand river between the townships of Brantford and Cayuga are set apart for the exclusive occupation of the Six Nations Indians, and all persons are cautioned against trespassing upon or holding unauthorized possession of the same. (Six Nations archival records, card catalogue, CAT#844-3-28-1)

In a May 16, 1844, petition from the squatters, in reference to the May 6, 1844, report on the squatters on Indian lands, Robert Russell Bown petitioned the government to abandon the plans for leasing the Indian lands to the squatters. The squatters petitioned that by taking a lease of the Indian lands, they would relinquish their claim against the government to be admitted the purchasers of the soil. (PAC, RG10 Vol.7, Pgs.3665-3667)

On May 16, 1844, Samuel P. Jarvis reports on the petition by Mr. Bown on behalf of the squatters that in view of the Proclamations issued by the government warning against the squatters intrusion on the six nations lands, it would be unjust to sacrifice the Indian interests. Jarvis further states that the lands from Burtch’s Landing to Cayuga as reserved for the Indians by an order-in-council of October 4, 1843, cannot be disposed of in fee simple without obtaining the consent of the Indians. (PAC, RG10 Vol.7, Pgs.3668-3679

Responsibility for Indian affairs transferred from Imperial control to the province of Canada (23 Victoria Chap.151 assented to June 30, 1860). The crown lands department assumed control of Indian matters and the commissioner was designated as Chief superintendent. (consolidation of Indian legislation, Vol.I, Pgs.145-146, six nations land research H-4 (a)

1858

The Legislative Assembly for Brant East proposes to turn Six Nations into a township, to tax the residents, and to incorporate the Tuscarora Township into Brant County. HCCC forced them to withdraw the bill.

1861

P. M. Jamieson, A. E. Hill and G. D. Styres created a petition and sent to Ottawa in hopes of replaced the HCCC with an elected council under the Indian Department. The petition was advocated by Isaac Powless, a fluent Haudenosaunee and English speaker who failed to get a job as interpreter for the Council. He felt the Chiefs were uneducated, conservative thinking, not engaged in political affairs, and unaccountable to the community. 67 people signed it. The petition was rejected by the federal government. The Onondaga Chiefs argued that if the Mohawks wanted election, they were free to do it; but the Onondagas would retain the traditional system of governance. Mohawk chiefs, led by John Smoke Johnson and George Martin Johnson (both Christians), wanted the reserve split into two. One for Longhouse adherents, the other for the Christians.

1868

Six Nations Agricultural Society (SNAS) was founded to promote better agricultural practices towards self-sufficiency. Six Nations Plowman’s Association (1886) and the Farmers’ Institutes (1895) were soon formed.

1870

Grand General Council Indian of Ontario (Cape Crocker, New Credit, Muncey of the Thames, Garden River, Alnwick, Chippawas of the Thames) , held in Willow Grove, at which the HCCC declares that they are allies of the Crown, not is subjects, and therefore not subject to Canadian law. Chief John Smoke Johnson interprets some wampum belts: “The Wampum having two men standing one at each end, represents the first meeting or treaty with the British Government. They stand on their own rules, which they laid down, the British Government gave a check Wampum to confirm what the Six Nations had done in their rules and declarations. The marks worked on the wampum shows the British and Six Nations had united by treaty. They were each to have their own way; not hurting their customs or rules, or regulations. If the Indian had his bark canoe, let him have it, let the British have his large vessels. The British gives the wampum to confirm rules and regulations of the Confederacy.” Chief Johnson also describes the Two-Row Wampum: “When the Confederacy was originated the lofty trees were planted, it signified that these bands of friendship extended from East to West; we compare these records that they may be united still. The two bands on the belt held up signifies union, and some of the bands had a link, which was the motto of the brethren, if any tree should strike the union, but it would never break, the brothers might fall. And that should keep us united, and strengthen us; it was the motto of our forefathers, they are swept away, yet it still stands.”

1872

Chief William Jacob of Grand River Territory wrote to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs: “You sail your Boat and we’ll paddle our own canoe Side by Side I was not to enter in your Craft and you was not to enter in my canoe. Gale and calm we must be side by side. . . we will always keep our laws separate from your laws.”

1875

The Younger Brothers sent a petition to David Laird, Superintendent general of Indian Affairs to declare that they are governed by their ancient law, and not those of Canada.

1890

September 1890 – Chiefs submit a formal protest concerning Canada’s interference in Six Nations affairs to the Governor General reaffirming their commitment to the Covenant Chain, while expressing disappointment with their allies’ response. The Chiefs argue that the laws being imposed upon them violate their treaty with Great Britain, that dates back to 1754. (National Archives of Canada, Indian Affairs, RG 10, Volume 22284, File 571, 169-1, “Memorial” written to Lord Knutsford, Secretary of State for the Colonies, London)

A second petition was sent to the Privy Council “to renew, brighten and strengthen the ancient covenant.” (National Archives of Canada, Indian Affairs, RG 10, Volume 2284, File 57, 169-1. Petition to the Privy Council of Canada from Isaac Hill, Onondaga Chief, Jacob Silversmith, Cayuga Chief, George Key, Seneca Chief, Jacob Hill and Gibson Crawford, Warriors of the Five Nations Indians of the Grand River, September 4, 1890.)

1892

Chief Isaac Hill complained to Indian Affairs about the seizure of wood from the territory, take under Canadian law. He stated that the Six Nations are allies, not subjects, and were therefore not bound to any law but their own. Dewdney disagreed and said an Order-in-Council in 1890 declared the Six Nations were subject to Ontario and Canadian law.

1898

The Council decided to ask the Government to put in a special clause allowing the Six Nations Indians to fish along the Grand River owing to the fact that that was one of the conditions of the original Treaty between the Six Nations and the British Government, and was one of the conditions of the agreement entered into by the Six Nations Council and the Grand River Navigation Company when the Dunnville and other Dams were built that they shall have all the privileges to fish along the River and at these dams without any restrictions whatsoever.

1899

April 19, 1899 - Local Superintendent, E. D. Cameron, told the Indian Office that only a third of the people on the Reserve supported the change in government and that if a switch was made “considerable trouble would result,” for it would strengthen the hand of the “pagan” faction. Cameron wondered why the Reserve couldn’t have a “dual system” of government, creating one council elected as a representative body, while the other reflected the hereditary chiefs and clan system. Cameron said that the Dominion would have final approval on measures enacted by either body anyway, so it might make sense for the Indians to be slowly brought to see the benefit of a representative system on its merits, without having it foisted upon them, all at once. (National Archives of Canada, Department of Indian Affairs, RG 10, Volume 2753, File 148,581. Letter to the Secretary of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, from Superintendent E. D. Cameron, Brantford, April 19, 1899.)

1899 – 400 people from Six Nations petitioned the Governor General to maintain the old system. Furthermore, their memorial argued that the impetus for change stemmed from people of ‘mixed blood,” formerly adopted into the band and instigated by the white community, surrounding the Reserve.

1924

Deskaheh on behalf of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council tried to garner international support

1959

HCCC supporters takeover Council House demanding restoration of traditional governance

1970

HCCC supporters takeover Council House demanding restoration of traditional governance. Elected council seeks injunction

2006

Kanonhstaton protest against further encroachment of white settlers

2013

Grand Council Position Statement against Elected Band and Tribal councils

2019

HCCC supporters takeover Band Administration lawn demanding restoration of traditional governance. Elected council seeks injunction

2020

1492 Land Back Lane - continuation of the resistance against land loss and interference by external governance structures (band council)

1839

Lord Durham Report - Report on the neglect and violation of the Crown’s Trust to Six Nations. Instructions dated 1763, 1775 and 1786 were used as the law of the land. They found that 40% of the trust was misallocated.

1839 – Justice James Buchanan Macaulay ruled that Six Nations had no exemption from the British laws of the land. Macaulay argued that Indians had been tried for murder in Ontario courts and that he, himself, had punished an Indian for “stealing one or two blankets from a squaw on the Grand River Tract.”

After rejecting the notion that because both parties were Indigenous, the case should be settled under Indigenous “usages and custom” Macaulay maintained that there was no “legal authority by which protection of the criminal law could be refused to the Indians inhabiting the county of Haldimand, whenever any of them sought it.” Thus, there was an assumption that Crown law applied to the people of the Grand River. (National Archives of Canada, Indian Affairs, RG 10, Volume 2284, File 57, 169-1. Report to Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, Undated, Signed by J. Stewart.)

1842

Bagot Commission - proposes that the separation of children from their parents would be the best way to achieve assimilation

1843

3 August, 1843 Report of a Committee to the Executive Council brings forth a number of matter, including challenges to the 1841 surrender.

1845

March 18, 1845 - Letter acknowledges land surrender for leases is a nullity from William Hepburn

1850 - assimilation becomes official government policy

1857 - Gradual Civilization Act - all Indian males over 21 who can read, speak, and write in English or French will be enfranchised

1865

Council House built by the Crown in Ohsweken. Formerly HCCC councils were held at the Onondaga Council House, Middleport. At first the Onondagas were opposed, but eventually hired Seneca Chief John Hill to construct the new Council House. Several wampum belts were read at the opening in January 1865.

A New seating plan was initiated:

· The Superintendent, clerk/secretary and interpreter sat at the far end, on a raised platform

· Mohawk and Seneca Chiefs at on the left

· Oneida, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Delaware, Nanticoke and Tutelo Chiefs sat to the left

· Onondaga Chiefs sat opposite the Superintendent.

· There was a railing cutting across the Council House to separate the Chiefs from their audience.

1867

Dominion of Canada (with a population of 2.6 million) formed, British colonies of the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick were united into one federation. After Confederation Indian Affairs were attached to the department of the secretary of state. The secretaries of state, who were also superintendents-general of Indian Affairs, were H. L. Langevin, July 1, 1867, to December 7, 1869; Joseph Howe, December 8, 1869, to May 6, 1873; T. N. Gibbs, June 14, 1873, to June 30, 1873.

1869 - The Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian

1872 - Dominion Lands Act

1869

Indian Act imposed land registry systems on reserves and called for an elected government. Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn is adopted and given the name Karakondye (Flying-Sun).

1876

Canadian government consolidated the Gradual Civilization Act and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act into the Indian Act. Indian Act initiated allows government to control most aspects of Aboriginal life.

1879

Davin Report - establishment of the residential school system to intentionally separate children from their parents to reduce the influence of the “wigwam”

1884

Indian Act amendments require Indigenous youth to attend school; prohibits traditional ceremonies

1888

Numerous chiefs, warriors and head men of the Grand River reserve petitioned the Governor General, Frederick A. Stanley (served 1888-93). They argued that they had never made any treaty with the British Crown that forced the Haudenosaunee to live under any but their own traditional laws and customs. The petition was forward to Dewdney who stated that there was no basis for such claims, and dismissed the idea that wampum belts were evidence of a valid treaty. Deputy Superintendent Lawrence Vankoughnet agreed and said that despite their loyal service, they did not merit an special legal status, and were to be considered subjects of the Crown

1911 - Indian Act Amended to allow municipalities and companies to expropriate portions of reserves, without surrender, for roads, railways, and other public works. The federal government amended the Indian Act to permit the expropriation of reserves adjacent to or within large towns.

1918 - Indian Act amended - uncultivated reserve lands can be leased to non-Aboriginal people for agricultural uses

1927 - Indian Act amended to make soliciting funds for legal claims without permission illegal

1936 - Indian Agents are given authority to direct band council meetings and can cast deciding vote in a tie

1951 - Indian Act Section 88 - “all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect to Indians in the province”

1951 - Indian Act restrictions on cultural practices removed

1969 White Paper - calls for the abolition of the Indian Act and assimilation of Aboriginals into mainstream culture

1977 - Canadian Human Rights Act

1982 - Constitution Act recognizes Indian, Inuit and Metis People, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

1996

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People