mister_v

Most certainly that is what protection referred to, that is why the Simcoe Deed required that land surrenders be made directly to the Crown, rather than direct sales to private parties. However, regardless of WHY they were under Crown's protection the wording is clear: the Six Nations settled that land under the protection of the Crown. As a result they went from being allies of the Crown to subjects of the Crown. Neither the Haldimand Proclamation nor the Simcoe Deed contain any mention of Six Nations sovereignty over the land as that was certainly not the intent of either document, in fact both are very explicit about the protection part. The Tract was simply to compensate the Six Nations for land lost in the American Revolution. The lack of sovereignty is keeping in line with the Royal Proclamation, which did not provide for Indian sovereignty either. In fact, the Crown considered all Indian lands to be under its domain but only those lands purchased from Indians by Crown officials could be settled by colonists. The fact that the Six Nations is settled on land that originally was not theirs (the Tract as outlined in the Simcoe Deed was purchased by the Crown from the Mississaugas) makes any land claims by the Six Nations distinct from any other claims by any other native bands in Canada.

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians. BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases). As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter. Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time.

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it! As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us. Six Nations sovereignty was indeed lost. The Haldimand Deed AND the Simcoe Deed both clearly state that the Six Nations are settling the land under the protection of the Crown which made them subjects of the Crown as they then owed allegiance to the Crown. By extension, they are subject to the laws of Canada, even where those laws conflict with the Confederacy's traditional form of government.