An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[CANADIEN]

The myth is one thing, the reality another. I will venture to say that what was intended was that the Crown held all land, and specifically gave away small defined pieces to native peoples. I will further suggest that one of the legally entitled representatives of those native peoples, in fact sold vast fractions of the disputed Six Nations lands during hard times. Thats right the land was sold to citizens by the Six Nations themselves, but of course now they want it back. Good luck with that. When the courts decide to do that, I will leave the nation myself. I mean really when the rul of law ceases to protect and begins to oppress the citizens then it is time to go.

Interesting theory about the land in question having been sold by legitimate representatives of the Six Nations. Let's measure it against facts, shall we?

1) NONE of 30 or so claims filed by the Six Nations with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is for land sold by them to white land speculators in the 1790's. In fact, it was the contention of the Six Nations AT THE TIME that they had the right to sell it directly to settlers.

2) The Six Nations claim that the General Surrender of their land signed on January 18, 1841, was invalid because those signing did not have authority to do so - and further, that they had been intimidated into signing it. This clai was raised in a petition from the Six Nations dated February 4, 1841, 17 DAYS after the alleged surrender. Not a new one, now is it?

3) The Six Nations agreed, in January 1835, to LEASE land along the Plank Road (including the disputed land in Caledonia). In 1845, the Government claimed that the land in question had been surrendered.

Not tosay that these claims are to be taken at face value, bu they have been around long enough.

[charter.rights]

Interesting theory about the land in question having been sold by legitimate representatives of the Six Nations. Let's measure it against facts, shall we?

1) NONE of 30 or so claims filed by the Six Nations with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is for land sold by them to white land speculators in the 1790's. In fact, it was the contention of the Six Nations AT THE TIME that they had the right to sell it directly to settlers.

2) The Six Nations claim that the General Surrender of their land signed on January 18, 1841, was invalid because those signing did not have authority to do so - and further, that they had been intimidated into signing it. This clai was raised in a petition from the Six Nations dated February 4, 1841, 17 DAYS after the alleged surrender. Not a new one, now is it?

3) The Six Nations agreed, in January 1835, to LEASE land along the Plank Road (including the disputed land in Caledonia). In 1845, the Government claimed that the land in question had been surrendered.

Not tosay that these claims are to be taken at face value, bu they have been around long enough.

However, we also have the thousands of acres that were occupied in 1784 that were to be vacated and never happened. The persistent settlement of Six Nations lands illegally after 1874 also bears compensation. And none of it ever involved Joseph Brant or any other Haudenosaunee acting on his own or in collusion with others.

It should also be noted that Six Nations and Joseph Brant's assertion that they could sell or lease land to whomever they wanted was an assertion of their sovereignty. Six Nations did not accept that the British had gained authority over them, and their assertions have been consistent ever since.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

However, we also have the thousands of acres that were occupied in 1784 that were to be vacated and never happened. The persistent settlement of Six Nations lands illegally after 1874 also bears compensation. And none of it ever involved Joseph Brant or any other Haudenosaunee acting on his own or in collusion with others.

It should also be noted that Six Nations and Joseph Brant's assertion that they could sell or lease land to whomever they wanted was an assertion of their sovereignty. Six Nations did not accept that the British had gained authority over them, and their assertions have been consistent ever since.

No doubt they did not accept the reality of authority over themselves, the truth hurts. Is now the time to bring up the fact that the Six Nations were anti-British, picked the wrong side in the US Civil War and only then decided to return to Canada and then lay claim to lands they wanted after decades of not even being in the country?

[charter.rights]

No doubt they did not accept the reality of authority over themselves, the truth hurts. Is now the time to bring up the fact that the Six Nations were anti-British, picked the wrong side in the US Civil War and only then decided to return to Canada and then lay claim to lands they wanted after decades of not even being in the country?

Jerry. When do you stop with the myths?

Six Nations had been in southern Ontario for at least 1000 years according to the archaeology of the North Shore of Ontario and Erie and had never left. While it is true that many people went south prior to the American Revolution to fight with the British, the settlements never ceased.

Each nation within the Six Nations we free to choose sides. The Oneida and Onondaga sided with the US (although they claimed they were neutral). The Mohawk and Seneca sided with the British. The Cayuga were neutrals. So in doing so, while apparently split, the Six Nations actually guaranteed some benefits by the split. I would remind you that there are lots of Six Nations people still living in the US.

[Shwa]

No doubt they did not accept the reality of authority over themselves, the truth hurts. Is now the time to bring up the fact that the Six Nations were anti-British, picked the wrong side in the US Civil War and only then decided to return to Canada and then lay claim to lands they wanted after decades of not even being in the country?

Thanks for making something very clear Jerry. You have provided a perfect example as to why Canadian history needs to be taught in Canadian schools since it was obviously missing in your day.

[Saipan]

were within their rights to block roads, to erect barricades

So can the province or Ottawa put up barricades, and in fact completely remove roads to indian land and recycle the pavement to use on other roads..

[eyeball]

Most of us just don't recognize the difference between law and justice.

That's probably true of the state, it's institutions and probably a fair number of corporations as well but most Canadian human beings know the difference and have probably known it since Kindergarten.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Thanks for making something very clear Jerry. You have provided a perfect example as to why Canadian history needs to be taught in Canadian schools since it was obviously missing in your day.

What part did I miss. You guys lost, period. You were given lands, some of which you gave away. You were allowed to retain your society by your own designs to the degree we allowed. FN's get free houses, free health care, free education, can hunt and fish to their hearts content on crown land, and don't have to work. Lets nt get into the entire tax issue. Yet that is not enough you want more, in fact you want far more then was agreed to when you entered into those agreement.

I pity the pathetic souls who decide to live off the avails of hard working tax paying citizens. I suggest that we call a spade a spade here. Give them self government over their existing treaty lands. Cut off all funding to FN's and forward all claims to an international court.

[ToadBrother]

What part did I miss. You guys lost, period. You were given lands, some of which you gave away. You were allowed to retain your society by your own designs to the degree we allowed. FN's get free houses, free health care, free education, can hunt and fish to their hearts content on crown land, and don't have to work. Lets nt get into the entire tax issue. Yet that is not enough you want more, in fact you want far more then was agreed to when you entered into those agreement.

And what about those that do not have agreements?

I pity the pathetic souls who decide to live off the avails of hard working tax paying citizens. I suggest that we call a spade a spade here. Give them self government over their existing treaty lands. Cut off all funding to FN's and forward all claims to an international court.

You want domestic policy tested in an international court?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And what about those that do not have agreements?

You want domestic policy tested in an international court?

It is time to solve the problem. Both sides are bias, that doesn't indicate a fair judgment, so move it to a venue where neither party holds an edge. I don't suggest that this is simply domestic given that the FN folks claim to be a sovereign people. Give them their day in court, leave the decision to an impartial magistrate. Close the door on the subject once and for all, that would be justice.

I am on record here saying what I have said, and yet I do advocate a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. I have no interest on either side of the equation really.

[ToadBrother]

It is time to solve the problem. Both sides are bias, that doesn't indicate a fair judgment, so move it to a venue where neither party holds an edge. I don't suggest that this is simply domestic given that the FN folks claim to be a sovereign people. Give them their day in court, leave the decision to an impartial magistrate. Close the door on the subject once and for all, that would be justice.

I am on record here saying what I have said, and yet I do advocate a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. I have no interest on either side of the equation really.

First of all, I think we need to clarify. Charter's notion that "sovereignty" means that the native peoples are somehow independent states is not really accurate, and certainly was never the intention of the formulators of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In essence, the notion that ruled British Imperial policy towards most of the native peoples it encountered was that those people lived under its protection, and that legally giving these peoples the status of a sort of limited sovereignty that must be negotiated away for access to territories was meant as a way for the Crown to control western expansion. This in fact was something that long plagued the Empire; India was in some respects almost a colony by accident, and look at Cecil Rhodes adventures.

In essence, by placing these "sovereign nations" under the protection of the Crown, and requiring treaties, the Crown hoped to retain control of colonial expansion and economics. The Royal Proclamation, in fact, was in part one of the things that lead to the War of Independence.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the native peoples are sovereign states in the same way that Paraguay or Turkey are. Most certainly, long-standing precedent does indeed place native peoples under not just the protection of, but the authority of the Crown as well. I don't know of too many native leaders who are insisting that they be treated like foreign nation states. Obviously there are going to be small militant groups that, like Charter, seem to have completely misread the situation. To imagine that George III's ministers actually serious meant that any of the native peoples anywhere in the British Empire in the mid-18th century were foreign states in the same way that Britain itself was is ludicrous.

[charter.rights]

It is time to solve the problem. Both sides are bias, that doesn't indicate a fair judgment, so move it to a venue where neither party holds an edge. I don't suggest that this is simply domestic given that the FN folks claim to be a sovereign people. Give them their day in court, leave the decision to an impartial magistrate. Close the door on the subject once and for all, that would be justice.

I am on record here saying what I have said, and yet I do advocate a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. I have no interest on either side of the equation really.

Six Nations has requested on numerous times that the issue be tried in international court, or by an impartial international arbitrator. The government refuses. They know the cannot win. Instead they recommend "negotiation" where they stall and obfuscate for 10 to 20 years, where a new generation takes over and starts the process all over again. The net result? Nothing. And still the interest on their trust account grows by about 30 billion a year. Compounded that trust account will be worth about another trillion in 10 years.

I suggest Jerry that you are not mad enough, yet. And your anger is directed at the wrong party. When you have had enough, like the rest of us then maybe you can demand the government get off their butts and work towards settlement.

The status quo is at least 20 or so more years of protest, sometimes violent, always causing economic disruption and lots more inconvenience to us. It is $3 trillion more added to their trust account in interest WE are ultimately responsible for. It means more Supreme Court of Canada rulings that go against us, and bolster and clarify aboriginal rights. The one saving grace is that it will also mean 20 years of eduction where finally we may rid our society of the ignorant and ill-informed anti-native sentiment you so eloquently express. It also means that the power-shift away from the dominant Anglo-white male will finally be complete and we can then start working towards a more equitable and just society. And finally it will mean that all the mean-spirited self-indulgent myth makers will have passed on, and we'll have a new generation who can direct their anger at people like you for leaving all this garbage for them to clean up.

[charter.rights]

First of all, I think we need to clarify. Charter's notion that "sovereignty" means that the native peoples are somehow independent states is not really accurate, and certainly was never the intention of the formulators of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In essence, the notion that ruled British Imperial policy towards most of the native peoples it encountered was that those people lived under its protection, and that legally giving these peoples the status of a sort of limited sovereignty that must be negotiated away for access to territories was meant as a way for the Crown to control western expansion. This in fact was something that long plagued the Empire; India was in some respects almost a colony by accident, and look at Cecil Rhodes adventures.

In essence, by placing these "sovereign nations" under the protection of the Crown, and requiring treaties, the Crown hoped to retain control of colonial expansion and economics. The Royal Proclamation, in fact, was in part one of the things that lead to the War of Independence.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the native peoples are sovereign states in the same way that Paraguay or Turkey are. Most certainly, long-standing precedent does indeed place native peoples under not just the protection of, but the authority of the Crown as well. I don't know of too many native leaders who are insisting that they be treated like foreign nation states. Obviously there are going to be small militant groups that, like Charter, seem to have completely misread the situation. To imagine that George III's ministers actually serious meant that any of the native peoples anywhere in the British Empire in the mid-18th century were foreign states in the same way that Britain itself was is ludicrous.

That's one perspective and I've heard it many times. However, Six Nations and other FN assert they are sovereign and never agreed to Crown sovereignty over them. Clearly there was no meeting of the minds, and therefore no agreement. As well native people have never been conquered or have they capitulated, surrendered or merged with the Crown. So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it?

The term "sovereign protection" comes from the Howard Treaty 1684 had no intent or effect of turning Six Nations people into subjects. Also under international law one nation cannot assume jurisdiction over another without their full and unconditional consent.

So that leaves us with doubt, that leans in favour of Six Nations.

[ToadBrother]

That's one perspective and I've heard it many times. However, Six Nations and other FN assert they are sovereign and never agreed to Crown sovereignty over them. Clearly there was no meeting of the minds, and therefore no agreement. As well native people have never been conquered or have they capitulated, surrendered or merged with the Crown. So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it?

The term "sovereign protection" comes from the Howard Treaty 1684 had no intent or effect of turning Six Nations people into subjects. Also under international law one nation cannot assume jurisdiction over another without their full and unconditional consent.

So that leaves us with doubt, that leans in favour of Six Nations.

You're massively overreading here. It is simply inconceivable that George III's ministers meant what you say they meant, and no court in the land would ever agree with your interpretation. The Six Nations simply have no case if they think they're going to be viewed in the same way that modern sovereign states are. Those lands are under the protection of the Crown, which effectively makes it Crown territory. You're taking a monolithic view of what Crown land means, but it historically has meant many different things, and not just the "commons".

Six Nations are, by international law, by domestic law, and most importantly by long-standing constitutional law, under the protection of the Crown. They have none of the normal legal rights of sovereign states; ie. the right to make treaties, the right to their own armed forces, the right to send out ambassadors or to receive ambassadors, to diplomatic immunity for their ambassadors or emissaries.

Your interpretation is a fiction. The British Empire controlled those territories. Yes, the Proclamation gives them a special status, like all the native peoples of the lands under the Crown, and required treating with them as sovereign states, but the intent was never to give them full sovereignty, but rather to protect them from colonial incursions, and more importantly to protect the Crown land on which they lived from the expansionist policies of some of the colonies.

Where you get this idea that international law would somehow recognize this strange claim is beyond me.

[charter.rights]

You're massively overreading here. It is simply inconceivable that George III's ministers meant what you say they meant, and no court in the land would ever agree with your interpretation. The Six Nations simply have no case if they think they're going to be viewed in the same way that modern sovereign states are. Those lands are under the protection of the Crown, which effectively makes it Crown territory. You're taking a monolithic view of what Crown land means, but it historically has meant many different things, and not just the "commons".

Six Nations are, by international law, by domestic law, and most importantly by long-standing constitutional law, under the protection of the Crown. They have none of the normal legal rights of sovereign states; ie. the right to make treaties, the right to their own armed forces, the right to send out ambassadors or to receive ambassadors, to diplomatic immunity for their ambassadors or emissaries.

Your interpretation is a fiction. The British Empire controlled those territories. Yes, the Proclamation gives them a special status, like all the native peoples of the lands under the Crown, and required treating with them as sovereign states, but the intent was never to give them full sovereignty, but rather to protect them from colonial incursions, and more importantly to protect the Crown land on which they lived from the expansionist policies of some of the colonies.

Where you get this idea that international law would somehow recognize this strange claim is beyond me.

Try again.

So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it?

To ASSUME that the Crown holds jurisdiction over Six Nations, you would have to prove that they held sovereignty over them and their lands BEFORE the Royal Proclamation 1763. Because the declaration of the Crown over a nation they recognized as not being British subjects would have had to hold authority over them to ignore their own assertions of sovereignty. Unless you can prove that Six Nations capitulated, your colonial biased opinion holds no water.

[ToadBrother]

Try again.

So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it?

Because it's happened the whole world over, and in particular with the British Empire's holdings. Heck, the Maori fought an active war, and the best they got was a treaty.

The Six Nations are not a nation in the full sense of the would. The Royal Proclamation was never designed to make it so, but more to the point to limit independent extensions of the colonies of their own accord.

To ASSUME that the Crown holds jurisdiction over Six Nations, you would have to prove that they held sovereignty over them and their lands BEFORE the Royal Proclamation 1763. Because the declaration of the Crown over a nation they recognized as not being British subjects would have had to hold authority over them to ignore their own assertions of sovereignty. Unless you can prove that Six Nations capitulated, your colonial biased opinion holds no water.

The long-standing control the Crown has held over the territories is sufficient. And as to international law, since your notion would undermine, for instance, Russian claims to big chunks of Siberia, I can assure you that International law will never favor your.

The Six Nations territory is an integral part of Canada. Full stop. It's not my case to prove. No other nation states out there are making a claim that the territory is not part of Canada, no internationally-recognized bodies do either. So that's the end of the story. Six Nations are not nation states.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Saipan]

Six Nations has requested on numerous times that the issue be tried in international court, or by an impartial international arbitrator.

It's Canada internal affair.

[charter.rights]

Because it's happened the whole world over, and in particular with the British Empire's holdings. Heck, the Maori fought an active war, and the best they got was a treaty.

The Six Nations are not a nation in the full sense of the would. The Royal Proclamation was never designed to make it so, but more to the point to limit independent extensions of the colonies of their own accord.

The long-standing control the Crown has held over the territories is sufficient. And as to international law, since your notion would undermine, for instance, Russian claims to big chunks of Siberia, I can assure you that International law will never favor your.

The Six Nations territory is an integral part of Canada. Full stop. It's not my case to prove. No other nation states out there are making a claim that the territory is not part of Canada, no internationally-recognized bodies do either. So that's the end of the story. Six Nations are not nation states.

Try again. Your circular reasoning cannot rationalize that fact that Six Nations never capitulated. And then we have the little matter where the Queen celebrated the nation to nation relationship with Six Nations just this past July by presenting 8 silver hand bells to the Chiefs of Six Nations and Tyendinaga. Engraved on the bells: ""The Silver Chain of Friendship 1710-2010." Seems the Queen of Canada - the Crown still sees Six Nations as an ally and not a subject.... Maybe you should take this up with her?

And regardless, the land in Southern Ontario under the law is still Six Nations territory. It, like their sovereignty has never been ceded.

[CANADIEN]

No doubt they did not accept the reality of authority over themselves, the truth hurts. Is now the time to bring up the fact that the Six Nations were anti-British, picked the wrong side in the US Civil War and only then decided to return to Canada and then lay claim to lands they wanted after decades of not even being in the country?

Bring it any time,

Then it will be my pleasure (along with anyone's with actual knowledge of Canadian and American history) to point out that the settlement of the Six Nations on the Grand River took place after the American REVOLUTION 9not the Civil War, your out by only 80 years or so), when part of the Iroquois Conferedracy (those who followed Brant to the Grand River) SIDED WITH the British.

[ToadBrother]

Try again. Your circular reasoning cannot rationalize that fact that Six Nations never capitulated.

Capitulation is not necessary to seizure of territory. All the European colonial powers basically took over land, whether the locals thought it proper or not. Heck, they were still discovering isolated tribes in Brazil and New Guinea well into the 20th century, and none of them ever capitulated, and yet none would ultimately have any legal standing for asserting independence from the nations that claimed or oversaw their territories.

And then we have the little matter where the Queen celebrated the nation to nation relationship with Six Nations just this past July by presenting 8 silver hand bells to the Chiefs of Six Nations and Tyendinaga. Engraved on the bells: ""The Silver Chain of Friendship 1710-2010." Seems the Queen of Canada - the Crown still sees Six Nations as an ally and not a subject.... Maybe you should take this up with her?

Maybe you should actually understand what it means. There are different definitions of "nations". The Six Nations, if they tried to send an ambassador to the United States or Japan, would not be recognized, because they are not a sovereign nation in the context of international law, and thus they have no independent diplomatic standing from the Dominion of Canada.

And regardless, the land in Southern Ontario under the law is still Six Nations territory. It, like their sovereignty has never been ceded.

It's irrelevant where there was a technical cession of territory. Like I said, the Russians, Portugese, Spaniards, Brits and lots of others put wide areas of territory under their control, often without knowing who, if anybody, lived within them.

You are overreaching what the Proclamation and what the context of sovereignty means in this case. There are levels of sovereignty. For instance, Swiss cantons are sovereign save for those powers in the hands of the Swiss federal government. That does not mean the cantons are sovereign states in the same way that Switzerland itself is.

At best the Six Nations might argue that they are a Crown protectorate, but how that is formally any different than being under the Crown mystifies me. Protectorates are usually defined as having given up unilateral actions afforded to nation states.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[CANADIEN]

It should also be noted that Six Nations and Joseph Brant's assertion that they could sell or lease land to whomever they wanted was an assertion of their sovereignty. Six Nations did not accept that the British had gained authority over them, and their assertions have been consistent ever since.

On the basis of documents from the time, some from Brant himself, it can also be argued that he was asserting the right to dispose of land that had been granted, no different from other landowners.

[Saipan]

Does Europe belong to Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons?

[CANADIEN]

First of all, I think we need to clarify. Charter's notion that "sovereignty" means that the native peoples are somehow independent states is not really accurate, and certainly was never the intention of the formulators of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In essence, the notion that ruled British Imperial policy towards most of the native peoples it encountered was that those people lived under its protection, and that legally giving these peoples the status of a sort of limited sovereignty that must be negotiated away for access to territories was meant as a way for the Crown to control western expansion. This in fact was something that long plagued the Empire; India was in some respects almost a colony by accident, and look at Cecil Rhodes adventures.

In essence, by placing these "sovereign nations" under the protection of the Crown, and requiring treaties, the Crown hoped to retain control of colonial expansion and economics. The Royal Proclamation, in fact, was in part one of the things that lead to the War of Independence.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the native peoples are sovereign states in the same way that Paraguay or Turkey are. Most certainly, long-standing precedent does indeed place native peoples under not just the protection of, but the authority of the Crown as well. I don't know of too many native leaders who are insisting that they be treated like foreign nation states. Obviously there are going to be small militant groups that, like Charter, seem to have completely misread the situation. To imagine that George III's ministers actually serious meant that any of the native peoples anywhere in the British Empire in the mid-18th century were foreign states in the same way that Britain itself was is ludicrous.

Hear, hear. Serious injustice has been done - and is still being do ne, against First Nations. But the idea that they are independant states in the contemporary sense of the word has no foundation in law or in facts.

[charter.rights]

On the basis of documents from the time, some from Brant himself, it can also be argued that he was asserting the right to dispose of land that had been granted, no different from other landowners.

Incorrect. Brant was asserting Six Nations sovereignty over the land. By leasing or selling, alnd was not removed from the Confederacy. Rather the people who purchased the land became immigrants to the Confederacy.

[charter.rights]

Further, Nowegijick v. Her Majesty the Queen by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 25, 1983:

It is legal lore that, to be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed. It seems to me that treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians. If the statutes contains language which can be reasonably be construed to confer tax exemption, that construction, in my view, is to be favoured over a more technical construction which might be available to deny exemption. In Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S.1, it was held that Indians treaties must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians.

To the Indians, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was a treaty - one that came at least to Six Nations with promises that they would be allowed to retire to their Ontario Territory with the full protection of their allies Great Britain. And it is the oral promises that were made that in fact will alter the language of the Proclamation and not necessarily the letter of the law.

Clearly Six Nations did not agree that they were subjects of the Crown and that assertion has been brought forward to the present day. So we come back to the fundamental question: How can Canada assert sovereignty and authority over Six Nations when they would not accept it? There was no force or coercion that made Six Nations to capitulate. And when there is a disagreement, and or other promises made, the letter or words of the Proclamation cannot be taken de facto. Rather there is, as in disputes about lands claims and aboriginal rights a responsibility imposed on the Crown to interpret statutes "in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians." at the time they were made.

There were a series of treaties and agreements, as well as hundred of correspondence with the Crown in the early 1800's where Six Nations demonstrate their disagreement with the Crown's claim of sovereignty. Joseph Brant's action to lease land (which he did successfully) is an action demonstrating their independence. Then we have the Queen today still referring to Six Nations as their faithful allies - not subjects but allies on the same standing as the US or any other ally of Great Britain....

We also have in our history the surrender of land to us by Six Nations under Nanfan 1701 and other various treaties, which before the Royal Proclamation was clearly an act of a sovereign nation who the British recognized had control of a vast tract of land from Mississippi to Nippissing and from the Allegheny Mountains to North Dakota. Yet someone, somewhere came up with the idea that they could claim sovereignty over the entire territory, they did not believe it, since in 1768 the British entered into the Treaty of Fort Stanwix to seek the readjustment of the boundary between the several nations of Indians and the settlers in New York.

I'm not claiming that there may have been some deal somewhere that may have had some nations recognizing the Crown sovereign. However it is clear that Six Nations did not recognize that the Crown held authority and challenged it on many occasions.

So it is clearly in dispute, regardless of what you might think the Proclamation says, cautioning that your colonial bias and 2010 interpretation might not be accurate. Being use to reading many of these treaties, reading the minutes of meetings leading up to such agreements and reading interpretations made at the time and more recently by legal experts, I still do not agree that the Royal Proclamation 1763 conveyed Crown sovereignty over Six Nations or their territories.

So to go beyond this impasse I invite you to provide further proof of your opinion through supporting documentation (as I have done). Your simple reading and interpretation of the Proclamation is lacking and without further proof, your opinion stands still. Using circular reasoning is by suggesting that the proof that sovereignty was given in the Proclamation is contained in the Proclamation itself is a useless exercise. The British were much smarter than that and always had their minutes and correspondence to back up what was agreed upon - even if it sinks today's challenges.