letter from Jacqueline House- 6Nations

[Riverwind]

Further, the concept of land ownership for aboriginals has never been the same as ours, so like it or not it will always be treated somewhat differently. Furthermore, the Six Nations situation seems to be particularly unique due to the proclamations of the land in question being very much different than a standard setting aside of some reserve lands as part of a more typical treaty.

I am not sure I buy the fraud on the part of the crown argument. This letter from the Governor to the Six Nations chiefs on the 15th Jan 1841 gives a lot of insight into the politics surrounding the transaction. This final deal required all of the Six Nations people to agree to move from settlements scattered all over the Grand River lands onto a concentrated reservation (probably something close to the current reservation). This transaction could not have completed without the complete co-operation of Six Nations people at the time. Even without the complete set of signatures couldn't the fact that all Six Nations chiefs co-operated with the terms of the transaction be used to argue that it was a legimate transaction?

[FTA Lawyer]

Further, the concept of land ownership for aboriginals has never been the same as ours, so like it or not it will always be treated somewhat differently. Furthermore, the Six Nations situation seems to be particularly unique due to the proclamations of the land in question being very much different than a standard setting aside of some reserve lands as part of a more typical treaty.

I am not sure I buy the fraud on the part of the crown argument. This letter from the Governor to the Six Nations chiefs on the 15th Jan 1841 gives a lot of insight into the politics surrounding the transaction. This final deal required all of the Six Nations people to agree to move from settlements scattered all over the Grand River lands onto a concentrated reservation (probably something close to the current reservation). This transaction could not have completed without the complete co-operation of Six Nations people at the time. Even without the complete set of signatures couldn't the fact that all Six Nations chiefs co-operated with the terms of the transaction be used to argue that it was a legimate transaction?

Sure, actions of acquiescence can effectively preclude someone from later arguing a legal defect in a contract...and I certainly don't know how the whole thing would play out. When I advise a client about whether or not to go to trial it is a risk / reward assessment...and in this case, my advice is settle out of court if possible. The risk is too high for both parties really.

And as for reading too much into the written documents, be careful. The oral history tradition of aboriginals has been acknowledged by current common law so again, whether we like it or not, we cannot characterize the events and negotiations of the day simply by referring to letters written by one side (especially when the other side didn't write letters).

Don't get me wrong, as a lawyer it is very difficult to accept "oral history". Our whole system is built around not accepting such heresay evidence as it is unreliable. I have seen people tell a story on the witness stand about an event that happened only a year ago and tell a remarkably different version than what they themselves wrote down at the time the event occurred!

That being said, to come into a land where no one writes (and even if they did it wasn't English!) and then write a whole bunch of letters outlining the relationship between two groups and rely on those letters as total proof of the parameters of the relationship seems a bit like self-serving "bootstrapping". Especially if the non-writing party is all the while verbally shouting that they don't agree with what is being written...

There are fair solutions that can be worked out here...meaning both sides are going to have to give (or take) something that they don't want to. Nobody can reliably tell us what was intended by conversations / ambiguous documents from hundreds of years ago...we can make good educated guesses, but in the end, we are all left guessing.

The bottom line for me is that the Six Nations people have very likely been given an unfair short end of the stick. Even the letter you post above shows the Crown agents telling the "Indians" that's its really best for them if they surrender their lands to the Crown. Did the "Indians" have some different view that was just ignored? We'll never know.

That being said, none of the current landowners were the ones who screwed the Six Nations people so screwing them now would be wrong.

Six Nations should get a monetary settlement (possibly including some other available lands) which is reasonably workable, an acknowledgement that hundreds of years ago some representatives of the Crown probably failed to truly protect their interests, and all of this should in large part be contingent on them ending their occupation of the lands and respecting the laws of Canada and the orders of Canadian Courts.

Every day that Six Nations continues in its lawless behaviour gets Canada one day closer to Canada walking away from the treaty and its sense of obligation to try to right an historical wrong.

FTA

[Riverwind]

When I advise a client about whether or not to go to trial it is a risk / reward assessment...and in this case, my advice is settle out of court if possible. The risk is too high for both parties really.

Sounds like the ultimate resolution at the SCC will depends a lot on the ideological make up of the court at the time and the actions of both parties until then. In other words, the court has enough leeway to decide this case either way depending on whatever factors it decides to make important.

The bottom line for me is that the Six Nations people have very likely been given an unfair short end of the stick. Even the letter you post above shows the Crown agents telling the "Indians" that's its really best for them if they surrender their lands to the Crown. Did the "Indians" have some different view that was just ignored? We'll never know.

That letter does not make the gov't sound good at all. The Indians were obviously complaining that the white settlers were incursing onto their land and the gov't told them it wasn't going to anything about it.

Six Nations should get a monetary settlement (possibly including some other available lands) which is reasonably workable, an acknowledgement that hundreds of years ago some representatives of the Crown probably failed to truly protect their interests

I agree here. But I think we have a situtation where the expectations of some of the Six Nations people are simply too high. This might not be an issue if we were dealing with a band that had some strong leadership - unfortunately, the band culture seems to require a 'concensus' that could be impossible to obtain without the court imposing it. The fact that these protests continue despite the potential legal ramifications is a symptom of the problem.

[skyclad]

At the surrender of 1841 the six nations were represented by John Brant whos was a lawyer and was fleunt in English. His father the famous Joesph Brant went to all the finest schools in N. America,as well as what later became known as Harvard. His education was better then 95 % of all Europeans.

The surrender of 1841 came about, not because of the Plank Rd issue. But by the chiefs coming to the crown in 1835 and asking for help with a problem. The problem was simple, natives of the band were selling land to white settlers coming over from Europe. And the chiefs were powerless to stop it. The agreed solution was the surrender of 1841.

[mister_v]

And as for reading too much into the written documents, be careful. The oral history tradition of aboriginals has been acknowledged by current common law so again, whether we like it or not, we cannot characterize the events and negotiations of the day simply by referring to letters written by one side (especially when the other side didn't write letters).

The Iroquois had been exposed to the English for almost 200 years and the Six Nations were living on the Haldimand Tract for over 50 years when that document was prepared. In that 50+ years other land surrenders had been prepared and agreed upon by leaders such as Joseph Brant who were well versed in English processes and legalities. In the case of the Six Nations, at what point does oral tradition fall by the wayside and courts say "at this point your ancestors knew enough about what they were getting themselves into when they signed that document that the documentary evidence takes precedence over oral tradition".

Picture this scenario: if there was an agreement reached and documented today with the Six Nations (and in these times they have access to lawyers, they speak english as a first language, there can be no claim of ignorance) will that also be subject to taking a backseat to oral tradition in 200 years when that agreement is contested?

[Okwaho]

At the surrender of 1841 the six nations were represented by John Brant whos was a lawyer and was fleunt in English. His father the famous Joesph Brant went to all the finest schools in N. America,as well as what later became known as Harvard. His education was better then 95 % of all Europeans.

Where do you get this Bullcrap?

John Brant was not a lawyer and in fact he died in 1832 from Cholera so unless his ghost was present, I think not. His father Joseph was educated at Moor's Charity School and later at Eleazar Wheelock's school in Conneticut which is Dartmouth College not Harvard. I don't think there were many "fine" schools in North America in the 1700s!

The surrender of 1841 came about, not because of the Plank Rd issue. But by the chiefs coming to the crown in 1835 and asking for help with a problem. The problem was simple, natives of the band were selling land to white settlers coming over from Europe. And the chiefs were powerless to stop it. The agreed solution was the surrender of 1841.

Wrong again Professor! It was all done at the hands the (1832-1844) Grand River Navigation Company. More appropriately the great Samual Jarvis, John Dunn rip-off.

[Okwaho]

And as for reading too much into the written documents, be careful. The oral history tradition of aboriginals has been acknowledged by current common law so again, whether we like it or not, we cannot characterize the events and negotiations of the day simply by referring to letters written by one side (especially when the other side didn't write letters).

The Iroquois had been exposed to the English for almost 200 years and the Six Nations were living on the Haldimand Tract for over 50 years when that document was prepared. In that 50+ years other land surrenders had been prepared and agreed upon by leaders such as Joseph Brant who were well versed in English processes and legalities. In the case of the Six Nations, at what point does oral tradition fall by the wayside and courts say "at this point your ancestors knew enough about what they were getting themselves into when they signed that document that the documentary evidence takes precedence over oral tradition".

Picture this scenario: if there was an agreement reached and documented today with the Six Nations (and in these times they have access to lawyers, they speak english as a first language, there can be no claim of ignorance) will that also be subject to taking a backseat to oral tradition in 200 years when that agreement is contested?

During the same 200 years and 50+ years Europeans were exposed to the languages of the Six Nations as well. How many Europeans could speak even one of them? The extent of Joseph Brant's "process and legal" knowledge was Nation to Nation.

[mister_v]

The surrender of 1841 came about, not because of the Plank Rd issue. But by the chiefs coming to the crown in 1835 and asking for help with a problem. The problem was simple, natives of the band were selling land to white settlers coming over from Europe. And the chiefs were powerless to stop it. The agreed solution was the surrender of 1841.

An interesting point in the 1841 documents is the idea that some of the Six Nations

chiefs were participating in the sale of Six Nations land to settlers. So on one hand they were selling land to settlers and on the other hand those same chiefs were appealing to the goverment to get those settlers off their land. Sounds almost like fraud committed by a segment of the Six Nations who were the architects of their own problem. In the end the goverment said basically, 'either surrender the land the settlers have purchased from you or we will manage your affairs for you since it is obvious you cannot control your own members'). The goverment could not be expected to remove the settlers (who were almost equal in number to the Six Nations) when the settlers would never be able to get their money back from the Indians. If the government did that, they'd be accomplices of certain members of the Six Nations in ripping off the settlers.

To quote directly from the clarification to the Six Nations dated January 15, 1841:

From a careful enquiry into the nature of the claims of the white men to the lands in their occupation it is but too plainly apparent that they have been invited by the majority of the Indians and that the latter have received large sums of money which they are wholly incapable of ever refunding. So far, indeed from the Government receiving any co-operation from the Indians, notwithstanding their repeated remonstrances and calls upon them for protection, they find every measure proposed thwarted by the conduct of the Indians themselves, by the repeated pretended sales of their public property, and that, too, not only within the last year, but if I am correctly informed, within the last fortnight, by some of the Chiefs and Indians who have been most urgent in their remonstrances.

Under such circumstances it cannot be expected, nor would it in any manner tend to the interests of the Indians, that upwards of 2,000 white persons nearly equal in number to the Indians upon the Grand River, should be utterly removed from their homes, for which in some instances they have paid so dearly to individual Indians; neither justice or policy, or a due regard to the Indian interests, requires or will permit of such a measure nor can any such be expected to be approved of by me or recommended to the Government.

[skyclad]

I stand corrected, thought it was Harvard.

Up to the 1850's 95% of Europeans could not read or write at upper grade school level.

J. Brant was well above grade school in education,

[magpie]

[

Hi...this is my first post and I am really enjoying reading the comments. Some of the names I recognize from other boards that I have visited.

I would like to clarify a couple of things:

Firstly, although the government has promised the business people of Caledonia funds for losses incurred, the only people that can take advantage of this are the ones who almost had to declare bankruptcy. People with viable business that just took a 30 - 50% hit, stand to gain nothing (but still lose lots). Unfortunately, they have not only lost their native business (not all but some) but have also lost out on the surrounding community business. People who constantly see pictures in the media of burning bridges and people with masks and camo gear tend to not want to visit your town (go figure). The government will pay out most of the money in administration of the fund.

Secondly:

Wrong again Professor! It was all done at the hands the (1832-1844) Grand River Navigation Company. More appropriately the great Samual Jarvis, John Dunn rip-off.

My impression in reading was that the two are actually separate. Jarvis invested trust funds in the Grand River Navigation Company......I didn't think there was a direct connection to the Plank Road surrender. Can you give me your reference. In the statement of defense, the government contends that the money was paid back: http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/documen...5%20lawsuit.pdf

Thirdly:

I keep hearing reference to the fact that natives who fought in the war were promised land and never received it as the non-whites did. What war is this? I am only aware that people were entitled to VLA LOANS to assist in purchasing property and education loans to send their kids to university. Can somebody fill me in on this?

Fourthly:

It has been explained that they had to stop this subdivision. I can appreciate their fervour. However, why then are they choosiing to attempt to finish the 10 houses that are already up in time for the cold winter coming. Personally, I find it somewhat hypocritical that they fight against new houses and now want to actually live in them. (Letter from Hazel Hill asking for building supplies to finish houses.)

Well, those are some of my observations and I look forward to hearing back...hopefully not from Tsi the sausage man!

[magpie]

[

Hi...this is my first post and I am really enjoying reading the comments. Some of the names I recognize from other boards that I have visited.

I would like to clarify a couple of things:

Firstly, although the government has promised the business people of Caledonia funds for losses incurred, the only people that can take advantage of this are the ones who almost had to declare bankruptcy. People with viable business that just took a 30 - 50% hit, stand to gain nothing (but still lose lots). Unfortunately, they have not only lost their native business (not all but some) but have also lost out on the surrounding community business. People who constantly see pictures in the media of burning bridges and people with masks and camo gear tend to not want to visit your town (go figure). The government will pay out most of the money in administration of the fund.

Secondly:

Wrong again Professor! It was all done at the hands the (1832-1844) Grand River Navigation Company. More appropriately the great Samual Jarvis, John Dunn rip-off.

My impression in reading was that the two are actually separate. Jarvis invested trust funds in the Grand River Navigation Company......I didn't think there was a direct connection to the Plank Road surrender. Can you give me your reference. In the statement of defense, the government contends that the money was paid back: http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/documen...5%20lawsuit.pdf

Thirdly:

I keep hearing reference to the fact that natives who fought in the war were promised land and never received it as the non-whites did. What war is this? I am only aware that people were entitled to VLA LOANS to assist in purchasing property and education loans to send their kids to university. Can somebody fill me in on this?

Fourthly:

It has been explained that they had to stop this subdivision. I can appreciate their fervour. However, why then are they choosiing to attempt to finish the 10 houses that are already up in time for the cold winter coming. Personally, I find it somewhat hypocritical that they fight against new houses and now want to actually live in them. (Letter from Hazel Hill asking for building supplies to finish houses.)

Well, those are some of my observations and I look forward to hearing back...hopefully not from Tsi the sausage man!