Caledonia

[jennie]

Any land deal for which the Condederacy accepted payment should be considered a contract.

If the government did not subsequently steal the money from their account, yes, agreed.

For any of such land to be returned, the Conderacy should be required to pay back its market value. Agree?

For any that were legitimately sold and paid for, yes.

However, most were not legitimately sold.

[jennie]

If you read their Constitution it states "Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability." Some people would like to limit this to mean only a translator, but it does not. There is record of him being raised.

There are also Confederacy Council records of what transactions they authorized Brant to make, and which ones they did not authorize. Brant had no ability to act unilaterally, except as he was instructed by the Council. He overstepped and he lost the confidence of the Council.

[noahbody]

If the government did not subsequently steal the money from their account, yes, agreed.

For any that were legitimately sold and paid for, yes.

However, most were not legitimately sold.

Any land that Brant sold where the money went to the Confederacy has to be viewed as a contract. There may be probable cause to reverse these contracts, but that means paying back their market value. Can't have both. Sorry.

[jennie]

Any land that Brant sold where the money went to the Confederacy has to be viewed as a contract. There may be probable cause to reverse these contracts, but that means paying back their market value. Can't have both. Sorry.

You don't know the law then?

In order to be legal, then or now, a transaction had to have the approval of the people, via the Confederacy Council.

Any transactions done by Brant without the authorization of the Council can be overturned and will be in negotiations.

The money is a different issue, as much of Six Nations money was embezzled by our government to fund Canada's infrastructure.

[noahbody]

The money is a different issue, as much of Six Nations money was embezzled by our government to fund Canada's infrastructure.

Four sections (blocks 1 to 4) were leased for 999 years but payment has either not been received or has been embezzled from their trust fund with no accounting for the funds.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=533

Here's an admission that the "Six Nation" doesn't know if the money was paid or not, or if it was what happened to it. Funny, how they fail to consider they paid money might have been stolen or squandered by natives. Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=533

Here's an admission that the "Six Nation" doesn't know if the money was paid or not, or if it was what happened to it. Funny, how they fail to consider they paid money might have been stolen or squandered by natives. Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

Not surprising. Wampum may give a reader a mnemonic of an event but it is hardly a double column accounting ledger.

[AngusThermopyle]

Not surprising. Wampum may give a reader a mnemonic of an event but it is hardly a double column accounting ledger.

Exactly. Many seem to think that if its stated by Natives then its gospel. All questions of outright falsehoods aside, oral tradition and primitive accounting methods are notoriously unreliable. As has been seen time and time again these methods become contaminated and inaccurate due to the passing of time alone.

At root they all depend on someone telling someone else something. As you can see the very concept is flawed as it relies upon the spoken word passed from one to another in order to convey meaning. a meaning that more often than not becomes perverted by the perceptions or prejudices of the one saying it.

I'm sure everyone is aware of the old experiment. Take a group of people, tell one of them something, tell them to pass it on to the next. By the time it gets to the last person it usually bears very little resemblance to what was originally said.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly. Many seem to think that if its stated by Natives then its gospel. All questions of outright falsehoods aside, oral tradition and primitive accounting methods are notoriously unreliable. As has been seen time and time again these methods become contaminated and inaccurate due to the passing of time alone.

At root they all depend on someone telling someone else something. As you can see the very concept is flawed as it relies upon the spoken word passed from one to another in order to convey meaning. a meaning that more often than not becomes perverted by the perceptions or prejudices of the one saying it.

I'm sure everyone is aware of the old experiment. Take a group of people, tell one of them something, tell them to pass it on to the next. By the time it gets to the last person it usually bears very little resemblance to what was originally said.

No, they do not speak with fork tongue! What's more, they are gaurdians of the environment, have deep spiritual insights we can never hope to have, never steal, resort to violence, oppress any living thing and never comitt a sexual indiscretion.

That's why the 3000+ aboriginals in federal prison are all there for political reasons...

[Posit]

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=533

Here's an admission that the "Six Nation" doesn't know if the money was paid or not, or if it was what happened to it. Funny, how they fail to consider they paid money might have been stolen or squandered by natives. Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

If I throw a $5 bill at your wife does that make her a prostitute?

Contract law (which treaties are) requires the agreement to meet certain criteria to be valid. The first and foremost is that there must be a meeting of the minds. If the agreement is vague or not consistent with the beliefs of one of the parties than the courts will render it null, reversing anything that might have stemmed from the agreement, and providing compensation in order to make the parties whole - as if the agreement was never made.

A second perquisite is that there must be consideration - both parties must mutually benefit from the agreement. Where one party does not fulfill their side of the bargain, then the courts can make awards to fulfill the contract and add any penalties it prescribes for the failures.

In most cases of the Haldimand surrenders there was neither a meeting of the minds, or consideration. Money that was purported to be obtained through many of the valid leases were to have been placed in a a trust account, the interest of which was to benefit Six Nations. However, in many cases the monies were not placed into account, and the government has been stalling on presenting the records of transactions they wee obligated to provide as trustees. In so far as Six Nations has examined some of the records of the trust it appears that a majority of the funds were embezzled by the Indian agents, removed as extraneous and unauthorized expenses and misappropriated for personal of government instigated projects - some of which failed.

As far as a meeting of the minds goes it is clear that there is a discrepancy between what the Confederacy claims it authorized and what the government insists happened. A number of the documents the government has provided as proof have been dismissed by ours and their negotiators because of many inconsistencies concerning time-lines, actual correspondence and apparent alterations and editions of the document text. The government negotiators are presently charged with providing alternate documentation which they claimed they had 6 months ago but have failed to produce. As well the continuing objections by the Confederacy in the 1800's to the government and the King suggest that they did not authorize the sales and instead land sales were pushed ahead by the government without Confederacy approval.

In the end it appears that we cannot prove that Six Nations sold the land to us, or that any monies that were supposed to be paid were in fact paid. By any court, that would make us responsible to abide by the Haldimand Proclamation and return lands that never belonged to us. By the grace of the Confederacy they have offered they are not interested in displacing homeowners of businesses off of the Haldimand, but that Crown lands and vacant lands under development should be returned. As well it is fitting IMO that Six Nations is not only due appropriation compensation for loss of use of such lands but that they should jointly benefit from all development, new and existing that occurs in the tract.

[Riverwind]

By the grace of the Confederacy they have offered they are not interested in displacing homeowners of businesses off of the Haldimand, but that Crown lands and vacant lands under development should be returned.

There is no difference between vacant lands and lands with buildings on them. In both cases you have private property owners who have title to the land. So Six Nations is hardly being generous.

More importantly, the Haldimand Grant only conferred aboriginal title on the land - not ownership. IOW, even if Six Nations can establish that none of the grant was surrenderred it does not automatically follow that entire grant must be returned. All it means is that the government has an obligation to negotiate a new treaty that takes into account the realities of today.

We can look at what is going on in BC for guidance since the court has ruled in Delgamuuth that none of the bands in BC have surrendered their title which puts them in a similar position. Despite that ruling, no one seriously believes that aboriginal title gives the Musqueam band the right to all vacant and crown land in the lower mainland. Similarily, Six Nations cannot seriously claim all of the lands in the Haldimand Grant.

The deal that Tsawwassen band settled for included only a small portion of the land over which they theoretically had 'aboriginal title'. By all accounts the Tsawwassen chief Kim Baird is an astute negotiator and would not have settled for that unless she felt that the law did not really entitle her to much more than that.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=533

Here's an admission that the "Six Nation" doesn't know if the money was paid or not, or if it was what happened to it. Funny, how they fail to consider they paid money might have been stolen or squandered by natives. Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

It doesn't say they don't know. They know. They are waiting for the government to "prove" its case. They have demanded an accounting of all of the money in and out of their trust fund. However, the government has not yet coughed it up. The government is responsible for the trust fund of those under the protection of the 'state', you see. The government has fiduciary duty, like your lawyer.

They know, for example, that 135,000 pounds sterling was used in 1831 to build the Welland Canal, without their consent and without repayment.

That is worth $13,457,859 Cdn now, even without interest on the 'loan'.

[Posit]

There is no difference between vacant lands and lands with buildings on them. In both cases you have private property owners who have title to the land. So Six Nations is hardly being generous.

More importantly, the Haldimand Grant only conferred aboriginal title on the land - not ownership.

Wrong. The Confederacy claim to the Haldimand pre-dates European first-contact. They have a treaty with the Mississauga to prove it.

Similarily, Six Nations cannot seriously claim all of the lands in the Haldimand Grant.

Six Nations and the Musqueam have different international relationships with the Crown. Six Nations can claim the entire Haldimand because it was theirs before contact, theirs during contact and theirs after contact. And as much as you want to quote the courts, this is not a court case. It is a negotiation where the governments have already acknowledged Six Nations claim to the Haldimand is valid and the only answers remain is to figure out what to do with the squatters. So far the Confederacy have stated they are not after displacing occupants. However the difference is that vacant land is not occupied. They are going after undeveloped lands for that reason. The cost of land is irrelevent in their view and the fact that it is all undeveloped is their only concern as undeveloped land is perfect for the expansion of the territory. Funny enough, as we have discussed at length in other threads, there is no such thing as "private property".

The deal that Tsawwassen band settled for included only a small portion of the land over which they theoretically had 'aboriginal title'. By all accounts the Tsawwassen chief Kim Baird is an astute negotiator and would not have settled for that unless she felt that the law did not really entitle her to much more than that.

Irrelevent and therefore a moot point.

[Riverwind]

Wrong. The Confederacy claim to the Haldimand pre-dates European first-contact. They have a treaty with the Mississauga to prove it.

You are simply arguing that the Six Nation claim is no different from the claims of other Aboriginal bands with unceded lands. This means the limits on aboriginal title also would apply to Six Nations.

It is a negotiation where the governments have already acknowledged Six Nations claim to the Haldimand is valid and the only answers remain is to figure out what to do with the squatters.

Acknowledging that there is a legitimate aboriginal title claim is not the same accepting that the entire grant should be turned over to the band. The courts will not see the current landowners as squatters but as legitimate title holders that have rights which need to be balanced against the aboriginal title rights.

The cost of land is irrelevant in their view and the fact that it is all undeveloped is their only concern as undeveloped land is perfect for the expansion of the territory.

Any privately owed land must be purchased before it can be handed over to the band. This would make it impossible for any government to agree to anything close to what you demand. The court will also understand the politics of the situation would not likely force such a one-sided remedy on the government.

I doubt that much is going to be resolved before the SCC issues a follow up to the Delagamuuth ruling which clearly indicates what limits it is willing to put on aboriginal title. Australia went through a similar process where the supreme court defined the concept of aboriginal title which raised expectations impossibly high and was then forced to issue many judgements that limited to scope of the title to something that was politically possible.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

The courts are out of the picture and the government has already started buying lands so they can be returned. I guess you'll just have to go away mad, eh?

[Riverwind]

The courts are out of the picture and the government has already started buying lands so they can be returned. I guess you'll just have to go away mad, eh?

The government knows it will have to buy some land to settle this claim and the fact it is doing so demonstrates that it is negotiating in good faith. However, nothing the government has done supports your claim that every piece of crown and vacant land in the tract must be turned over to Six Nations. This case will be decided in court unless Six Nations leadership is more pragmatic than the Six Nations posters on this forum. Edited September 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

The government knows it will have to buy some land to settle this claim and the fact it is doing so demonstrates that it is negotiating in good faith. However, nothing the government has done supports your claim that every piece of crown and vacant land in the tract must be turned over to Six Nations. This case will be decided in court unless Six Nations leadership is more pragmatic than the Six Nations posters on this forum.

The case will be decided in negotiations.

[Riverwind]

The case will be decided in negotiations.

Only if Six Nations is willing to compromise. The statement by the chiefs you posted indicates that there is little interest in compromise on the part of Six Nations.

[geoffrey]

They'll just threaten to beat up the politicans involved, send their warriors their way. Just the 'security' forces do around Caledonia. Extortion is powerful when it's politically correct.

[jennie]

They'll just threaten to beat up the politicans involved, send their warriors their way. Just the 'security' forces do around Caledonia. Extortion is powerful when it's politically correct.

Oh ya right ... THAT'll work !

Doesn't it get tiring being scared like that all the time when it isn't necessary? kinda tilting at windmills?

[jennie]

Only if Six Nations is willing to compromise. The statement by the chiefs you posted indicates that there is little interest in compromise on the part of Six Nations.

I think they are doing very well in negotiations, by my reading. The government is very slow to produce any evidence. I admit sometimes I wonder if negotiators stalling-for-pay is a good deal for us taxpayers.

[noahbody]

Six Nations can claim the entire Haldimand because it was theirs before contact, theirs during contact and theirs after contact. And as much as you want to quote the courts, this is not a court case. It is a negotiation where the governments have already acknowledged Six Nations claim to the Haldimand is valid and the only answers remain is to figure out what to do with the squatters. So far the Confederacy have stated they are not after displacing occupants. However the difference is that vacant land is not occupied. They are going after undeveloped lands for that reason. The cost of land is irrelevent in their view and the fact that it is all undeveloped is their only concern as undeveloped land is perfect for the expansion of the territory. Funny enough, as we have discussed at length in other threads, there is no such thing as "private property".

Irrelevent and therefore a moot point.

The 'theirs before contact' case isn't valid due to displacement for a lack of a better term. Further, here is a letter from Joseph Brant where he states they wish to "settle again" and "call their own property." Also, if they believed the land was theirs, it seems funny Brant would have helped negotiate its surrender from the Mississauga.

At the close of the late American War, we applied to His Excel- lency General Haldimand for the Lands on the Grand River, that we might again settle ourselves, and live as we formerly had done, when we had lands that we could call our own property - General Haldimand without Hesitation granted us the same . . . We have understood . . . from some White People here, that it does not appear from this grant, that we are entitled to call these Lands on the Grand River our own. In consequence of this we applied to His Excellency Lieut. Governor Simcoe for a new Grant, he having upon his arrival promised to settle this Matter agreeable to our Wish. 18

[Posit]

The 'theirs before contact' case isn't valid due to displacement for a lack of a better term. Further, here is a letter from Joseph Brant where he states they wish to "settle again" and "call their own property." Also, if they believed the land was theirs, it seems funny Brant would have helped negotiate its surrender from the Mississauga.

The Mississauga were merely caretakers of the lands when the Confederacy returned. More than a hundred years before the Confederacy left the lands in the care-taking of the Mississauga until such time as they returned to claim it. This was witnessed by a Courier du Bois and Governor Couiller of the French Colony at Taiagon (present day Toronto). By the time the Confederacy had returned there were few Mississauga living in Southern Ontario since they were less inclined to live close to the British settlers whom they found to be uncivilized and ignorant of the treachery of the lands and the seasons. Brant simply brokered the relocation payments required to send the last remaining Mississauga back up to the North Shore of Superior. There was no sale, even though the British boasted there were. The Haldimand IS and WAS Confederacy land. The archaeology tells the whole story.

BTW Brant was referring to the constant encroachment by the settlers whom the British guaranteed would not be able to squat on their lands, cheat Indians, or attempt to convert them to Christianity.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Posit

[noahbody]

The Mississauga were merely caretakers of the lands when the Confederacy returned. More than a hundred years before the Confederacy left the lands in the care-taking of the Mississauga until such time as they returned to claim it.

LOL That's hilarious. And it would explain why the Mississauga originally said no.

There was no sale, even though the British boasted there were. The Haldimand IS and WAS Confederacy land. The archaeology tells the whole story.

By an indenture dated May 22, 1784, the Mississauga ceded 16part of their hunting grounds to the British Crown, including the "waters" and "water- courses" within the area ceded (which was later confirmed as Treaty #3 on December 7, 1792).

[kengs333]

The Mississauga were merely caretakers of the lands when the Confederacy returned. More than a hundred years before the Confederacy left the lands in the care-taking of the Mississauga until such time as they returned to claim it.

What are you on? Certainly not "truth serum". First of all, the "Five Nations" Iroquois were not settled along the Grand River in the 1600s. The so-called Neutral Nation, who were settled in the Head-of-the-Lake area, were a distinct group with about 30,000 people. The Neutral Nation was eventually destroyed by the "Five Nations," as were the Huron. The Ojibway in turn drove out the Iroquois and occupied the land for about a century. The Ojibway and Iroquois were never exactly on friendly terms, and their battles were quite brutal. These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological, and to completely distort the truth the way you are doing only serves to make you look like a complete fool. I can't think of a better example of why Indian oral history is not a credible source of historical fact.

[jennie]

What are you on? Certainly not "truth serum". First of all, the "Five Nations" Iroquois were not settled along the Grand River in the 1600s. The so-called Neutral Nation, who were settled in the Head-of-the-Lake area, were a distinct group with about 30,000 people. The Neutral Nation was eventually destroyed by the "Five Nations," as were the Huron. The Ojibway in turn drove out the Iroquois and occupied the land for about a century. The Ojibway and Iroquois were never exactly on friendly terms, and their battles were quite brutal. These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological, and to completely distort the truth the way you are doing only serves to make you look like a complete fool. I can't think of a better example of why Indian oral history is not a credible source of historical fact.

I am interested in the archeological evidence.

What our Euro ancestors said just might be biased a bit, so I'm interested in knowing more about the science part.

The Brits and French had a bad habit of making up their own names for groups of Indigenous Peoples, and clumping them together wrong, confusing the history. They called Iroquoian peoples above Lake Ontario 'Hurons' (Fr. savages) and those below the lake 'Iroquois' (Fr. snakes). However there were multiple peoples above the lake, as you point out, but many of them were Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, one or more of the Six Nations, and farther north were the Wendat, another Iroquoian people who were also called 'Huron'.

It is much more complex than what I ever learned before this year, that's for sure.

In any case, in the 1600's communities of the Confederacy were on the north shore too.

(Seriously, if you were them would you leave the north shore unprotected?)

http://counterweights.ca/cms/content/view/153//

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie