Honor Six Nations

History of Six Nations

Six Nations of the Grand River

Excerpts from research documents:
Six Nations of the Grand River –
Overview, August 1994. ;
Six Nations of the Grand River – History, Economy,
Education and Social Organization, August 1994.
Six Nations of the Grand River – Current and
Contemporary Issues specific
to Six Nations: Land Claims, Language and
Cultural Survival -August 1994
All documents written by Dr. Dawn Hill and Rick Monture

Plus
Summary of Six Nations Claims

Introduction
History of the Six Nations Government
Background to issues of land claims, language and culture
Six Nations Land Claims
The Haldimand Deed
Summary of Six Nations Claims
Allegations

The Hodenosaunne Six Nations of the Grand River include the Ganye geho:no, Oneytga, Onodowa ga Gayogoho:no, Onodagehono, and Dahs goa:we, who were admitted into the confederacy in the early 1700’s. The traditional territories of the original Five Nations spanned what is now known as the Upper New York State. The lands of the Five Nations on the Mohawk and Susquenhannah Rivers (six million acres) were sacrificed as a result of the Five Nations alliance with the British during the American Revolution. On October 25th, 1784, Sir Frederick Haldimand granted lands to the Six Nations consisting of an area six miles wide on either side from the mouth to the source of what is now known as the Grand River. Through a series of appropriations over 210 years, the land base has been reduced from 675,000 to 45,000 acres. Six Nations has submitted 17 specific claims to Indian and Northern Affairs for lands lost through the colonial process.
In addition to the settlement at Grand River, there are also communities of Hodenosaunne people located in New York State (8), Quebec (3), Ohio (1) and Wisconsin (1), as well as 3 others in Ontario. Six Nations at Grand River is the largest of these communities and the only one at which all of the nations is represented.
The Six Nations resident population is now approximately 8,370. The total membership of the Six Nations is 17,645, making it the largest population of the 530 reserves within Canada.
There are two governing bodies of the Six Nations People, the traditional hereditary government, also known as the Hodenosaunne Confederacy, and the Six Nations Band Council.
top of page

History of the Six Nations Government

In order to understand the formation of Hodenosaunne government and thinking, we must rely on the oral stories passed from generation to generation and recited faithfully in the Gai yensra go wa (Great Law) and Gai wi yo (Code of Handsome Lake). The oral culture of the Hodenosaunne is supported by written material gathered by “scientists.” The spirituality and the culture of the Hodenosaunne people are as a whole, neither one autonomous, neither separate from the other. Therefore, we must recognize that the formation of the government is inherently merged with Hodenosaunne spirituality and culture. This holistic approach to understanding any First Nations is a critical aspect of this workshop. For the purposes of review we will rely on a summarized version of historical events we will rely on a summarized version of historical events leading up to the 21st century.
Perhaps over a thousand years ago, the Five Nations, Ganye geho:no, Oneyotga, Onodowa ga, Gayagoho:no, Onodagehono, were at war with one another. At this time it is said a young boy received a sacred duty to bring peace to the people. As an adult, the Peacemaker travelled to the land of the Ganye geho: no to think of making peace with the Five Nations and uniting as one. Through a difficult, life-long journey they managed to convince all Five Nations to bury their weapons and form as a Confederacy under the Tree of Peace.
The Peacemaker proceeded to give the Five Nations the Gai yen sra go wa (Great Law) which is referred to as the constitution of the Hodenosaunne. The Gai yen sra go wa (Great Law) has over 117 laws and has been called the “Great Charter” of Hodenosaunne peoples. The unification of the Five Nations followed a set of rules and regulations that ensured “the people” would have rights and obligations to the collective whole. The clan system was developed some time before the arrival of the Peacemaker for purposes of social organization. Clans entail reciprocal responsibilities among members and to one another, such as having to marry outside ones clan. The clans are the snipe, hawk, eagle, bear, wolf, deer, turtle, eel and beaver.
The most capable women of each clan were designated “clanmothers.” The clanmothers would choose a male of their clan they deemed kind and honest to speak for the people as Hoya:neh. There were to be fifty Hoya:neh who would speak for the people of their respective clans. Each Nation was never to interfere in the “domestic” affairs of other Nations; however, they were to remain peacefull allies in international affairs. The Hodenosaunne became a powerful Confederacy known as the “League of the Five Nations.”
The Gai yen sra go wa (Great Law) is based on principle of unity in coming to one mind. When the Peacemaker completed the League of Nations he said “Now you are to work for your people as if you had one head, one body, one heart. You are to always have peace and caring in your minds.” The one mind, or good mind, then guide the 50) Hodenosaunne Hoya:neh in their deliberation to reach unanimity.
Upon contact with the Dutch, and later the British and French, the league entered into treaties with their new trading partners. The Confederacy entered into a formalized treaty known as the Covenant Chain with the Dutch in 1618. The Covenant Chain, and Two-Row Wampum Treaty, affirmed the relationship between the Dutch and Hodenosaunne as that of allies.

These treaties are interpreted by Chief Jacob Thomas as follows:

The white man said, “How is the Onkwehonweh going to describe our friendship?” The Onkwehonweh replied, “We must thank the Creator for all his creations, and greet one another by holding hands to show the Covenant Chain that bind our friendship so that we may walk upon this earth in peace, trust, love and friendship, and we may smoke the sacred tobacco in a pipe which is a symbol of peace.” The Whiteman said that he would respect the Onkwehonweh’s belief and call him “son.” Onkwehonweh replied, “We respect you, your belief and what you say. You pronounced yourself as our father and this we do not agree with because the can tell his son what to do, and can punish his son. We suggest that we call each other brother.” “The Onkwehonweh (continued), I have a canoe and you have a vessel where you shall put your belief and laws. All my people will be in a canoe, your people in a vessel. We shall put these boats in the water and they shall always be parallel, as long as there is Mother Earth, this will be everlasting.”
The whiteman said “What will happen if your people will like to go into my vessel?” The Onkwehonweh replied, “If this happens, then they will have to be guided by my canoe.” Now the whiteman understands the agreement. The whiteman said, “What will happen if any of our people may someday want to have one foot in each of the boats that are parallel?” The Onkwehonweh replied, “If this so happens that my people may wish to have their feet in each of the two boats, there will be a high wind and the boats will separate and the person that has feet in each of the boats shall fall between the boats, and there is no loving soul who will be able to bring him back to the right of way given by the creator but only one – the Creator himself.” (Barreiro, 1992: 155)

During the 17th and 18th centuries, several similar treaties were struck between the Hodenosaunne government and the British. The Hodenosaunne still refer to the Two-Row Wampum as the guiding principles in their relationship with non-Native society, therefore, the philosophy of the Hodenosaunne continually calls for an assertion of their rights as a sovereign nation. The ideas formalized first in the Gai yen sra go wa (The Great Law), and later reflected in the covenant Chain and Two-Row Wampum, structure the historical relationship between the Five Nations and their subsequent relationship with the British Crown.
The Confederacy’s democratic governing structure had a great impact on American colonists, especially Benjamin Franklin, who is recorded as meeting with the Hoya:nehs to learn more of their system of government. So impressed were the American colonists with the democratic nature of the Confederacy that they modelled the American Constitution and system of government after the Gai yen sra go wa (The Great Law).

Unfortunately for the confederacy, their role in assisting the colonies to unite led directly to the loss of their homelands as they aligned themselves with the British Crown. The British granted Six Nations lands in Southern Ontario as restitution for their services and lost homeland. The confederacy continued to govern the affairs of the people well into the early 19th and 20th centuries. They administered local business and used their monies from the British to build a council house, schools, medical service and housing.
Following the implementation of the British North American Act and the Indian Act, the Confederacy asserted their exemption from the legislation implemented by the Crown in a formal letter of protest to Sir John A. MacDonald. Regarding the passage of the 1876 Indian Act stated: “[We have] our own law, rules and regulations suitable for our advancement and welfare.” (National Archives of Canada: Volume 2077, file 11432) Correspondence from the files of the Department of Indian Affairs reveals the government’s mandate to undermine the sovereignty of the Six Nations now that they were of no military use. Duncan Campbell Scott was the Minister of Indian Affairs in the early 1900s. In 1920, he introduced Bill 14, explaining in the House of Commons:
“I want to get rid of the Indian problem. That is my whole point. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is not Indian question..,” (Titley: 50: 1986)

Scott appointed Col. C. E. Morgan as Indian Superintendent in October 1923. Morgan had served in the Boer War and had worked as colonial administrator in South Africa. Morgan’s relationship with the confederacy was very antagonistic. In August of 1942 he prepared a report on Six Nations and stressed the urgency of deposing “hereditary council.” Scott secured an order-in-council abolishing the ancient system of government and giving details for the “democratic” election of a band council. (Weaver: 1972: Titley 1986)
The confederacy did not recognize such an abolishment. Chief Deskeheh worked diligently with Confederacy lawyers and supporters to gain recognition for Six Nations sovereignty. He travelled to England and pressed his case with the Crown. In response, the Crown passed Section 141 of the Indian Act preventing Indians from obtaining lawyers for prosecution claims against the Crown without first obtaining their consent. Consequently, Confederacy lawyer A.G Chisholm was legally barred from representing Six Nations. Deskeheh died in the U.S. exiled from both Canada and Six Nations.

The Toronto Star Weekly reported:
“But, aside from the objective of the Deskeheh movement, those who have pride in the history and traditions of the Six Nations, much as they desire to see progress among the living descendents of the great Confederacy of the Six Nations, mourn the official passing of the oldest continued parliamentary body of the American continent, a body which brought peace among Five Nations at a time when every man’s hands was against each other, and a body which because of its decisions…,[of] Iroquois aid for the British against the French and their Huron allies was effective in preventing the expansion of French influence.” (Toronto Star Weekly: 1924)

The Confederacy continues to assert the treaties and sovereignty of the Six Nations people today. During the years if Scott’s “assimilation” policy, the confederacy’s economic, political, social and religious activities at Grand River were officially suppressed. The Band Council had little power since they were legally bound to and controlled by the Indian Act and Indian Affairs. The agriculture economy was no longer viable in to the 1960’s. Women were disenfranchised for marrying non-Native men and no member of Six Nations received the right to vote until 1960. The Indian Act reduced all Natives to “wards of the state” and stymied any growth on reserves. The official policy of Indian Affairs is no longer “officially” assimilationist, however, many natives believe the policy continues to be implemented.
After both governments at Six Nations lobbied for improved conditions and rights, several political changes occurred. The federal government advanced a policy known as the “White Paper” (1969) after and embarrassing report was made public regarding abysmal conditions of the First Nations communities, including high death rates, high infant mortality and third world living conditions. The federal government was then pressured to upgrade reserve services and facilities. Thus the assimilation policy was revoked and a policy which reflected the needs of the First Nations (to an extent) emerged.
In the last two decades the face of Six Nations has changed dramatically. New office buildings and schools have replaced outdated structures. In addition, medical service and band administration have been updated. Each was a struggle of the people – nothing was handed to the community: rather, the community capitalized on the new policy and forced the governments to modernize the standard of reserve life.
top of page

Background to issues of land claims, language and culture

Land Claims, language retention and cultural survival are the pressing issues facing Six Nations today. White the issues might appear un-related, they are profoundly inter-connected and inter-dependent upon each other and crucial to the overall survival of the Six Nations as a distinct Hodenosaunne community.

The land claims of the Six Nations will have an impact on the people of the Six Nations as much as on the surrounding non-Native communities. The peaceful resolution of each claim is the objective of the Six Nations. Non-Natives should be informed of the historical legitimacy of each claim to promote an understanding of land claims and their significance to the economic, cultural and political survival of First Nations communities. Language retention is a priority of the people of Six Nations, stemming from the need to preserve and promote the culture of the Hodenosaunne. The loss of language has gone hand in hand with the loss of land, culture, identity and social breakdown. To regain language will take good will on the government’s part, as well as much work on the part of the young and Hodenosaunne people to save our languages, which are listed nationally as “near extinction to extremely endangered.” The Six Nations is striving to undo the destructions caused by colonial policies of assimilation and colonization which have by and large worked to eradicate Native languages and traditions altogether.

Cultural survival is the other side of the ledger. Without language, a people have little chance of preserving and maintaining their distinct culture; since one’s culture exists nowhere else in the world, it is critical that the process of cultural genocide stops and cultural preservations takes priority.
Theses three issue are currently critical for the people of Six Nations who wish to maintain their culture and distinct identities.
top of page

Six Nations Land Claims

Prior to European contact, the Five Nations of the Hodenosaunne Confederacy occupied lands in what is today New York State and Northern Pennsylvania. The area of land occupied totalled over 6 million acres. With the coming of the Dutch, the Hodenosaunne entered into the earliest known treaties with Europeans. This agreement, known to the Hodenosaunne as the Two Row Wampum treaty, dates back to approximately 1618 and outlines duties and responsibilities that they and the Dutch, were to adhere to if they were to “share” the land in a peaceful manner. The Two-Row-Wampum belt, as understood by the Hodenosaunne, expresses the “separate, but equal” status that they maintain with foreign governments to this day.
It was this same thinking that guided the Hodenosaunne in their dealings with the British. Beginning with the Articles of Friendship in Peace in 1664, and in the years that followed, several more agreements between the Hodenosaunne and British Crown were entered into: the 1701 Alliance (concerning Hodenosaunne hunting grounds and protection against French encroachment), the 1744 treaty enforcing the ally status between the Hodenosaunne and British, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Fort Stanwix treaty of 1768, the Haldimand Deed of 1784, and subsequently right up to Canada’s recognition of all treaties in its 1982 Constitution.
These agreements, from a Six Nations perspective, should ensure fair and honourable treatment with regards to all matters pertaining to their lands.
top of page

The Haldimand Deed

Following the American Revolution the Six Nations were granted their present lands, given as a portion of the original grant to compensate them for the loss of nearly 4 million acres forfeited in the United States when they became allies of the British. The lands of the Six Nations of the Grand River were granted by Sir Frederick Haldimand on October 25th, 1784, being six miles in width on each side of the Grand River (then called the Ouse) from its mouth at Lake Erie to it’s source.
Despite this allocation of land, as put forth in the Haldimand deed, the Six Nations actually received only a tract of land 12 miles in width, acreage in which the Grand River flowed. The original Six Nations Tract was surveyed by Augustus Jones. However, this original plan, as accepted by the Six Nations, has never been found in its entirety.

The area was re-surveyed by Thos Ridout in February 1821. At this time it was found to consist of 674,910 acres. This survey shows the length of the grant to begin at the mouth of the Grand River where it empties into Lake Erie, and to run in a north-west direction to a point approximately 50 miles away.
The survey limiting this quantity of land stops at what is now Nichol Township and is estimated to fall 104,000 acres short of the source of the Grand River. According to sources from within the Grand River Conservation Authority (the agency presently mandated with the management and control of the Grand River Watershed) it is estimated that even this figures is somewhat conservative since it does not include allowances for the spring feeding source of the river, which would constitutes a much larger area.
On January 14th, 1793, Governor John Graves Simcoe issues the Simcoe Patent to the Six Nations restricting the area of Grand River Tract to be within the limits of the purchase from the Mississauga Nation on May 22, 1784, further reducing the size of the lands as promised in the Haldimand Deed. Actions such as these demonstrated to the Six Nations that the British were not being entirely truthful in the land dealings between them. The Six Nations felt that these lands as granted under the Haldimand Deed were theirs to manage as the chose, to sell to whomever they desire, and with no interference from the government. However, the British (and later Canadian) authorities felt that these lands fell under the same rules and regulations governing the sale and management of all “Indian” lands as specified by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in that no purchases or alienation of their lands by the Six Nations could be made to anyone except that they be surrendered to the King (Crown) first. In this manner, the relationship outlined in the Two-Row-Wampum Belt was becoming increasingly undermined, resulting in the gradual loss of Six Nations autonomy.
The Six Nations has actively sought redress in their recovery of lands. The confederacy was barred from obtaining legal advisors to pursue their claims. It wasn’t until 1951 that the ban was removed from the Indian Act and that they were able to independently hire lawyers to proceed with the prosecution of any claims against the Crown. Unfortunately, by this time the monies had been systemically depleted and the Six Nations had few resources available to pursue legal redress.
Six Nations establishes a Six Nations Land Research Office in 1975. To date, the Six Nations has submitted 17 specific claims but in the past 15 years had only one specific land claim settled (1985). Canada’s rate of settlement is three claims per year; there are over 580 specific claims filed with the office of Native Claims nationally. Legally, the Six Nations is pursuing reclaim for misuse of their funds by Indian agents. According to the Six Nations presentation to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affair:
“A request for a full accounting of all Six Nations monies derived from legitimate land sales as invested by the Crown has remained with the Auditor General of Canada since 1979. Unfortunately, for the Six Nations to commence the legal actions necessary to force Canada’s accountability…in 1847, Six Nations funds were used to finance the Law Society of Upper Canada with no record of return…December 20, 1860, and by the authority of Order –in-Council of June 14, 1860, Six Nations’ funds were used to save the University of McGill College in Montréal…not only did the works of the Welland Canal Company, being the umbilical cord of Canada’s St. Lawrence Seaway, flood 2,000 acres of Six Nations lands, but the Crown invested Six Nations’ money in 1843 and 1855 to do so…furthermore, from the few chosen documented debt we referred to in the proceeding (Law Society of Upper Canada; University of McGill College; Provincial municipal Council of Haldimand; Montreal Roads (turnpike); and Welland Canal), at a nominal 10% interest rate compounded annually a debt totalling “EIGHTY TWO BILLION TWO HUNDRED AND TWO MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY-ONE DOLLARS AND FOUR CENTS ($82,202,759,831.04)… payable to Six Nations.

The peaceful settlement of the outstanding land claims are critical to the future of the Six Nations.
top of page

Summary of Six Nations Claims

Hamilton-Port Dover-Plank Road Lands

On January 16, 1835, Six Nations in Council, advised that they would permit leases for half a mile on each side of the Hamilton Swamp Road (Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road)

On May 1, 1845, J.M. Higginson (Civil Secretary) reported to D. Thorborn, Special Commissioner, that the land to the extent of half a mile in depth on either side of the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road was surrendered to the Crown in 1835 to enable the Lieutenant Governor to grant leases of 21 years.

From approximately 1832 to 1953, letters patent were issued for the lands approximately half a mile on each side of the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road.
top of page

The Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road which later became Hwy 6, is located in the Townships of Oneida and Seneca. The lands used to construct the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road and the tier of lots on each side of the road consists of approximately 12,406.527 acres (deed plotted); 1,946.340 acres are in Seneca Township and 8,460.187 are in Oneida Township, and include the town of Caledonia.

There is no lawful surrender from Six Nation to the Crown for the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road, nor for the tier of lots on each side of the road.

Six Nations were deprived of continual rental revenues for the lands used to construct the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road.

Six Nations never received any compensation for the lands used to construct the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road, nor did they receive full and fair compensation for the tier of lots on each side of the road.

To date, Six Nations has not verified that all the purported sums paid on the tier of lots on each side of Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road were credited to the Six Nations Trust Funds Accounts.

top of page

Contact us for details