By: Tom Kennedy
Wikipedia describes “speaking with a forked tongue” as being of North American Aboriginal origin. The term means that the truth is denied, promises not kept, and any other fantasy that enriches the speaker allowed. The lands of what we call Ontario, especially the Niagara Peninsula, is a good example.
1) About 1650, Five Nations tribes entered the part of “Canada” that was called New France, to steal furs from the indigenous tribes of the area, as the supply of fur bearing animals had been decimated in their homeland, the present day New York State. They also penetrated, for the same purpose, the lands of other neighbours.
In 1696, the French and their Ojibwe allies drove the Five Nations out of today’s Ontario. In June 1700, the Five Nations and the Ojibwe met in the castle of Onagdaway (in present New York State), where the Five Nations gave the Ojibwes a wampum belt in exchange for peace. In 1840, at an Aboriginal meeting that included these two parties, Ojibwa Chief William Yellowhead translated the Wampum Belt of 1700 and the Five (later Six) Nations delegates gathered there agreed the translation was correct. It declared that the Five (later Six) Nations were abandoning the territories west of the Niagara River, and that the Ojibwe only were entitled to hunt in that area, and that the Five Nations could only come to smoke the peace pipe. The 2003 Indian Land Commission confirmed this fact. In her report to the Ipperwash Commission of Inquiry, Dr. Darlene Johnson also confirm that the Five Nations had abandoned Central and Western Ontario in 1700 and confirmed the accuracy of Chief Yellowhead’s translation of the Wampum Belt.
When Joseph Brant and the fleeing Five (later Six) Nations survivors of the American Revolution came in 1784 to settle on the Grand River, Governor General Haldimand had to obtain the permission of the resident Mississauga (Ojibwe) for the Brant et al to come into “Niagara”. The Mississauga sold the Niagara Peninsula to the British Crown, not to the Six Nations.
(2) In 1701 a conveyance of lands that the Five Nations had been chased out of, and the English Crown had earlier recognized as French Territory in the 1997 Ryswick Treaty, was proposed by the Five Nations to the English of the New York Colony. The “Conveyance…” was accompanied by a claim to hunting rights in the area covered by the deed. Unfortunately, sloppy Ontario Court decisions, from faulty evidence – (the 300 year old actual document refutes the Court’s decisions) – has been touted as a “treaty”, one which the Federal Government does not recognize. The “law” in the English Courts does not allow title to pass on property that you do not own. Hostile temporary possession does not give ownership, especially after you had been chased out of the country you claim possession of. This legal concept goes back to Roman times.
(3) In 1764, after Pontiac’s Rebellion, Sir William Johnson, sat down with a number of the Aboriginal tribes of Eastern North America and arranged a permanent peace by a new Covenant Chain. Amongst the terms of The Treaty of Fort Niagara in 1764, namely Article 5: ”In Addition to the Grant made by the Chenussios (Seneca) Deputies to his Majesty at Johnson Hall, last April, of Lands from Fort Niagara to the upper end of the Carrying Place beyond Fort Schlosser, and four Miles in breadth on each side of the River, the Chenussios now surrender up all the lands from the upper end of the former Grant…”. That raises the question that if the 1701 conveyance was a “treaty”, as alleged by the present HDI and others, then how could the Seneca of 1764 cede a four mile strip on the western side of the Niagara? This land would be in the area covered the “Nanfan Treaty”, as identified in the 1701 Conveyance document that rests in the National Archives in the United Kingdom. Did Johnson and the Seneca in 1764 ignore and consider the 1701 “Deed” a fraud? When Brant came in 1784, was the “Deed” considered a useless fraud by all parties?
I have a 2011 newspaper article where Paul Williams, a lawyer I believe, speaking to a Six Nations group, suggested that the 1764 Treaty had been breached, hence the “4 Miles” on the western side of Niagara could be reclaimed as a “Treaty” breach.
Should i dig further?
Have a Happy Xmas