July 11, 2020

Winnipeg
19° C, Partly cloudy

Full Forecast

Close this

Advertisement

Advertise With Us

A hard bargain

Comprehensive history of treaty negotiations reframes many Indigenous issues

Saskatoon Public Library Local History Room/Glenbow-Alberta Archives</p><p>This painting by Bruce A. Stapleton, titled Treaty Number Seven, shows Chief Crowfoot (right, standing) addressing commissioner David Laird, seated at the centre, and commissioner James Macleod, seated to his left.</p>

Saskatoon Public Library Local History Room/Glenbow-Alberta Archives

This painting by Bruce A. Stapleton, titled Treaty Number Seven, shows Chief Crowfoot (right, standing) addressing commissioner David Laird, seated at the centre, and commissioner James Macleod, seated to his left.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 9/3/2019 (490 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canada is, without question, a land of historic treaties, particularly in the West.

There were treaties between the Hudson’s Bay Company and Indigenous communities in Rupert’s Land for building trading posts and using waterways.

The Métis of the Red River Settlement and the Dakotas had peace and trade treaties.

Treaties between the Cree and Dene demarked territories and set protocols for travelling in shared areas.

All of these and many more pre-dated the more familiar numbered treaties, stretching from Thunder Bay to the Rockies, signed from 1871 onward.

Author and historian Sheldon Krasowski’s deep dive into the negotiations of the numbered treaties (numbers 1-7) offers a direct challenge to the long-accepted "cultural misunderstanding" thesis.

Dating from the 1930s, researchers proposed that the cultural and linguistic differences between Euro-Canadian and Indigenous negotiators were so great that Indigenous people were unable to properly understand the meaning of the treaties they were signing.

In No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous, Krasowki turns this notion on its head. He argues, in great detail, that Indigenous negotiators knew very well what they were signing. With the exception of Treaty 3, it was Indigenous leaders who demanded treaties be signed to secure their peoples’ future before they would allow settlers and surveyors on their traditional lands.

Indigenous leaders knew they had a strong hand when numbered treaty negotiations began in 1869. The Anishinaabe west of Lake Superior were already charging right-of-way fees to settlers heading to the Prairies, and they knew that the Canadian government wanted to send troops through their territory to the Red River to put down the Riel Resistance. Negotiations in Fort Frances, Ont. finally broke down in 1871 over the Anishinaabe demands that were far more than the Crown negotiators could sell to Ottawa.

Glenbow-Alberta Archives</p><p>From left: Rev. John McDougall, Chief Samson, Chief James Seenum (Pakan), Reverend Henry Bird Steinhauer, and Chief Goodstoney in an 1886 photo.</p>

Glenbow-Alberta Archives

From left: Rev. John McDougall, Chief Samson, Chief James Seenum (Pakan), Reverend Henry Bird Steinhauer, and Chief Goodstoney in an 1886 photo.

The Crown negotiators quickly moved on to Lower Fort Garry, under pressure from the federal government to close a deal with the Cree and Saulteaux. Ottawa wanted to make way for settlement in the new Manitoba province, and to clear the way west for a railroad, a condition for British Columbia joining the Confederation. And there was always concern about Americans casting covetous eyes upon the vast North-West.

Treaty 1 took three weeks of negotiations. In particular Henry Prince, the eldest son of Chief Peguis, questioned why the Indigenous people should have reserves. Did it not make more sense, he suggested, that the settlers be granted reserves, the same as when the Selkirk settlers were granted the use of the land along the Red and Assiniboine rivers under the Selkirk Treaty of 1817?

Krasowski states that land sharing was a crucial issue in Treaty 1 negotiations, which set the template for the numbered treaties that followed. It focused on three key points: reserved lands would be for the exclusive use of Indigenous people; the remaining lands would fall under joint Indigenous and Canadian jurisdiction; and farmlands would be set aside for settlers, with Indigenous people retaining the right to gather, hunt or fish on the rest of the land.

What was missing from this discussion was any mention of land surrender.

"The commissioner’s strategy of agreeing to share the land while avoiding discussion of the surrender clause originated with Treaty One but continued with the later numbered treaties," states Krasowski. He adds that "avoiding the surrender clause during negotiations was a cornerstone of Canada’s negotiating strategy."

Library and Archives Canada</p><p>Big Bear (centre, seen here in 1884) arrived at Fort Pitt at the close of Treaty Six negotiations; along with chiefs Beardy and Poundmaker, he fought for its implementation as well as for protection of the bison.</p>

Library and Archives Canada

Big Bear (centre, seen here in 1884) arrived at Fort Pitt at the close of Treaty Six negotiations; along with chiefs Beardy and Poundmaker, he fought for its implementation as well as for protection of the bison.

The author arrived at this conclusion by "treaty bundling," meaning he studied the seven treaties as a cohesive whole.

Along with the well-studied writings of the commissioners and others, Krasowski also incorporated diaries, letters and other contemporaneous materials of witnesses, some of which had been previously overlooked. He also included Indigenous oral histories, with careful attention to bias and context. Using this approach, he concludes that Indigenous lands were never surrendered.

It seems a contradiction to say that Indigenous negotiators knew what they were doing during negotiations, but then claim that they were deceived when it came to the land surrender clause.

It implies that trusted advisers and interpreters such as James McKay and Peter Erasmus were either in on the ploy, or somehow deceived as well. For all seven treaties. The author does not seem to have an answer for that.

No Surrender is a welcome addition to new research that helps reframe Indigenous issues. It is a hefty work at 368 pages, and does tend to be repetitious in places. However, it is a worthwhile read for those with a keen interest in understanding Canada’s numbered treaties.

Sheilla Jones is a Winnipeg author and a senior fellow leading the Treaty Annuity/Individual Empowerment Initiative for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 

 

Advertisement

Advertise With Us

Your support has enabled us to provide free access to stories about COVID-19 because we believe everyone deserves trusted and critical information during the pandemic.

Our readership has contributed additional funding to give Free Press online subscriptions to those that can’t afford one in these extraordinary times — giving new readers the opportunity to see beyond the headlines and connect with other stories about their community.

To those who have made donations, thank you.

To those able to give and share our journalism with others, please Pay it Forward.

The Free Press has shared COVID-19 stories free of charge because we believe everyone deserves access to trusted and critical information during the pandemic.

While we stand by this decision, it has undoubtedly affected our bottom line.

After nearly 150 years of reporting on our city, we don’t want to stop any time soon. With your support, we’ll be able to forge ahead with our journalistic mission.

If you believe in an independent, transparent, and democratic press, please consider subscribing today.

We understand that some readers cannot afford a subscription during these difficult times and invite them to apply for a free digital subscription through our Pay it Forward program.

History

Updated on Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 8:49 AM CST: Photos reordered.

The Free Press will close this commenting platform at noon on July 14.

We want to thank those who have shared their views over the years as part of this reader engagement initiative.

In the coming weeks, the Free Press will announce new opportunities for readers to share their thoughts and to engage with our staff and each other.

You can comment on most stories on The Winnipeg Free Press website. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

By submitting your comment, you agree to abide by our Community Standards and Moderation Policy. These guidelines were revised effective February 27, 2019. Have a question about our comment forum? Check our frequently asked questions.

Advertisement

Advertise With Us