Changing Relationship before Confederation (1867)

In the first two centuries of contact, European powers concerned themselves with acquiring land, not the manner in which indigenous peoples were using it. They sought economic partners, allies and

legal tenure in the Americas. The colonial perception of indigenous peoples as inferior did not hinder a working relationship in the early years of colonization. First Nations knowledge of the land and ability to hunt made them integral to the fur trade. Their sheer numbers (estimated in the millions at the time of contact) provided additional support for militia in the battles between France, England, Spain and, later, the United States. Peaceful relations made colonial operations far easier (Dickason 2009).

The popular belief that indigenous peoples were not owners of land did not stop colonial powers from entering into compacts with indigenous peoples. Treaties were a legal method of verifying a colonial power’s stake in the Americas. Colonial governments conducted early treaties for military (i.e., peace and defence) and settlement purposes. For example, the Covenant Chain between New York and Iroquois Five Nations established peace in the thirteen colonies in the late seventeenth century. The Great Peace of 1701 helped to end nearly a century of warring between English, Iroquois, French, Algonquians and Huron (Dickason 2009).²¹

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 affirmed Crown sovereignty and perpetuated the popular belief that indigenous peoples did not possess ownership of the land. The Crown never acknowledged indigenous sovereignty but the British Empire established a protection of “Indian title” to use the land (i.e., hunting, fishing, settlement). Ultimately, the Crown maintained authority over all land. The Proclamation (1763) reads:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty,

Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid

(emphasis added).

21 See J.R. Miller (2009) for more information regarding these treaties and chapter 3 of this dissertation.

The Crown established themselves as both the sovereign power and the sole negotiator of unceded lands on the continent.²² Civility was not a priority in 1763 as the international battle of empires (i.e., France, England and Spain, in particular) persisted in North America.²³ Treaties of settlement such as the Between the Lakes Purchase of 1784 continued a trend of treaty making focussed on the

acquisition of land rather than an interest in civilization.²⁴

The military and economic value of indigenous peoples for settler populations dissipated following the War of 1812 and decline of the fur trade. The colonial government sought to eliminate indigenous culture and identity through the legislature beginning in the 1830s. Canadian policy makers

eventually labeled this assimilationist agenda as the policy of the “bible and the plough” (Miller 1991). Civil and political participation for indigenous people in an expanding colonial society was contingent upon their ability to become proprietors of land. This required not only their permanent settlement on individual plots of land but also their improvement of the land and, until the mid-twentieth century, the acceptance of Christianity.

The acquisition of Manitoulin and surrounding islands in 1836 by Sir Francis Bond Head (1793–

1875) marked a significant increase in the colonial government’s concern regarding the indigenous-land relationship. Bond Head incorporated aid in civilizing into his treaties that included the building of permanent houses and instruction in the cultivation of land. Bond Head sought to settle the indigenous communities of Manitoulin Island into a sedentary life. He was convinced that they were wandering hunters with no permanent residence. Bond Head believed that the manner in which the

“real proprietors of [North American] soil” – indigenous peoples – related to the land was “the most sinful story recorded in the history of the human race” (Dickason 2009, 204). Another distinction of

22 Discussions of Aboriginal title re-emerged in the decades following Confederation. In 1888, Canada reasserted a definitive claim regarding their sovereignty in St. Catherine’s Milling and Logging Company v. The Queen. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council determined that the Crown always held an estate in the land and that (European) occupancy secured title. The state understood Aboriginal title to be extinguished but Aboriginal rights to use and access to the land continued as they had since the Royal Proclamation. Historically Aboriginal rights referred to hunting and fishing but has broadened to include practices, customs and traditions related to indigenous cultures.

23 Arneil (1996) argues that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 correlated with Lockean notions of the fair distribution of property (in that no one should acquire more than they can use) and in his doctrine of spoilage, that nothing in common should lie in waste or spoiled. The Proclamation ensured that colonial expansion would be efficient.

24 The text of these treaties did not contain explicit reference to civilizing activities such as stipulations on how indigenous peoples ought to use the land, as later treaties would incorporate.

the Manitoulin Island treaties was that settlement and peace were not the motivators but rather the exploitation of fisheries. The government enacted later treaties such as the Robinson Treaties of 1850 for the purposes of mining in the Canadian Shield. Economic development expanded with

industrialization and resource development by the mid-nineteenth century but the state would continue to encourage indigenous peoples to farm.

“Civilization” began with the acquisition of private land.²⁵ The Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 confirmed the policies set forth in the 1830s where private property and civility were synonymous.

The act opens:

Whereas it is desirable to encourage the progress of Civilisation among, the Indian Tribes in this Province, and the gradual removal of all legal distinctions between them and Her Majesty’s other Canadian Subjects, and to facilitate the acquisition of property and of the rights accompanying it, by such Individual Members of the said Tribes as shall be found to desire such encouragement and to have deserved it (preamble).

Colonial policy makers understood indigenous peoples as primitive. They believed that with the proper encouragement, indigenous peoples would progress from their traditional lifestyles into the superior English culture. Colonial authorities labeled this process “Enfranchisement.” Eradication of the legal distinction of indigenous peoples was the goal of this process, including distinctions such as those of land and its usage outlined in the Royal Proclamation.

Christian leaders were in charge of evaluating the fitness of indigenous peoples pursuing

enfranchisement. Given the close relationship between church and state in this period (discussed more thoroughly in chapter 3), it is no surprise that European Christian leaders were acting in tandem with the state. If the state deemed an applicant fit, it removed the individual’s “Indian” status and rewarded them with a portion of the reserve land set aside in common for the band (sec. III). The land became the absolute property of the enfranchised. The state then required the enfranchised person to

25 Civilization, in the nineteenth century, referred to social and moral progress toward Euro-American values. Colonial governments understood the laws that colonial governments enacted, such as the Gradual Civilization Act, as a means of protecting indigenous peoples from exploitation in settler society. This meant protecting both person and property of indigenous peoples until they were civil and capable of being part of settler society. Responsible for most of the “propaganda” in North America were protestant groups who tied civility with Christianity (Tobias 1991).

relinquish all claims to the remaining reserve lands (sec. VII). Without “Indians,” reserve lands would no longer be necessary. The private ownership of land was the centerpiece of early assimilation policies.

In the first two hundred years of colonization, the necessity of peace and settlement in the North American war of empires dictated early European-indigenous relations. Perceptions of indigenous peoples as inferior manifested themselves in assertions of Crown sovereignty, but the state did not forcibly alter indigenous ways of life. The end of international warfare on the continent marked a discernible change in the interest of the British colony toward the development of the perceived inferior cultures of indigenous peoples. With the Gradual Civilization Act as a foundation, the newly formed Dominion of Canada took on the task of “advancing” indigenous peoples. In the state’s view, the first step toward civility required private ownership and cultivation of the land.