Halifax Treaties
Halifax Treaties were 11 written documents signed by the various bands of the Mi’kmaq and the British in Halifax, Nova Scotia between 1760 and 1761.[1] The Treaties ended the conflict that had persisted between the two peoples for 85 years. The Treaties include both military submissions, or oaths of allegiance made at the three fortresses in the region followed by treaties signed at Halifax.[2] The ceremony with the most primary sources was the Burying the Hatchet ceremony, which happened on 25 June 1761.
Context
.svg.png){kind=small}
| Military history of Mi’kmaq people | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Mi’kmaq Warrior | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Events | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Canadian Armed Forces portal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
During the final period of this conflict, the French and Indian War, French Officers, Mi’kmaq and Acadians carried out military strikes against the British. The Mi'kmaq and their French allies conducted the Northeastern Coast Campaign (1755) in Maine and extended this campaign into Nova Scotia, attacking civilians during the raids on Lunenburg. Following the British capture of Louisbourg in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and Montreal in 1760, French imperial power was destroyed in North America. There were 300 Mi'kmaw fighters in the region compared to many more British regulars and rangers. After the defeat of the French, the Mi’kmaq no longer had a source of guns and ammunition to fight or even hunt for food. The Mi’kmaq immediately asked the British for guns and ammunition, claiming that “the French always Supplyed Them with these Things and They expect that we will do the Same.”[3] According to those at Louisbourg, after the defeat the Mi’kmaq wanted bread and had “no prospect of relief.” By the spring of 1760, General Amherst determined that the Mi’kmaq and Acadians posed no significant threat to British control of the region, and that provincial forces were adequate to meet the defence needs of Nova Scotia. [4] Such a situation forced the Mi’kmaq to surrender.
Three earlier treaties had failed: the 1725 Treaty was not ratified by many Mi’kmaq bands; the 1749 was only signed by the Mi’kmaw band at Chignecto; the 1752 Treaty was only signed by Shubenacadie and was renounced 6 months after it was signed.[5]
The British needed separate treaties with each of the Mi'kmaw bands because the early Mi’kmaw society was defined by a common language and culture rather than a uniform, structured tribal polity. The bands of Mi’kmaw were distinct entities.[6] The Mi’kmaq were a highly decentralized people, made up of autonomous local communities, each of which had its own sakamow or chief. None identified a central authority that could act for all. The several treaty instruments thus accurately mirrored the particularistic structure of the Mi’kmaq people.[7]
Organizing bodies such as the Grand Council (Mi'kmaq) were only formalized through these treaties themselves, though the larger Wabanaki Confederacy had been capable of inviting the French to settle in 1603 and maintaining a consistent peace with the French until their displacement by Britain.
The Treaties
The Treaty Process involved two stages. First, surrendering at the nearest British fortification and then, upon agreeing to “submission”, the Mi’kmaw chiefs were directed to Halifax to sign the formal Treaties with Halifax officials. Mi'kmaq in general surrendered first to British military officers at Fort Frederick, Fort Cumberland and Fortress Louisbourg. The Mi’kmaw chiefs promised future allegiance and “submission” to the British Crown, matters that were settled before they discussed other terms with Halifax officials.[8]
The Halifax Treaties did not renew earlier treaties that were negotiated between the Mi'kmaq and the British. Rather, the treaties were made as if this were the first treaty the Mi’kmaq had ever made with the British. In fact, for many Mi’kmaw communities they had never subscribed to earlier Nova Scotia treaties, so there was thus nothing to renew.[9] Further, the Halifax Treaties were not negotiated with the Mi'kmaq - the British established the terms of the Treaties. All the Halifax Treaties began with the Mi’kmaw chief acknowledging the jurisdiction and dominion of King George over the territories of Nova Scotia. The Mi'kmaq promised not to molest the British migrants. The Mi’kmaw promised to make restitution for robbery or violence and use the law courts to resolve conflicts. While the Treaties do not stipulate the laws governing land and resources, the treaties ensured that both parties would follow the laws that would eventually be made to deal with these matters and any other matters. The Mi'kmaq promised to free English prisoners, to have nothing further to do with the French, and to report any of their ill designs against the British. Lastly, they agreed to confine their trade to government truckhouses, where they would leave some of their number as hostages to guarantee their good behaviour.[10]
Jonathan Belcher told the Mi’kmaq they would be treated like all other subjects under the British Crown: “The Laws will be like a great Hedge about your Rights and properties.” Belcher told the Mi’kmaq that the British in Nova Scotia are “your fellow subjects.” Further, he indicated that the Mi’kmaq and British subjects would fight side by side, “that your cause of war and peace may be the same as ours under one mighty Chief and King, under the Same Laws and for the same Rights and Liberties.” The Mi’kmaw Chief from Cape Breton concurred: “As long as the Sun and Moon shall endure ... so long will I be your friend and ally, submitting myself to the Laws of your Government, faithful and obedient to the Crown.”[11]
Afterward
The Mi'kmaq began their accommodation with British law, as they had promised. The British, according to Patterson, "accepted a continuing role for existing Mi'kmaw polities within the limits of British sovereignty.”[12] For example, when New Brunswick was being established in 1784, Mi’kmaq were asking that “certain lands be reserved and protected to them by licenses of occupation, similar to those being issued to new settlers.”[13]
There was a serious challenge to the treaties during the American Revolution. The Americans were trying to recruit the Mi’kmaq to fight against the British. In response, the Superintendent of Indian affairs in Nova Scotia, Michael Francklin attended a meeting in which the Mi’kmaq renewed their oath of allegiance to the British Crown.[14] When conflict did happen between a small group of Mi’kmaq and the British on the Miramichi, the Local Mi’kmaq leadership approved the British capture of the rebels, the removal of the rebel chief and the appointment of a new chief. The Mi’kmaq provided a copy of the 1760 Treaty for the new chief to sign. Two months later, Mi’kmaw chiefs signed the treaty of 1779 with the British at Windsor, Nova Scotia. According to historian Stephen Patterson, "The vast majority of Mi’kmaq did not join in challenging British authority – to the contrary they took steps to aid British military and civilian officials in suppressing the disorders and restoring peace."[15]
During the American Revolution, the Americans signed the Treaty of Watertown with the Mi'kmaw as a means of drawing their support away from the British. The Mi'kmaq continued to pressure the British Government throughout the nineteenth century to have the British live up to the Treaties and treat the Mi'kmaq like full British subjects as they did those from other cultures who were British subjects.
Unseeded land argument
Other historians have argued that the Mi'kmaq did not surrender and that they, in fact, were in a strong enough position to negotiate the terms of the Halifax Treaties and make demands of their own of the British. John Reid asserts that the Mi'kmaw military power in the region did not wane until decades after the French had been defeated. Reid dismisses the statements in the Treaties about Mi'kmaw surrender or submission to the British crown, by asserting that there is significant evidence surrounding the Treaties that suggest the real intent of the Treaties was to establish friendly and reciprocal relationships. The Mi'kmaw leaders who came initially to Halifax in 1760 had clear goals that centred on the making of peace, the establishment of a secure and well-regulated trade in commodities such as furs, and an ongoing friendship with the British crown. In return, they offered their own friendship and a tolerance of limited British settlement, although without any formal land surrender.[16] To fulfill the friendly and reciprocal intent of the treaties, Reid asserts further British settlement of land would need to be negotiated and, in exchange for sharing the land, presents would be given to the Mi'kmaq. According to historian Geoffrey Plank, the documents summarizing the peace agreements did not indicate the laws regulating land ownership and land usage, but they assured the Mi’kmaq access to the natural resources that had long sustained them along the regions’ coasts and in the woods.[17]
Reid asserts that the Mi'kmaw military power only began to wane in the region when the New England Planters and United Empire Loyalists began to arrive in Mi'kma'ki in greater numbers, economic, environmental and cultural pressures were put on the Mi'kmaq with the erosion of the intent of the treaties. According to Reid, Mi'kmaq tried to enforce the treaties through threat of force as some did in the American Revolution at the Miramichi.
Those who assert Mi'kmaw sovereignty rely in part on the evidence of the Treaty of Watertown. Again, the Americans made the treaty to draw Mi'kmaw support away from the British during the American Revolution. The Mi'kmaq signed the Treaty of Watertown with the new United States of America. The Treaty acknowledged the Mi'kmaw ability to continue trade. The Treaty was part of the basis for neutral position taken by the Mi'kmaq during the War of 1812 and why Mi'kmaq took marooned American sailors back to the US without ransom. The Treaty of Watertown is honored to this day and under it members of the Mi'kmaq nation from Canada have joined the US armed forces and been deployed to Iraq and to Afghanistan. There has never been a formal objection by Britain or Canada to this treaty or situation.
As Mi'kmaw military power waned in the beginning of the nineteenth century, rather than interpreting the Mi'kmaw treaty demands as demands to be treated like full British subjects, Reid asserts the Mi'kmaw treaty demands were about expecting the British to give presents for the Mi'kmaq accommodating them on their land. The British responded by giving presents and educational opportunities, which Reid interprets as further subjugation.[18]
Also see
References
Texts
- Alexander Cameron. Power without Law: The Supreme Court of Canada, the Marshall Decisions and the Failure of Judicial Activism. McGill-Queen's Press. 2009.
- Stephen Patterson. Eighteenth-Century Treaties:The Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy Experience. Native Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2009).
- John G. Reid. “Empire, the Maritime Colonies, and the Supplanting of Mi’kma’ki/Wulstukwik, 1780-1820.” Acadiensis, 38:2 (Summer/Autumn 2009), 78-97.
- John G. Reid. "Amerindian Power in the Early Modern Northeast: A Reappraisal.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 61 (2004), 77-106. Co-authored with Emerson W. Baker.
- William Wicken. Treaties on Trial: History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior. University of Toronto Press. 215-218
Endnotes
- ↑ There were also Halifax Treaties signed with the Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) and the Passamaquoddy.
- ↑ Patterson, p. 46
- ↑ Patterson, p. 39
- ↑ As a result, British began closing down forts such as Fort Ellis.
- ↑ For a detailed discussion of the treaty process of 1725–1726, see Stephen E. Patterson, “Anatomy of a Treaty: Nova Scotia’s First Native Treaty in Historical Context,” UNB Law Journal 48 (1999): 41–64.
- ↑ Patterson, pp. 30-31
- ↑ Patterson, p. 43
- ↑ Patterson, p. 40
- ↑ Patterson, p. 44
- ↑ Patterson, p. 44
- ↑ Patterson, pp. 45-46
- ↑ Patterson, p. 51
- ↑ Patterson, p. 49
- ↑ Patterson, p. 50
- ↑ Patterson, p. 46
- ↑ John Reid. Nova Scotia: A Pocket History. Fernwood Press. 2009. p. 23
- ↑ Plank, Unsettled Conquest. p. 163
- ↑ Reid. p. 26