Chapter 5: Mi’kmaq Historians ~ Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy ~Treaties ~ Royal Proclamation Act of 1763 ~ Indian Act of 1876

Introduction

Continuing with our historical accounts, we now shift to more of a regional perspective, to Mi’kmak’i, the land of the L’nu or Mi’kmaq peoples. I have had the great privilege and honour to have personally met all four of the Mi’kmaq historians who I would like to acknowledge here for their insightful knowledge respecting the Mi’kmaq peoples. There are no doubt other Mi’kmaq historians, who have made contributions to the field, and hope in time I will be introduced to their works.

Topics at a Glance

• Mi’kmaq Historians: Augustine, Augustine, Paul, and Sark
• Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy / Pituamkek – A Mi’kmaq Heritage Landscape?
• Treaties
• Royal Proclamation Act of 1763
• Indian Act of 1876

The four Mi’kmaq Elders, historians, and scholars, and their prominent historical works from which I have drawn local and regional knowledge, are:

Dr. Stephen J. Augustine, Executive Director of the Marshall Institute, and the former Associate Vice-President Indigenous Affairs and Dean, Unama’ki College, Cape Breton University, Nova Scotia.

Dr. Augustine is a Hereditary Chief on the Mi’kmaq Grand Council. Previously he was the Curator of Ethnology for Eastern Maritimes at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, in Gatineau/Ottawa. He holds a Masters degree in Canadian Studies from Carleton University focusing on traditional knowledge curriculum development in the context of the education system and a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Political Science from St. Thomas University. Stephen was recently appointed to the Order of Canada, C.M., for advancing Mi’kmaq studies, and for sharing his scholarly expertise and traditional knowledge with private and public organizations across Canada. In 2022, Stephen was awarded an Honorary doctor of letters from the University of New Brunswick (University of Cape Breton Website, 2024).

I first met Stephen in 2005 at the Canadian Museum of Civilization where he was curator, and later we along with another academic colleague collaborated on a 2017 presentation at the Atlantic Region Philosophy Association Annual Conference. Halifax, NS: Saint Mary’s University. I have referenced some of his works in this OER already (see Chapter 1, Sacred Smudging Ceremony, and Chapter 2, Special Topic relating to Life in the Beginning).

Published Works

Augustine, S. J. (2005). Mi’kmaq and Maliseet cultural ancestral material: National collections from the Canadian Museum of Civilization. University of Ottawa Press.

Root, E., Augustine, S., Snow, K., & Doucette, M. (2019). Evidence of Co-Learning through a Relational Pedagogy: Indigenizing the Curriculum through MIKM 2701. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), n1.

Dr. Patrick J. Augustine, Assistant Professor (Elder), Faculty of Indigenous Knowledge, Education, Research, and Applied Studies, University of Prince Edward Island.

Dr. Augustine is a Mikmaw from Elsipogtog First Nation. His doctoral research was on the dispossession of the Mi’kmaq from their traditional district of Sikniktuk, often called Chignecto. He wrote about his First Nation’s relationship to their traditional lands as a determinant of health. Patrick’s maternal ancestry – Simon, Levi and Augustine Families – are from the Sikniktuk district in Southeastern New Brunswick. His paternal ancestry – Augustine, Thomas, Bernard, and Paul Families – are also from Sikniktuk and Epikwitk aq Piktuk districts of Prince Edward Island and the Northern Shore of Nova Scotia.

Dr. Augustine’s academic research centers on the supplementary texts to treaty negotiations examining the spirit and intent of the Maritime Treaties between the Wabanaki and the British Crown (University of Prince Edward Island).

I have known Patrick for about 20 years, and I consider him my ‘Elder’, even though I am much older than him. He has taught me so much over the years, and it was a great honour when Patrick and I became colleagues in the newly created Faculty of IKERAS in 2022. There is a wealth of historical information contained in Dr. Augustine’s doctoral and graduate studies dissertations. Links are provided for each of his works. I also enjoyed collaborating with Patrick on a number of projects over the years, and was always the case, he shared his traditional knowledges with pride. Figure 22 presents two wonderful photos of Patrick and his traditional regalia, which he would wear on special occasions like a Maw’omi, gathering of the people, or Powwow.

Figure 22: Elder Patrick Augustine displaying his traditional regalia

Published Works

Augustine, P. (2021). The Dispossession of the Míkmaq Indians from Chignecto to Elsipogtog: A Case Study Analysis of the Health Determinants of the Physical Environment (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University). https://repository.library.carleton.ca/concern/etds/2j62s5711

Augustine, P. J. (2010). The Significance of Place in Textual and Graphical Representation: The Mi’kmaq on Lennox Island, Prince Edward Island, and the Penobscot on Indian Island, Maine. Charlottetown, PEI: University of Prince Edward Island. https://islandscholar.ca/islandora/object/ir%3A21763/datastream/PDF/view

Dr. Daniel N. Paul

“Daniel N. Paul was born in 1938 on the Indian Brook Reserve, Nova Scotia, and resided in Halifax with his wife Patricia. Paul, a freelance lecturer and journalist, was an ardent activist for human rights. He was a former justice of the peace and a former member of the NS Police Commission and had served on several other provincial commissions, including the Human Rights Commission and the Nova Scotia Department of Justice’s Court Re-structuring Task Force. He holds, among many awards, honorary degrees from the University of Sainte Anne and Dalhousie University and is a member of both the Order of Canada and the Order of Nova Scotia. Previously, Paul was employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and was the founding executive director of the Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq (CMM). His writing career includes a novel, Chief Lightning Bolt, several booklets, magazine articles, hundreds of newspaper columns, chapters for a dozen or so edited books” (Fernwood Publishing, 2024).

“Born in a log cabin during a raging blizzard on Indian Brook Reserve in 1938, Mi’kmaw elder Daniel N. Paul rose to the top of a Canadian society that denied his people’s civilization.

When he was named to the Order of Canada, his citation called him a “powerful and passionate advocate for social justice and the eradication of racial discrimination.” His Order of Nova Scotia honour said he “gives a voice to his people by revealing a past that the standard histories have chosen to ignore.”

But long before the acclaim, there was the Indian Agent denying food to his begging mother. There was the education system that taught him his people were savages. There was the Department of Indian Affairs that frustrated his work to bring justice to his people.

His landmark book We Were Not the Savages exposed the brutalities of the collision between European and Native American civilizations from a Mi’kmaq perspective. The book sold tens of thousands of copies around the world and inspired others to learn history from an indigenous point of view” (Tattrie, 2017 from Daniel Paul: Mi’kmaw Elder. Lawrencetown Beach, NS: Pottersfield Press, back cover).

I met Daniel Paul in 2002 when he came to Prince Edward Island to promote his critically acclaimed book, We Were Not the Savages. I still have the signed copy and draw heavily on its detailed content in several of my Indigenous-focused courses including IKE 1040: Indigenous Teachings of Turtle Island. We will review his discussion on Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy in this chapter. Sadly, Dr. Paul passed into the spirit world in June 2022.

Published Works

Paul, D. N. (2022). We Were Not the Savages, First Nations History: Collision Between European and Native American Civilizations. Fernwood publishing.

Also see http://www.danielnpaul.com/

Dr. John Joe Sark

I provide the following special article in relation to John Joe Sark, which highlights not only my personal connection to him; but, the deep loss that the University felt on his passing in January 2023.

“The University community was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Keptin John Joe Sark, LLD, on January 8. He was the first Mi’kmaq graduate student from the University of Prince Edward Island with a BA in Political Science (1979), and in 2005 was the first Mi’kmaq to be awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws. A spiritual leader and Keptin of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council, Dr. Sark remained committed to UPEI and was involved in many ways over the years.

In a message to students, faculty, and staff, Dr. Greg Keefe, UPEI President and Vice-Chancellor (interim) said, “The passing of UPEI alumnus and honorary degree recipient, Keptin John Joe Sark, has touched many in Epekwitk, Mi’kmaki, Turtle Island, and beyond. On behalf of the entire University community, I extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues, especially those here at UPEI.”

The members of the Faculty of Indigenous Knowledge, Education, Research, and Applied Studies (IKERAS) were especially saddened to learn of Dr. Sark’s passing. Interim Dean Dr. Gary Evans indicated that they had been engaged with him very recently on potential initiatives, including discussions about him being a guest lecturer for the faculty.

“It was with sad hearts that the Faculty of Indigenous Knowledge, Education, Research, and Applied Studies pay tribute to Dr. Sark,” said Dr. Evans. “John Joe had a keen interest in guest lecturing given his breadth of cultural knowledge in many fields. It was his drive and tireless work that defined him. He was a defender of Treaty Rights, social justice activist, and a true ambassador for Truth and Reconciliation long before it was introduced to the Canadian public.”

David Varis, IKERAS assistant professor, recalls meeting Dr. Sark. “I remember well the first time getting to know Dr. Sark. It was when I took my summer Aboriginal Contemporary Issues and Perspectives class to his home in Johnston’s River to experience a sacred sharing circle. John Joe, as he was known, welcomed us warmly and we just chatted. It was a nice way to begin as any apprehensiveness students may have had melted away instantaneously as John Joe simply put them at ease. We then went onto his well-cared property, which overlooked the river. He talked about the traditions as we walked toward his sweat lodge, and then the birchbark wigwam (Mi’kmaq structure used for shelter and living), where he conducted a sacred sharing circle for the class. For quite a few summers I took students there, and no one was disappointed. We all got to know John Joe well, and that infectious laugh, sharp wit, and the teachings remain as vivid today as they did many years ago.”

Varis also recounted fondly going to the ceremony in 2005 when John Joe received his honorary Doctor of Laws degree. He was with family that day, his own and the University community; he remained committed to both right up until his passing, stated Varis. “He personified commitment to his peoples, principles of justice, and teaching others. His spirit will be with us forever through his lifelong work” (University of Prince Edward Island, 2023).

I will always remember John Joe and the teachings he gave my students when visiting him at his home (see Figure 23).

Figure 23: John Joe Sark and UPEI Summer Class

Published Works

Sark, J. J. (1988). Micmac Legends of Prince Edward Island. Lennox Island Band Council/Ragweed, Prince Edward Island.

Sark, J. J., Barash, R. L., Marlor, C. P., & Christmas, D. (Eds.). (2000). Mi’kmaq and the Crown: understanding treaties in Maritime Canadian history: with special reference to Prince Edward Island (First edition-June 2000.). Sark.

Sark, J. J. (2022). Epekwitk: Stories and Histories of the Mi’kmaq Nation. Charlottetown, PEI: Island Studies Press.

Dr. Sark’s work around Treaties is well-documented, and will be examined after we look first at Daniel N. Paul’s work and what life was like for the Mi’kmaq peoples prior to European contact.

Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy

What did you ‘take-away’ from the Chapter reading, Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy by Daniel N. Paul (2000)?

• Where did they live? Were they nomadic, semi-nomadic, or anchored to one place?
• What characterized their lifestyle?
• Did they know poverty, starvation, or unhealthy ways?
• What did they eat? What was daily life like?
• How did they treat their Elderly?

The answers can be found on page 23 of Paul’s chapter. Throughout this chapter, the author’s descriptions present a society that is the complete opposite to the term ‘savages’ that had been falsely applied to these First peoples and most Amerindians by past historians, clergy, authorities and settlers. The Mi’kmaq are highly evolved in terms of social values and relationships.

Respecting gender roles, Paul writes,

“…both genders were involved in setting the agenda and dispersing responsibilities for the orderly conduct of the Nation’s livelihood. The men were responsible for providing food for their communities by hunting and fishing and for carrying out chores involving heavy work. The women and older children were responsible for such chores as the limited farming the community indulged in, and for collecting, cleaning and preserving produce, game and fish. No demeaning connotations were associated with the assignment of different community responsibilities to each gender. The division of duties was pragmatically based on which gender was most suitable to the requirements of each job” (Paul, 2002, p. 24).

Paul (2000) also explained on the importance of education,

“The involvement of older children in survival duties was an educational regime that began at an early age at the knees of their parents, grandparents and Elders. This education was designed to instill in them a desire to grow into caring and honourable adults. The Keepers taught the children the Nation’s history and its legends. All adult members of the community participated in teaching the basic skills and knowledge deemed necessary to ensure the Nation’s survival” (pp. 24-25).

There are other important features of Mi’kmaq society on which Paul wrote including advanced child-rearing practices, socially beneficial laws, protocols and practices, inclusive social activities and functions, constant attention to recreational and entertainment needs, progressive health care, forward-thinking trade and commerce, and enacted values that are foundational to any sophisticated civilization. On the latter, as an example, Paul, stated,

“Civility and generosity were so engrained in Mi’kmaq society that to be rude or mean was unthinkable. If pressed to the contrary, they would respond: “How could one refuse to treat all people with kindness and not share with them the bounties of Mother Earth?” A modified version of this trait still survives in many Mi’kmaq homes today” (p. 29).

What are points can be made after reading Paul’s chapter?

For me, the one thing that emanates from Paul’s writing, particularly on Epekwitk (Prince Edward Island), are recent attempts by Mi’kmaq leadership and citizenry to reclaim, reimagine, and reintroduce their proud culture to the rest of us who may not really understand or appreciate the life and practices of the Mi’kmaq peoples.

I introduced you to L’nuey already, and in navigating their website, one will instantly see the efforts the organization has made to bring all aspects of the Mi’kmaq peoples to mainstream Prince Edward Island. A couple of years ago, I discovered a highly impactful video called, Pituamkek – A Mi’kmaq Heritage Landscape.

I know the non-Indigenous Film Director, John Hopkins, whose critically acclaimed works are simply outstanding (e.g.: Bluefin). With a highly professional and culturally based approach, this 2021 documentary production is a must watch as it details both the historic and contemporary worlds of the Mi’kmaq. Please take time to view this, and afterward, let’s discuss the main points of the documentary?

What were the main points made in Pituamkek – A Mi’kmaq Heritage Landscape? How do these correspond to what you read in Daniel N. Paul’s chapter on Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy?

Do you have a better understanding of the Mi’kmaq peoples in Prince Edward Island as a result?

Treaties

Mi’kmaq Historian Keptin John Joe Sark in his historical review titled, Mi’kmaq and the Crown: understanding treaties in Maritime Canadian history: with special reference to Prince Edward Island, traces the foundations of the Treaties, in Part III of his 2000 publication. Keptin Sark highlights several key ‘foundations’ which have direct impact on the Mi’kmaq and include:

• The First Wabanaki Treaty with the Crown, 1725
• The Treaty of Halifax, 1752
• Governor Belcher’s Guarantees to the Mi’kmaq, 1761
• Royal Instructions to British Governors, 1761
• Royal Proclamation of 1763

Sark (2000) writes of the Royal Proclamation of 1763,

“The Treaty of Paris (1763) between France and Great Britain ended their power struggle in North America, leaving Britain in full control of Acadia and Quebec. Like the Treaty of Utrecht, however, he treaty of Paris reserved all of the rights that France’s “Indian allies” had enjoyed previously. British governors were accordingly instructed to make or renew treaties with Indian nations, and to protect the Indians “connected” with the British Crown from encroachment on their lands” (p. 38).

Sark further adds,

“The 1763 Royal Proclamation forbid British Governors from granting the right to survey or settle any lands which has not already been sold to the Crown, or might be sold by treaty in the future. It also ordered British subjects to give up any Indian lands they had settled without proper authority. The 1725 Boston Tea Party had allowed Englishmen to keep the lands in New England and Nova Scotia they had already settled; after 1725, no more Mi’kmaq lands were ever sold by treaty” (p. 38).

It is this latter statement that has significance today when a land acknowledgement is pronounced. Those giving the acknowledgement often say, “We wish to first acknowledge we are on Epekwitk, part of the ancestral, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Mi’kmaw Nation, and on which this institution stands. This territory is covered by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, which recognize Mi’kmaw title and establish the ongoing relationship between the Mi’kmaw Nation and the Crown. We are all treaty people”.

Another important source of information on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 can be gleaned from the following site under the title, Royal Proclamation of 1763: Relationships, Rights and Treaties.

Keptin Sark also discusses the ‘foundation’ of the 1876 Indian Act, which we will cover later in this chapter. Before leaving the work of the later John Joe Sark, it is important to note that his publication is a most instructive reader that also includes a full section on Treaty Rights in Canada, and a further section relating to the role of the Courts to this important evolution.

For now, let’s solidify our knowledge around the importance of the Treaties of Peace and Friendship captured succinctly in the following video: Treaties of Peace and Friendship.

While acknowledging the significance of treaties, we must place these in the broader context of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. The following video should further anchor your understanding of treaty rights: Aboriginal & Treaty Rights (located on the L’nuey webpage along with other important videos including information on the Treaty Protected Fishery).

Finally, for a more in-depth discussion of the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, you are provided a link to the PDF document of the same name that is also reproduced below. Please take specific note of ‘bolded’ statements to strengthen your knowledge of this topic.

TREATIES OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP

The following information is provided directly from L’nuey, an Indigenous organizational “initiative that focuses on the advancement, implementation, and protection of the constitutionally entrenched rights of the Epekwitnewaq Mi’kmaq (Mi’kmaq of PEI)”. The research is comprehensive, and provides for very specific information on treaties that pertain to the Mi’kmaq peoples of the territory that is known as Prince Edward Island. 

DEFINITION

A treaty is defined as a formal agreement between two or more parties that define ongoing rights, benefits, and obligations on all sides. They are enacted between countries and nations. What is the significance, though, of these, formalized, “pieces of paper” to the Mi’kmaq, and to the Epekwitk Mi’kmaq in particular? 

MI’KMAQ HISTORY

To understand this, one needs to first get familiar with the long and complex history of this sovereign Nation. Mi’kmaq oral history tells the story of the world being covered with water and Sebanees arriving in kjiktu’lnu (“our great boat”), what is now Prince Edward Island (PEI), on his boat of ice, carrying all the animals and fish his Mi’kmaq family would need to survive. It is also said the melting of the ice boat was what created PEI’s unique land formation. (Whitehead, p. 5).

Archaeological sites, including shell middens containing the remains of oysters, clams, and other shellfish and campsite remains containing burned bits of seal, bear, beaver and other mammals, have been found in many places throughout Mi’kma’ki1, the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq. So, both Mi’kmaq oral history and archeological records clearly agree: the ancestors of the Mi’kmaq arrived in Mi’kma’ki at least 12,000 years ago, most likely following caribou, and other large land mammals, as well as the plants growing on the edges of the retreating ice of the last Ice Age.

After making their home in Mi’kma’ki for millennia, freely trading, hunting, fishing and gathering, Mi’kmaq life changed with the coming of the British and the French settlers, officials, and governments -altering Mi’kmaq resource use, language, religion, and existence from this era forward. The political and geographical boundaries of this region also shifted along with the time periods, and along with whichever group, French or English, believed they were in charge. However, to the Mi’kmaq Nation, the traditional territory of Mi’kma’ki remained the same, including the Québec, Gaspé Peninsula; eastern New Brunswick; all of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia; and southern Newfoundland. Instead of the arbitrarily designated colonial named spaces, however, the Mi’kmaq divided Mi’kma’ki into seven distinct districts, the names of which are still in use today:

Kespukwitk – Lands End (the region including Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Annapolis Counties, Nova Scotia);

Sipekni’katik – Wild Potato Area (the region including southern Halifax County, Hants, Colchester Counties and a portion of Cumberland County, Nova Scotia);

Eskikewa’kik – Skin Dressers Area (the region including northern Halifax County and Guysborough County, Nova Scotia);

Unama’kik – Land of Fog (Cape Breton Island);

Siknikt – Drainage Area (southern New Brunswick to the edge of Wolastoqiyik territory along the St. John River watershed);

Kespek – Last Land (the Miramichi, Restigouche Rivers watersheds in New Brunswick and the Gaspé Peninsula in Québec);

Epekwitk Aqq Piktuk – Laying in the Water and The Explosive Area (Prince Edward Island and the region which includes of portion of Cumberland County and Pictou and Antigonish Counties, Nova Scotia). (Kekina’muek, p. 11)

As can be seen in the list above, Epekwitk (Prince Edward Island), forms the district which also includes Piktuk (a portion of Cumberland County and Pictou and Antigonish Counties, Nova Scotia). The significance of this to the Treaties will be outlined in later sections. It should also be noted that there is a federally recognized Mi’kmaq tribe in Presque Isle, Maine, USA.

MI’KMAQ GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The traditional Mi’kmaq government structure began at the Band or community level with a Chief, or Saqmaw. As a “first among equals,” each Chief was responsible for the families within their area, including the younger generation in an apprenticeship capacity, to advise and chastise, and lead their people into war. Chiefs also had the responsibility to provide for the families in their group during times of trouble and famine, as well as allocating hunting areas. (Nietfeld, p. 439) Early Mi’kmaq governance also included a Council of Elders, whose role was varied and included assembling to arbitrate quarrels and differences of opinion, as well as the allocation of resource gathering areas. (LeClerq, p. 234)

The next governance level was the Mi’kmaq Grand Council, the Sante’ Mawio’mi. It was presided over by the KjiSaqmaw (the Grand Chief) and it was used to resolve mutual problems, promote solidarity, and to act as dispute mediator of last resort. Meetings involved Saqmaw and Keptins from various Mi’kmaq communities, and could sometimes include members of other First Nations, such as the Abénakis, the Peskotomuhkati [Passamaquoddy]; the Penobscot, and the Wolastoqiyik [Maliseet].

It should be noted that from the early 1900’s, there came a shifting in the perceived roles and responsibilities of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council. One can view this shift as being brought about through An Act respecting Indians, the Indian Act, with its banning of gatherings, political organizations, and, most especially, the role of Hereditary Chiefs.

The role of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council is now viewed as one of a more spiritual or advisory capacity; providing shared knowledge and advice to Mi’kmaq Band Councils on various topics. This shift can also be viewed as regionally specific, with differing views on the Grand Council throughout Mi’kma’ki. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will be focusing upon the traditional, historical, roles of Saqmaw, and the Sante’ Mawio’mi. 1 For one example, the Jones archaeological site, located on St. Peters Bay, on the northeastern coast of PEI, contains early campsite remains, dating from 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. (Keenlyside, p. 2). 2 As there is debate among historians regarding the inclusion of Newfoundland in the historical record of the Mi’kmaq Nation, this report will deal only with the seven indicated. 3 The “Ganong Line” which arbitrarily divides New Brunswick into the eastern Mi’kmaq portion of the territory, and the western Wolastoqiyik territory, is the matter of some debate as it does not include the central region of New Brunswick where both territories overlap.

TREATIES

Prior to European contact, it is thought the Mi’kmaq engaged in agreements and treaties with other First Nations. Mi’kmaq oral history mentions treaties of friendship and treaties involving hunting areas, prior to the coming of the Europeans to this region. They were believed to have been discussed and agreed upon with other First Nations at Grand Council, Sante’ Mawio’mi, type meetings, whose role was outlined earlier. Indeed, Père Biard, an early French Missionary, mentioned in his letters home about large gatherings he called “State Councils” where several “Sagamores” would “come together and consult among themselves about peace and war, treaties of friendship and treaties for the common good . . .” (Biard, Vol. III, p. 88) As well, a Jesuit missionary was present at a meeting on Miscou Island, New Bruswick, in 1645 where there was a form of a “Grand Council” as many First Nation representatives were present to discuss peace. Then they had everything [presents] carried into a great cabin, where many Savages — Montagnais, Algonquins, three of the nation of the Sorcerers, and two Betsiamites were assembled. The Captain of our coasts takes the floor in the name of the Captains of Acadia, and of him of the Bay of Rigibouctou, his kinsman, from whom he says he has commission to treat for peace… (Jesuit Relations, XXX, pp. 142-143) Why is the governance structure important? Did the Grand Council members, and individual Chiefs, have the authority to sign treaties on behalf of their regional members, or their Nation? As noted by distinguished professor of Indigenous history, Dr. William Wicken, for the Mi’kmaq to participate in treaty negotiations, “they must have had the political capacity to do so.” (Wicken, p. 40)

The Mi’kmaq relationship with the French and the Acadians, starting when they first arrived on these shores, was one of mutual respect and military alliance, not one defined by formalized treaties. The military alliance was believed to be necessary because of the long-standing pattern of peace and conflict between their French allies and the British. Contrary to the Mi’kmaq alliance with the French, the British viewed their relationship with the Mi’kmaq as one that needed a more formal approach. Beginning in 1725, a series of Peace and Friendship Treaties were signed between the British and the Mi’kmaq. They are referred to as “Peace and Friendship” Treaties as that was the cornerstone of the agreements. “And that the said Indians shall have all favour, Friendship & Protection shewn them from this His Majesty’s Government” (Treaty of 1752). These early Treaties (signed 1725-26, 1749, and 1752) were to ensure the Mi’kmaq would cease hostilities towards British settlers, …And We further promise on behalf of the said Tribes We represent That the Indians shall not Molest any of His Majesties subjects or their Dependents and their Settlements already made or Lawfully to be made or in their Carrying on their Traffick or their affairs Within the said Province… (Treaty of 1725) and the British would not interfere with Mi’kmaq hunting, fishing, and harvesting throughout Mi’kma’ki. “…It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from, but have free liberty of Hunting and Fishing as usual…” (Treaty of 1752) “

Besides referencing the few places where British settlers were living, the surrendering of land by the Mi’kmaq was not mentioned; the focus was on maintaining peace between the two nations. The Mi’kmaq, as did other First Nations, had, and continue to have, an intertwined connection to the land and its resources, as illustrated in the following narrative: In 1749, Edward Cornwallis became Governor of Nova Scotia. As an English Protestant Governor, he quickly moved against any group he believed would interfere with the English’s right to govern the territory. First, he tried to force an oath of Allegiance upon the Acadians settlers. When this did not work, he turned his attention upon the Mi’kmaq and their French supporters. Without using the customary gifts, Cornwallis attempted to force the Mi’kmaq away from their French counterparts and bring them under the rule of the British Crown. During one of their many skirmishes (“battles”), Cornwallis ordered a Mi’kmaq Chief to appear before him. As the story goes, the Mi’kmaq Chief strode into the camp. Cornwallis ordered him to cease hostilities and surrender. The Chief proudly replied, “The land on which you sleep, is ours; we sprung from it as do the trees, and the grass, and the flowers. It is ours forever, and we will not yield it to any man” (Lossing, p. 511) The Chief and his associates then strode out of the camp and back to the fighting. Therefore, the reference, or in these cases the non-reference, to “land” is significant.

BAPTIST LA MORUE

But, the peace alluded to in the early Treaties was short-lived, as conflict between the French and the British, and their Indigenous allies continued until 1760, with the loss of Québec, and other key French areas, to the British, and the beginning of the end of the Seven Years’ War. This also meant the role of France as a military power in this region was coming to an end. Acadian settlers and Indigenous leaders began trickling into British held Forts including Fort Cumberland, to declare their submissions for peace. Among the records of this time period is the mention of Epekwitk Mi’kmaq Chief Baptist La Morue, “Chief of the Isle of St. John”. In a letter dated March 7, 1760, from Colonel Joseph Frye to his Excellency the Governor, Frye states Mr. Manach, a French Priest, who has led the Charge of the People at Merimichi, Rishebucta and Boutox, with a Number of principal Men of those Places arrived here, when they renewed their Submission in a formal Manner, by subscribing to Articles (drawn suitable to the case). (Pennsylvania Gazette, 1760). With Manach, were two Mi’kmaq Chiefs from whom Frye “received their Submissions for themselves and Tribes, to His Britannic Majesty, and sent them to Halifax for the Terms by Governor Lawrence.” (ibid) The letter states Manach further informed Frye that a number of other Chiefs of the Mi’kmaq Nation would be coming to Cumberland after spring hunting was over. One of the names in the list Frye was given of the “Indian Chiefs inhabiting the Coast of Acadia” included Chief Baptist La Morue.4 4 Another contemporaneous mention of Chief La Morue occurs in a 1761 diary narrating the adventures of Gamaliel Smethurst, a British trader who lived with and traded with the Acadians and the Mi’kmaq, after being abandoned soon after arriving in this region. Smethurst mentions La Morue [“Lamoureux”], another Chief, and other Mi’kmaq, assisting in the recovery of goods from a shipwreck. La Morue also tells Smethurst he will send four men with him to Fort Cumberland. An interesting side note to this, is the mention of the Mi’kmaq Chiefs having “…large silver medals of the French king, hanging to ribbons round their necks.” (Smethurst, 380) “”

This was expanded upon by Abraham Gesner, in an 1847 account referencing this time period. Gesner had a decades-long relationship with both the Mi’kmaq and the Wolatoqiyik, and a familiarity with their languages, therefore it is believed he may have received his information from these First Nations communities, directly. He researched and wrote this description shortly before being appointed Nova Scotia Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1847. During the winter, eight more Indian Chiefs surrendered themselves; and the whole Micmac tribe, which then amounted to 6000 souls, abandoned the cause of France, and became dependent upon the English. The following are the names of the chiefs that signed the obligation of allegiance, and the places of abode: Louis Francis, Chief of Miramichi; Dennis Winemowet, of Tabogunkik; Etienne Abchabo, of Pohoomoosh; Claud Atanage, of Gediaak; Paul Lawrence, of La Have; Joseph Algemoure, of Chignecto, or Cumberland; John Newit, of Pictou ; Baptiste Lamourne [La Morue], of St. John’s Island; Rene Lamourne [La Morue], of Nalkitgoniash; Jeannot Piquadauduet, of Minas; Augustin Michael, of Richibucto; Bartlemy Anngualet, of Kishpugowitk. The above Chiefs were sent to Halifax (Gesner, p. 47) La Morue, along with other Mi’kmaq Chiefs, were to go there to sign a series Peace and Friendship Treaties.

The Peace and Friendship Treaties signed in 1760-61, guaranteed Mi’kmaq the right to hunt, fish, gather and earn a reasonable living, without British interference. Robert Cooney, the unofficial “first historian” of New Brunswick, gives a similar description of eight Mi’kmaq Chiefs, including “Baptist Lamoune” (La Morue), making their way to Fort Cumberland after the 1759-60 winter hunting season, to tender their submission. He states: “the above persons are supposed to have been the most distinguished man of the Eastern or Micmac nation, at that time estimated about 5000 souls. The Indian chiefs were sent to Gov. Lawrence at Halifax, who allowed them, after having received a renewal of their submission to his Britannic Majesty, to retain their respective dominions, and exercise her usual prerogatives.” It should be noted, however, that the source of this information is not given. (Cooney, p. 38) In October 1761, it was remarked in the Executive Council Minutes of Nova Scotia, that another Treaty of Peace and Friendship with signed by the Chief of the Pictou area Mi’kmaq.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship of the same Tenor as that made with Joseph Shabecholout was concluded, Signed and Sealed by Janneouit Picklougawash for himself & the Pictouk & Malogomich Indians of which he is Chief, The Same being Accepted of and Agreed to by the Honourable Jonathan Belcher Esq: Commander in Chief of the Province of Nova Scotia. (Executive Council Minutes, Vol. 188, pp.282-283; Vol. 165, p.187) Janneouit Picklougawash (Janvier Piktukewa’j), was Chief of Pictou, part of the Mi’kma’ki district of Epekwitk aq Piktuk (PEI and Pictou), therefore, it could be said he was signing it as a representative of Prince Edward Island, as well. In 1763, the Treaties were again referenced in a Memorial by Alexander Grant to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. “In the year 1760 General Lawrence, late Governor of Nova Scotia, made peace with the Indians of that Country and St. Johns.” As St Johns Island (PEI) was by then a part of Nova Scotia, the reference can be presumed to mean the Island. Grant was petitioning to be compensated for providing goods for trade with the Mi’kmaq at a truckhouse.”

TREATIES TODAY

The idea of the Treaties did not fall into history for the Mi’kmaq. They were rather pointedly referenced in Epekwitk Mi’kmaq Chief Oliver Thomas Labone’s 1838 petition to the British Crown. That in former Times our Fathers were the Owners of this Island, and fully enjoyed their acquired Resources thereof until they were visited by People of the French Nation, who taught them Religion and the Duties of civilized Life; after which, by Treaty entered into by that Nation with Your Majesty’s Government… (Colonial Office, vol. 55, p. 168; vol. 56, “Petitions”) Other places in Mi’kma’ki also cited the Treaties, as seen in the Mi’kmaq Chiefs in Nova Scotia petition to Nova Scotia’s Lieutenant Governor (1849). “Tired of a war that destroyed may of our people, almost ninety years ago our Chief made peace and buried the hatchet forever. When that peace was made, the English Governor promised protection, as much land as we wanted, and the preservation of our fisheries and game.” (Whitehead, p. 239). Several petitions and complaints, both written and in person, around the time of Confederation, also mentioned the Treaties, and Confederation’s suspected impact on them. These Treaties were also used in legal issues.

The Sylliboy court case, R. v. Sylliboy (1928) is believed to be the first to use the 1752 Treaty of Peace and Friendship to argue that the right to hunt on traditional territories was covered by the treaty. While the case was lost, Sylliboy received a posthumous pardon and apology from the government of Nova Scotia in 2017. In 1999, in what is now known as the Marshall Decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed a treaty right hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a ‘moderate livelihood’, arising from the 1760-61 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. In his trial, Donald Marshall Jr. used the Treaty to argue that he was catching and trading fish, just as the Mi’kmaq had done since the Europeans first appeared in the region. In Epekwitk Mi’kmaq oral stories, and in other parts of Mi’kma’ki, we are told that parents and Elders, while passing down traditional resource gathering methods, also shared their knowledge of the Treaties. This was, and is, a way to ensure the Peace and Friendship Treaties and their importance in the protection of Mi’kmaq rights is never forgotten in Mi’kma’ki. One final note, it must be remembered that while these Peace and Friendship Treaties were entered into, the Mi’kmaq were never conquered, and never surrendered, gave up or ceded their land. Mi’kma’ki is still Mi’kmaq territory, and the Peace and Friendship Treaties serve as a foundation for the relationship of the Mi’kmaq and all citizens of the region”.

WORKS CITED

Biard, Père Pierre, Relation of New France, of its Lands, Nature of the Country, and of its Inhabitants, also, Of the voyage of the Jesuit Fathers to said country, and of their work there up to the time of their capture by the English. (1616).

Colonial Office: Prince Edward Island, original correspondence (CO 226) Vol. 56, unnumbered (1838).

Cooney, Robert, A compendious history of the northern part of the province of New Brunswick and the District of Gaspe in Lower Canada (1832).

Gesner, Abraham, New Brunswick, with notes for emigrants: comprehending the early history, an account of the Indians, settlement, topography, statistics, commerce, timber, manufactures, agriculture, fisheries, geology, natural history, social and political state, immigrants, and contemplated railways of that province (London, 1847).

Keenlyside, David, Glimpses of Atlantic Canada’s Past, [https://www.historymuseum.ca/learn/research/resources-for-scholars/essays/glimpses-of-atlantic-canadas-past/] p. 2.

Kekina’muek: Learning about the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, (Truro, NS: Eastern Woodland Publishing, 2007).

Lossing, Benson J., Our Country Household History for All Readers from the Discovery of America to the Present Time (1878).

Nietfeld, Patricia, Determinants of Aboriginal Micmac Political Structure, PhD dissertation, (University of New Mexico: 1981).

Nova Scotia Executive Council Minutes, Pictou and Malagomich Treaty, 12 October 1761, RG1 v.188, pp.282-283; RG1 v.165, pp.187.

Smethurst, Gamaliel, A Narrative of an Extraordinary Escape: Out of the Hands of the Indians, in the Gulph of St. Lawrence (1761).

William C. Wicken, Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial History, Land, and Donald Marshall Junior, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002, p.40.

Whitehead, Ruth Holmes, The Old Man Told Us: Excerpts from Micmac History, 1500-1950, Nimbus Publishing Ltd, 1991.

As a final part of this chapter, we will focus attention on a legal document, alluded to earlier, that has had a profound impact and lasting impact on the lives of Indigenous peoples, that being, the Indian Act. Let us take a minute to understand this from a broad perspective before examining it in more depth as part of the Chapter 6 – Colonization, Assimilation Policies, and Genocide.

The Indian Act: A Summary

• What did you know about the Indian Act prior to viewing this video?
• What did you learn from this short video?
• What were some of the aspects of the Indian Act that you found profound, disturbing, or not fully understood?
• Are you aware of any other type of legislation that has such widespread impacts on a group of people?
• Why do you think there has been no movement toward repealing the Indian Act, although it has been heavily criticized for many years?
• How would you describe the Indian Act if someone asked you to explain it?

Here is an except regarding the Indian Act:

“The Indian Act is the primary law the federal government uses to administer Indian status, local First Nations governments and the management of reserve land. It also outlines governmental obligations to First Nations peoples. The Indian Act pertains to people with Indian Status; it does not directly reference non-status First Nations people, the Métis or Inuit. First introduced in 1876, the Act subsumed a number of colonial laws that aimed to eliminate First Nations culture in favour of assimilation into Euro-Canadian society. A new version of the Act was passed in 1951, and since then, has been amended several times, most significantly in 1985, with changes mainly focusing on the removal of discriminatory sections. It is an evolving, paradoxical document that has enabled trauma, human rights violations and social and cultural disruption for generations of Indigenous peoples” (Indian Act, 2022).

As stated, we will examine the Indian Act in more depth along with other aspects of governmental control over the lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Key Terms and Concepts from Chapter

• Mi’kmak’i, the land of the L’nu or Mi’kmaq peoples
• Maw’omi, gathering of the people
• traditional regalia
• birchbark wigwam (Mi’kmaq structure used for shelter and living)
• definition of treaty
• Treaties of Peace and Friendship
• Royal Proclamation of 1763
• assimilation
• traditional Mi’kmaq government structure / role of Chiefs
• Mi’kmaq Social Values and Economy (Daniel N. Paul)
• Indian Act of 1876

Important Readings / Viewings for Next Class

(Vowel, 2016). Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis, & Inuit Issues in Canada : pp. 171-205 (Main Topics – Residential Schools, Sixties Scoop, and Inuit Relocation)

Special Topics of Interest

Dr. James S. Frideres: First Nations in the Twenty-First Century

Cultural Competency Supplemental Tutorials

Life Cycle Teachings: Wabano Health Centre