We Share Our Matters

Two Centuries of Writing and Resistance at Six Nations of the Grand River

Rick Monture

• Publisher: University of Manitoba Press
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780887557675
• eBook ISBN: 9780887554667
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: North American Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

The Haudenosaunee, more commonly known as the Iroquois or Six Nations, have been one of the most widely written-about Indigenous groups in the United States and Canada. But seldom have the voices emerging from this community been drawn on in order to understand its enduring intellectual traditions.Rick Monture's We Share Our Matters offers the first comprehensive portrait of how the Haudenosaunee of the Grand River region have expressed their long struggle for sovereignty in Canada. Drawing from individualsas diverse as Joseph Brant, Pauline Johnson and Robbie Robertson, Monture illuminates a unique Haudenosaunee world view comprised of three distinct features: a spiritual belief about their role and responsibility to the earth; a firm understanding of their sovereign status as a confederacy of independant nations; and their responsibility to maintain those relations for future generations.After more than two centuries of political struggle Haudenosaunee thought has avoided stagnant conservatism and continues to inspire ways to address current social and political realities.

1

“Sovereigns of the Soil”

Joseph Brant and the Grand River Settlement

Several decades before names such as Sitting Bull, Geronimo, and Crazy Horse entered into the North American consciousness, Joseph Brant was one of the best-known Native leaders of the eighteenth century and the subject of much literary interest. In 1838, William Stone published Life of Joseph Brant—Thayendanegea, a two-volume biography of the famous Mohawk Chief, and in 1872 a book entitled A Memoir of the Distinguished Mohawk Indian Chief, Sachem and Warrior, Capt. Joseph Brant appeared, “compiled from the most Reliable and Authentic Records” by William E. Palmer (Brant 1872). As the nineteenth century wore on, however, and Canada and the United States engaged in the process of building their respective nations, Brant and the Grand River Haudenosaunee were increasingly forgotten after their usefulness as military allies declined following the War of 1812. After more than 500 years of Native/Euro-American contact, the colourful images of the above-mentioned American Indian leaders have become prominent symbols of Indigenous resistance and a fierce independence that most do not associate with Brant and his own attempts at negotiating with colonial authorities.

In fact, there remains today considerable debate among the Grand River community itself as to how Brant’s legacy should be assessed with regard to his political dealings with the Crown. According to historian James W. Paxton, the popular historical accounts of Brant, describing him as a “Loyalist,” have resulted in an “Anglo-Canadian society [that] has embraced Brant more completely and warmly than have the Haudenosaunee” (2008,85). What Paxton rightly points out is that Canadians have forgotten “Brant’s intense battles with colonial administrators, his ultimate desire to limit and control the [non-Haudenosaunee] people who settled at Grand River, and his many flirtations with the United States” (85). They tend to ignore these elements and instead “subsume him within the smothering traditions of the United Empire Loyalists” (86). While it is perhaps tempting, and all too convenient, for the Haudenosaunee to look upon Brant’s legacy from our own post-Oka perspective and label him as far too complacent in his response to colonial authority, I suggest that he often drew upon a traditional understanding of Six Nations sovereignty to promote a peaceful nation-to-nation relationship with the British, and that his beliefs were strongly opposed to English authority. As Paxton argues, Brant’s convictions are evident in his numerous letters to government authorities that consistently reminded them of the Haudenosaunee’s role in the Revolution and the political autonomy that they were promised in its aftermath. While Brant was at once an officer in the British army, a Freemason, and an Anglican, he was also Thayendanegea, a Mohawk “Pine Tree” Chief who never abandoned his people and their struggle to secure and maintain an independent homeland in Upper Canada. This chapter will examine how his speeches and letters indicate a strong Haudenosaunee position on our sovereign identity that has largely been overlooked by Haudenosaunee and non-Haudenosaunee alike for the past 200 years. Importantly, Brant’s words have continued to echo throughout much of the literary production that has emanated from Grand River ever since.

Thayendanegea, or Joseph Brant, was born in present-day Ohio, on what was then the westernmost edge of Haudenosaunee territory, in March 1743. When he was around eight years old, his family moved back to Canajoharieke, his mother’s Wolf Clan village in the traditional Mohawk territory of eastern New York State (Brant-Monture 1960, 6). Although the Iroquois Confederacy had been somewhat weakened by a series of epidemics that had spread through their villages, they still held tremendous political and military influence in the mid-eighteenth century and were constantly sought out as allies by the French and British, who were intent on claiming control over these territories. By the time young Thayendanegea arrived among his people, the British were the favoured trading partner and military ally among the Mohawk and most other nations of the Confederacy. This was an alliance that became permanent after the conclusion of what was known as the “French-Indian Wars” in 1759.1

Growing up in this period, Brant would have witnessed first-hand the decision-making process of the Confederacy Chiefs and been exposed to the final years of what was traditional Haudenosaunee culture before the American Revolution completely altered it forever. The Superintendent of Indian Affairs in New York at the time, Sir William Johnson, recognized that Brant was an intelligent youth and arranged for him and two other young Mohawk men to be sent to the newly established Moor’s Charity School in Lebanon, Connecticut, to become educated in the ways of the colonist (Paxton 2008, 28). Twenty-five years after Six Nations leaders declined the offer of such an education for their young men, it was now viewed as a beneficial opportunity; for they realized that their people would have to become knowledgeable about European ways in order to effectively negotiate the ever-changing social and political relationship with them. According to one early account of Brant’s life,

He soon made such proficiency as to be able not only to read and write English surprisingly well but soon undertook to translate English into the Iroquois or Mohawk Language… so well that the late Sir Wm. Johnson found him very serviceable in translating Indian Speeches of moment [sic] to be made to the 6 Nations in Council and translate them in writing into the Iroquois Language in order to convey to the Indians the full meaning and substance of such Speeches [which] Indian interpreters who in general are a dull illiterate kind of white people never were capable of doing. (Bryant 1873, 13)

As he matured, Brant also took up the Anglican faith, and as with his education, it appears that he was able to reconcile and adapt what he learned of European ways with his Mohawk identity and Haudenosaunee traditions. These cross-cultural belief systems were to be the guiding principles that influenced not only his own life, but that also had considerable impact upon the rest of the Six Nations throughout the late eighteenth century. Undoubtedly, it was Brant’s ability to negotiate these two cultures that has made him such a compelling figure over the years, inspiring historians and biographers to use such phrases as a “man of two worlds” and “divided loyalties” to describe his life and legacy.

What these historians have failed to realize, however, is that from a Haudenosaunee perspective, particularly during Brant’s lifetime, such negotiations of identity and personal choice were acceptable and necessary attributes when dealing with the unfamiliar circumstances that were shaping their world in the late eighteenth century. Scholars have only recently recognized such agency on the part of Native people as a very deliberate and pragmatic attempt to maintain control of their lands in the face of ever-increasing colonial pressures. Historian Alan Taylor argues that by embracing English education and religious beliefs, “Brant hoped to appropriate elements of British culture to serve Indian ends: to build a syncretic cultural fire wall against colonial domination” (2007, 49). By becoming “literate Christians,” Taylor continues, “the Mohawks could better fend off cunning and conniving land speculators and could better conduct diplomacy with colonial officials” (49). In other words, becoming Christian allowed them to preserve their lands as well as their political importance. Positioned this way, between cultural tradition and Western religion, Taylor concludes that “the Mohawks could prolong their distinct identity as a native people” (49). Brant also realized that the same would be true for all the Haudenosaunee nations negotiating with the British and Americans at this time, but he never appeared to advocate for a widespread conversion to Christianity, nor a complete turn to British education, as a means to retain traditional lands. He therefore understood the importance of culture and tradition, and more importantly, of the respect for personal choice that had permeated Haudenosaunee society since its earliest beginnings.

It is significant, then, that because of his education and ability to communicate with the British, Brant was made a “Pine Tree” Chief within the Confederacy Council in the time immediately preceding the American Revolution. A “Pine Tree” Chief is an honorary title that is earned, rather than passed down through matrilineal lines as is the usual custom among the Haudenosaunee, and it is reserved for those who prove themselves worthy through their oratorical skills or abilities as a warrior. Recognizing that Brant was already a proven warrior, also a fluent English speaker who got along well with the powerful colonial Administrator (and later, his brother-in-law), Sir William Johnson, the traditional Chiefs understood that they needed a mediator who could understand the language and rhetoric of the colonial officials who were attempting to win their favour. Significantly, the Great Law, or Kaienerekowa, provides for the recognition, or “raising up,” of such individuals who would benefit the people in turbulent times, and further demonstrates the foresight and flexibility of traditional political philosophy. The following is from a recent translation of the Kaienerekowa by the late Cayuga traditionalist Reg Henry, which was originally dictated in the Onondaga language by Chief John A. Gibson at Grand River in 1912:

If ever a disruptive idea were to enter where the Great Fire [of the Confederacy] is located, where the power is situated, if the Chiefs are unable to agree, thereupon someone among the warriors or the people—just whoever in the crowd is able—that one shall help, assisting them at the Council, the League Chiefs ... [H]e will place in front of them his own opinion, he having observed where they can escape in order for the entire group to survive, so that the day will dawn for generations of our grandchildren.... After the Chiefs accept it, the suggestion of the one not holding office, they will confirm it, and if it turns out well ... then the Chiefs will think carefully about the man, the warrior holding no office, thinking about his ability.... Thereupon they will decide to include him where they are seated to counsel together, the Chiefs of the five nations. And they will stand him up, in front of the Chiefs who will then give him a title which they will call Pine Tree Chief, the self-made Chief, and this is because he helped the Chiefs and also the entire group. (Gibson [1912] 1992, 464–68)

Therefore, the traditional Hereditary Council was not breaking any rules of protocol and decorum in appointing Brant as a Chief, even though such a title was not his by matrilineal lines. They simply relied on an ancient system of government that allowed for such individuals to assume a position of authority when particular situations arose. This tradition also makes it clear that the Pine Tree Chief “has as much power as the antlered Chiefs of our various nations, all of the trees being of equal height” (Gibson [1912] 1992, 468–69), meaning that no Chief has more power than any other; but warns that the “self-made” Chief can also be stripped of his title “if ever he spoils matters between the Chiefs and the people ... [and if] he is not truthful in his dealings” (469–70).

While the majority of Six Nations members today understand that Joseph Brant was not a hereditary Chief who had attained his title through the ancient “condolence ceremony” used to elevate leaders, his popular image as the “supreme” leader of the Six Nations during this time has remained quite entrenched in mainstream society’s image of him. This misrepresentation is one of many examples of how our history has often been interpreted for us, with no real understanding or discussion of how traditional political structure is designed to accommodate individuals like Brant and, more importantly, how we as a community have viewed his place within our history. As a result, Brant has often been singled out as an historical icon characterized by his Loyalist sympathies and attraction to European manners (which are a prominent feature of his contemporary portraits), rather than as but one Chief operating within a much larger social and political structure to which he was accountable. Too often, Brant is credited with leading the Six Nations in the period after the Revolution, when in reality he was given these powers of authority by the traditional body of leadership, with the understanding that if he acted in opposition to their wishes, his title would be revoked. In other words, while Brant may be the acculturated figure most closely associated with Six Nations history in Canada, his ideologies emerged from an ancient philosophical tradition that he and the hereditary Chiefs and Clanmothers adapted to the changing circumstances around them. He was the individual who was able to provide the means of “escape in order for the entire group to survive,” as spoken of in the Great Law.

During the Revolution, Brant’s military abilities were considerable enough to earn him the rank of captain, and it was at this time that a large part of his reputation was also established, one which fit well with the image of the noble warrior savage, made all the more attractive so long as he fought for the British cause. Understandably, his historical reputation in the United States is often in direct contrast to how he is perceived in Canada, and Revolutionary battles such as those at Cherry Valley and Wyoming are best remembered by Americans for how cruelly Brant treated “helpless” revolutionary settlers, earning him such nicknames as “the Monster Brant” and “Scourge of the Mohawks.” Since then, many of these accounts have been proven false and, in fact, further research has revealed how humane Brant was in comparison to both British and American military leaders during this conflict.2 Undoubtedly, Brant was able to use his knowledge of the upstate New York landscape to great strategic effect during the war, and the sense of urgency felt by the Haudenosaunee during the Revolution could not have been lost on him, since many significant battles were fought within Haudenosaunee territory or in close proximity to it. Furthermore, the promises that the British had made prior to the war led the Six Nations to believe that they would be well taken care of, win or lose. In a speech at Niagara, Brant later reminded the British of their words.

In the year 1775 ... Lord Dorchester, then Sir Guy Carlton, at a numerous council, gave us every encouragement, and requested us to assist in defending their country, and to take an active part in defending His Majesty’s possessions, stating that when the happy day of peace should arrive, and should we not prove successful in the contest, that he would put us on the same footing in which we stood previous to joining him. This flattering promise was pleasing to us, and gave us spirit to embark heartily in his Majesty’s cause. We took it for granted that the word of so great a man, or any promise of a public nature, would ever be held sacred. (1872, 60–61)

It is significant here that Brant points out that these promises were made to the Haudenosaunee at a “numerous council,” meaning that a large group of people were present, including, most likely, the traditional body of leadership. To the Haudenosaunee, words that were passed at such a gathering carried tremendous weight and power, and were to be honoured. For the British, such words were apparently not as important, especially as they were neither written down nor carried out.

We will never know the exact discussions that went on in Council meetings regarding the American Revolution and Haudenosaunee sentiments toward it, but the Clanmothers and Chiefs of the time would have had to consider carefully the consequences of victory or defeat and the subsequent impact upon their lives in the only homeland they had ever known. In other words, the ferocity with which Brant and the other Six Nations warriors fought had less to do with their belief in the rightfulness of the British cause and more to do with the fact that they were, in large part, defending their homeland as the conflict wore on. Many historians seem to have overlooked this particular issue, choosing instead to portray Brant as a devout Loyalist who looked poorly upon the American patriots as insubordinate troublemakers in their uprising against the King. Notably, recent scholarship in Canada has focussed on dismantling the “Loyalist myth,” and I would argue that Brant’s role within the Revolution would give further evidence for such a deconstruction, as his personal motives were primarily driven by a collective response from the Six Nations to a situation that was not of their making. They were simply making choices dictated by forces around them, using conventional responses to times of conflict that had served them in the past. Although Brant was a pivotal figure during this period, he, too, was exploited by the British before, during, and after the Revolution, especially as it served their purposes to construct a narrative of noble Loyalist subjects seeking a new home far from the uncivilized American rebels.

Following the British defeat, Joseph Brant’s service to the Crown did serve eventually to procure a new land base in Upper Canada, but only after much intense lobbying on his part. Previous to his requests, however, it is apparent that the British held little regard for “her Majesties faithful Allies,” since the peace treaty of 1783 did not include any mention of the Haudenosaunee despite the fact that they were the people most directly affected by the British defeat. Such neglect of the Six Nations caused Brant’s early biographer, William L. Stone, to write in 1838, “In the treaty with the United States, ... Great Britain had made no stipulation in behalf of her Indian allies. Notwithstanding the alacrity with which the aboriginals, especially the Mohawks, had entered the service of the crown—notwithstanding their constancy, their valor, the readiness with which they had spilt their blood, and the distinguished services of their Great Captain Thayendanegea [Brant], the loyal red man was not even named in the treaty” ([1838] 1969,1:237–38). Stone may have been an early commentator on the injustice of such treatment in the aftermath of the Revolution, but he made no real criticism of the British and their policies of the time. Unfortunately, this disregard for the well-being of the Native people of this continent was to become an all-too-familiar pattern as the nineteenth century progressed.

Brant, in his attempts to secure a land base for the Mohawks whose “whole country had been ravaged with fire and sword; and ... [who] had sacrificed the entire of their own rich and beautiful ... native valley” (Stone [1838] 1969, 238), did not forget the other nations of the Confederacy and the responsibility they had toward each other, a relationship that had endured for centuries previous to contact. Therefore, Brant was intent on gaining lands in Upper Canada that were in close proximity to the other nations of the Confederacy who chose to remain in New York State, particularly the Seneca. After some negotiation, Brant was able to secure a tract of land six miles wide on each side of the Grand River, which flowed into Lake Erie approximately 40 miles from Niagara Falls. Such a location would allow relatively easy access and communication between the Haudenosaunee nations in the event of further troubles with the Americans. This was also a location that the British approved of, and on October 25, 1784, Sir Frederick Haldimand signed the document that became known as the Haldimand Deed, ensuring “that a Convenient Tract of Land under [His Majesty’s] Protection should be chosen as a Safe & Comfortable Retreat for ... [the] Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle ... upon the Banks of the [Grand] River, ... which them & their posterity are to enjoy for ever” (Haldimand [1784a] 1964,50–51). Although the 975,000 acres of land promised in the Deed was but a fraction of traditional Haudenosaunee territory lost to the Revolution, Brant was satisfied with these conditions, and in November 1784 wrote in a letter “I shall winter here [near Kingston], myself and family; early in the Spring I shall leave ... and go to my new country at Grand River” (quoted in Stone [1838] 1969, 247).

This letter is also significant, for in it Brant expresses his frustration at trying to make himself understood in written English. Despite his education and experience in dealing with colonial officials over the years, he was still aware of his inability to completely express himself in an effective manner, a situation that he must have understood to be a precarious one: “It would relieve me many points if you would be so kind as to answer me this letter, as far as you will understand my English, and please to explain me at once of your sentiments concerning this kind of complaint of mine, let it be what it will, because whatever must be done its not help for it, it must be so. If I could see you, and talk with you, I could explain myself better than a letter half English half Indian” (quoted in Stone [1838] 1969, 247). With virtually no one else to rely upon to accurately translate correspondence, much less the meaning behind certain terms and phrases of English common law and propriety, the responsibility that Brant faced cannot be underestimated—he was the one and only line of defence between the Six Nations and the fate that awaited them in the highly unstable period following the war. As Stone comments in a footnote, “Captain Brant improved in his English composition very much and very rapidly in after years” (247). What is left out of this kind of observation, of course, is the question: how well was Brant able to translate concepts from English into the Iroquoian languages? This is of fundamental importance; Brant was constantly engaged in cross-cultural dialogue, and necessity dictated that he describe colonial concepts in terms that would be understandable to the Haudenosaunee who were reliant on his ability to accurately translate and analyze their significance. Brant’s need to translate concepts back and forth across cultural divides was an enormous task made more complex by the situation that the Six Nations found themselves in at the end of the American Revolution. With their tradit...

Table of contents

• ILLUSTRATIONS
• PREFACE
• INTRODUCTION
• 1 “Sovereigns of the Soil”
• 2 The Challenge to Haudenosaunee Nationhood
• 3 “An Enemy’s Foot is on our Country”
• 4 Displacement, Identity, and Resistance
• 5 “Linking Arms Together”
• CONCLUSION
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• NOTES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY