1 research outputs found
Reconstituting Canada: The enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of ‘Indians,’ circa 1837–1900
- Author
- Allan Sherwin
- Arthur C Parker
- Augustine had inherited his chiefly title from his father
- Canada Department of Indian Affairs
- Canada Department of Indian Affairs
- Chief William Smith
- Chief William Smith to Knutsford June 1889, vol 802, CO 42, NAUK
- Colin Calloway
- Colin Grittner
- Copy of the Haldimand Proclamation of 25 October 1784 vol 1846/IT250, file R216-79-6-E, RG 10, LAC
- David Laird to Interior Minister received 1 April 1876, vol 6809, folio 470-2-3-1, RG 10, LAC
- Deborah Doxtator
- Derived from census figures in Department of Indian Affairs
- Douglas Leighton
- Doxtator argues that this was especially difficult since the Six Nations at Grand River and Mohawk at Tyendinaga had developed powerful corporate ‘reserve’ identities by the end of the nineteenth century.
- Edward Marion Chadwick
- Elections Canada
- Elizabeth Arthur
- Garner
- Garner
- Glanville did not name the specific avenue for legal redress but referred to an 1833 law that provided for appeals to the Judicial Committee.
- Hill
- Hill
- However the fee simple grant retained the legal ‘disability’ that the grantee had no ‘power to sell, lease or otherwise alienate the land’ without approval by the governor-in-council.
- In 1884 the Liberal government of Ontario had targeted this class of alleged Conservative voters by amending the provincial election law to prohibit all enfranchised Indian men who participated in ‘annuities, interests, moneys or rents of a tribe’ from registering for the franchise.
- In British Columbia the franchise law explicitly disenfranchised all Indians.
- In British North America imperial governors had already taken it upon themselves to transform an older system of military alliances with First Nations into a new system of reservations to govern Indian subjects.
- In the 1870s the ‘numbered’ treaties between the Canadian government and the Cree, Blackfoot, and other nations sought to extinguish ‘aboriginal’ title in return for protection on reserved lands based on the British practices of treaty-making that had evolved from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to the Robinson treaties of the 1850s. On the history of the ‘numbered’ treaties and the context of coercion through administered hunger and the threat of violence, see e.g.
- John S Milloy
- JSD Thompson to Macdonald 13 May 1889, vol 157, C-1566, 63660–4, MG 26-A, LAC [emphasis in original].
- Lord Durham
- Miller traces this shift to the appointment of Clifford Sifton as superintendent-general of Indian affairs in 1896. ‘Sifton’s dismal opinion of the Indians’ potential ’ he argues, ‘reinforced a sense of disillusionment about Canada’s Indian policy that was growing throughout the bureaucracy.’
- Muller
- On Hayter Reed and the new policy of segregation
- On the constitutional history of the Confederacy Council compare
- On the general history of the Six Nations reserve at Grand River
- On the history of the Anishinaabe in the nineteenth century
- On the history of the Anishinaabe-British treaties
- On the history of the Confederacy Council and its constitution compare
- On the Treaty of Niagara
- On the ‘turbulent’ history of the property-based franchise in the province of Canada
- Order-in-Council no 1890-2102 13 November 1890, Privy Council Office, Series A-1-a, RG 2, LAC. This ‘report’ referred to a letter by Chief Justice Macauley to Sir George Arthur, 22 August 1838
- Over the past few decades legal histories of Indigenous peoples subject to the laws of Canada have overwhelmingly and understandably focused on the subject of Aboriginal title.
- Private property was the imperial paradigm for the assimilation of non-Europeans. In 1837 the Aborigines Select Committee of the House of Commons in London published a report on the future of imperial rule over ‘Aborigines,’ which referred to all non-European subjects in settler colonies from Canada to the Cape Colony. Among other things, it recommended imposing private property as both the primary means and end of assimilation.
- Quoted in Montgomery ‘Six Nations Indians,’ supra note 4 at 16
- Reed’s radical re-description of treaties was similar to – though did not use the exact language of – the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council finding ‘that the tenure of the Indians was a personal and usufructuary right dependent upon the good will of the Sovereign.’
- Remarkably there is only one academic history of the Grand General Indian Council.
- Sakayenkwaraton then speaker of the Six Nations council, is standing with a wampum belt in his hand: ‘Chiefs of the Six Nations at Brantford, Canada, explaining their wampum belts to Horatio Hale’, 14 September 1871, Six Nations Legacy Consortium Collection, Six Nations Public Library Collection
- Schmalz
- Schmalz
- Schmalz
- Schmalz
- Schmalz
- Sidney L Harring
- Tables 1–3 are constructed by correlating historical election data and Indian census data. See Canada Department of Indian Affairs
- The Governor General in council had the discretion to extend the provisions at some later date to any ‘civilized’ band in the western territories.
- The Royal Proclamation is reproduced in
- There was one apparent exception to the Haudenosaunee rejection of enfranchisement. The Haudenosaunee ‘Chiefs and Warriors at Caughnawage’ (of the Kahnawá:ke reserve bordering Montreal) asked if they could take up an older offer to be enfranchised as a community on their own terms so that they could ‘figurer dans la societé etant admis comme touts sujets Britannique à participer aux mêmes privileges et benifices.’ Chiefs of Caughnawage to David Laird, 24 March 1876, vol 6809, folio 470-2-3-1, RG 10, LAC. But Reid suggests that these petitioners were most likely a small minority similar in status and grievance to the ‘dehorners’ at the Six Nations.
- There were other notable concentrations of Indian voters in several other districts in Quebec and the maritime provinces.
- These changes were introduced the next year in the amended Indian Act. Indian Act SC 1895, c 35.
- This figure includes current draft legislation.
- Weaver
- Weaver
- Weaver
- William Henry Fishcarrier
- ‘Report of Committee no. 4 on Indian Department,’ 1 February 1840, reprinted in Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly
- Publication venue
- 'University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)'
- Publication date
- Field of study
No full text
