“Improvement” of Mi'kma'ki, 1760-1860 Jesse
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Capitalism and Dispossession: The Commodification of the Countryside and the “Improvement” of Mi’kma’ki, 1760-1860 Jesse Watkins Coady A Thesis in The Department of History Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts (History) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada December 2019 © Jesse Watkins Coady, 2019 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Jesse Watkins Coady Entitled: Capitalism and Dispossession: The Commodification of the Countryside and the “Improvement” of Mi’kma’ki, 1760-1860 and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (History) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: ________Dr. Eric Reiter___________________ Chair ________Dr. Theresa Ventura______________ Examiner ________Dr. Gavin Taylor_________________ Examiner ________Dr. Anya Zilberstein______________ Thesis Supervisor(s) _______________________________________ Approved by ___________Anya Zilberstein_____________________________ Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director December 9, 2019________André G. Roy_______________________________ Dean of Faculty iii Abstract Capitalism and Dispossession: The Commodification of the Countryside and the “Improvement” of Mi’kma’ki, 1760-1860 Jesse Watkins Coady Taking mainland Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island as its case studies, this thesis attempts to uncover the mechanisms by which the Mi'kmaq were dispossessed of their lands in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Dispossession is here problematized as a process connected to, but distinct from, the imposition of British jurisdiction in Mi'kma'ki following the conclusion of the Seven Years' War. In key respects, dispossession was an inherently local, unpredictable process involving a myriad of actors with disparate motives and interests; at the same time, it was given structural coherence by imperial and colonial land policies, which subjected settlers qua subjects of the Crown to common economic compulsions and constraints. This thesis argues that it was the promotion of capitalist social property relations in particular that provided the greatest impetus for the dispossession of both Mi'kmaq and settlers in this period, giving rise to complex intra- and inter-class dynamics. Although imperial and colonial policies varied widely in their efficacy and application across wide swathes of mostly unpoliceable territory, the promotion of capitalist economic imperatives played a decisive role in facilitating dispossession in even the remotest and most marginal areas. Crucially, it gave rise to widespread squatting, frustrating the authorities' plans for the orderly and profitable settlement of the colony and necessitating a policy of compromise with implicated settlers. By the mid-nineteenth century, authorities largely abandoned their policy of protecting indigenous reserves, opting to sell squatters their improvements in what amounted to a fire-sale of encroached-upon Crown lands. iv Acknowledgements Several people deserve to be recognized for their contributions to the crafting of this thesis, without which it would be much the poorer. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Anya Zilberstein, for her guidance, encouragement and support throughout all of the stages of the generation of this thesis. In addition to sharing her invaluable insights into the theoretical and historiographical dimensions of its subject, sharpening, at every juncture, my historical acumen, she patiently read through many drafts, subjecting them to thorough and targeted criticism. This thesis would not be half as strong without her input, for which I am immensely grateful. Dr. Gavin Taylor likewise graciously shared his wealth of knowledge on indigenous forms of territoriality and tenure, and much else besides. Our many conversations over the course of the last two years have immeasurably deepened my knowledge of and appreciation for indigenous history, and for that I am in his debt. A very special thank you goes to Dr. John Reid, who shared with me his immense knowledge of northeastern North America, providing invaluable guidance regarding both primary and secondary sources. A number of his conversational reflections and insights went a long way towards shaping my theorization of indigenous dispossession. His entire corpus of work – but particularly his humanistic and rigorous work on the Mi'kmaq and Mi’kma’ki – has served as a model and an inspiration for the writing of this thesis. This thesis would not have gotten off the ground without the expert advice and assistance of the staff at the Nova Scotia Archives. John Macleod, Rosemary Barbour, Anjali Vohra and Gail Judge deserve special mention for going above and beyond to help me locate and cite hard-to-find documents. v Likewise, Darlene Brine, Barry Smith, Ginny Clark, Milly Riley, Gary Shuttak, Lois Pyke and David McLachlan all helped me navigate the complexity of the archives. The staff at the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry in Halifax likewise helped me find relevant documents. Tracy Lenfesty, Stacey Walsh and Melanie Logue, in particular, put up with my constant queries and helped orient my research. Finally, I would like to thank my family: To my parents, Moses and Suzy – thank you for everything; I would not be here today without your unfaltering love and support. To my siblings, Bridget, Megan, and Dylan – each of you, in your own inimitable way, has, by dint of embarking on your own journey, incredibly enriched mine. As the eldest sibling, I can gladly say that I do not have any special claim to knowledge and experience. A special thank you goes out to my sister Megan, who was there to listen in trying times. Without her empathy and compassion, I probably could not have written this thesis. You are – all of you – my moral compass. Msit no’kmaq. vi For Gary Knockwood vii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Historiography ......................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: "Perfecting the Improvements of the Indians," Unmaking their Gardens: Local Dispossessions and the Commodification of Land under the “Free” Grant Policy, 1763-1827 ............. 45 Chapter 3: Marginality and the Making of Capitalism in the Countryside: Dispossession in Margaree, Cape Breton, 1831-1860 .................................................................................................................. 110 Conclusion: Subjugating Subsistence, Creating New Needs .............................................................. 170 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 179 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 191 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Historiography How were the Mi'kmaq dispossessed of their lands? No sooner than it is posed, the question occasions a number of qualifications. The Mi'kmaq, an Algonquian nation indigenous to eastern Canada, traditionally inhabited – and continue to inhabit – the territory of Mi'kma'ki, comprising present-day Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the eastern coast of New Brunswick, parts of Newfoundland and the Gaspé peninsula.1 As one of the first indigenous groups in North America to come into contact with Europeans, they count among the indigenous peoples with the longest exposure to, and the consequent greatest success in coexisting with, European society within the original bounds of their territories.2 The infinitive form “to dispossess,” meaning to “deprive (one) of possession (of a thing),” may, in a certain sense, be particularly inapposite for describing the colonization of their lands, denoting, as it does, a singular event limited in time, space and scope. While European colonization of Mi'kma'ki could involve incredible violence and social and environmental dislocation, it did not do so always and everywhere; it is difficult to trace “dispossession” to a single 1 For an examination of the difficulties involved in defining the extent of Mi’kma’ki and neighboring Wulstukwik, the ancestral homeland of the Wulstukwiuk (Maliseet), see John Reid, “Empire, the Maritime Colonies, and the Supplanting of Mi’kma’ki/Wulstukwiuk, 1780-1820,” Acadiensis, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Summer/Autumn 2009), 79-81, fn 4; although a number of geographical delimitations might be used, this thesis adheres to the convention of defining Mi’kma’ki as comprising the Maritime provinces (excluding the St. John river [Wolastoq] watershed), the Magdalen islands, and the Gaspé Peninsula. See, for instance, Wilson D. Wallis and Ruth Sawtell Wallis, The Micmac Indians of Eastern Canada (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955), 3, 16-17. For a long time, Newfoundland was not included as part of Mi’kma’ki, but there is historical evidence of long-term seasonal occupation in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. These patterns gradually developed into semi-sedentary occupation by the late eighteenth century. See Charles A. Martijn, “Early Mi’kmaq Presence in Southern Newfoundland: An Ethnohistorical Perspective, c. 1500-1763,” Newfoundland Studies 19, 1 (2003): 44- 102. 2 Bernard Gilbert Hoffman, “The Historical Ethnography of the Micmacs of the