Treaty 29: Why Moore Became Less
ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE University of Western Ontario
Signed at Amherstburg in July 1827 by ten "Chiefs and Principal Men of that part of the Chippewa Nation of Indians inhabiting and claiming the territory or tract of land hereinafter described" and George Ironsides on behalf of King George IV, Treaty 29 surrendered a large area of land "bounded on the west by Lake Huron and the River St. Clair, on the north by unconceded lands, on the east by the District of Gore and the Home District, and on the south by lands heretofore conceded to the Crown" (Canada 1891:66), reserving four tracts of land from this surrender. One of those tracts was a small reserve located at the southwestern edge of the surrender. Situated along the eastern bank of the St. Clair River, in what is now Moore Township, the "Lower Reserve" measured one mile along the river and extended four miles inland. Just sixteen years later, in August 1843, the Lower Reserve was surrendered by Treaty 5314. The story of the emergence and quiet disappearance of this small reserve illustrates some of the many pressures exerted on First Nations communities that have led to the systematic erosion of reserved lands across Canada. While this paper examines the specific political, economic and social pressures that led to the erosion of the place of Algonquian peoples and the demise of this particular reserve in Upper Canada, the les sons evident in the examination of the ascendance of the settler commu nity in what became the southwestern borderlands of Ontario extend well beyond the region.
1. We wish to thank the Social Science Alumni at the University of Western Ontario for a research grant which enabled us to complete our archival research at the National Archives in Ottawa. We extend our thanks also to the archivists in the J.J. Talman Regional History Room at the University of Western Ontario and the Lambton Room at Wyoming, Ontario.
Papers of the 34th Algonquian Conference, ed. H.C. Wolfart (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2003), pp. 241-260. 242 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE
TREATIES AND COLONIAL POLITICS IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT LAKES 1701-1826 In order to understand both the emergence and disappearance of reserves in the Great Lakes region of Upper Canada, one needs to consider the rel ative position of First Nations in the region. With the Treaties of 1700 and 1701, the Iroquois dominance and presence in the region subsided. By 1701,' the French had established Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit as the center for their trade with Algonquian peoples in the region from the Ohio River Valley to the Mississippi and Lake Michigan.2 While a small farming community emerged along the shores of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair, the primary focus of European settlement was still on the fur trade, which blossomed in the 1750s and then entered a period of gradual decline.3 Detroit remained a "central place" for the region4 (see Map 1) until the 1850s. In 1764, after French control of Quebec ended, Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the northern district, con cluded a treaty with the Hurons to confirm the rights of passage and peaceful settlement previously enjoyed by the French settlers and to extend them to the English (NAC, R216-284-7-E, pp.136-139). The Hurons were to act as the link between the British government and the other members of the Northwest Confederacy. By this "treaty of peace and friendship," the Hurons were to inform Johnson of any hostile plans of the neighbouring Algonquian peoples, who were well known to him primarily through their vigorous resistance to settler incursions from the thirteen colonies.
2. Councils to end the Iroquois Wars were held in Onondaga, Albany, Montreal and possibly Detroit in 1701. At the same time, the French closed their forts in the Great Lakes region with the exception of Fort Ponchartrain near present-day Detroit (Tanner 1987:30- 35). Assessments of the politics and implications of the treaties of 1700 and 1701 in set ting the course for later settler aboriginal relations in the Great Lakes regions can be found in Brandao & Starna 1996. 3. See Heidenreich & Noel 1987. 4. For an introduction to the spatial configuration of urban centers and central place the ory see Bums 1997. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 243
'.8V» *
Detroit
•v-.^niiYT * ••' u»fcud.*T«mo\ u x.* '2L-^-^4 s ,f / lAW - 7- *L . i.l V 'Jfonmr-v.. n
-' l/5»'/P/"/^""\ . • li^" ^\p-lll llwftifll.-
*£ \.) ,iVv;/// l'i Map 1. Southwestern Upper Canada, 1846 (NMC, 0021377, H2/300/1846). 244 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE The Revolutionary War and the imposition of the border 1796 Three events transformed Detroit from a relatively stable trading center into an area of settler expansion: the Revolutionary War the imposition of the border in 1796, and the aftermath of the War of 1812-1814 Following the Revolutionary War, Iroquois people settled along the Grand River and colonists loyal to Great Britain settled around Niagara and the northern shore of Lake Erie. Many settlers in what became the United States relo cated in order to remain under British rule. In fact, entire communities m Pennsylvania petitioned to move to Detroit so that they could remain under the British Crown; they were redirected to the eastern shore of the Detroit River. By 1790, with the conclusion of the McKee Treaty, the pressure for land extended along the northern shore of Lake Erie to the Detroit River and along the eastern shore of Lake St. Clair. Senior officers of the Indian Department liked the area and acquired lots within the treaty area on the eastern shore of the Detroit River near Lake Erie. The land available for settlement was quickly claimed, and many squatters who were unable to acquire land within the limits of the land cession moved up the Thames River toward present-day Chatham, Ontario. Waterways were the primary means of transportation for both First Nations and settlers: the water linked rather than divided communities.5 With the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the international border between the British colonies and the newly recognized United States was placed down the middle of the Detroit River and Lake Erie. First Nations communities spanned the border and its imposition did not have much immediate significance to their lives. The British maintained their presence throughout the Great Lakes region, awaiting American settlement of the claims of loyalists who had left the United States. During the ensuing period of contested sovereignty in the border lands area, trading and settler-Aboriginal interaction intensified, creating an evolving mixed society in the old northwest.6 In 1794, as the Jay 5. For example the Wyandotts on the Huron Church Reserve located on the east side of the Detroit River maintained close ties with the Wyandotts on the Flat Rock Reserve across the river in what is now Michigan and sent their children to school at the Big Spring Reserve in what is now Ohio. For an excellent overview of these communities see Tanner 1987:84-104. 6. See White 1991 and Calloway 1987 for a social and political overview of the region. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 245 Treaty was being negotiated in England, the Governor in Chief of Canada, Lord Dorchester, ordered the occupation of Fort Miami, located in present-day southern Michigan, to guard the portage at the end of the Maumee River in order to protect the fur trade and to stop the invasion of American settlers moving overland from the Ohio River. With British troops occupying the fort, the negotiation of the Jay Treaty was com pleted, confirming the border set by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. With the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794, the British relinquished their occupa tion of the territory without consulting the members of the Northwest Confederacy. This left the members of the Confederacy in difficult straits. The agreement was transmitted to the governments in Canada and the United States and then on to the military in the Detroit region. As these negotiations were under way, tribes in the Northwest Con federacy confronted General Wayne at the battle of Fallen Timbers. Gen eral Wayne's forces were ascendant in the battle, so the warriors, expecting British support, fell back to Fort Miami, but the British refused to let them enter the fort. The colonial government had ordered the British not to interfere in the battle between Wayne and the Northwest Confeder acy because the border was now set. General Wayne responded to the news of the Jay Treaty by not attacking the fort or Detroit despite his mil itary advantage. Instead, Wayne camped further west, at a portage that controlled the fur trade routes to the Mississippi (Farrell 1968:290). Uncertainty over the future of Detroit, which had long been in French and then British hands, led to a free-wheeling economy. Local traders pillaged the fur resources of the region in anticipation of their loss to the Americans. Merchants and some Indian agents, such as John Askin, became major land speculators. After Wayne's military had established itself in the region, and as the Americans prepared to enter a treaty with the tribes of the Northwest Confederacy, speculators bought unceded Indian land and then attempted to have their deals entrenched in the Treaty of Greenville, which opened land in Ohio for settlement. Two cases of alienations were in excess of one million acres each (Farrell 1972:304). The speculators were well organized and persistent. Eventu ally one of these speculators was jailed for attempting to bribe members of the Senate during the ratification process! To his credit, the U.S. Com missioner, General Wayne, refused to include such personal deeds in the treaty (Farrell 1968:309). 246 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE As the transfer of Detroit to the Americans became imminent, many merchants in Detroit lobbied for a town on the British side of the Detroit River. In 1795, the British allocated 19 lots beside the site of their new fort, Fort Maiden, for those who wished to move. On 11 July 1796, Detroit was evacuated by the British and two days later it was occupied by the Americans. The exodus of these traders added pressure to the lands opened for settlement in the British colony. Seven weeks later, on 30 August 1796, Alexander McKee, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, addressed a Council of Chippewa and Ottawa Chiefs at Chenail Ecarte. The Chiefs of the North west Confederacy were upset that they had not been informed about the imposition of the border across their lands. Many were uneasy over the prospect of living under American jurisdiction. They crowded the reserves on the British side and camped near Fort Maiden. In his address to the Council of allied chiefs, McKee explained that, now that the Amer icans had met their commitments to the British Crown, the British were withdrawing to the border set in 1783. He then said that the Crown had taken the greatest care to respect the rights and independence of all the Indian nations who by the last Treaty with America [the Jay Treaty] are to be perfectly free and unmolested in their trade and hunting grounds and to pass and repass freely and undisturbed to trade with whom they please (NAC, RG 10, vol. 9, p. 9167). He continued that the Crown wished to purchase a block of land on the north side of the Chenail Ecarte, later known as Sombra, for those First Nations who wished to live under the British Crown. Sombra was adja cent to Walpole Island on the St. Clair River, an area already recognized as a homeland for local First Nations. McKee's vision was to create an area reserved for Britain's allies on the Great Lakes waterway with easy access to other First Nations on the Grand River or as far west as Lake Michigan. You are not to consider this small strip of Land as bought for the King's use but for the use of his Indian children and you yourselves will be welcome as any others to come and live thereon ... I cannot too often imprint on your minds, the King's paternal regard for all of you, and that the small piece of land which he is now prepared to pur chase is not for settling of his own people but for the comfort and sat isfaction of yourselves and all his Indian Children - His own people who have fought and bled with you he has placed on the River La Tranche and on the lake below (NAC, RG 10, vol. 9, pp. 9167-8) TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 247 The military were to receive land grants along the River La Tranche (also known as the Thames River) and from the 1790 land purchase, the "McKee Treaty," while the First Nations were to have the land from the Sombra purchase of 1796. McKee's promises were not recognized by the military, which was independent of the Indian Department. The military secretary was con cerned over land grants for retired soldiers and sailors guaranteed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Their settlement was a priority for the colo nial government. In 1804, Wetamninse, a local Chippewa Chief, wrote to McKee reporting that squatters were settling near the Sombra area pur chased for the Indians. Wetamninse reported that Captain Harrow, who accompanied him as he reviewed these new settlements, then and there told me that we had not one inch of land in these parts, and that which belongs to us lies a great ways westward of this. Such language as that is not very agreeable to us ... (NAC, MG 19 Fl, vol. 9, pp. 25-27). The right to provide land for those who had served in the military eclipsed the agenda of the Indian Department, an agency whose influence was on the wane after the northwest had been ceded to the Americans. The aftermath of the War of 1812 The third wave of settlement pressure occurred after the War of 1812. Tecumseh and the Northwest Confederacy had played a leading role in resisting American advances in the region. The members of the Confeder acy were disheartened by the outcome of the war and Tecumseh's death. Many were apprehensive about returning to American territory for fear of reprisal. They gathered near Fort Maiden but had little food and less to do. British authorities were concerned and reported to England about the situ ation and the cost of supplies to support them. On 19 June 1816, the Earl of Bathurst, who was responsible for military and colonial affairs in the British cabinet, responded to Governor General Sherbrooke: As however there may be some among the Indians now assembled in the neighbourhood of Amherstburg who may be deterred from restor ing to their former habitations within the American Territories by fears of the danger to which their adherence to Great Britain has made them obnoxious, you will consider yourself authorized to offer to such Indi ans fresh hunting grounds on the shores of Lake Huron or on any unsettled parts of the British Territory where they can exercise their 248 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE ordinary habits and occupations and you will on this point conclude the necessary arrangements with Lieut. Gov. Gore (NAC, RG 10, vol. 12, p. 10832). In November, a letter from the military secretary congratulated the Indian Department for reducing the number of Natives around the fort. The solu tion imposed by the local military was to require members of the bands to leave and to not return for six months, if they were to be entitled to receive their annual presents. Bathurst's solution of dispersing the Indians north along the shores of Lake Huron was not popular, although some took up residence at what was to become the Auxsables Reserve. Some moved to Walpole Island, while still others returned to Michigan. THE TREATIES OF THE 1820S AND THE CREATION OF THE MOORE RESERVE From 1818 to 1825, the colonial government undertook to establish its control over the British side of the border with the United States. A series of councils was convened to discuss land purchases, with ranking Indian Agents representing the Crown (see Telford 1998 for a review of these). McKee's vision in 1796 for an aboriginal homeland stretching northward from Walpole Island through the Sombra purchase was still evident in the reserving of a tract of land in the southwest corner of what became Treaty 29, initially proposed in 1817. Ultimately in 1827, the St. Clair River val ley and the eastern shore of Lake Huron were surrendered in Treaty 29 (see Map 2, below), reserving four areas for the Chippewa Nations: the two northern reserves of Auxsables and Kettle Point on Lake Huron, a reserve at the northern mouth of the St. Clair River (the Sarnia Reserve), and a fourth further south on the St. Clair river on the northern edge of the Sombra purchase. This southernmost reserve was known as the "Lower Reserve" and later as the "Moore Reserve." An area for the Algonquian communities anchored on Walpole Island and extending through Sombra and the Moore Reserve would provide a homeland for those members of the Confederacy who were reluctant to live in the United States, much as the Grand River purchases had for the Iroquois. The area covered by Wal pole Island, Sombra and the Lower Reserve contained the Chenail Ecarte river system, which opened the interior to First Nations for hunting and sugaring. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 249 Map 2. Treaty 29, 1827 (Canada 1891:71). COLONIAL POLITICS AND SETTLEMENT: 1820-1842 After the war of 1812, events in the settler governments transformed south western Ontario, even before Treaty 29 was signed. After the war, a colo nial elite or "family compact" was consolidating its position in Upper Canada under Lt. Governors Gore and Maitland. The establishment was anti-American and attempted to discourage American settlers. The region near Detroit was heavily populated by former residents of the 13 colonies and most of the settlers in Essex and Kent counties traced their ancestry to the American colonies. The elite undertook to attract settlers from Britain - especially if they were former military or socially acceptable members of British society - to increase their confidence in the loyalty of the popu lation on the western frontier. In the northern reaches of Kent county, French settlers had farmed along the St. Clair River for decades and, prior to the War of 1812, they were joined by some English settlers. In 1813, of the seven St. Clair River front lots on what would later become the Moore Reserve, Rufus Hender son was squatting on lots 6 and 7 and John Reynolds occupied lots 1 to 3. By 1820, Reynolds had 26 acres under cultivation. In 1823, colonial plan ners, or more aptly, regional land speculators, decided that the St. Clair 250 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE riverfront was so beautiful that it should become the site of the regional capital.7 This initiative led to the surveying, between 1823 and 1826, of a 13 mile square tract of land north of the future Moore Reserve with streets and lots defined. The Beresford Survey, as it was known, became a sym bol for future settler development. A year after the survey was completed, a Methodist minister, W. Griffs, was appointed to the St. Clair Mission at what is now Samia. By 1826, 16 settler families were farming on the shore of the St. Clair River and squatters occupied three of the eight inland lots of the future Moore Reserve. One, G. Combs, was a retired military officer who claimed what would become lot 26 in the middle of the reserve. All of these developments occurred before Treaty 29 was signed and the land was ceded to the colony for settlement: in fact, the Moore Township area was not surveyed until 1827 for the land cession. A portion of that 1827 survey map shows the cleared plots of land around and in what became the Moore Reserve. Map 3. Lower portion of Moore Township, 1827 (Lambton Room, Wyoming, Ontario). In addition to colonial government pressure to settle the region with "loyal subjects," access to the Treaty 29 region had became easier by the 1820s. Steam navigation was introduced to the Great Lakes in 1818 and by the 1820s there were scheduled steamer runs from Lake Erie to Detroit and then up the St. Clair River to Lake Huron. Wood to stoke the boilers is was not unusual; there were at least four other regional contenders. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 251 became a major economic factor along the shipping routes and a source of much-needed cash for Native communities. In 1825, the Erie Canal was completed through New York and the Welland Canal around Niagara Falls in Ontario. These projects eliminated the need for settlers to trans ship their goods as they explored and occupied land in the region: con versely, lumber was now exported with ease. The land cessions of First Nations in the mid 1820s fit neatly with transportation policy to meet colonial priorities to settle the land, to tap resources and to use the new population as the base for colonial wealth. Efforts to dilute American influence made the settlement of the southwest especially important to the ruling elite in Upper Canada. The success of the family compact in o encouraging settlement is shown in the following census data of settlers. Kent County Essex County 1824 2,678 4,274 1827 3,167 4,789 1830 3,626 5,785 Growth on the United States side of the border was similar. In 1807, a treaty opened the entire west side of the St. Clair River from Detroit to Port Huron for settlement. In 1817, another treaty ceded Northwestern Ohio and, in 1819, the lower Saginaw valley. Settlers traveled across land from the Ohio River and by water through Canada or the Erie Canal to Detroit. In 1825, a road was constructed linking Detroit to Chicago. Set tlement followed the road through Potawatomi country. In 1831, a stage line was introduced to Niles and then to Chicago and, by 1833, two steamers, the General Gratiot and the General Brady, made scheduled runs along the St. Clair River. By 1834 the population of Michigan was 87,000, and by 1837 it had reached 175,000. THE IMPACT OF THE UNITED STATES REMOVAL POLICIES In 1827, the year that Treaty 29 was signed in Upper Canada, the reserva tions around Detroit were ceded, and from 1831 to 1833 a series of removal treaties uprooted the Ottawa, Seneca and Shawnee living in 8. Kent County included the Sombra area and the St. Clair region. Essex County in cluded the region on the British side of the Detroit River (Census of Canada 1871, vol. iv). 252 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE Ohio. The Wyandotts were consolidated on the Big Spring Reserve, and the Flat Rock Reserve was abolished. These treaties and removals had a direct impact on the Algonquians living in Upper Canada since they were part of the same community. A glimpse of the cross-border nature of the First Nations communi ties is found in the annual statistics of gifts presented in Amherstburg in 1827 and 1828.9 1827 1828 Upper Canada United States Upper Canada United States Chippewas 810 1,136 1,323 405 Potawatomi 245 369 468 Shawanees 115 158 2 474 Ottawas 390 477 799 Muncey 142 158 347 114 Six Nations 91 91 218 Huron 76 61 1 100 Winnebago 1 14 15 Delaware 21 13 In addition to the disruptions within Native communities due to the removals, the influx of settlers and the extensive cutting of the forest depleted the game in traditional hunting grounds. The concentration of settlers in the Detroit hinterland forced the Potawatomi to travel across the rivert o hunt in the Chenail Ecarte region with the resident Ottawa and Chippewa, further depleting the game in that area. The closure of reserves in the Detroit area in 1827 led to migrations to Upper Canada, north into the Saginaw region and west. At the same time, some communities in Canada, such as the Delaware on the Detroit River, moved west with their relatives when they faced relocation. Then, in 1837, the British announced that annual presents would not be given to members of First Nations living in the United States. In the returns of the Indian Agents, the population of Walpole Island was set at less than 300 in 1837 but by 1842, it had swelled to 1,140. The report attributed the change to the influx of Potawatomi and Ottawa from 9. These statistics are for the year of, and the year after, the signing of Treaty 29 in Can ada and the year the reserves in the Detroit area were closed. Data were compiled from the reports in NAC, RG 10, vol. 792. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 253 Michigan. During the same period, the population on the Sarnia reserve increased from 350 to 742. In the latter case, the Agent reported that the change was the result of a large migration from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. A similar increase was experienced at Auxsables, where the Chippewa allocated a portion of their reserve to the Potawatomi. The removal poli cies of the United States thus had a direct impact on the population of the Treaty 29 reserves. THE HISTORY OF THE MOORE RESERVE The vision of the Lower Reserve as the northern edge of a First Nations homeland was already in jeopardy by the time the reserve was created in 1827. The colonial government had placed many military settlers in the Sombra homeland that McKee had promised to members of the North west Confederacy in 1796. The Lower Reserve depended on an extensive hinterland to sustain its community. The Chippewa traveled inland to Bear Creek and the Black Creek for hunting and sugaring. These resources diminished rapidly in the 1820s and early 1830s with the influx of squatters and the migration of displaced members of First Nations communities facing removal in Michigan and Ohio. Two roads had been built across the Lower Reserve in 1835, con necting the Sombra area with Sarnia. With relatively easy access to out side markets, the theft of timber became a major problem. In the 1830s, the five largest exports to England listed for the region were timber, lum ber, cordwood, staves and potash. Large oaks were prized commodities. Logs were floated down the creeks and the north branch of the Sydenham River from the inland side of the Lower Reserve to the Chenail Ecarte. In addition, wood for the steamships provided welcome cash for the Chippewa on the reserve. The emergence and transformation of the settler presence One account of life in the region after Treaty 29 was signed involved the Reynolds family (as recounted in local records located in the Lambton Room, Wyoming, Ontario). When John Reynolds died in the summer of 1830, he was buried on his farm on lot 3 of the Lower Reserve. The local Methodist missionary, James Evans, conducted his funeral service. Set tlers and local Natives from the reserve attended the funeral and the wake, ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE 254 which followed. Reynolds' wife had arrived in the region as a daughter of United Empire Loyalists from Pennsylvania who had received a land grant near Amherstburg. With older families like the Reynolds and Hend ersons who were early settlers in the region, there seems to have been a willingness to learn local aboriginal languages and live in close relations with the local First Nations.10 Settlement quickly encroached on the resources of the Chippewa. In 1830 C. Dunn purchased 400 acres at Bear Creek, which was an impor tant regional deer stamping ground; by 1836, 15 settler families lived in the area. The influx of settlers between 1833 and 1834 threatened the live lihood of the local Chippewa and they reacted. In 184land 1842, they petitioned the Crown with the result that 400 acres of their old sugar bush in Enniskillen was purchased for them by the Crown, using tribal annuity monies (NAC, RG 10, vol. 1846, IT 248, p. 106766). In 1845, five Native families and two log cabins were reported as located on that property. At the neighbouring reserve of Sarnia, the government introduced its "civilization program" in 1830-31. As the local Indian Agent William Jones reported: ... houses were built for them, and an officer was appointed for their superintendence. Their conversion to Christianity and their progress in religious knowledge, and in the acquisition of sober, orderly and industrious habits, has been under the care of the Wesleyan Methodist Society, both rapid and uniform (POC Sessional Papers, 8 Victoria 1844-5, Appendix EEE, p. 10). When he turned his attention to the Lower Reserve, he wrote, in contrast: Owing to the immigration which has taken place on this frontier, since the notice to the visiting Indians of the United States was firstissued , and the removals which have occurred ... it is difficult to state the progress and the increase of each settlement (POC Sessional Papers, 8 Victoria 1844-5, Appendix EEE, p. 11). Jones continued in his report that the government had built no houses on the Lower Reserve, that 20 Native families lived on the reserve, that they 10. Evidence for the use of aboriginal languages is found in the statements of the chiefs who supported the Reynolds' claim of 1836 to their lots (see NAC, RG 10, vol. 456, pp. 122-126), and in local histories in the Lambton Room, the regional archives for Lambton County, in Wyoming, Ontario. 11. Between 1866 and 1918 the Canadian government sold the 400 acres of land to oil speculators without obtaining a surrender from the First Nations. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 255 had built one large log building and some sheds, and that they had 146 acres of land cleared and 100 acres under cultivation by 1839. Early in 1836, Sir John Colborne, the Lt. Governor, visited the St. Clair region. He happily touted the success of the civilization efforts of the government at the Sarnia Reserve. He then traveled down the St. Clair and named the Township of Moore after his old commanding officer in the Spanish Peninsular Wars, General John Moore, who had died at the heroic retreat of Corunna. The city, which had been sponsored by local developers as a potential capital in 1823, was named Corunna and its streets were named after Moore's generals. On his visit, Colborne loudly praised the success and accomplishments of the settlers. His trip marked the start of local settler government in the region. At the same time, the squatter problem remained chronic and fre quent petitions were submitted from settlers requesting either the pur chase of Moore Reserve land or, if they were not granted their claims, demanding the cost of improvements that they had made on that land. Five of the seven waterfront lots had been held by long-standing settlers; the two others were leased. By 1836, a road ran down the side of the reserve to lots 23 and 24, which had been occupied by settlers since 1828. The forests were vulnerable and petitions from the Chippewa protesting the theft of wood are frequent in the archival records. In 1836, Colborne met with the First Nations in council at Sarnia. He eulogized the govern ment's policy of settlement and civilization. A fund was to be created from the sale or lease of Indian land to support the building of schools and the provision of services on reserves. Later the chiefs discussed their future in the region. Their response to settler pressures came through a petition to the Lt. Governor dated 18 June 1840, offering to sell the Moore Reserve "in the usual manner" so that the land would be available to set tlers (NAC, RG 10, vol. 456, p. 157). In their offer, the assets of the Moore Reserve would be divided. Sarnia would receive $ 4,000 and Wal pole $1,400 from the annuity. Sarnia would gain control of the land at Enniskillen and Bear Creek. Walpole would receive the proceeds from the sale of lots on the Moore Reserve. Moore Reserve residents could move to Walpole Island or Sarnia, where there were schools and an ongo ing agricultural program. The proposal was further discussed in council at 12. See Allen 1992:180-81 for a description of this initiative. 256 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE the Sarnia Reserve on 28 January 1842. In 1843, the Moore Reserve was surrendered at Kingston by Surrender 5314. The lots on the reserve were sold between 1851 and 1857. Land speculators, such as M. Cameron from Sarnia, appear in the records as do the names of early settler families such as the Reynolds. Lobbying to acquire land began as soon as the Council decision was known. In 1836, the Reynolds family re-emerged in the records, this time attempting to acquire a deed to their land when the reserve was sold. Their story contin ued in a petition to the Lt. Governor. After the death of John Reynolds, his wife and small children continued to live on lots numbered 1, 2 and 3 of the Reserve under lease from the Chippewa. In 1832, John Reynolds' eldest son signed a new lease before W. Jones, the Indian Agent, to con tinue family possession. Local chiefs countersigned his request. Mrs. Reynolds then continued that: Certain rich and influential persons have been tampering with the Indians, and endeavouring to excite them to acts of injustice towards your petitioners which, but for the natural honesty of the Indians char acter, might have proved amazingly detrimental to your petitioners (NAC, RG 10, vol. 456, p. 123). The petition was to acquire title to the land that they had occupied con tinuously since at least 1813. It was accompanied by a petition dated 27 August 1836 from Gayosh and Notawanin, two local chiefs in the Moore community, stating that we have been treated with great hospitality by said family and that they, in every respect have dealt justly by us and we most humbly and earnestly pray that it may please your Excellency to grant them the above petition (NAC, RG 10, vol. 456, pp. 122-126). They went on to recommend that the deed be made out for 600 acres by extending the 3 lots back to their rear boundary and that the family pay $ 400 for the land. The petition was rejected by the Lt. Governor, since the land had to be sold by the Crown after being acquired by it. With the sale to the Crown of the reserve, the colonial government controlled the disposition of the land. This was particularly helpful for land speculators, 13. The official treaties and surrenders book (Canada 1891) has two surrenders, one dated 1843 and the other numbered 59 in 1849. Since Jarvis, who signed the surrender, was dismissed for corruption in 1845, we assume the 1843 date is correct (cf. Leighton 1975:15). TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 257 such as M. Cameron, who were members of the Legislative Council and had close links to the colonial government. The Reynolds name re-appeared in the records in 1849, when Isa bella petitioned on June 29 to protect the family claim to lots 1, 2 and 3 on the reserve, countering petitions presented by squatters owning inland lots and who had acquired unused location tickets from the colonial govern ment. Six years later, in 1853, Francis Reynolds, also the son of Isabella and John Reynolds, re-appears in the records, petitioning for 60 acres in lot 3 with the value of his family's improvements to lots 1 and 2 to be used to help meet the expense (NAC, RG 10, vol. 437, pp. 310-312). In the list of titles of 1857, Francis Reynolds was listed as the owner of lot 3. Lots 1 and 2 were listed as owned by others. The politics of the settler world transformed the reserves from home bases from which one could move out to hunt to insecure islands in a set tler sea. The source of land tenure changed from personal arrangements with the local First Nation to an instrument of colonial and settler policy. By 1838, even Walpole Island, the refuge for the Algonquian communi ties, had become overrun by squatters. CONCLUSION With the colonial government administering Crown lands and their dispo sition to settlers, the focus of power shifted to the family compact. Their decisions or patronage determined who would receive land. To the colo nial government, settlement was designed to secure the borderlands for the British. American settlers were suspect; retired military were encour aged to settle; and members of the First Nations were to be assimilated or at least "civilized." The older inhabitants, such as the Reynolds family, were marginalized. The military were blind to First Nations claims to Sombra. The closure of the Moore Reserve marked the end of the vision of the reserve as a home for an equal people. Its value had been trans formed into cash, which had to be consumed for the community to sur vive as its old lifeway disappeared. 14The reserve as a home base reinforced by external resources such as sugar bush and deer hunting 14. Tangentially, it also marked the end of the Indian Department as it had been known. For an analysis of the questionable financial practices of the Department in the late 1830s and early 1840s, see Leighton 1975, chapter 4. 258 ALLAN K. MCDOUGALL & LISA PHILIPS VALENTINE grounds had been submerged by the magnitude, and inward-looking nature, of the new settler community. The Moore Reserve lasted from 1827 to 1843. It was never a focus of government policy, being eclipsed by the larger Sarnia Reserve just up the river. The community had taken the initiative to purchase its traditional sugar bush at Enniskillen to preserve an aspect of its traditional life style. With the game depleted and government policy pushing agriculture, the First Nations residents agreed to sell the reserve and to consolidate their resources on the two neighbouring reserves, Sarnia and Walpole Island, where the government had invested in schools and farm equipment. Their children would be able to attend local schools, and the income from the land sales was significant to the First Nations. The configuration of reserves under Treaty 29 was changed. The assets of the reserve were divided between Sarnia and Walpole. As its hinterlands, and then its for ests, were whittled away, Moore became less until it could no longer sus tain a viable Aboriginal community. It had changed from the northern flank of an Algonquian homeland for the Northwest Confederacy to a commodity sold to provide resources for neighbouring reserves. REFERENCES Allen, Robert S. 1992. His Majesty's Indian allies: British policy in the defence of Can ada, 1774-1815. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Brandao, J.A., & William A. Starna. 1996. The treaties of 1701: A triumph of Iroquois diplomacy. Ethnohistory 43:209-244. Bums, Elizabeth. 1997. Nested hexagons: Central place theory. Ten geographic ideas that changed the world, ed. by Susan Hanson, pp. 163-181. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Calloway, Colin. 1987. Crown and calumet: British Indian relations 1783-1815, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Canada. 1891. Indian treaties and surrenders from 1680 to 1890, vol. 1. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Census of Canada 1871, vol. iv. Ottawa: National Archives of Canada. Farrell, David R. 1968. Detroit 1783-1796: The last stages of the British fur trade in the Old Northwest. Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario. Heidenreich, Conrad, & Francoise Noel. 1987. Imperial rivalry and commerce 1697-1739. Historical atlas of Canada, vol. 1, ed. by R. Cole Harris, plates 39-41. Toronto- Uni versity of Toronto Press. Leighton, J. Douglas. 1975. The development of federal Indian policy in Canada 1840- 1890. Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario. TREATY 29: WHY MOORE BECAME LESS 259 Lizars, Robina, & Kathleen MacFarlane Lizars. 1896. In the days of the Canada Com pany: The story of the settlement of the Huron Tract and a view of the social life of the period 1825-1850. Toronto: William Briggs. National Archives of Canada, Ottawa (NAC). MG 19 F 1, Claus Papers, vol. 9. RG 10. Indian Affairs. R216-284-7-E. Six Nations Superintendency records. National Map Collection, Ottawa (NMC). 0021377, H2/300/1846. Province of Canada (POC) Sessional Papers, 8 Victoria 1844-5, Appendix EEE. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1986. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian history. Norman: Univer sity of Oklahoma Press. Telford, Rhonda. 1998. How the West was won: Land transactions between the Anishnabe, the Huron and the Crown in southwestern Ontario. Papers of the 29th Algonquian Conference, ed. by David H. Pentland, pp. 352-367. Winnipeg: Univer sity of Manitoba. White, Richard. 1991. The middle ground: Indians, empires and republics in the Great Lakes region, 1650-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.