The Role of Colonial Artists in the Dispossession and Displacement of the Maliseet, 1790S-1850S

7KH5ROHRI&RORQLDO$UWLVWVLQWKH'LVSRVVHVVLRQDQG'LVSODFHPHQWRIWKH 0DOLVHHWVV

$QGUHD%HDU1LFKRODV

-RXUQDORI&DQDGLDQ6WXGLHV5HYXHG pWXGHVFDQDGLHQQHV9ROXPH1XPEHUQXPpUR 6SULQJSULQWHPSVSS $UWLFOH

3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI7RURQWR3UHVV '2,MFV

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by University of New Brunswick (26 Apr 2016 17:25 GMT) Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

The Role of Colonial Artists in the Dispossession and Displacement of the Maliseet, 1790s-1850s

ANDREA BEAR NICHOLAS

This essay addresses the role of colonial artists in the dispossession and displacement of Maliseet people in New Brunswick from the 1790s to the early 1850s. It explains that the process of dispossession began in the 1760s when authorities in Nova Scotia granted away over a million and a half acres of Maliseet homeland on the St. John River. Since most of those lands were not actually settled at the time, the Maliseets were not greatly dis- placed until after the close of the American Revolution, when nearly 15,000 Loyalists invaded and settled on the river, forcing Maliseets off lands that included ancient village sites. Massive lumbering in their hunting territories and new pressures on fish and game brought severe poverty, disease, and suffering to the Maliseets. While early colonial artists did at least provide documentation on Maliseet presence, the artwork tended to present them as relatively well off and as picturesque curiosities. Petitions and other written records from the era tell a starkly different story. This essay suggests that artistic misrepresentations of reality may have contributed not only to ongoing dispossession and displacement, but also to the near-extinction of the Maliseet population in New Brunswick by the mid-1800s.

Cet article discute du rôle des artistes coloniaux dans la dépossession et le déplacement des Malécites (Etchemins) au Nouveau-Brunswick des années 1790 jusqu’au début des années 1850. Il explique que le processus de dépossession a commencé dans les années 1760 lorsque les autorités de la Nouvelle-Écosse ont concédé plus d’un million et demi d’acres de terres des Malécites sur le bord de la rivière Saint-Jean. Étant donné que la plupart de ces terres n’étaient en fait pas colonisées à cette époque, les Malécites n’ont pas été très dérangés avant la fin de la Révolution américaine. À ce moment, quelque 15 000 Loyalistes ont envahi les lieux et se sont établis le long de la rivière, expulsant les Malécites de cette zone – même de terres abritant d’anciens villages. Une exploitation forestière massive dans leurs territoires de chasse et de nouvelles pressions infligées aux ressources de pêche et de chasse causèrent de la pauvreté, des maladies et de la souffrance aux Malécites. Bien que les premiers artistes coloniaux aient au moins documenté la présence des Malécites, les œuvres d’art avaient tendance à les représenter comme étant relativement prospères et pittoresques. Toutefois, des pétitions et d’autres documents écrits de cette période révèlent une situation dramatiquement différente. Le présent article suggère qu’une représentation artistique inexacte de la réalité peut avoir contribué non seulement à la dépossession et au déplacement continus des Malécites, mais également à la quasi-extinction de cette population au Nouveau-Brunswick vers le milieu du XIXe siècle.

Volume 49 • Number 2 • Spring 2015 | Volume 49 • numéro 2 • printemps 2015 25 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 1. Map by John Mitchell (1755) showing the names of First Nations in Maine and the Maritimes. The notation “St. John’s Inds” on the St. John River refers to Maliseets. Reprinted by permission of Library and Archives Canada.

26 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

he Maliseets, or Wəlastəkwewiyik as they call themselves, are and have been for millennia the people indigenous to the Wəlastəkw or St. John River and its tributaries in Maine, Quebec, and TNew Brunswick1 (fig. 1). An Algonquian people, they are most closely related, both culturally and linguistically, to the Passamaquoddies, who are located on the St. Croix River and Passamaquoddy Bay in southwestern New Brunswick and southeastern Maine (Erickson 1978; Bear Nicholas 1989; Michaud 2003; Pawling 2010). Although seasonally mobile, Maliseets had important villages in several locations on the St. John River, where they grew corn and other crops, most notably at Meductic and Ekwpahak (just west of Fredericton and usually written inaccurately as “Aukpaque”). Central to their culture was the bark of the birch tree, with which they covered their wigwams and made exquisite canoes that enabled ready access to hunting, fishing, and gathering sites throughout their range (Adney and Chap- pelle 1964). Indeed, unlike Europeans, Maliseets used all parts of their territory in a pattern of seasonal migrations from headwaters for hunting and trapping in the winter, to village sites for fishing, planting, and meetings in the spring, to more coastal areas in the summer for saltwater resources, then back to the village sites for harvesting, fishing, and preparations for the winter.

For all the Indigenous peoples of the Maritimes, the two centuries between 1600 and 1800 brought dramatic change and turmoil, including six wars of resistance in which bounties were offered on their scalps (Bennett 1980; Bear Nicholas 1989). The dispossession that occurred beginning in the late 1700s was probably equally traumatic, not only for Maliseets, but also for Passamaquoddies to the southwest (Erickson 1978) and the Mi’kmaq to the east (Upton 1979; Prins 1996). Most scholars have defined the dispossession as settler colonialism (P. Wolfe 1999; Veracini 2010) since it is carried out by settlers who simply move in and displace the Indigenous populations on their homelands without their consent. This essay, however, uses the term settler imperialism following the lead of Norbert Finzsch, who has argued that the process “could only be implemented in conjunction with gentlemanly elites” (2008, 255). In the Maritimes, it could not have been accomplished without engineering by political and economic elites who were closely connected to imperial interests.

Whether it is called settler colonialism or settler imperialism, scholars do agree that it is not a single event, but a structure or process that generally occurs in stages over time. As described in an earlier article (Bear Nicholas 2011), the first step in the dispossession for the Indigenous peoples in the Mari- times began in earnest immediately after the British capture of the French fort at Louisbourg in 1758. Where the place names and names of First Nations in the entire region had been inscribed on earlier maps (fig. 1), both would soon be erased by colonial cartographers in a process described by J.B. Harley as cartographic colonialism and toponymic colonialism (Harley 1994). The justification for these erasures was found in John Locke’s labour theory of property and in the legal fictions ofterra nullius and the doc- trine of discovery, as described by Robert Williams (1990), Cole Harris (2004), and others.

27 Andrea Bear Nicholas

A second step in the dispossession of Indigenous peoples in Nova Scotia began almost immediately after the signing of the Treaty of 1760 by Passamaquoddy and Maliseet leaders (Wicken 2010).2 Although the treaty contained no surrender of any land by Indigenous peoples, the Nova Scotia council began almost immediately surveying and partitioning some of the most important Maliseet lands on the lower St. John River, from its mouth to just above what is now Fredericton. By late 1765, the council had granted over 1.5 million acres of these lands to groups of wealthy and mostly prominent men, including several of the council members themselves (Bear Nicholas 2011). This was also done in direct contravention of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which outlawed the surveying and expropriation of lands not yet ceded by Indigenous inhabitants or purchased by the Crown (George R 1763; Harring 1998, 27-28). It is telling that the gentlemanly elites in Nova Scotia accepted most of the terms of the proclamation but acted as if the terms relating to Indigenous lands simply did not apply to themselves. They never applied for an exemption yet continually assured London authorities that they were complying with all terms of the proclamation.

Now dispossessed of a large portion of their territory, at least on paper, Maliseets would begin to experience a third phase in their dispossession—actual displacement as groups of settlers began moving into two locations in their homeland. The first was at Menahkwesk (the site of the future city of Saint John), and the second was at what would eventually be called Maugerville (opposite the present town of Oromocto, New Brunswick). While this displacement and the added pressure it placed on the beaver, especially, caused almost immediate distress for Maliseets, it was only a taste of what was to come two decades later with the invasion of their land by nearly 15,000 Loyalists in the space of a few years (Conrad and Hiller 2010, 109).3

One might expect that some documentation on Maliseet dispossession between the 1780s and 1850s could be found in textual and artistic colonial sources. Although written records of the displacement are scarce, they are available in obscure and disparate sources. As for the artistic record, which is relatively available, none of it can be said to document the dispossession or its consequences, described so candidly in some of the rare written sources. By juxtaposing the artistic and written record, and by considering the background and/or career interests of the artists involved, this essay demonstrates how colonial artists in New Brunswick selectively highlighted the achievements of the settler society and either ignored or misrepresented the tragic realities of the Maliseet experience.

The period under consideration in this essay, the late eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, coincided almost precisely with the Romantic period in art, philosophy, and literature, which reached its peak between 1800 and 1850. Nearly all of the artists of this era had been trained in England, and their work was decidedly Romantic in its interest in natural settings, unusual or exotic scenery, and occasional tumultuous scenes. There were, however, some exceptions: first, art from New Brunswick tended to focus almost exclusively on the agrarian or pastoral, at least for most of the era; and second, it was noticeably more restrained than passionate and dramatic. This was in keeping with the colonial project

28 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

of clearing the wilderness, settling the land, and establishing a new civil authority, all of which was get- ting under way in the province just as the Romantic period was beginning. Nature in New Brunswick was to be exalted as long as it included newly cleared lands with settlements, and even cities in the making. Similar to the Romantic interest in exotic peoples elsewhere, artistic attention was paid to Maliseets, but it was generally peripheral to the primary narrative of settlement. That Maliseets would also be represented as a consistently healthy and well-dressed presence served less in the early years to idealize them as noble savages (Ellingson 2001) than to convey the idea of supposedly cordial and successful colonization.

Indeed, few of the usual contradictions of imperialism would find their way into the art of the era in New Brunswick, least of all the ugly realities of suffering and hardship experienced by Indigenous peoples at the hands of the settler society. By ignoring these realities, artists kept their audiences, especially potential immigrants, oblivious to Indigenous suffering, and effectively assisted, either wittingly or not, in the ongoing dispossession and displacement of Maliseets.

Beginning in the 1840s, however, there was a noticeable shift in artwork depicting Indigenous peoples in the Maritimes, which coincided with a subtle shift in attitudes towards hunting in North America. Where the practice had existed as a pastime of elites in Europe since medieval times, it appears to have been largely suppressed here prior to the 1840s, primarily because it was seen as an Indigenous practice that hindered the colonial project (McNairn 2005). Before the end of the period under consideration, the long-standing interest in hunting as a sport of the wealthy surfaced in the Maritimes, in part as a reaction to the industrial revolution, and in part as an elite male sport made increasingly possible by new wealth generated by the industrial revolution. With this shift came a renewed artistic interest in the wilderness and an associated, almost anthropological, interest in Indigenous forms of hunting and fishing.

Regarding the background or career interests of the artists, one generalization to be made is that all were relatively wealthy and highly placed in colonial society. Indeed, the majority of them were British army officers who, in the period under consideration, had to be wealthy enough to purchase their com- missions in the army. As well-to-do individuals, most artists would have had not only the means and the time, but also an elite education that included, in this era before the coming of photography, training in painting. In fact, landscape painting in watercolours was a standard component of military training for most British officers.4 As persons holding generally high standing in colonial society, all artists would have also had the motivation to produce primarily positive views of British North America.

29 Andrea Bear Nicholas

The Early Years: “Like a Deer Pursued”

Following the close of the American Revolutionary War in 1783, the physical displacement of Maliseet people from the heart of their homeland on the St. John River would resume dramatically as settlers driven from the newly independent American colonies for their loyalty to the Crown poured en masse into the region. As such, it would be the first time that Maliseets would come to realize the enormity of their dispossession, which had commenced primarily on paper in the 1760s. Once again, there would be no surrender or cession of any land by the Maliseets, and once again, the expropriation of their territories would be rationalized by the dual fictions that the lands here were empty (terra nullius) and that Nova Scotia was under no obligation to abide by the provisions relating to Indigenous lands in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. At first, officials in that province needed to escheat most of the grantees of the 1760s for failing to settle their grants. Then they re-granted those lands, and surveyed and granted away new portions of Maliseet homeland upriver as far north as what is now Woodstock. With the separation of New Brunswick from the original colony of Nova Scotia in 1784, the dispossession and settlement continued, based on the same fictions that Nova Scotia had relied upon, and by 1786 virtually all Maliseet homelands along the St. John River from its mouth north to Woodstock were settled.

This invasion by overwhelming numbers of military men, often in uniform, and within the space of a couple of years, would terrorize the Maliseets, and serve as the first and most effective strategy to begin displacing them. As one chronicler would later admit, “They are not favourably disposed towards us, and have been only kept in order by terror” (Lyman [1792] 1976). Indeed, one of the earliest records documenting the Maliseet reaction to this invasion confirms the effectiveness of this strategy. In Octo- ber 1783, Captain John Munro of the King’s Royal New York Regiment surveyed the St. John River and reported that “there are about 60 Indian Families upon all those Rivers who go about from River to River and carry the bark with which they cover their Hutts in their canoes, they very seldom encamp in the woods…. When I came through in October [1783], the most part of the Indians were moving off to the eastward for fear of the number of provincial troops and settlers coming upon the river” (Munro [1783] 1892).

Munro’s report also noted several Maliseet families living on the site of the ancient village at Meductic, just south of what is now Woodstock, yet this land was soon granted out from under them to disbanded British soldiers, thus setting that village on a decades-long path to dissolution.5 Meductic, however, was not the only Maliseet village to face dissolution. For the Maliseet village at Ekwpahak the dissolution would be relatively quick (Pawling 2010, 391-98). The village occupied a 700-acre lot of mostly excellent farmland at the head of the tide just west of what is now Fredericton—500 acres on the mainland and 200 on an adjacent island. This land had been reserved twice for Maliseets by Nova Scotia authorities (Nova Scotia 1768, [1779] 1993), but it would be virtually lost to them in little more than a decade after the arrival of the Loyalists.

30 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

When the grants were allotted in the area, a judge named Isaac Allen received one said by some to have included the Maliseet lot (Maxwell 1937, 90, 123; Squires 1980), but others claim that it was adjacent to the lot (Ganong [1899] 1983, 14-15). According to 1792 minutes of the lieutenant-governor’s executive council, of which Allen was a member, he learned on arriving to take up his grant that three other individuals had leased the Maliseet lot for its already-cleared acreage of planting grounds6 for a term of ten years. In 1789 Allen bought the lease from the three men for £150 (New Brunswick currency),7 then, offering to double the rent from $50 to $100 per annum, he seems to have persuaded at least some Mali- seet chiefs to extend the lease, presumably for another nine years (Xavier et al. 1789; New Brunswick 1792a), although the lease actually said 999 years unbeknownst to the chiefs.

This deal effectively employed at least two strategies for displacing Indigenous peoples once their homelands had been invaded and their sources of food seriously diminished—one was to exploit their poverty with pecuniary inducements to relocate, and the other was to defraud them by taking advantage of their inability to read English. These strategies actually match precisely what Patrick Wolfe has called the “logic of elimination” in which an invading society not only displaces Indigenous populations and erects “a new society on the expropriated land base,” but also implements various strategies designed to eliminate the original population (2006, 388).8

At the Maliseet village at Madawaska, the strategy for displacing Maliseets was different, but the out- come would be similar (Pawling 2010, 350-63). On a 1787 survey by the official New Brunswick surveyor, George Sproule, a large area of land was marked off above and below the mouth of the Madawaska River, including both sides of the St. John, with a notation saying “the Indians require the tract of land included within the red lines to be reserved for their use” (Sproule [1787] 2009). In the fall of 1792, the leaders from that village finally petitioned for the land (Exavier et al. 1792), but no record of a formal grant has ever been located although reputable observers would note its existence decades later.9 That this petition could have been refused is shocking considering that as many as 300 Maliseets were living at Madawaska at the time (Michaud 2003, 181-82). It is also puzzling considering that land at the mouth of the Madawaska would continue to be marked on maps of the area for decades as an “Indian Reserve” (Sproule 1790; Sproule and Baillie 1826; Garden 1842; Beckwith 1860).

Another strategy of settler societies that has an enormously negative impact on Indigenous populations is massive lumbering. In what is now New Brunswick, extensive harvesting of pines fit for masts for the Royal Navy had actually begun during the American Revolution (Raymond 1950, 237-44). So advanced was the harvesting by the end of the war that Captain John Munro noted that “above six Thousand pounds worth” of masts were sitting at port in Saint John in 1783, and that “two Ships were loading when I left that place.” In his estimation “there were masts sufficient there to load 10 ships” (Munro [1783] 1892, 31). As historian R.T. Naylor has noted, this practice of mast-cutting would soon result in massive plundering of the forests: “For nearly twenty years [after the American Revolution] New Bruns- wick enjoyed a virtual monopoly of the mast trade, and became the happy hunting ground of timber

31 Andrea Bear Nicholas

merchants disguised as colonization agents who seized control of great tracts of land and sent in gangs of cutters. They quickly decimated great pine stands” (Naylor 1987, 178; see also Lower 1938; Wynn 1977, 1981b, 34-112).10

The combined effect of the invasion by settlers and the devastation in the forests can hardly be overes- timated, yet it was only rarely recorded. Not only would Maliseets be denied access to traditional planting and fishing sites along the Wəlastəkok in violation of the treaties, but their access to moose, deer, and especially caribou, their primary source of protein (Speiss 1979, 122),11 would be drastically cur- tailed by the destruction of forest habitats for these species. The following speech, by Chief Nicholas Hawawas to an American officer in November 1783, is one of those rare documents detailing serious desperation and fear on the part of his people:

Brother you remember when we came from St. Johns and followed you we had plenty of every- thing for the comfort of our familys [sic]. You see the situation we are now in and the distress of our familys. All tho we will submit if we can be sure to have our hunting secured. We cannot sleep or rest, our women and children are crying about us, all our villages are disturbed, we cannot set down easy in any one place, our old homes are forsaken & like a deer pursued by the hunters leave us no place of rest. (Hawawas 1783)

Another source of this desperation was the surveying that was now proceeding along the entire length of the St. John to the St. Lawrence River, indicating that the newcomers had no intention of confining their settlements to areas already settled on the lower reaches of the river. What motivated this development was the critical importance of the river to the British as a line of travel and communication between Halifax and Quebec. That it flowed through large stretches of disputed territory between British North America and the newly independent American republic added a sense of urgency for the British to settle the entire river as quickly as possible, if only to maintain control over this important communication route (Carroll 2001; G. Campbell 2005).

Within a few short years after the arrival of the Loyalists on the St. John River, it became evident that strategies aimed at the removal of Maliseets were not always effective. Consequently, the newly installed government of New Brunswick began implementing yet another strategy aimed now at dissolving the Maliseet form of life altogether. This was the project of educating “Indians” to abandon their mobile form of life on the land, become farmers, and settle down. In short, it aimed at “civilizing” and assimi- lating them. Under this plan, funded by a Church of England charity known as “The New England Company,” schools were established in several locations for Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy children. In order to entice families to send their children to these schools, free foodstuffs and farming equipment were offered to those who would settle near the schools.12 Since most Maliseets were already suffering from serious food shortages, their only choice was to accept the offer or relocate to more remote parts of their territory to survive.

32 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Central to the goal of the schools was the eradication of the Maliseet language through the imposition of English as the medium of instruction. Since knowledge of the land is “developed, encoded, and trans- mitted through language” (Maffi 2005), the Loyalist strategy of imposing English on Maliseet children would begin the process not only of destroying their language, but also of depriving many of the ability to survive on the land (Wollock 2001).13

Artwork and the Agrarian Ideal

When considering the work of artists in colonial New Brunswick from the 1790s to the early 1850s, it is important to note that this was the earliest period in which a considerable body of artwork was produced depicting both Maliseets and known places in New Brunswick.14 Some of these artists, however, did not name the location or the people, and in so doing began the artistic process of disconnecting Maliseets from the land in the visual record.

This strategy is exemplified in an illustration published in Patrick Campbell’s book, Travels in the Interior Parts of North America in the Years 1791 and 1792 ([1793] 1927; fig. 2). Apart from the fact that the image appears in the section detailing Campbell’s travels on the St. John River, there is no identification of the people or their location. It is only from the distinctive, sharply pointed shape of the canoe, which is so different from the rounded shape of Mi’kmaw canoes, that the identity of the people as Maliseet is known. Drawn decades before any artists would show serious interest in wilderness or Indigenous practices in New Brunswick, this image is rare for a period preoccupied with mercantilist concerns (McNairn 2005). While it may depict Maliseets fleeing upriver, it gives no other hint of the crisis they were experiencing in the wake of the invasion of their homeland by the Loyalists, who now not only actively plundered woods and waters, but also occupied and converted large extents of woodland into pasture, and in some cases into grandiose estates (Cronon 1983; Rees 2000, 19-34).

Another drawing published in Campbell’s book (fig. 3) is believed to depict the Nashwaak River, which had been settled quite rapidly by three regiments of disbanded soldiers from its mouth opposite Fred- ericton to more than 25 miles upriver. While the image depicts the agrarian ideal of forests being transformed into pasture land, Campbell’s text provides remarkably frank details of settler overexploitation of fish and game which would have had a devastating impact on the Maliseet ability to survive in the area. In one example, the settlers would take winter hunting trips of two to three weeks and “return with sleas [sic] loaded with venison” (P. Campbell [1793] 1927, 46). In another, most of the settlers helped themselves to “as many salmon as would serve their families,” but one had reportedly taken 700 in one night using a Maliseet-style spear and torch. What is shocking, but not really surprising, is Campbell’s comment that “salmon fishing on this river is much on the decline” (47), less than a decade after the settlers first established themselves there.

33 Andrea Bear Nicholas is believed to have been drawn by Dugald Campbell. It was published in The original is believed to have been drawn by Dugald Campbell. Stream, 1793. and Stones against a Rapid amongst Rocks Poled A Birch Canoe Fig. 2. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick plate 2). Reprinted 1927, ([1793] and 1792 1791 Years America in the of North in the Interior Inhabited Parts Travels Campbell, Patrick Museum.

34 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes Travels in the Travels Campbell, It was published in Patrick The original is believed to have been drawn by Dugald Campbell. 1793. American New Cleared Farm Plan of an Fig. 3. ([1793] 1927, plate 1). Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. plate 1). Reprinted 1927, ([1793] and 1792 1791 Years America in the of North Interior Inhabited Parts

35 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Another candid observer in the early 1790s was Bishop Charles Inglis of the Church of England, who noted quite accurately that the poverty and suffering of the Maliseets was a consequence of the growing settler population; but he, too, voiced the standard government solution. Rather than suggest that the ongoing appropriation of Maliseet lands ought to cease, or that hunting territories ought to be reserved for them, he advocated for the project of assimilation as the only solution:

The most remarkable circumstance with regard to the Indians is that they begin to think seriously of cultivating the land and relinquishing their present wandering mode of life—a singular occur- rence, and likely to be attended with salutary effects. The cause of this extraordinary revolution in their sentiments is a failure of their game in hunting, which has reduced them to the utmost distress; and as the failure is owing to an increase of our population, which goes on rapidly, their distress must also increase; and of this they are sensible. Savages must feel before they reason, and their sufferings point out the necessity of cultivating land for a subsistence, which they see it constantly affords to white people. (Inglis 1792)

Confirmation of the dire conditions experienced by Maliseets and other Indigenous nations in the region at this time can be found in a letter addressed to the Government of Massachusetts in November 1792: “Since peace, we have been wandering from place to place. Those spots of ground, which were wont to be our abode are taken up on the American as British side, and when our familys [sic] attempt to encamp thereon are threatened with every insult, so that our women and children are in continual fear” (Xavier 1792).

Earlier in the same year, Judge Allen had begun moving on his plan to sever Maliseets permanently from their land at Ekwpahak.15 According to his version of the events, it was Maliseets who had pressured him to purchase the lot since only one of their leaders had been receiving and enjoying the benefits of the annual $100 rental payment (New Brunswick 1792a). According to Maliseet oral tradition, however, it was Allen who pressured Maliseet leaders to sell the lot (Adney 1948; Erickson 2010, 27). Reverend François Ciquard, the Sulpician missionary who began serving Maliseets in 1794, also believed that it was Allen “[qui] vint leur demander à l’acheter pour toujours, disant qu’il payeroit tout, tout de suite, s’ils vouloient le lui vendre ainse” (Ciquard n.d., 35; [Allen] came to demand of [the chiefs] saying he would buy the land immediately, if they wished to sell it to him thus). He also implied that Allen had effectively bribed the chiefs by promising $2,000 for the land. Writing at length on the deal, which was finalized in August 1794, Ciquard described multiple ways in which he believed the Maliseets had been cheated:

On fit aller les sauvages à la ville pour y être payés. Là ils furent encore trompés on ne voulu plus leur donner que 1500 piastres et encore moitié en argent et moitié en marchandises au lieu de 2000 piastres et tout en argent sonnant comme on etoit convenu. Ces pauvres sauvages n’étoient pas là avec eux consenturent à cela. He! Que faire en suite avec des gens de mauvaise foi. Le prix étoit déjà asses modique sans le diminuer d’avantage, car ce terrain ne fut pas vendu le quart de ce qu’il valoit…. (36)16

36 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

[Allen] made the savages go to the city to be paid. There they were yet again deceived. Someone gave them only $1,500, half in silver and half merchandise in place of the silver as had been agreed. These poor savages, it was not done with their consent. Ha! That is what happens with men of bad faith. The price was already modest enough without diminishing the profit, for this land was not sold for even a quarter of what it was worth.

Although this sale had the consent of the lieutenant-governor, who was the official representative of the Crown in New Brunswick, it still contravened the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlers from acquiring any land directly from Indigenous peoples, unless it was bought first by the Crown, and then sold to the settlers (George R 1763; Harring 1998, 28). This requirement was an essential element of the Royal Proclamation, intended to prevent fraud in dealings with Indigenous peoples, yet the contravention of the proclamation in Allen’s case was never addressed, and the lot was officially granted to him in 1794 (New Brunswick 1794).

On the Maliseet side, the sale is said to have caused such enormous dissension that those responsible were forced to flee and take refuge among the Passamaquoddies (Adney 1948). Since it was noted that Maliseets continued visiting the site of their consecrated cemetery on the lot “to offer their devotions, and … bury their dead” (Inglis 1788), even after leasing the land, the sale of this land must have been heart-wrenching. Father Ciquard also notes that one quarter of the promised money ($500) was set aside for him to build a church and house at Tobique. In effect, he was being asked to move all Maliseets from the Fredericton area to Tobique (Ciquard 1794a, 1794b; Jennings 1998, 127), where the provincial government intended to, and eventually did, establish a reserve for all Maliseets (New Brunswick 1801). When those living in the Fredericton area refused to move, the priest bought approximately 12 acres for £14 12s, ostensibly for them, at French Village, now Kingsclear (Ciquard n.d., 37), a short way upriver from their lot at Ekwpahak. Although he bought this land presumably with the $500 from the sale of Ekwpahak, he inexplicably put the deed to the land in the name of the French Roman Catholics (New Brunswick 1795, 1796) rather than in that of the Maliseets, who would not learn of this until more than a century later. Although he did eventually have simple birchbark churches built at both Kingsclear and Tobique, there is no record of what happened to the rest of the $500.

“Their Wretched Condition”

Writing in 1804, Judge Edward Winslow described at first the good life of “the Savages who possessed this province before our arrival,” and went on to say in a matter-of-fact way that they “were of course compelled to leave the banks of the rivers (particularly the St. John) and hunt on other grounds” ([1804] 1901, 510). A few lines later, he attested dispassionately to the desperate conditions the Maliseets were experiencing as a result of the settlements, but he neither accepted nor ascribed any blame: “All this time the savages have been retreating farther and farther from the places to which they were formerly so much attached. The settlements being extended over the best part of their hunting grounds, they were soon reduced to the most abject poverty and distress” (511).

37 Andrea Bear Nicholas

A similar lack of empathy is evident in many written descriptions of the Maliseet from the period. In 1805, Jean Dickson (Mrs. Martin Hunter), the wife of acting lieutenant-governor Brigadier General Mar- tin Hunter, accompanied her son and husband to a Maliseet camp just west of Fredericton at what is now believed to be the mouth of Garden Creek:

Yesterday was fine, and in the evening the General took James and me to visit an Indian encampment about a mile and a half from this. They always choose delightful situations. This was a little cleared point where a stream runs from a very rapid water-fall above into the river and a nice little natural harbour where lay all their canoes, some on shore that had been undergoing repairs. Each wigwam was screened from the others by groves of fine trees. Outside the wigwams we only saw near-naked children … and here and there a half-famished-looking dog. The men were snoring on the ground, over-charged with scuttawa, rum a disgusting sight, dead drunk. To the honour of our sex, the women were sober, and most of them occupied in making ordinary boxes, pitchers, etc., of bark. The miserable little papooses, babies, lying laced upon a board, with only the head out, like Egyptian mummies. Those that had the use of their limbs and were released from this cruel discipline were crawling about naked. All the hard labour of providing food for the little ones, they throw on the women, for they are above occupying themselves in anything but hunting and war. (Hunter 1805)

Quite evidently Dickson, who would later develop unique friendships with some Maliseet women, did not expect the impoverishment she noted at the camp. Her disparaging remarks here demonstrate both a blame-the-victim attitude and the mistaken, though very European, trope of women as the drudges of peas- ant and Indigenous societies. Unable to see beyond the poverty, she shows no appreciation for the culture of the Maliseets or for the true causes of their poverty. She may even have been mistaken in assuming that the men were drunk when it is likely that they had spent most of the night fishing, since this location was near an important fishing spot and since most fishing was done by men with spears and torches by night.

An undated watercolour held by the Royal Ontario Museum is titled Micmac Encampment near Fredericton on the River St. John (fig. 4); however, the distinctive shape of the canoe identifies the camp as indisput- ably Maliseet, not Mi’kmaq,17 and judging from the angle at which Fredericton can be seen in the background, the site appears to be the same as that described by Jean Dickson. The painting’s creator is listed as anonymous, but curiously enough, it is signed “Martin,” and could very possibly have been painted by Lieutenant-Governor Martin Hunter himself. While the painting depicts one Maliseet man as anything but lazy, it does not represent the poverty described by the lieutenant-governor’s wife. In fact, it was another two years before Hunter was moved enough to request an allowance of £500 from the Colonial Office for the “occasional relief of Indians” whom he declared to have been “treated with neglect by government of which they are far from being insensible, and of which they complain, as making an injurious distinction between them and the Indians of Canada, on the one side and those within the limits of the neighbouring American State on the other” (Hunter [1808] 1976, 65).

38 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes Reprinted by permission from the Royal Ontario Museum. by permission from the Royal on the River St. John. Reprinted Micmac [Maliseet] Encampment near Fredericton Fig. 4.

39 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Hunter’s request, however, was made less out of genuine concern for the welfare of the Maliseets, than for the strategic concern that they could be lost to the Americans in the face of an impending war if their needs could not be met. Unfortunately, the general also blamed the Maliseet form of life for their poverty in his letter to the Colonial Office, and in so doing, he effectively provided that office with an excuse to deny his request: “Tracts of land have indeed been allotted for these poor people in several districts of the Province, but they seem in general, incapable of quitting their savage habits so far as to derive much benefit from such donations, and the wild animals of the Country are become so few as to be no longer an adequate resource” (65).

Indeed, the Colonial Office’s denial came with the suggestion that “Indians” should, instead, be converted to “an [sic] useful people of the community” (Upton 1979, 100), which, as code for assimilation, was precisely what the New England Company had been charged to do. That project, however, had seen no appreciable results in two decades, and as of 1807, it had embarked on a more drastic plan. Indig- enous children were now being totally separated from their parents and apprenticed out to families in the Sussex area, where they were supposed to attend the school established for them. Maliseet parents had at first resisted such a plan, but as Judith Fingard has noted, the rapid growth of the settler society had brought “increasing economic distress amongst the Indians.… Deprivation produced submission” (1972, 34).

Only a few years after the commencement of this new strategy, however, serious problems were noted in the journal of one Lieutenant Colonel Gubbins, who was visiting the province in 1811 to inspect British regiments: “Since Colonel Leonard gave up the management of this fund, which I understand amounts to 1,800 pounds a year, the use of it has been shamefully perverted. Female children have been apprenticed to the most profligate persons” ([1811] 1980, 12). There is little doubt that authorities in England were very soon made aware of these abuses, since Gubbins had been sent to New Brunswick on official business. Nevertheless, it would take another decade before an investigation into the allegations would be undertaken, and still another five years before the apprenticeship program would be terminated (Fingard 1972).

Gubbins also addressed the matter of Maliseet poverty in his journal and correctly attributed it to the destruction of wildlife in the province, but he affixed no blame and suggested no solution. He did, however, provide revealing details as to the extent of the destruction:

At the conclusion of the American War, when the province was first generally settled, there were prodigious herds of moose deer and caribou or reindeer, so much so that 50,000 of their skins are said to have been exported in one year. Those animals have been either all destroyed or driven a great distance into the interior, for they are now rarely found, and the Indians are reduced much against their inclinations to hew fire wood in winter, and in summer to till the ground in some degree for their support. ([1811] 1980, 11-12)

40 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Upon the outbreak of yet another war with the Americans (the War of 1812), New Brunswick authorities moved quickly to ensure that Maliseets and Passamaquoddies would remain neutral (Dallison 2012, 28-29), since both tribes (as they were known then) occupied the still-undefined border region between the United States and British North America. In 1813, fully three decades after the Loyalist invasion, emergency provisions and clothing were finally allocated by the New Brunswick legislature for“ the immediate relief of the wants of the native Indians of the Milacete [sic] Tribe” (New Brunswick 1813, 408; Chipman 1813).

In spite of the allocation, the desperation continued. A year later, a curious petition was addressed to the government on behalf of the Maliseets at Kingsclear. According to Thomas Saumarez, the acting lieutenant-governor, they now hoped for land in or near the city of Fredericton to facilitate “employment as labourers in the neighborhood to obtain a subsistence and prevent in future, such want and distress as they have of late years frequently suffered” (1814, 26). Since they had apparently been told that “there are no ungranted lands in this neighbourhood,” the petition went on to say that “these poor people have indulged a hope that some adequate allotment for their relief might be obtained by purchase, to be defrayed by a grant from the Legislature” (26). With the War of 1812 still ongoing, this was no time to ignore such a request. Rather than provide an “adequate allotment for their relief” however, the government took the opportunity, instead, to push an agrarian lifestyle on the Maliseets. It purchased 300 acres of land for them adjacent to the 12 acres bought by the former priest at Kingsclear (New Brunswick [1814] 1976). It even managed to convince a philanthropic society (the North American Indian Institu- tion) to present the people of Kingsclear with “Hoes, a Grindstone, and Potatoes and corn for feed, and contracted with persons in the neighbourhood, to plough up 15 acres of land for planting this season” (Royal Gazette 1814).

Although Maliseets were still suffering intense poverty and desperation in these years, Joseph Brown Comingo’s View of Saint John New Brunswick, 1814 (fig. 5) and Ralph Stennett’s 1815 paintingA View of the City and Harbour of St. John (fig. 6) provide no hint of that reality.18 Apart from the fact that one artist may have influenced the other, both appear to have came from similarly elite backgrounds.Comingo (c1784-1821) was a Nova Scotian who is believed to have trained with British military artists stationed in Halifax (Mackay and Paikowsky 1987; Harper 1966, 102), and Stennett, studied at Royal Academy Schools in London. While the real focus of the two paintings is the burgeoning city of Saint John, the inclusion of Maliseets in the foreground of both paintings is, at least, evidence that they still frequented this area although it had long since been taken from them.19

41 Andrea Bear Nicholas 1814, by J.B. Comingo. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Reprinted by J.B. Comingo. View of Saint John New Brunswick, 1814, Fig. 5.

42 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes A View of the City and Harbour of St. John, New Brunswick, N.A. Taken from Hills W.S.W. of Fort Howe, N.B., 1815 , by Ralph Stennett (engraving Charles of Fort W.S.W. from Hills Taken View of the City and Harbour St. John, New Brunswick, N.A. A Fig. 6. Turner). Reprinted by permission of Library and Archives Canada. by permission of Library and Reprinted Turner).

43 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 7. The Great Falls on the River St. John, New Brunswick, 1815, by Joseph Bouchette, surveyor general of Lower Canada and lieutenant colonel. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum.

The image of Grand Falls that appears in figure 7, by Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Bouchette (1774-1841), was first published in the same year as Stennett’s painting of Saint John. With its spectacular view of the falls and idealized, almost Romanesque figure of an Indigenous person in the foreground, the image is typically Romantic. Since Maliseet territory north of Grand Falls was considered at the time to be part of Lower Canada (Maxwell 1937, 140), Bouchette included this image of the falls in his comprehensive Topographical Description of the Province of Lower Canada (1815, facing 541; Hachey 1980, 25).20 As such it served as propaganda promoting British settlement in British North America, especially in the still- disputed upper St. John River region. This volume had fairly broad distribution and won high honours for its author/illustrator. Not surprisingly, Bouchette was a military officer who had not only served in the War of 1812 but also held high rank in the British colonial establishment as surveyor general of Brit- ish North America (Boudreau and Lepine 1988).

The striking lack of reality about the true situation of Maliseets in these images produced during and after the War of 1812 raises the question: why? In truth, the reality of poverty rarely found its way into any art of the Romantic period, especially wherever Indigenous peoples were being actively dispossessed. In the case of New Brunswick, what best explains the misrepresentation was the ongoing dispossession, together with the fact of the still-unresolved boundary and the need for immigrants to solidify

44 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

British claims in the area (Carroll 2001). Quite simply, depictions of Indigenous poverty would have been sharply counterproductive in a postwar era intent on reinvigorating national growth.

Written documents from mostly obscure sources, however, put the lie to both the visual and written propaganda of the time. One telling record from this period was penned by a priest who served both Maliseets and Acadians on the St. John River in 1816. Speaking particularly of the Maliseet and Acadian settlement known as French Village (Kingsclear), he wrote that “Il est mort plusieurs personnes aux Vil- lage Français de Ste Anne et il y a encore qui sont dangereusement malades. Il y a apparence que ce sont des fièvres qui courent dans cet endroit” (Marcoux [1816] 1980; there are several people who have died in the French Village of Ste. Anne, and there are yet some who are dangerously ill; it appears that there are some fevers which run in this place). Disease, of course, is a common consequence of poverty and malnutrition. What the priest does not mention is that 1816 was also the first of a couple of years in which sum- mers were so short and winters so long and harsh that crops failed across New Brunswick, bringing severe food shortages to everyone, especially to the poorest of the poor (Piper 2004). That 18 Maliseet families from New Brunswick would approach Quebec authorities for assistance in December of 1817 (J. Thomas and 18 other families 1817; see also Pawling 2010, 365-66) is evidence not only of widespread starvation, but also of a failure on the part of the New Brunswick government both to preserve Maliseet hunting, fishing, and planting grounds according to the treaties, and to alleviate the suffering.

Interestingly enough, this decade after the War of 1812 also saw the first writing by one of only a few Maritime intellectuals who would challenge the moral and legal basis for the dispossession of Indig- enous peoples. That intellectual was Walter Bromley who asked, “[by] what authority have we to become the general possessors of the Indian territory to the total exclusion of its original possessors?” (Brom- ley 1814, 1820, 5; Fingard 1973; D. Bell 2000). Unfortunately, disturbing questions such as this would fall largely on deaf ears since most other intellectuals and policy-makers were either employed by, or somehow connected to, the colonial establishment. For them to even entertain this question would have implicated generations of their colonial forebears and run counter to one of the most fundamental values on which the British empire was being built—the Lockean justification for Indigenous dispossession. Locke’s theory held that natural wilderness, owned by no one, became the property of those who transformed it through their labour; according to this agrarian ideal, the “uncultivated waste of America” was vacant and available to those who, through their labour (by farming it), made it their own (quoted in Williams 1990, 247).

Although Maliseets were clearly not welcome to settle in or near Fredericton, they continued to camp in the vicinity as can be seen in an 1818 painting, Fredericton in the Year 1818, which depicted the city from what is now its north side (fig. 8). Indeed, the site of the wigwam in this painting is probably the very spot that would come to be known as the “Indian camps,” a patch of land that was finally bought and set aside as the St. Mary’s Reserve immediately after Confederation. Unlike the earlier paintings of Mali- seets at Saint John, the partially visible birchbark wigwam in the foreground of this painting of Frederic- ton serves as an effective contrast to the young city. Still, the depiction of Maliseets on the outskirts of yet

45 Andrea Bear Nicholas Fredericton in the Year 1818: A View of Lower Portion of the City of Fredericton Seat of Government of the Province of New Brunswick Taken in the Year 1818 , by either Year in the Taken Seat of Government the Province New Brunswick of the City Fredericton View of Lower Portion A 1818: Year in the Fredericton Fig. 8. Lieutenant Colonel Charles William Rudyerd (1776-1829), or his wife, Lucy Ann Odell Rudyerd. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Ann Odell Rudyerd. Reprinted or his wife, Lucy William Rudyerd (1776-1829), Charles Lieutenant Colonel

46 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

another city represents a growing reality—that they depended more and more now on the opportunity either for charity, or for work and markets available in the cities.

An 1820 painting of relatively well-to-do, but cari- catured, Maliseet women in the Woodstock area (fig. 9)21 is probably the only known image of Mali- seets from Meductic. In the 1807 Agreement between the Government of the Province of New Brunswick … and the Indians of the River St. John, this group had finally obtained a grant of land near, but not on, their ancient village site at Meductic (see Pawling 2010, 386). With 30 families living there in birchbark wigwams in 1813, it was approximately three times larger than Tobique or Madawaska at that time (Dup- erre 1814).22 Unfortunately for the Maliseets, settlers claiming rights to the land stemming from early Loy- alist grants would continue to encroach on their lot, so much so that by 1841 they would have “scarcely a half of the Lot” confirmed to them in 1807 (Perley [1842b] 1976, 84).

At Madawaska, a similar process of encroachment on Fig. 9. Woodstock, York County, October 5th, 1820, from the Maliseet lands was under way. In 1821 a French set- Richard Parr Journal (1819-21). Reprinted with the permission tler named Simon Hébert purchased nine acres from of Library and Archives Canada. an unnamed Maliseet, and then, according to Moses Perley, “Under colour of this purchase, he succeeded in obtaining from the Crown a grant of 200 [actually 250] acres [of reserve land]” in 1824 (New Brunswick 1824; Perley [1842b] 1976, 87). As a combination of chicanery and yet another violation of the 1763 Royal Proclamation’s prohibition against the private purchase of Indian lands by settlers, it is just one documented example indicating why maps throughout the period would indicate increasingly smaller tracts of land reserved for Maliseets at Madawaska.23

Early in the same decade, an investigation of the New England Company’s school at Sussex confirmed what had been disclosed by Gubbins in 1811. This time the report would finally bring about the closure of the school, but not until 1826. It revealed again that the money designated for the school had been fraudulently used “by men of intemperate or other immoral habits which unfit them for the charge of instructing youth” (Bromley 1822; West 1827, 228-31). This time the names of children who had been sexu- ally exploited were listed, together with the names of the abusers and the families with whom they had been apprenticed, including the family of one minister of the Church of England. The fact that nothing

47 Andrea Bear Nicholas , 1824, by D. Dighton, after by a painting by J. Hewett. Reprinted Fredericton on Long Island in the River St. John , 1824, by D. Meeting of the Officers Garrisons St. John and Fig. 10. permission of the New Brunswick Museum.

48 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

had been done about this abuse, although it had been known for more than a decade, is appalling, but what seems to have been more disturbing to authorities was that the project had completely failed to achieve what it had set out to do. Most of the children who had been apprenticed to families in Sus- sex had been used virtually as slaves and never sent to school. Having been taken into the program as infants or young children, they could neither return to their traditional form of life nor find acceptance in the settler society upon release from the program. As the report noted, “they necessarily become a peculiar, distinct people, shut out from all society, and having no lands to cultivate or any kind of assistance afforded them they are compelled to go from house to house in search of food, occasionally hiring themselves out among the farmers” (Bromley 1822, 5). Aside from a few brief reports there is no further information about what became of any of these individuals who were so brutally mistreated, but it is a poignant example of Patrick Wolfe’s opinion that “assimilation can be a more effective mode of elimination than conventional forms of killing” (2006, 402).

The original of D. Dighton’s lithograph (fig. 10), Meeting of the Officers of the Garrisons of St. John and Fredericton on Long Island (near present-day Hampstead, New Brunswick), was by J. Hewett, a captain in the 52nd Regiment stationed in Fredericton in 1824 (Lumsden 1994, 34; Hachey 1980, 27). The man hauling a toboggan in the foreground illustrates not only the ongoing presence of Maliseets on the lower St. John, but also their importance to the survival of the soldiers and settlers. Although he occupies the foreground, and although winter survival for soldiers and settlers would have been completely impossible without the game supplied by Maliseet hunters and the snowshoes, moccasins, and toboggans made by his people,24 the truth of his story is hidden amid the tumult of the party.

With New Brunswick producing “nearly twice as much timber as the rest of North America” (Naylor 1987, 179-80)25 in the decades before 1824, the destruction in the woods had been massive, yet while Maliseets suffered the consequences they received none of the benefits. It is thus not surprising that the new lieutenant-governor, Sir Howard Douglas, would be shocked by the poverty of a large number of Maliseets who arrived on his doorstep on New Year’s Day in 1825:

Forcibly struck with their wretched condition and appearance (which must necessarily become more deplorable as the province advances in cultivation)26 and considering the great distance which many of them had travelled with their families I felt myself obliged to direct the issue of a certain quantity of provisions to subsist them during their short stay here. I have represented this to the Lords of His Majesty’s Treasury, and I hope to be authorized by their Lordships to continue the same on such annual occasions chargeable to the public account. (Douglas [1825] 1834)

Apart from articulating the presumed right of agrarian peoples to the lands of non-agrarian peoples, Douglas actually requested £100 per annum “to purchase such small useful presents as are generally made to Indians.”27 Rather than any amount owing to them for the ongoing expropriation and despo- liation of their lands, he declared it to be “a charitable mark of attention to their wretched situation” (Douglas 1825). He eventually succeeded in having £60 allotted for annual presents, and thus began the

49 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 11.2

Fig. 11.1. View on the Nashwaak River, near Fredericton, N.B., c1828, attributed to Anne, Lady Douglas (1780-1854), wife of Lieutenant- Governor Sir Howard Douglas. Reprinted with the permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Fig 11.2. Detail of fig. 11.1.

New Year’s tradition of parties at Government House at which cake, wine, and presents were distributed. As a once-a-year event in the dead of winter when so few Maliseets could attend, it amounted to little more than bread and circuses for a people experiencing serious starvation and privation during the rest of the year. Although Douglas later obtained £200 from the legislature three more times during his term of office, he was restricted to using it only for “the aged and infirm” (Upton 1979, 101). In 1826, he appointed commissioners for the first time ever to administer the funds and to promote education and agriculture, but after 1827 there were no more reports from the commissioners for over a decade. In the words of L.F.S. Upton, nothing further was done beyond “grudging payment of relief when it became unavoidable” (101).

50 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

A year after the Great Miramichi Fire of 1825, which destroyed a massive part of what was left of useful hunting grounds in the province, Maliseet leaders from the Meductic area petitioned the Quebec government for land on the St. Lawrence River. There is little question that the constant strife over their land at Meductic played an important role in their decision to emigrate, although their petition attributed it to the decline in hunting from the invasion by settlers, stating “That in consequence of the numer- ous population now living on the Lands which had formerly been your Excellency’s Petitioners’ Hunt- ing Grounds, they find themselves totally unable to obtain the necessary support for their existence. That your petitioners are desirous of emigrating to Lower Canada and establishing a Village therein” (J. Thomas and L. Thomas 1826). Upon receiving word that their request had been granted, 140 of them moved en masse in 1828 to a new reserve near Isle Verte in Quebec (Gosford 1837; Michaud 2003, 197- 202; Pawling 2010, 365-71).28 Thus the logic of elimination continued to operate effectively, seemingly without agency. In this case it was the anonymous and widespread replication of conditions created by settler colonialism—rapid growth in the immigrant population (Wynn 1981a),29 ongoing destruction of water and woodlands, depletion of fish and game, poverty, illness, and despair—all of which combined to force this group of Maliseets to seek escape on their own terms.

An idyllic scene was painted in View on the Nashwaak River, near Fredericton, N.B. (fig. 11.1), in the same year as the mass emigration of Maliseets to Quebec. The wife of Lieutenant-Governor Sir Howard Doug- las is presumed to have been the artist. Although both she and her husband would have been aware of the poverty and desperation of Maliseets, “having been forcibly struck by their wretched condition” three years earlier (H. Douglas [1825] 1834), this painting shows nothing of that reality; nor does it reflect the massive destruction that was occurring on the Nashwaak River as a result of lumbering and sawmills. As the historical geographer Graeme Wynn has noted,

Sawdust dumped in the rivers soon became sodden, sank to the bed of the stream, disturbed the river ecology, and obstructed navigation. In suspension it floated downstream, was deposited on banks and intervals, and drastically reduced fish populations. Rotting strands of mill refuse were an increasingly common sight along New Brunswick’s rivers as sawmills cut more and more lumber during the first half of the nineteenth century. (Wynn 1981b, 93)

So serious was the destruction, in fact, that in little more than two decades, by the mid-1800s, the once- abundant salmon would no longer be found in the Nashwaak River (Young 1984, xv). Sadly, this would be just one of many inevitable environmental disasters resulting from the prevalent settler society attitude expressed so callously by Lieutenant Governor Douglas in 1825, that the “wretched condition … [of the Maliseets] must necessarily become more deplorable as the province advances in cultivation” (Doug- las [1825] 1834). In other words, Indigenous populations would have to suffer not only because of expand- ing farms and settlements, but also because of environmental destruction presumed to be necessary.30

51 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 12.2

Fig. 12.1. Fredericton, N.B., from the Oromocto Road, 1837, by Robert Petley. Reprinted with the permission of Library and Archives Canada. Fig. 12.2. Detail of fig. 12.1 showing a Maliseet couple on the road from Oromocto to Fredericton.

“Driven by the Barbarity of the British”

In 1829, a momentous decision was made in England that would have enormous ramifications for Indigenous peoples in New Brunswick. It was the decision to begin selling off so-called Crown lands in the province (Baillie 1832; MacNutt 1949, 47-65).31 As remote areas not yet under private ownership, they were the only areas Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy people could still access for hunting, fishing, and gathering. To his credit, Douglas opposed the plan and actually advocated setting aside more lands for the Indigenous peoples of the province, but his opinion was ignored. Instead, it was the powerful commissioner of Crown lands and surveyor general, Thomas Baillie, whose voice was heard. Although appointed by the Colonial Office in the same year as Douglas (1824), he was able to get the plan approved in England over Douglas’s opposition, demonstrating the strength of still-powerful gentlemanly elites in dispossessing Maliseets (Young 1976).

52 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Fig. 13.2

Fig. 13.1. View of the Indian Village on the River St. John above Fredericton, Feb. 1832, by Captain John Campbell. Reprinted by permission of Library and Archives Canada. Fig. 13.2. Detail of fig 13.1 showing a Maliseet family on the road from Oromocto to Fredericton.

At the New Year’s party at Government House in 1830, Chief Tomer Francis of Kingsclear took the opportunity to ask the acting lieutenant-governor if it were true that the government was planning to sell their land. The official responded with an outright lie, saying that there was no such plan (Royal Gazette 1830) when in fact it had already been formally approved and would be put into action in 1831. More than a million acres of prime hunting territory in the centre of the province would be sold by 1837. Nearly half a million of those acres were bought in 1832 by a single company, the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Land Company, which was a consortium of wealthy British entrepreneurs led by the surveyor general, Thomas Baillie himself. It has been called the largest sale of land in New Brunswick’s history (MacNutt 1976, 231; Spray 1981, 61).

In 1831, Robert Petley, a soldier stationed in Fredericton with the 50th Regiment, portrayed a Maliseet couple on the road to Oromocto (figs. 12.1, 12.2).32 Once again, the couple appears to be reasonably well-to-do for a decade when most of the documentation on Maliseets in the area comes from frequent authorizations

53 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 14.2.

Fig. 14.1. New Brunswick Fashionables!!, 1834, by Lieutenant John Campbell. Reprinted by permission of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery. Fig. 14.2. Detail of figure 14.1 showing two groups of Maliseets in Fredericton.

for missionary or medical “assistance for sick and infirm Indians” at places such as Grand Lake, Oro- mocto, and the Nerepis River (Putnam 1833; McSweeney 1834, 1835; Pawling 2010, 408).33

As Jonathan Bordo has written, “The Aboriginal as figural presence was not only a common but an exalted thematic in nineteenth century Northern new world art, be it as a picturesque idealization and/ or ethnographic documentation” (1997, 26). In New Brunswick, the trend of focussing on Indigenous peoples as more than just incidental or part of the scenery began, for the most part, in the 1830s as the situation for Maliseets continued to worsen. Captain John Campbell’s idealized painting of their village at Kingsclear (figs. 13.1, 13.2) may be picturesque, but by featuring it as an improbably neat settlement with no hint of poverty, the painting purports to be ethnographically correct, but fails to represent reality. Campbell’s 1834 painting New Brunswick Fashionables!! (fig. 14.1) portrays a bustling winter scene in downtown Fredericton, including a small group of Maliseets in the foreground (fig. 14.2), once again deceptively well off, but incidental to the activities of the city folk (Hachey 1980, 41, 103). Campbell (1807-55) served as aide-de-camp to his father, Archibald Campbell, the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick from 1831 to 1837.

54 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Fig. 15.2.

Fig. 15.1. Indian Village near Fredericton, Pilick (Kingsclear First Nation), New Brunswick(?), c1835. Image on fan by either Lady Helen Campbell (wife of Lieutenant-Governor Archibald Campbell), or her daughter Lady Helen Maria Spencer (when she was Helen Maria Campbell, as the fan dates from before her marriage). Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Fig. 15.2. Detail of fig. 15.1.

Lady Helen Campbell, who painted two c1835 images of Maliseet settlements on a set of birchbark fans, was either the mother or sister of Captain John Campbell. Figure 15.1 is almost an exact copy of his painting of the Maliseet village at Kingsclear (fig. 13.1). Figure 16 is believed to portray Maliseets at the mouth of the Tobique River, a community that by this time had been suffering from serious encroach- ments and timber depredations (Perley [1842b] 1976, 84-86; Cuthbertson 2015, 32-33, 100-101). While the Campbells may have, indeed, turned the focus onto Indigenous subjects, the dishonesty of the romantic and idealized images of Maliseet people in a time of growing crisis can hardly be said to have been unintentional.

Three of Richard George Augustus Levinge’s paintings (figs. 17-19) exemplify Bordo’s Aboriginal as “exalted thematic” (1997, 26) Where most of the paintings up to this point focus on Maliseets in settled parts of the province or in their own settlements (suggesting the success of civilizing efforts), Levinge

55 Andrea Bear Nicholas , c1835. Image on fan by either Lady Helen Campbell (wife of Lieutenant- First Nation), New Brunswick(?) , c1835. Image on fan by either Lady Helen Campbell (Tobique Nekotkok An Indian Settlement by a River, Fig. 16. Governor Archibald Campbell) or her daughter Lady Helen Maria Spencer (when she was Helen Maria Campbell, as the fan dates from before her marriage). Reprinted as the fan dates from before her marriage). Reprinted or her daughter Lady Helen Maria Spencer (when she was Campbell, Archibald Campbell) Governor by permission of the New Brunswick Museum.

56 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Fig. 17. Micmac [Maliseet] Indians Poling a Canoe up a Rapid, [near] Oromocto Lake, New Brunswick, c1835-37, by Richard George Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by permission of Library and Archives Canada.

(1811-84) focusses almost exclusively on traditional Maliseet hunting and fishing.34 He painted these images during hunting and fishing trips with Maliseet guides in the backwoods of New Brunswick while stationed in Saint John from 1835 to 1837 with the 43rd Regiment (Allodi 1974, 2: 1866-68; Hachey 1980, 105; see also Sotheby and Co. 1969, 28-37; M. Bell 1973, 44-45). Levinge did not, however, publish any hunting or fishing images until the 1846 publication of his recollections in Echoes from the Back- woods ([1846] 1984),35 which coincided auspiciously with a new North American interest in sporting narratives. As Jeffrey L. McNairn (2005) has suggested, the decade of the 1840s brought significant change in attitudes towards hunting in the Maritimes. No longer would it be considered merely a utilitarian or even “debilitating” practice of Indigenous peoples and the lower classes, that hindered personal and province-wide development (6); it would now be “celebrated by elite males,” just as it was and had been celebrated in Europe since medieval times (22).

57 Andrea Bear Nicholas Richard George Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by permission of Library and Archives Canada. by permission of Library and Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by Richard George Torchlight , c1835-37, Salmon-fishing by Fig. 18.

58 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes , c1838-46, by Richard George Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by permission of the National Gallery Canada. Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by Richard George Moose Run Down , c1838-46, Fig. 19.

59 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Since Levinge’s paintings depict an Indigenous form of life that authorities in this province had for a long time wanted eliminated, there might not have been any visual record of it at all had it not been for military men such as Levinge who were so clearly attracted to it. McNairn has conjectured that hunting provided an “escape [from] the negative effects of … development,” and an opportunity to prove one’s masculinity (2005, 16, 22-23). He has also suggested that the relation of British sportsmen to their guides served as a sort of “template for imperial governance” (22) over colonized subjects. Ironically, this visual record could not have been created had it not been for the drastic decline in hunting and fishing that had forced most Maliseet hunters to seek employment as guides for White sportsmen, if only to make a living.

In another painting, Meeting of the Sleigh Club at the Barracks (Levinge 1838; see Hachey 1980, 55), even Levinge seems to have given in to the artistic conventions of his day by depicting in the background what appears to be a well-to-do family group of Maliseets (fig. 20.1, 20.2), including a woman with a cradleboard on her back. Their appearance causes one to wonder whether they were really invited guests at this meeting of the sleigh club, or simply painted into the picture to suggest fictitiously some sort of non-existent social equality.

While painters of hunting images can be excused for not identifying locations in the deep woods, the same cannot be said of paintings of Maliseet camps, which were generally located along main water courses. Ensign William Robert Herries’s undated painting of a Maliseet camp (fig. 21) is simply titled Indian Camp, New Brunswick (Lumsden 1994, 22-29). Herries was stationed in Saint John and Freder- icton at the same time as Levinge, from 1835 to 1837. As in several other images of Indigenous subjects by this artist, neither people nor location is identified, but from the distinctive shape of the canoe in this image, they are quite clearly Maliseet. Thus, while the watercolour features Maliseets amid the scenery, it effectively disconnects them from any specific geographical location, thus avoiding the implication that they might, in fact, belong there.

Once again, there is no hint of the true situation of Maliseets in any of these images, but one petition by a group of 50 Maliseets seeking land in the Moosehead Lake region of Maine in January 1839 reveals another side of the story:

The Undersigned Indians of the St. John Tribe, about 50 in number including our wives and children humbly represent to your honourable body that we have been driven by the barbarity of the British from our settlement on the Saint John River in the Province of New Brunswick which we had commenced under a grant from the Provincial government. That we have sought refuge in the State of Maine, that we are poor and destitute, and that we are desirous if we can obtain land to settle on the same, clear it up, cultivate it, and thus obtain a support. (Tomer and 14 others 1839)

60 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Fig. 20.2

Fig. 20.1. Meeting of the Sleigh Club at the Barracks (Occupied by the Left Wing 43rd Light Infantry Regiment), St. John, New Brunswick, 1838, by Richard George Augustus Levinge. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Fig. 20.2. Detail of figure 20.1 showing a Maliseet family group in the background at the Meeting of the Sleigh Club.

Fig. 21. Indian Camp, New Brunswick, by William Robert Herries (n.d.). Reprinted by permission of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery.

61 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Since several of the signers are now known to have been from Meductic,36 the petition is evidence of yet another group from that village having been forced to leave. There is no evidence that their petition was ever answered, and nothing further is known about what happened to them. Although some may have remained in Maine or moved to Quebec, at least a few of them were back in New Brunswick by 1851 (Dibblee 1851). Meanwhile the provincial government in New Brunswick had been enjoying rich returns from the sale of Maliseet hunting territories and timber resources since 1837, when the revenues from these resources were turned over by the Colonial Office to the New Brunswick legislature.37 The tragedy for Maliseets, however, was that although the government was able “to spend freely for a number of years,” by 1842, in fact, it is said to have squandered its revenues in patronage and unneeded roads, and did next to nothing for Indigenous peoples (Spray 1981, 61).

The Holocaust and the Noble Savage

William Henry Bartlett, who engraved The Green at Fredericton (fig. 22) probably in 1841, is one of only a few non-military or non-government artists in this essay. As a professional landscape artist, he illustrated Nathaniel Parker Willis’s Canadian Scenery Illustrated (1842), in which this image appeared.38 He was widely known for his romantic paintings of identified geographical locations that were both picturesque and sublime (Campbell and Tyrwhitt 1968, 66-67; Allodi 1974, vol. 1; Ross 1985). Since his Indigenous

Fig. 22. The Green at Fredericton, c1841, by William Henry Bartlett. Published in Canadian Scenery, by Nathaniel Parker Willis, vol. 2, 1842. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum.

62 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

subjects were often depicted against a backdrop of pristine wilderness, they come closest to the ideal of the noble savage of any artwork considered to this point. Bartlett’s habit of not identifying them or their location, however, was a most useful strategy in an era bent on disconnecting Indigenous peoples from the land. The only reason some of the people in this image are known to be Maliseets is that the location is Fredericton and the canoes are distinctly Maliseet. Since Bartlett wrote and published 13 books and produced images appearing in over 40 others, his work saw wide distribution and he became extremely popular as a result. For this reason there is little doubt that he had an enormous influence on the public perception of Indigenous peoples in British North America. Although he was neither military nor of high social class, his need to sell his work to survive meant that, unlike the artists who preceded him, he perhaps had more reason to focus only on the picturesque, and on none of the poverty or suffering. As a consequence, this practice at least allowed governments in North America to continue their projects of settler imperialism, undeterred by negative publicity.

For Maliseets, meanwhile (and perhaps consequently), the same decade saw their population reach its nadir (Conrad and Hiller 2010, 109). Poverty and malnutrition worsened, and new diseases such as cholera, small pox, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, and others took their toll, but were documented only by infrequent government records relating to “sick and infirm Indians” (Lee and Peters 1841; Toldervey 1846; Paddock 1848). The decline was so noticeable that most observers now firmly believed Maliseets were heading for extinction (Ward 1841, 54). It is only from population estimates over time that some measure of the effects of starvation and disease can be ascertained. Speaking of Maliseets, one observer in 1784 declared that “their numbers cannot be less than 1500” (Bailey 1784), but in 1841 Perley ([1842b] 1976, 88) estimated that there were only 442 in the province. Although an unknown number were now living in Maine or Quebec, a rough tally of Maliseets in the 1851 New Brunswick census shows that their number had declined to well below 400.39 The cause of this decline was attributed by most observers to some supposed innate genetic or cultural flaw in Indigenous peoples themselves, but such a drastic population decline is now understood to be the consequence of settler imperialism and its innate logic of elimination. Indeed, the “process of constant deterritorialization and reterritorialization,” has been described by Norbert Finzsch as “a process that is genocidal in itself” (2008, 261).40

In 1838, the British Parliament asked the New Brunswick government for information on “the state of Aboriginal inhabitants in the Province” (Glenelg 1838), but New Brunswick officials appear to have ignored the request, apparently aware of “potential trouble from the Colonial Office over their Indian policies” (Harring 1998; 25). Three years later, New Brunswick undertook its own study by appointing lawyer and businessman Moses Perley to tour all reserves in the province and compile a report. He documented disturbing poverty and degradation, as well as shocking audacity on the part of squatters, on almost every reserve, especially Tobique:

I found the front of the Indian Reserve, for about three miles above the Tobique Rock, cleared and cultivated by squatters, who have built houses and barns, and appear to make themselves quite at ease. They pay no rent, acknowledging no title, and from long impunity have become

63 Andrea Bear Nicholas

very insolent and overbearing. Besides occupying the land, they openly plunder the forest in the vicinity of the most valuable Timber, and dispose of it in the face of the Indians, whom they will scarcely allow to set foot upon the land, and invariably hunt off like wild beasts, if they attempt to look after or prevent the trespasses which are constantly committed. (Perley [1842b] 1976, 85; see also Pawling 2010, 372-85; Cuthbertson 2015, 30-33)41

For exposing such details of abuse and suffering on nearly all reserves, and for recommending the removal of all squatters or making them pay for lands they had usurped, Perley has been dubbed the “best friend” of New Brunswick Indians (Spray 1982). Unfortunately for the Mi’kmaq and Maliseets, he squandered, or perhaps studiously avoided, the opportunity to at least call for the preservation of hunting territories and to lay blame on the government for failing to protect Indigenous lands. In what Sidney Harring has called “eight pathetic pages” (1998, 182), Perley essentially blamed both the “wandering” lifestyle of Indigenous peoples in the province, and declared that “they must be induced to remain stationary on the land during the principal part of the year without which they cannot attend to Agriculture, have any of the comforts or good habits of domestic life, or cultivate religion or education” (Perley [1842a] 1976, 97). In the end, Per- ley’s central recommendation was no different from what the New England Company had been charged to do more than 50 years earlier—he suggested “inducing [Indians] to change their mode of life” through education ([1842a] 1976, 98; Upton 1979, 104-6).42

Only one person at the time appears to have had a genuine concern for Indigenous peoples. He was the writer, civil servant, and artist, Samuel Douglas Huyghue, who, while living in Saint John from 1817 to the late 1840s, worked briefly with Perley. In what is possibly one of the first socially conscious novels written in New Brunswick, he wrote that the desperate state of Indigenous peoples in the province “was caused directly, by lawless appropriation of their hunting grounds” and decried it as “an utter violation of every principle of justice” (Huyghue [1847] 1979, 2; Davies 2003). In light of the prevalent racism of the time however (Stanton 1960; Thomas 2001, 145-64), there was little inclination for anyone in New Brunswick to heed Huyghue’s pleas for justice. The false images of Maliseet well-being in New Bruns- wick created by colonial artists only added to the inability of most people in the settler society to be very aware of Maliseet poverty and its causes, much less take active steps to alleviate it. To a certain extent it can be said that these artistic misrepresentations contributed not only to the ongoing dispossession and displacement of Maliseets, but also to the ongoing misery and decimation that had driven their population into such a precarious decline.

Despite this ongoing displacement of Maliseets, however, it is important to note that they continued to appear in the artistic record—although not always in their traditional activities. In two paintings by George Neilson Smith (1789-1854), for instance, Maliseets appear at key locations in the provincial capital (see figs. 23.1, 24.1). Smith began working as a surveyor in the Government Survey Office in Fredericton in 1825 (Lumsden 1994, 42-48; Hachey 1980, 75, 106; Allodi 1974, 2: 1531), shortly after the arrival of the powerful surveyor general and commissioner of Crown lands Thomas Baillie; Smith was thus involved in the government’s reconfiguration of the landscape for settlement. The primary subjects

64 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Fig. 23.2

Fig. 23.1. The Putnam House, Fredericton, 1842, by George Neilson Smith. Reprinted by permission of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery. Fig. 23.2. Detail of figure 23.1 showing a close-up of the Maliseet group seated in front of the Putnam House.

of Smith’s paintings were important buildings in Fredericton, but Maliseet people were included in the foreground of both images. In figure 23.2 they are seated and well dressed, suggesting both a ste- reotypical idleness and a fictitious state of well-being. In 24.2 they are clearly selling baskets, which had become a major means of survival by the 1840s (McFeat 1987). It is possible that these might be stock iconic images, added either for local colour or to create the impression of warm social relations with Indigenous peoples. There is, however, little doubt that although the overall number of Maliseets was in decline during the 1840s, the growing number now frequenting cities, such as Fredericton and Saint John, was directly related to the collapse of the traditional Maliseet form of life. It was that reality which would bring many, including the well-known hunter and guide from Kingsclear, Gabe Acquin,43 to settle at the “Indian camps” opposite Fredericton (Bear Nicholas 1993). From that location he and others sought employment as guides and suppliers of fish and game, as well as markets for baskets, snowshoes, beadwork, moccasins, and other items (see Phillips 1998).

65 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 24.2

Fig. 24.1. View of Province Hall and Public Offices, Fredericton, New Brunswick, 1850, by George Neilson Smith. Only this black and white version of this image as published in 1850 is available since the whereabouts of the original are unknown. Reprinted by permission of the New Brunswick Museum. Fig. 24.2. Detail of figure 24.1 showing a close-up of the family group selling baskets in the foreground.

Meanwhile, settlers squatting on reserves such as Tobique, Madawaska, and Meductic continued in spite of official, but half-hearted, efforts to curtail it. So brazen was the squatting by 1843 that Maliseet leaders signed a strongly worded petition of complaint to the New Brunswick government:

The trespassers, now grown bold in their deeds of plunder, scarcely admit the Indian to have a right to stand upon the Land reserved by the Crown for his benefit, or the privilege to run over that soil of which his fathers were the ancient Lords. From all the lands reserved, no advantages have been derived by your petitioners, beyond that of erecting their wigwams thereon, and even this is ques- tioned as a right by the White inhabitants who enjoy the same without making any return, neither to the Crown for the benefit of the Tribe, nor to your Petitioners…. (Francis and 11 others 1843)44

66 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Rather than take serious action against the squatters, however, the government passed An Act to regulate the management and disposal of Indian Reserves in this Province in 1844 granting itself authority to auction off reserve lands not being used or cultivated, and to open those lands for settlement, ostensibly to help cover the costs of relief for “sick and infirm Indians.” At the same time, the act demanded only that squatters commit to paying for reserve lands that they had already usurped (Cuthbertson 2015, 101-103). Clearly Locke’s labour theory of property still ruled the day. Like a driverless horse and wagon, it would serve to jus- tify not only the original dispossession, but also ongoing dispossession and displacement. Although Moses Perley’s report ([1842b] 1976) had inspired the legislation, Perley soon became a bitter opponent of the act for authorizing the auction of reserve lands and for not insuring that squatters would be forced to pay for lands they had seized. Despite his opposition, and at least one petition from Maliseets at Tobique object- ing to the proposed sale of their lands (LaBelmont and 19 others 1845), the auctions went ahead. Although there was a renewed effort to make squatters pay for lands they had taken, very few of them ever did (Spray 1976; Upton 1979, 107-11; Pawling 2010, 25, 458; Cuthbertson 2015, 103-108). Meanwhile, timber cutters continued their depredations on reserves, especially at Tobique, while the assault on hunting territories continued apace, facilitated now by a multitude of new roads built with revenue from the sales of so-called Crown lands, which were actually Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, and Passamaquoddy hunting territories (LaBelmont and 10 others 1847; Rees 2012, 65-103).

Following a deadly smallpox epidemic that struck the small Maliseet community in the Saint John area in 1848 (Paddock 1848),45 Maliseet leaders are believed to have signed an undated petition in 1849 ask- ing for assistance on the grounds that government promises to protect hunting territories and provide needed assistance had been broken:

That in the year 1784 Sir Thomas Carleton Governor of New Brunswick made a Treaty with the ancestors of your Petitioners by which large tracts of land were reserved to the tribe for hunting grounds and annual grants of clothing and other necessaries promised to themselves and their descendants.—That the treaty was kept and the promises then made to the Indians faithfully performed, until within a few years past since which time your petitioners and the rest of the Tribe have been neglected.—Your petitioners are therefore compelled to call upon the Legislature to assist them during the Present session. (Thoma and 17 others [1849?])46

Just a year later authorities in Woodstock commented that the now decimated Meductic Maliseets were completely homeless since they had been driven off even the lot they had been granted in 1807:

It is becoming difficult for them to get a comfortable place to encamp upon either winter or summer. They are continually complaining to me of the injustice and bad faith of the Government towards them. They lately stated that their Governor or Chief had directed them to take forcible possession of the Lot in dispute. I advised them by no means to do so until they were directed so to do by the Government. I think the fact of the Indians having possession of this lot for more than twenty years could be clearly made out. (Dibblee 1850)

67 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 25. Hunting Caribou, 1853, watercolour by William Smyth Maynard Wolfe. Reprinted with the permission of Library and Archives Canada.

Within a year, another piece of land near Woodstock (the Woodstock Reserve) was bought and reserved for this group, but as a much smaller lot than the one reserved for them in 1807, it represented yet another net land-loss for Maliseets (Tomar and 11 others [1851]).47

During this period, the provincial government was beginning to pass increasingly restrictive and punitive laws designed to curtail hunting and fishing:An Act to prevent the destruction of Moose in this Province (1850) and An Act for the Protection and Regulation of Sea and River fisheries (1851). Whereas the new laws were intended for all people in the province, they constituted yet another attack on the traditional form of life for Indigenous peoples (Guyer 1982; Dunfield 1985; Parenteau and Kenny 2002). The watercolours by Wil- liam Smyth Maynard Wolfe (1832-72) depicting Maliseet camps and practices (figs. 25-27) thus document a form of life soon to be permanently changed. Wolfe (1832-72) was a young first lieutenant in the British army who was stationed in Saint John in 1853 and 1854. Like Levinge before him, he had both the interest and the means to hunt and fish with Maliseet guides in many parts of the St. John watershed.

68 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes , May 1854, watercolour by William Smyth Maynard Wolfe. Reprinted with the permission of Library and Archives with the permission of Library and Reprinted Wolfe. Maynard William Smyth New Brunswick , May 1854, watercolour by Muskrat Shooting, Grand Lake, Fig. 26. Canada.

69 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Fig. 27. Indian Camp near Fredericton, c1853-54, watercolour by William Smyth Maynard Wolfe. Reprinted with the permission of Library and Archives Canada.

Unlike Levinge, W.S.M. Wolfe seems to have left no record of his adventures, although he often depicted himself and or fellow officers in his paintings (fig. 25). He also seems to have been more prolific than Levinge, since upwards of 80 of his paintings have survived. That they have survived as one collection48 suggests that he may have never sold any of his work, but kept it perhaps only as an album of personal memorabilia. For the same reason it does not appear that his works ever actually served as British propaganda, although they very well could have done so. Unfortunately, next to nothing is known of W.S.M. Wolfe’s short life (he died at 40), or how he intended to use his paintings. Except for his image of the Maliseet village opposite Fredericton (fig. 27), which depicts Maliseet living conditions to some extent, he studiously avoided the poverty, though it may well have been the poverty and impending extinction of Maliseets that motivated his ethnographic interests.

70 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Conclusion

Although this study concludes in the early 1850s, the pattern of dispossession and displacement for Maliseets would continue endlessly beyond that date, just as it has for most Indigenous peoples around the world (Bodley 2008; Laidlaw and Lester 2015). Having squandered the revenues from the sale of Maliseet hunting territories in the 1830s and 1840s, provincial legislators would now turn their attention to building railroads as a means of replenishing public and private coffers. To encourage investors, they began offering subsidies of 5,000 acres of so-called Crown lands for every mile of railroad constructed. The problem was that the deal represented a complete disregard for Maliseet petitions complaining of extreme poverty and the destruction of hunting territories, since the lands offered were primarily Mali- seet hunting territories on the Tobique River. In the end, the project became little more than a scheme for legislators to line their own pockets. Having incorporated themselves as the builders of the railroads, they shamelessly voted the 5,000-acre subsidies to themselves, even though they had used primarily public funds to build the railroads (Myers 1914, 150-67). Over the next several decades, enormous stretches of the remaining Maliseet hunting territories would pass into private hands by this means.49

As Patrick Wolfe has declared, “When invasion is recognized as a structure rather than an event, its history does not stop … when it moves on from the era of frontier homicide” (2006, 403). Most colonial artists commenced work in New Brunswick in the 1790s, well after the homicide of the scalp bounties in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the dispossession that had begun in the 1760s. Their work, however, coincided precisely with the advent of two powerful forces that would prove just as virulent for the Indigenous nations of this region—the displacement phase of settler imperialism, and Romanticism with its trappings of nationalism and idealism. Both forces worked in a kind of symbiotic relationship that culminated by the 1850s in the near-extinction of Maliseets and their traditional form of life in the province. There is no evidence that early colonial artists intentionally participated in either the dispossession or the displacement of Maliseets, but it was their consistency in depicting them as healthy and prosperous, even as noble savages, with no hint of the terrible poverty and desperation that they were suffering, that stands out. So imbued were these artists with the ideals of Romanticism and settler imperialism that they had become virtually blind.

Cornelius Krieghoff (1815-72) was another artist whose work focussed in large part on Indigenous peoples. Although he worked primarily in Quebec and became popular in an era beyond the focus of this essay, his work demonstrated the same blindness as that of the earlier artists in New Brunswick. Indeed, what the former director of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Ian Lumsden, has said about him could be applied to the earlier artists: “Through Krieghoff’s rose-tinted spectacles, we are not permitted glimpses of the typhoid, starvation, infant mortality and other hardships that afflicted these people. Nor are we permitted to view the stripping of the forests and the destruction of farming land and habitations to make way for the railroads by the ruling class” (Lumsden 2000, 13). In noting that Krieghoff’s paintings had thus “become a source of embarrassment,” to the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Lumsden concluded with the comment: “But then art has always functioned as a form of propaganda” (13).50

71 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Whether or not the blindness of earlier artists in New Brunswick was witting, and whether or not their works were used as propaganda, their failure to render the reality of Indigenous poverty, disease, and suffering accurately still served as a kind of pictorial colonialism, forever obscuring the view and enabling settler imperialism to continue operating unimpeded, even into the present.51 If, as Lorenzo Veracini says of settler colonialism, “it covers its tracks and operates towards its self-supersession” (2011, 3; see also Strakosch and Macoun 2012), then it has been colonial artists acting as the virtual photographers of the era who served this project well.

NOTES

Thanks to Charles Martijn, Professor David Bell, and Professor Micah Pawling who supplied many documents to me over the years; and thanks to Rick Hatchette, Amber Meadow Adams, Ruth Whitehead, and Patricia Saulis for reading and providing helpful suggestions.

1. For Maliseet oral traditions, see the work of W.H. Mechling (1914) and Philip LeSourd (2007). 2. The Treaty of 1760 was basically a renewal of the Treaty of 1749 (Hamilton and Spray 1976, 30-32), and the Treaty of 1725-26 (Bear Nicholas 1994). The most important promise to Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples was the promise that they “shall not be molested in their persons hunting, fishing, and planting grounds, nor in any other their lawful occasions …”(Treaty of 1725-26); the promise is understood to have been renewed in the later treaties. 3. The nearly two-decade delay in the settlement of Maliseet lands granted to pre-Loyalists on the St. John River in the 1760s was due primarily to the fact that most patentees were British Loyalists who were otherwise preoccupied during the American Revolution (see Bear Nicholas 2011). 4. J. Russell Harper (1966) devotes a full chapter to “British Army Topographers in Eastern Canada” from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 5. On 15 October 1784, DeLancy’s 2nd Battalion was granted all the land on the west side of the St. John River from above the Meduxnekeag River (at the present town of Woodstock) to two miles below Meductic Island, which included the Maliseet village at Meductic (see Ganong [1899] 1983). The actual village on lot 5 of the DeLancy grant was apparently granted just prior to October 1784 to Isaac Atwood of the King’s American Regiment, but regranted sometime later to Corporal Enoch Maxwell, Private Craig, and Sergeant Isaac Kipp of DeLancy’s 2nd Battalion as creditors of Atwood (see Raymond 1896; Caywood et al. 1965; Paul n.d.; and Pawling 2010, 384-90). 6. This was certainly one of many planting grounds originally cleared and cultivated by Maliseets for growing corn and other crops (Hall 2015, 23-24). 7. Although Allen names three lessees, Beatrice Pilon (1966, 47-49) names Captain James Fulton alone as having leased the land from the Maliseets for £12 10s per year (see also Xavier et al. 1789; Pawling 2010, 394). 8. Much research in settler colonialism now focusses on the common underlying objective of eliminating the Indig- enous populations. In some cases it entails outright killing, but more often it involves “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part,” which is one definition of genocide in theConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948, art IIc; see also P. Wolfe 2006).

72 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

9. Noel Bernard, a Maliseet of Madawaska, had applied earlier in 1792 for lot 24, which was downriver from the Indian Reserve. That this petition was approved suggests a ready willingness on the part of government authorities to support individual land ownership by Maliseets (Bernard 1792). Regarding the community grant, in 1820 the Maine surveyor, Joseph Treat, reported learning from local French inhabitants that Maliseets had once received a grant from the King of England six miles by two miles at the confluence of the Madawaska and St. John Rivers (Treat 2007, 184). In 1841 the provincial commissioner of Indian Affairs, Moses Perley, learned from Chief Noel Bernard at Madawaska that his people had previously received a grant to the land there (Perley [1842b] 1976). 10. On the interrelationship between environmental degradation and its effect on the ability of Indigenous peoples to survive on the land see William Cronon’s Changes in the Land (1983). 11 . Indeed, this destruction, combined with overhunting, would lead to the eventual extinction of caribou in New Brunswick in little over a century. 12. The schools for Passamaquoddy and Mi’kmaq children do not seem to have lasted long. 13. The field of biocultural diversity now recognizes the critical importance of maintaining linguistic diversity in the struggle to maintain biological diversity (Wollock 2001). 14. Aside from some recently discovered paintings of Maliseets by Richard Byron in the 1760s discussed by Brian Cuthbertson (2015, facing 114), there are no known depictions of Maliseets prior to the post-Revolutionary War period. 15. Since the grants to Maliseets for the land at Ekwpahak had been issued only by Nova Scotia, the New Brunswick government issued its own grant to them in October 1792 (New Brunswick 1792b), apparently as a first step in the plan for Judge Allen to acquire the land as described in the Executive Council Minutes of June (New Bruns- wick 1792a). 16. According to the Executive Council Minutes, Allen claimed to have paid $1,650 for the land, but according to his deed, he paid £412 10s for the land (New Brunswick 1792a, 1794). See also Jennings, Tending the Flock (1998, 161-62, 165-66) for a different and, in part, mistaken version of these events. 17. The misidentification of Maliseets as Mi’kmaq in this case may have been the result of ignorance, but this all- too-frequent misidentification in the historical record has already turned into another form of dispossession for Maliseets in so far as such misinformation has been used to declare certain portions of Maliseet territory as Mi’kmaq (see Marquis 2008). 18. J.B. Comingo’s image (fig. 5) is on the cover of Ronald Rees’sLand of the Loyalists (2000). New Brunswick Museum Archives also holds a copy of the engraving of Stennett’s painting (fig. 6; see Hachey 1980, 26, 107). 19. Saint John had been the site of an important Maliseet village in the early 1600s, but inland villages became more important during the colonial wars (1675-1760), probably for strategic reasons. Saint John was finally lost to the Maliseets after a British fort was established there in 1758. 20. A slightly different version was published later in Bouchette, The British Dominions in North America (1831-32, 2: facing 105; see also Hachey 1980, 37). 21. This painting is available only in black and white since the copy in the Richard Parr Journal at Library and Archives Canada was obtained years ago and was only made in black and white; the owner of the journal, last known to be living in England, could not be reached. 22. Pierre Duperre’s 1814 letter to Odell listed 10 families at Tobique and 11 at Madawaska. On Meductic, see Micah A. Pawling (2010, 200, 386-87, 469). In November 1820, Joseph Treat claimed to have found no families living at Meductic, but his map clearly shows three rows of wigwams marked there (2007, 234-35).

73 Andrea Bear Nicholas

23. It is possible that at least part of the drive to obtain control of Maliseet lands at the mouth of the Madawaska River arose from the sudden influx of American settlers into the still-disputed border area north of Mars Hill following the establishment of Maine as a new state in 1820. With border tensions increasing in the following decades, this alienated piece of Maliseet land at Madawaska became the site of a British blockhouse built in 1841 to protect the critical St. John River–Madawaska River line of communication between New Brunswick and Lower Canada (G. Campbell 2005, 78; 2013, 26-27). 24. The winter marches of large contingents of British soldiers from Saint John, New Brunswick, to Upper Canada in 1813 and 1837 would have been impossible without Maliseet guides and Maliseet-made moccasins, snowshoes, and toboggans. As well, Maliseet hunters were regularly employed to supply game to the sizeable British military establishments in the province throughout the period under consideration. 25. For actual numbers of all kinds of timber shipped out of Saint John in 1824, see Wynn (1981b, 54-86) and Ray- mond (1950, 243). 26. Douglas here expresses the common, but racist, assumption that Europeans had the right to dispossess Indig- enous peoples of their lands. 27. The amount Douglas requested to cover the cost of gifts was barely a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth that the forests had generated (see Upton 1974, 9; MacNutt 1949, 51). 28. Michaud mistakenly states that this group of Maliseets came from Tobique (2003, 197-202). Their petition was signed “on behalf of themselves and ninety six others now residing at Meduxnikeag River, St. John River,” which is the river entering the St. John at Woodstock (J. Thomas and L. Thomas 1826). 29. By 1824 there were more than 74,000 settlers in the province, by 1834 nearly 120,000, and by mid-century over 193,000, with the largest concentration of these numbers on the St. John River. 30. A comment by Moses Perley in 1841 regarding Maliseets at Tobique ([1842b] 1976, 86) shows that the destruction of the salmon fishery over time may not have been unintended: “The destruction of the Salmon Fishery would perhaps induce the Indians to adopt more settled habits of industry, and pay more attention to the cultivation of the soil than they do at present.” 31. The new regulations called for public auctions to dispose of Crown lands, which consisted of 14 to 16 million acres at the time. 32. Although this image was printed in 1837, it was no doubt drawn in 1831 while Petley was stationed in New Bruns- wick. It is also Petley’s only image from New Brunswick since the rest of his works were of places and people, primarily Mi’kmaq, in Nova Scotia where he was stationed from 1832 to 1836 (see Hachey 1980, 54, 106; Allodi 1974, 2: 1446-52). 33. In his 1835 petition, Father McSweeney requests compensation for his services especially “during the sickness which so fatally prevailed among the Indians.” Oddly enough, birth and death records for Maliseets in the period from 1831 to 1836 seem to be completely missing. 34. The man in figure 71 is actually holding a Maliseet spear or leister. The description also mistakenly identifies the people as “Micmacs” though the shape of their canoe is definitely Maliseet and the location near Oromocto Lake is in the middle of Maliseet territory. As in the case of figure 4, the misinformation about this image has the potential to harm Maliseet claims to their land. 35. Unfortunately, the faces of the Maliseets in the engravings in Levinge’s book are clearly non-Aboriginal, and on the whole the engravings are not even close represenetations of Levinge’s paintings.

74 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

36. At least two, Lewis Tomer and Newell Tomer, had signed the 1807 Agreement between the Government of the Prov- ince of New Brunswick … and the Indians of the River St. John. Lewis may also have been the same Lewis Thomas who signed the 1826 petition for land in Quebec (see Michaud 2003, 200-201; Pawling 2010, 399-400). 37. In return for these revenues, the New Brunswick government had only to cover the salaries of its employees, plus “all fixed expenses” (MacNutt 1984, 255-56). 38. A copy of this engraving is also in the collection of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery (Hachey 1980, 67, 103). 39. A compilation by the Micmac-Maliseet Institute (1992) of Aboriginal census records for 1851 lists populations for only three reserves (Madawaska, Tobique, and Kingsclear) plus various campsites on the lower river, for a total of only 202 Maliseets. Unfortunately, the study does not include any statistics for the “Indian Camps” at St. Mary’s, which had 41 residents in that year (New Brunswick 1851), nor does it include Maliseets on two other reserves noted in 1848 (New Brunswick 1848). At the Brothers Islands there had been 51 Maliseets, but it may have been deserted by 1851, after the smallpox epidemic in 1848. At Meductic 36 people were listed in 1848, but by 1851 they were in the process of moving to the new reserve at Woodstock. Even if 1851 figures for St. Mary’s (41), the Brothers Islands (51), and Meductic (36) are added to the 202 Maliseets in all other locations, the total for 1851 is only 330, down by more than 100 from the figure of 442 in 1841. 40. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was enacted only in 1948, so it was not officially a crime prior to that year. 41. Although Perley ([1842b] 1976) reported on four Maliseet reserves in 1841, not including the Brothers Islands (which had been added to the list of recognized reserves in 1838), the official list of Indian Reserves compiled by the surveyor general in 1841 included only two Maliseet reserves, Tobique and the Brothers Islands. Neverthe- less, Madawaska, as well as Tobique, appears on an attached list of the number of squatters on reserves, while Meductic is inexplicably not included on either the official list or the second, attached list (Saunders [1841] 1976). 42. On the connection between education for Indigenous peoples and linguistic and cultural genocide, see Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Dunbar, Indigenous Children’s Education as Linguistic Genocide and a Crime against Humanity? (2009). 43. Gabe quickly became a favourite guide of two lieutenant-governors and other prominent people. He gained notoriety for taking the Prince of Wales, subsequently the King of England, out for a ride in his canoe in 1860 and was later invited to England two or three times. 44. This petition was signed with an “X” by Tomer Francis, Chief Sachem, and 11 others (1843, 90; Upton 1974, 16; Pawling 2010, 481-85). By this time over four million acres of Native Indian lands in the province had been granted away or sold (Myers 1914, 73, 81; Lower 1938, 1-102; Wynn 1981b, 37, 150-67). 45. In 1841, 105 Maliseets had been noted at Saint John (Perley [1842a] 1976, 100), and 51 in 1848 (New Brunswick 1848). 46. This petition may be referring to promises made by the New Brunswick government to provide necessities for all Maliseets who agreed to settle down and send their children to New England Company schools. The petition is not dated, but the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick has presumed the date to be 1849. At least two other petitions complaining of intense destitution and suffering on the part of Maliseets at Sheffield and Oak Point were sent to the government in this period (Francis 1849; Perley 1850; see also Pawling 2010, 486-87). 47. This document is dated 1838, but from internal evidence it should be dated 1851.

75 Andrea Bear Nicholas

48. About a third of W.S.M. Wolfe’s 70 or so watercolours depict Indigenous peoples and practices. The watercolours are now held at the Library and Archives Canada (LAC), having been repatriated from the United States in the 1980s, too late to be included in most published sources on early painters in Canada, such as J. Russell Harper’s Painting in Canada: A History (1970) and Mary Allodi’s Canadian Watercolours and Drawings in the Royal Ontario Museum (1974). Thanks to Eva Major Marothy of LAC for bringing this collection to the author’s attention. 49. By the end of the century, lumber baron and railroad tycoon Alexander Gibson would acquire most of these lands from the legislators, as well as 10,000 acres for every mile of railroad that his company built in the province. In all, he would acquire nearly a million and a half acres of prime timberland, over 2,000 square miles of Maliseet hunting territory, mostly in the watershed of the Tobique River (Gibson 1880). 50. It was this article by Ian Lumsden that inspired this essay (see Orwell 2009). 51. So effective was the project that by the late 1800s and beginning of the 1900s, the most celebrated anadianC artists, the Group of Seven, would take the narrative to another step and feature wilderness landscapes completely devoid of an Aboriginal presence (Bordo 1992).

REFERENCES

List of Abbreviations:

ARSPEC-UNB: Archives and Special Collections, Harriet Irving Library, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB. BAG: Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Fredericton, NB. LAC: Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, ON NBMA: New Brunswick Museum Archives, Saint John, NB NBM: New Brunswick Museum, Saint John, NB PANB: Public Archives of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB

Adney, E. Tappan. 1948. “Kingsclear: History of St. John River.” January. MG H22, series 3, file 7. Edwin Tappan Adney Fonds. ARSPEC-UNB. Adney, E. Tappan, and Howard I. Chappelle. 1964. The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Agreement between the Government of the Province of New Brunswick … and the Indians of the River St. John, New Bruns- wick and the Maliceets, 29 July 1807. MG H54, no. 30. Indian Affairs Collection. ARSPEC-UNB. Allodi, Mary. 1974. Canadian Watercolours and Drawings in the Royal Ontario Museum. 2 vols. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. An Act for the Protection and Regulation of Sea and River Fisheries, 1851 (New Brunswick), 14 Victoria, c 31. An Act to prevent the destruction of Moose in this Province, 1850 (New Brunswick), 13 Victoria, c 57. An Act to regulate the management and disposal of the Indian Reserves in this Province, 1844 (New Brunswick), 8 Victoria, c 47. Bailey, Rev. Jacob. 1784. “Description of Nova Scotia [extract from a fragment].” MG23, vol. 72, p. 2, file 5. Late Eigh- teenth Century Papers. LAC. Baillie, Thomas. 1832. An Account of the Province of New Brunswick. London: G.J. and F. Rivington.

76 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Barberie, John, and Mary Ann Barberie. 1795. Deed to John Martin in trust for the Congregation of French Roman Catholics. 1 October. Book 1, 1785-97, deed #426, pp. 472-73. York County Records, Fredericton, NB. ——. 1796. Deed to John Martin in trust for the Congregation of French Roman Catholics. 27 July. Book 1, 1785-97, deed #492, pp. 531-32. York County Records, Fredericton, NB. Bartlett, William Henry. c1841. The Green at Fredericton. Hand-coloured steel engraving on wove paper, 13.2 × 18.3 cm. W3336. John Clarence Webster Canadiana Collection. NBMA. In Canadian Scenery Illustrated, by Nathanial Parker Willis, vol. 2, 102. London, UK: George Virtue, 1842. Bear Nicholas, Andrea. 1989. “The Spirit in the Land: The Native People of Aroostook.” With contributions on the Micmacs by Harald Prins. In The County: Land of Promise; A Pictorial History of Aroostook County, Maine, edited by Anna Fields Mcgrath, 18-37. Norfolk: Donning. ——. 1993. “Gabriel Acquin.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Que- bec: Université Laval. ——. 1994. “Mascarene’s Treaty.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 43: 3-18. ——. 2011. “Settler Imperialism and the Dispossession of the Maliseet, 1758-1765.” In Shaping an Agenda for Atlantic Canada, edited by John G. Reid and Donald J. Savoie, 21-57. Halifax: Fernwood. Beckwith, C. 1860. Plan of a Survey of the Indian Reserve, St. Basil. RS687B, V1/16-V1/19. Crown Lands Survey Records. PANB. Bell, David G. 2000. “Was Amerindian Dispossession Lawful? The Response of 19th-century Maritime Intellectuals.” Dalhousie Law Journal 23 (1): 168-82. Bell, Michael. 1973. Painters in a New Land, from Annapolis Royal to the Klondike. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Bennett, Dean. 1980. “The War Years: Early Conflicts—The Indian Point of View.” InMaine Dirigo: “I Lead,” edited by Dean Bennett, 61-92. Camden, ME: Downeast. Bernard, Noel. 1792. Petition. 18 January. RS965. Indian Documentation Inventory. RS 108, Land Petitions, Original Series, PANB. Bodley, John H. 2008. Victims of Progress. Lanham: Altamira. Bordo, Jonathan. 1992. “Jack Pine—Wilderness Sublime or the Erasure of the Aboriginal Presence from the Land- scape.” Journal of Canadian Studies 27 (4): 98-128. ——. 1997. “The Terra Nullius of Wilderness—Colonialist Landscape Art (Canada & Australia) and the So-Called Claim to American Exception.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 15: 13-36. Bouchette, Joseph. 1815. A Topographical Description of the Province of Lower Canada with Remarks upon Upper Canada, and on the Relative Connexion of Both Provinces with the United States of America. London: W. Faden. ——. 1815. The Great Falls on the River St. John, New Brunswick. In A Topographical Description of the Province of Lower Canada with Remarks upon Upper Canada, and on the Relative Connexion of Both Provinces with the United States of America, by Joseph Bouchette, facing 541. London: W. Faden ——. 1831-32. The British Dominions in North America, or, A Topographical and Statistical Description of the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Islands of Newfoundland, Prince Edward, and Cape Breton: Including Considerations on Land-granting and Emigration: To Which Are Annexed, Statistical Tables and Tables of Distances, &c. 2 vols. London: H. Colburn and R. Bentley. Boudreau, Claude, and Pierre Lepine. 1988. “Bouchette, Joseph.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 7. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval.

77 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Bromley, Walter. 1814. Mr. Bromley’s Second Address, on the Deplorable State of the Indians. Halifax: Recorder Office. CIHM 20998. http://eco.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.57322. ——. 1820. Appeal to the Virtue and Good Sense of the Inhabitants of Great Britain, & in Behalf of the Indians of North America. Halifax: E. Ward. CIHM 92714. http://eco.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.92714. ——.1822. Report of the State of the Indians in New Brunswick, under the Patronage of the New England Company. 14 August. J.C. Webster Papers. F59-25. NBMA. [Campbell, Dugald?]. 1793a. A Birch Canoe Poled amongst Rocks and Stones against a Rapid Stream. In Travels in the Interior Inhabited Parts of North America in the Years 1791 and 1792, by P. Campbell, plate 2. Reprint, Toronto: Champlain Society, 1937. Originally published in Edinburgh, 1793. ——. 1793b. Plan of an American New Cleared Farm. In Travels in the Interior Inhabited Parts of North America in the Years 1791 and 1792, by P. Campbell, plate 1. Reprint, Toronto: Champlain Society, 1937. Originally published in Edinburgh, 1793. Campbell, Gary. 2005. The Road to Canada: The Grand Communication Route from Saint John to Quebec. Fredericton: Goose Lane. ——. 2013. The Aroostook War of 1839. Fredericton: Goose Lane. Campbell, Helen. c1835a. An Indian Settlement by a River, Nekotkok [?] (Tobique First Nation). Watercolour on wove paper surrounded by moosehair-embroidered, pieced birchbark frame backed with silk brocade, mounted on a turned and painted wooden handle, overall 36 × 23 cm, image 9.5 × 13.5 cm. 2011.8.2. NBM. ——. c1835b. Indian Village near Fredericton, Pilick [Kingsclear First Nation], New Brunswick[?]. Watercolour on wove paper surrounded by moosehair-embroidered, pieced birchbark frame backed with silk brocade, mounted on a turned and painted wooden handle, overall 36 × 23 cm, image 9.5 × 13.5 cm. 2011.8.1. NBM. Campbell, Henry, and Janice Tyrwhitt. 1968. Bartlett’s Canada: A Pre-Confederation Journey. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Campbell, John. 1832. View of the Indian Village on the River St. John above Fredericton, Feb. 1832. Watercolour. Walter T. Spencer Collection. C-011076. LAC. ——. 1834. New Brunswick Fashionables!! Coloured lithograph on paper 25.1 × 43.2 cm. BAG. Campbell, Patrick. [1793] 1927. Travels in the Interior Inhabited Parts of North America in the Years 1791 and 1792. Reprint, Toronto: Champlain Society. Originally published in Edinburgh, 1793. Carroll, Francis M. 2001. A Good and Wise Measure: The Search for the Canadian American Boundary, 1783-1842. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Caywood, Louis R., Kenneth E. Kidd, K.K. Langmaid, and Iain C. Walker. 1965(?). Fort Meductic, Historic Malecite Village on the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada. Ottawa: National Historic Sites Services. Chipman, Ward. 1813. Letter to Thomas Wetmore. 5 July. MG H54, no. 45. Indian Affairs Collection. ARSPEC-UNB. Ciquard, Rev. François. n.d. Journal of Reverend François Ciquard. Sulpician Archives, Paris, France. ——. 1794a. Letter to the Bishop of Quebec. 3 September. 311 CN III, NB III-15[16]. Letters to the Bishop of Quebec. Archives of the Archdiocese of Quebec, Quebec City, PQ. ——. 1794b. Letter to the Bishop of Quebec. 18 December. 311 CN III, NB III-17. Letters to the Bishop of Quebec. Archives of the Archdiocese of Quebec, Quebec City, PQ. Comingo, J.B. 1814. View of Saint John New Brunswick. Watercolour over graphite, on wove paper, 35 × 52 cm. Webster Museum Foundation #1966. 100A. Webster Canadiana Collection. NBMA. Conrad, Margaret R., and James K. Hiller. 2010. Atlantic Canada: A History. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, 78 United Nations Treaty Series 277, Canada Treaty Series 1949 No. 27 (accession by Canada 3 September 1952).

78 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Cronon, William. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang. Cuthbertson, Brian. 2015. Stubborn Resistance: New Brunswick Maliseet and Mi’kmaq in Defence of their Lands. Halifax: Nimbus. Dallison, Robert L. 2012. A Neighbourly War: New Brunswick and the War of 1812. Fredericton: Goose Lane. Davies, Gwendolyn. 2003. “Huyghue, Samuel Douglass Smith.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 12. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval. www.biographi.ca/en/bio/huyghue_samuel_douglass_smith_12E.html. Dibblee, John. 1850. Letter to Lieutenant-Governor Sir Edmond Walker Head. 17 October. RS965, RS557C. Indian Documentation Inventory, Provincial Secretary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. ——. 1851. Letter to Lieutenant-Governor Sir Edmond Walker Head. 25 March. RS965, RS557C. Indian Documentation Inventory, Provincial Secretary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. Dighton, D. 1824. Meeting of the Officers of the Garrisons of St. John and Fredericton on Long Island in the River St. John, 1824. After J. Hewett. Tinted and hand-coloured lithograph on wove paper, 37 × 46 cm. John Clarence Webster Canadiana Collection. W847. NBMA. Douglas, Lady Anne [?]. c1828. View on the Nashwaak River, Near Fredericton, N.B. Watercolour over graphite on wove paper, 19.8 × 27.6 cm. W6434. NBMA. Douglas, Howard. (1825) 1834. “Letter to Viscount Bathurst.” 25 January. British House of Commons Sessional Papers: Reports from Governors, vol. 44, 488-89. Dunfield, R.W. 1985.The Atlantic Salmon in the History of North America. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Duperre, Pierre. 1814. Letter to Jonathan Odell. 9 November. MG H54, no. 49. Indian Affairs Collection. ARSPEC-UNB. Ellingson, Terry J. 2001. The Myth of the Noble Savage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Erickson, Vincent. 1978. “Maliseet-Passamaquoddy.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, 123-36. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. ——. 2010. “From Eqpahak to Pilick: British Colonial Policy, the Acadian Presence, and the Establishment of Maliseet Reserves on the Lower Saint John River.” Officers’ Quarters 27 (1): 24-36. Exavier, Simon Francis, et al. 1792. Petition in behalf of the Melicite Tribe of Indians. 3 October. Raymond Collection Notebook, 2nd series, no. 4, MG 23, ser. 2, vol. 71, p. 5. Late Eighteenth Century Papers. LAC. Fingard, Judith. 1972. “The New England Company and the New Brunswick Indians, 1786-1826: A Comment on the Colonial Perversion of British Benevolence.” Acadiensis 1 (2): 29-42. ——. 1973. “English Humanitarianism and the Colonial Mind: Walter Bromley in Nova Scotia, 1813-25.” Canadian Historical Review 54 (2): 123-51. doi:10.3138/CHR-054-02-01. Finzsch, Norbert. 2008. “‘The Aborigines … Were Never Annihilated and Still They Are Becoming Extinct’: Settler Imperialism and Genocide in Nineteenth-century America and Australia.” In Empire, Colony Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, edited by A. Dirk Moses, 253-70. New York: Berghahn. Francis, Joseph. 1849. Letter to John R. Partelow, provincial secretary. 16 April. RS965, RS9. Indian Documentation Inventory, Executive Council: Cabinet Meeting Records. PANB. Francis, [Chief Sachem] Tomer and 11 others. 1843. Petition. 10 January. RS965, RS108, F4255. Indian Documentation Inventory, Land Petitions. PANB. Ganong, W.F. (1899) 1983. “A Monograph of Historic Sites in the Province of New Brunswick,” Proceedings and Trans- actions of the Royal Society of Canada 5, section 2, 5: 213-357. Reprint, St. Stephen, NB: Print ’N Press. Garden, H.M. 1842. “Sketch of a Survey of Eight Lots in the Indian Reserve near the Mouth of the Little Madawaska River.” H3 203.15 [1842]. Cartographic Collection. PANB.

79 Andrea Bear Nicholas

George R. Royal Proclamation, 7 October 1763 (3 Geo III). Gibson, Alexander. 1880. The New Brunswick Railway and Its Land Grants. Saint John: n.p. Glenelg, Lord [Charles Grant]. 1838. “Letter to Major General Sir John Harvey.” 22 August. New Brunswick Courier, 26 January. Gosford, Earl. (1837) 1968-71. “Letter to Lord Glenelg.” 13 July. In British Parliamentary Papers: Canada, United King- dom House of Commons, Irish University Press Series, 12: 33. Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press. Gubbins, Joseph. (1811) 1980. Lt. Col. Joseph Gubbins’ New Brunswick Journals of 1811 & 1813. Edited by Howard Tem- perley. Fredericton: Kings Landing Corporation. Guyer, Claire. 1982. “Game Protection in New Brunswick, 1889-1971.” Proceedings of the 5th Canadian Symposium on the History of Sport and Physical Education, 65-75. Toronto: School of Physical and Health Education, University of Toronto. Hachey, Paul A. 1980. The New Brunswick Landscape Print, 1760-1880. Fredericton: Beaverbrook Art Gallery. Exhibition catalogue. Hall, Jason. 2015. “Maliseet Cultivation and Climatic Resilience on the Wəlastəkw/St. John River during the Little Ice Age.” Acadiensis 44 (2): 3-25. Hamilton, W.D., and W.A. Spray, eds. 1976. Source Materials Relating to the New Brunswick Indian. Fredericton: Centen- nial Print and Litho. Harley, J.B. 1994. “New England Cartography and Native Americans.” In American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture and Cartography in the Land of Norumbega, edited by Emerson W. Baker, Edwin A. Churchill, Richard D’Abate, Kristine L. Jones, Victor A. Konrad, and Harald E.L. Prins, 297-313. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Harper, J. Russell. 1966. Painting in Canada: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. ——. 1970. Early Painters and Engravers in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man’s Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press. Harris, Cole. 2004. “How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 94(1): doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401009.x. Hawawas, Nicholas. 1783. Speech to John Allan. M247, roll 71, item 58, p. 61. Papers of the Continental Congress National Archives, Washington, DC. Herries, William Robert. n.d. Indian Camp, New Brunswick. Watercolour on paper, 24.8 × 37.2 cm. 1982.9. BAG. Hunter, Martin. (1808) 1976. Letter to Lord Castlereagh. 25 May. In Source Materials Relating to the New Brunswick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 65. Fredericton: Centennial Print and Litho. Hunter, Mrs. Martin [Jean Dickson]. 1805. Letter. 20 May. From the Journals of Martin Hunter, colonel commanding the 104th Regiment, transcripts of addresses given to the York Sunbury Historical Society by Mrs. Lillian Maxwell. MC 300, MS 2/76, p. 9. York Sunbury Historical Society Collection. PANB. Huyghue, S.D.S. (1847) 1979. Argimou: A Legend of the Micmac. Reprint, Sackville, NB: R.P. Bell Library, Mount Allison University. Inglis, Bishop Charles. 1788. Journal. 12 August. MG 23, C6, vol. 1. Inglis Family Fonds. LAC. ——. 1792. Letter to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Vol. 8 (Raymond Transcripts), reel C-2227. 15 Octo- ber. Inglis Papers, LAC. Jennings, John. 1998. Tending the Flock: Bishop Joseph-Octave Plessis and Roman Catholics in Early Nineteenth-Century New Brunswick. Fredericton: New Ireland.

80 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

LaBelmont [Nebelmont?], Louis, and 19 others at Tobique. 1845. Petition. RS557C Carleton and Victoria Counties: 1801-68, item 15. RS965, RS557. Indian Documentation Inventory, Provincial Secretary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. LaBelmont [Nebelmont?], Louis, and 10 others. 1847. Petition. 20 February. RS965, RS9. Indian Documentation Inven- tory, Executive Council: Cabinet Meeting Records. PANB. Laidlaw, Zoë, and Alan Lester. 2015. Indigenous Communities and Settler Colonialism: Land Holding, Loss and Survival in an Interconnected World. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lee, T., and T. Peters. 1841. Letter to Lieutenant-Governor Colebrook. 14 June. Ganong Collection. F530-4. NBMA. LeSourd, Philip, trans. and ed. 2007. Tales from Maliseet Country: The Maliseet Texts of Karl V. Teeter. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Levinge, Richard George Augustus. [c1835-37a]. Micmac [Maliseet] Indians Poling a Canoe up a Rapid, Oromocto Lake, New Brunswick. Mikan 2838369, e000996313. LAC. ——. [c1835-37b]. Salmon-fishing by Torchlight. C-035960. Mikan 2837011, e011073057. LAC. ——. 1838. Meeting of the Sleigh Club at the Barracks (Occupied by the Left Wing 43rd Light Infantry Regiment), St. John, New Brunswick. Tinted and hand-coloured lithograph on heavy wove paper, 45 × 71 cm. W1542. John Clarence Webster Canadiana Collection. NBMA. ——. c1838-46. Moose Run Down. 28033. National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, ON. ——. (1846) 1984. Echoes from the Backwoods: Or, Sketches of Transatlantic Life. 2 vols. Reprint London: Henry Colburn. Lower, A.R.M. 1938. The North American Assault on the Canadian Forest: A History of the Lumber Trade Between Canada and the United States. Toronto: Ryerson. Lumsden, Ian G. 1994. Paysages de l’Amérique du Nord Britannique. Fredericton: La galerie d’art Beaverbrook. Exhibi- tion catalogue. ——. 2000. “Cornelius Krieghoff.”New Brunswick Reader, supplement, Saint John Telegraph-Journal, 5 February, 13-14. Lyman, Daniel. (1792) 1976. “Remarks on the Province of New Brunswick.” In Source Materials Relating to the New Brunswick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 68. Fredericton: Centennial Print and Litho. Mackay, Donald C., and Sandra Paikowsky. 1987. “Comingo, Joseph Brown.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval. MacNutt, W.S. 1949. “The Politics of the Timber Trade in Colonial New Brunswick, 1825-40.” Canadian Historical Review 30 (1): 47-65. ——. 1976. “Baillie, Thomas.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Que- bec: Université Laval. ——. 1984. New Brunswick: A History, 1784-1867. Toronto: Macmillan. Maffi, Luisa. 2005. “Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34 (1): 599-617. Marcoux, Reverend Joseph. (1816) 1980. Letter to J.O. Plessis, Bishop of Quebec. 29 October. Series 311CN, vol. IV, p. 64. Letters to the Bishop of Quebec. Archives of the Archdiocese of Quebec, Quebec, PQ. In “Des documents inédits: Un demi siècle de vie au Madawaska.” Revue de la Société Historique du Madawaska: LeBrayon 8 (1): 28. Marquis, Greg. 2008. “The Story of a Map: W.F. Ganong and Tribal Boundaries in New Brunswick.” In Papers of the Thirty-Ninth Algonquian Conference, edited by Karl S. Hele and Regna Darnell, 479-517. London: University of Western Ontario. Maxwell, Lillian. 1937 An Outline of History of Central New Brunswick to the Time of Confederation. Sackville, NB: Tribune. McFeat, Tom. 1987. “Space and Work in Maliseet Basket-Making.” In A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, edited by Ann McMullen and Russell G. Handsman, 60-73. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute.

81 Andrea Bear Nicholas

McNairn, Jeffrey L. 2005. “Meaning and Markets: Hunting, Economic Development and British Imperialism in Mari- time Travel Narratives to 1870.” Acadiensis 24 (2): 3-25. McSweeney, Reverend Michael. 1834. Petition no. 132. RS24, file 6. House of Assembly: Sessional Records. PANB. ——. 1835. Petition no. 105. RS24. House of Assembly: Sessional Records. PANB. Mechling, W.H. 1914. Malecite Tales. Geological Survey, Memoir 49. Anthropological Series no. 4. Ottawa: Govern- ment Printing Bureau. Michaud, Ghislain. 2003. Les Gardiens des Portages: L’Histoire des Malecites du Quebec. Sainte-Foy: Editions Gid. Micmac [Maliseet] Encampment near Fredericton on the River St. John. n.d. Watercolour. No. 957.18.3. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON. Micmac-Maliseet Institute. 1992. Aboriginal Entries: New Brunswick Census 1851: Native Indian Entries. Fredericton: Micmac-Maliseet Institute, University of New Brunswick. Micmac-Maliseet Institute. 1992. Aboriginal Entries: New Brunswick Census 1851: Native Indian Entries. Fredericton: Micmac-Maliseet Institute, University of New Brunswick. Mitchell, John. 1755. Extract from a Map of the British and French Dominions in North America. H3/1000/1755. National Map Collection #48905. LAC. Munro, Captain John. (1783) 1892. “Captain Munro’s Description of the River St. John’s and the Lands in Nova Scotia, as also of the New Road from Kamouraska’s to the Lake Temiscouata.” In Report on Canadian Archives, 1891, edited by Douglas Brymner, 25-31. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Myers, Gustavus. 1914. History of Canadian Wealth. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr. Naylor, R.T. 1987. Canada in the European Age, 1453-1919. Vancouver: New Star. New Brunswick. 1792a. Executive council minutes. 1 June. RS134, B4, B7. Government House Restoration Project Records. PANB. ——. 1792b. Grant to the Maliseets. 19 October. Crown Land Office IV: 269, microfilm F16301. PANB. ——. 1794. Deed to Isaac Allen. 7 November. Book B, p. 443, no. 300. York County Record Office, Fredericton, NB. ——. 1801. Draft Executive Council Minutes. 4 September. MG9 AI, vol. 2: 998, document No. 108. LAC, Ottawa, ON. ——. 1813. Minutes. 1 February. Journal of the Legislative Council of the Province of New Brunswick, 5th General Assem- bly, 3rd session, 408-410. Fredericton: King’s Printer. ——. (1814) 1976. “Draft Executive Council Minutes.” 6 May. In Source Materials Relating to the New Brunswick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 66-67. Fredericton: Centennial Print and Litho. ——. 1824. Grant to Simon Herbert for Land near the Falls of the Madawaska River. 4 March. RS568. Executive Coun- cil: Land Committee Records, Book 28: 3. PANB. ——. 1848. Table of Indian Population in New Brunswick by Reserve for 1841 and 1848. 30 December. RS965, RS557A. Indian Documentary Inventory, Provincial Secretary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. ——. 1851. Census Returns for the Parishes of New Brunswick, York County, Parish of St. Mary’s. MG 9-A13, R11459- 0-E. LAC. Nova Scotia. 1768. Land Grant to the St. John River Indians. 20 August. Old Book, Land Grants, Provincial Archives of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS. ——. (1779) 1993. Land Grant to St. John River Indians. 2 August. In Indian Treaties and Surrenders, by Canada, Depart- ment of Indian Affairs, 2: 28-29. Saskatoon: Fifth House. Orwell, George. 2009. All Art Is Propaganda: Critical Essays. Compiled by George Packer. Introduction by Keith Gessen. Boston: Mariner. Paddock, John. 1848. Letter to John R. Partelow. 11 October. RS 965, RS9 1848, #21. Indian Documentation Inventory, Executive Council: Cabinet Meeting Records. PANB.

82 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Parenteau, Bill, and James Kenny. 2002. “Survival, Resistance, and the Canadian State: The Transformation of New Brunswick’s Native Economy, 1867-1930.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 13 (1): 49-71. Parr, Richard. 1819-21. Richard Parr Journal. MG24-H70, R3893-0-9-E. Richard Parr Fonds. LAC. Paul, Darrell, executive director of the Union of New Brunswick Indians. n.d. “Claim to Meductic-Woodstock Reserve.” Ms. In possession of author. Pawling, Micah A. 2010. “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland: Persistence and Tradition among Wabanaki Peoples in the Nineteenth Century.” PhD thesis, University of Maine. Perley, Moses. (1842a) 1976. “Report on the Micmacs.” In Source Materials Relating to the New Brunswick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 88-100. Fredericton: Centennial Print and Litho. ——. (1842b) 1976. “Report Respecting the Indians on the Saint John.” In Source Materials Relating to the New Bruns- wick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 83-88. Fredericton: Centennial Print and Litho. ——. 1850. Letter to John Partelow, provincial secretary. 15 February. RS965, RS9. Indian Documentation Inventory, Executive Council: Cabinet Meeting Minutes. PANB. Petley, Robert. 1837. Fredericton, NB, from the Oromocto Road. C-115423. LAC. Phillips, Ruth. 1998. Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast, 1700-1900. Seat- tle: University of Washington Press; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Pilon, Beatrice D. 1966. “Settlement and Early Development of the Parish of Kingsclear, York County, New Brunswick, 1784-1840.” MA thesis, University of New Brunswick. Piper, Liza. 2004. “Backward Seasons and Remarkable Cold: The Weather over Long Reach, New Brunswick, 1812- 1821.” Acadiensis 34 (1): 31-55. Prins, Harald E.L. 1996. The Mi’kmaq, Resistance, Accommodation, and Cultural Survival. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Putnam, C.S. 1833. Letter to J. Gaynor. 6 March. RS965, RS24, S43-R27.3, #S24. Indian Documentation Inventory, Ses- sional Records of the House of Assembly. PANB. Raymond, William O. 1896. “The Old Meductic Fort and Its Surroundings.” Collections of the New Brunswick Historical Society 1 (3): 221-61. ——. 1950. The River St. John: Its Physical Features, Legends and History from 1604 to 1784. Sackville, NB: Tribune Press. Rees, Ronald. 2000. Land of the Loyalists: Their Struggle to Shape the Maritimes. Halifax: Nimbus. ——. 2012. New Brunswick’s Early Roads: The Routes that Shaped the Province. Halifax: Nimbus. Ross, Alexander. 1985. “Bartlett, William Henry.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval. Royal Gazette (New Brunswick). 1814. “Communication: The North American Indian Institution.” 20 June. ——. 1830. “British America.” 6 January, 3. Rudyerd, Lieutenant Colonel Charles William, or Lucy Ann Odell Rudyerd. 1818. Fredericton in the Year 1818: A View of Lower Portion of the City of Fredericton Seat of Government of the Province of New Brunswick Taken in the Year. Watercolour with pen and ink on wove paper, 22.3 × 37.8 cm. #30188. NBMA. Saumarez, Thomas. 1814. “Message to the New Brunswick House of Assembly.” 4 February. Journal of the House of Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, 5th General Assembly, 4th session. 26, Saint John: King’s Printer. Saunders, John. (1841) 1976. “Report of the Surveyor General on Indian Reserves.” 29 June. In Source Materials Relat- ing to the New Brunswick Indian, edited by W.D. Hamilton and W.A. Spray, 108-10. Fredericton: Centennial Print & Litho. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove and Robert Dunbar. 2009. Indigenous Children’s Education as Linguistic Genocide and a Crime against Humanity? A Global View. Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino: Gáldu, Resource Centre for the Rights of Indig- enous People.

83 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Smith, George Neilson. 1842. The Putnam House, Fredericton. Watercolour, pencil and ink on paperboard, 33.02 × 48.26 cm. BAG. ——. 1850. View of Province Hall and Public Offices, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Tinted lithograph on wove paper, 41 × 63 cm. 1987.17.12. NBM. Sotheby & Co. (Canada) Ltd. 1969. A Catalogue of Important Canadian Paintings, Drawings and Watercolours of the 19th and 20th Centuries, and Plans, Books and Documents, etc. Toronto: Sotheby & Co. Spray, W.A. 1976. “Perley, Moses Henry.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval. ——. 1981. “The largest Land Sale in New Brunswick’s History.” Atlantic Advocate September, 60-1. ——. 1982. “Moses Henry Perley: the New Brunswick Indians’ Best Friend.” Atlantic Advocate February, 72: 60-61. Sproule, George. (1787) 2009. A Survey from the Great Falls of the River St. John to the head of Lake Tamaskwatac. H2/210-St. John 1787. National Map Collection #18184. LAC. Reproduced in The Land in Between: The Upper St. John Valley from Prehistory to World War I, edited by Beatrice Craig and Maxime Dagenais, with collaboration of Lisa Ornstein and Guy Dubay, 59. Gardiner, ME: Tilbury House. ——. 1790. Grants at Madawaska. Record #226, vol. 2. Crown Lands Office, Fredericton, NB. Sproule, George, and Thomas Baillie. 1826. Grants at Madawaska. H3/340/Edmundston/1826. National Map Collec- tion #440. LAC. Squires, W. Austin. 1980. History of Fredericton: The Last 200 Years. Fredericton: n.p. Stanton, William. 1960. The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes toward Race in America, 1815-1859.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stennett, Ralph. 1815. A View of the City and Harbour of St. John, New Brunswick, N.A. Taken from Hills W.S.W. of Fort Howe, N.B. Print. Engraving by Charles Turner. C-014143. Ralph Stennett Collection. LAC. Strakosch, Elizabeth, and Alissa Macoun. 2012. “The Vanishing Endpoint of Settler Colonialism.” In Settler Colonial- ism. Special issue, Arena 37-38: 40-62. www.academia.edu/2610856/The_Vanishing_Endpoint_of_Settler_Colonialism. Thoma, Chief Francis, and 17 others. [1849?]. Petition. RS965, RS557. Indian Documentation Inventory, Provincial Secretary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. Thomas, Joseph, and 18 families. 1817. Petition. 28 December. RG 8, “C” Series, vol. 261, C-2854, pp. 386-88. British Military and Naval Records. LAC. Thomas, Joseph, and Louis Thomas. 1826. Petition on Behalf of Themselves and Ninety Six Others Now Residing at Meduxnikeag River, St. John River. 11 January. RG1, L-3L, vol. 29, reel no. C-2565. Executive Council of the Province of Lower Canada fonds. LAC. Thomas, Peter. 2001. Lost Land of Moses: The Age of Discovery on New Brunswick’s Salmon Rivers. Fredericton: Goose Lane. Toldervey, J.B. 1846. Report. Journal of the House of Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, 13th General Assembly, 4th session, ccx-ccxi. Fredericton: John Simpson. Tomar, Stephen, and 11 others. [1851]. Statement. RS965, RS557C. Indian Documentation Inventory, Provincial Secre- tary: Indian Administration Records. PANB. (Document is mistakenly dated 1838 at PANB.) Tomer, Lewis, and 14 others. 1839. Petition to the Government of Maine. January. Maine Legislative Records, Grave- yard, 1839, 129-6. Maine State Archives, Augusta, ME.

84 Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes

Treat, Joseph. 2007. Wabanaki Homeland and the New State of Maine: The 1820 Journal and Plans of Survey of Joseph Treat. Edited by Micah A. Pawling. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Treaty of 1725-26 (Mascarene’s Treaty), Penobscot, Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Great Britain, 15 Decem- ber 1725 (Penobscot) and 4 June 1726. Nova Scotia Council Minutes. RG1/188. Nova Scotia Archives, Halifax, NS. Treaty of 1749, Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, and Great Britain, [15 August 1749?]. In Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, by Canada, Department of Indian Affairs, vol. 2, 200-201. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1891. Treaty of 1760, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, and Great Britain, 22 February 1760. Nova Scotia Council Minutes. RG1/188. Nova Scotia Archives, Halifax, NS. Upton, L.F.S. 1974. “Indian Affairs in Colonial New Brunswick.” Acadiensis 4: 3-26. ——. 1979. Micmacs and Colonists: Indian–White Relations in the Maritimes, 1713-1867. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Veracini, Lorenzo. 2010. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. ——. 2011. “Introducing Settler Colonial Studies.” Settler Colonial Studies 1 (1): 1-12. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2011.10648799. Ward, Edmund. 1841. An Account of the River St. John; Its Tributaries and Its Lakes. Fredericton: Sentinel Office. West, John. 1827. A Journal of A Mission to the Indians of the British Provinces, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and the Mohawks, on the Ouse, or Grand River, Upper Canada. London: L.B. Seeley and Son. Wicken, William. 2010. “Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760.” Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b1. Williams, Robert A. 1990. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. New York: Oxford University Press. Willis, N.P. 1842. Canadian Scenery Illustrated. London: G. Virtue. Winslow, Edward. [1804] 1901. “Notes by Edward Winslow Respecting the Indians and Acadians.” In Winslow Papers, A.D. 1776-1826, edited by W.O. Raymond, 510-13. Saint John: Sun Printing. Wolfe, Patrick. 1999. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethno- graphic Event. London: Cassell. ——. 2006. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387-409. Wolfe, William Smyth Maynard. 1853-54. Indian Camp near Fredericton, N.B. Watercolour over pencil, 12.4 × 22.2 cm. C-122419. LAC. ——. 1854a. Caribou Shooting, N.B. Watercolour over pencil, 12.9 × 20.3 cm. C-122401. LAC. ——. 1854b. Musquash (Muskrat) Shooting, Grand Lake, N.B. Watercolour over pencil, 15.4 × 24.8 cm. C-122436. LAC. Wollock, J. 2001. “Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity: Some Implications for the Language Sciences.” In On Biocul- tural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment, edited by Luisa Maffi, 248-62. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Wynn, Graeme. 1977. “Administration in Adversity: The Deputy Surveyors and Control of the New Brunswick Crown Forest before 1844.” Acadiensis 7(1): 49-65. ——. 1981a. “Population Patterns in Pre-Confederation New Brunswick.” Acadiensis 10 (2): 124-38. ——. 1981b. Timber Colony: A Historical Geography of Early Nineteenth Century New Brunswick. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

85 Andrea Bear Nicholas

Xavier, Francis, Nicholas Ackmobish, Francis Joseph Mezentwite, and Sackarenes. 1789. Lease to Isaac Allen. 20 May. MG24/L6, vol. 1. Delancey-Robinson Collection. LAC. Xavier, Francis, and 9 other chiefs of St. John, Passamaquoddy and Micmacs. 1792. “The Address and Supplications of the Several Villages of Indians Situated on the Streams between Penobscot and St. Johns, with such of the Micmac Tribe adjacent, to the Chiefs and Rulers of the Great Council of Massachusetts—at Passamaquoddy.” 10 November. Passed Resolves. Acts of 1793, chap. 185, SC1/series 228. Massachusetts Archives, Boston, MA. Young, D. Murray. 1976. “Douglas, Sir Howard.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Quebec: Université Laval. ——. 1984. “The Nashwaak Settlements during the Lifetimes of the First Settlers.” In And the River Rolled On…. Two Hundred Years on the Nashwaak, edited by Historical Research Committee, xi-xix. Fredericton: Nashwaak Bicen- tennial Association.