HIST-2511 Essay: Analysis of the Grand General Council of 1874 Meeting

This essay examines the Minutes of the Grand General Council of the Chippewas-Munsees, focusing on the 1874 meeting within the context of Canadian history. The essay explores the council's role in addressing federal policies impacting Indigenous communities, particularly concerning the policy of enfranchisement. It delves into the meaning and implications of enfranchisement, the legal process by which Indigenous status could be terminated, and the granting of full Canadian citizenship. The essay analyzes the concerns raised by the council members regarding the potential degradation of Indigenous identity and the challenges faced by individuals in navigating the enfranchisement process. It also highlights the views of key figures, such as Chief Henry John, who criticized the unequal treatment of Indigenous people compared to foreigners seeking Canadian citizenship. The essay concludes by emphasizing the council's efforts to protect the rights and liberties of Indigenous peoples, particularly in relation to the enfranchisement policy. The essay utilizes primary and secondary sources to provide a comprehensive overview of the historical context and the perspectives of the Indigenous community during this critical period.

Running head: GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
General Grand Council of 1874
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Grand General Council............................................................2
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................6
References:......................................................................................................................................7

2GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
Introduction
The aboriginal population of any nation state on the world faces a lot of challenges by the
way of marginalization and that of abridged rights and freedom. In the face of growing
capitalism and globalization, in the contemporary time period, such individuals have isolated
themselves as they prefer to remain close with nature1. This has led to them being differentiated
from the mainstream population since they do not participate in any of the activities which is
under taken by such individuals living in the urbanized world order. However, in order to
understand the character and nature of the livelihood of the indigenous population, there is first
the need to examine their historical growth and the position occupied by them during those
times2. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Minutes of the Grand General Council of the
ChippewasMunsees in the context of the Canadian history. The meetings which were held in
1874 specifically, has been taken in to consideration.
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Grand General Council
The Grand General Council of Canada was considered to be a political organization in
the early post Confederation period, mainly constituted for the indigenous communities of
Canada. The General Council had the main responsibility of considering the federal policies
which were being created in the country and to ensure that they could be modified for the
welfare of such indigenous population3. However, in the long run, an obstacle developed
between the Chippewa or the Anishhinaabe and the Six Nations with regard to the Indian Act
1Kirkby, Coel. "Reconstituting Canada: The enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of ‘Indians,’circa 1837–1900."
University of Toronto Law Journal 69, no. 4 (2019): 497-539.
2Miller, James Rodger. Lethal legacy: current native controversies in Canada. McClelland & Stewart, 2016.
3Winegard, Timothy C. "“Now it is all over… I am practically No-Body”: Indigenous Veterans of Canada and
Australia and the Great War for Civilization." First World War Studies (2019): 1-19.

3GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
and its political objectives. In the 1874 meeting that was organized, more than one hundred and
twenty delegates attended the meeting. They agreed on the fact that there should be an increase
in the community authority which could only take place when there is a decrease in the extent of
interference from Ottawa which is the seat of federal power of the country.
The first issue which was being considered by the Grand General Council in the 1874
meeting was that of enfranchisement4. Before looking at the minutes of the meeting, there is first
the need to understand the meaning of enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is considered to be a
legal procedure which is needed for the termination of the Indian or aboriginal status of an
individual and conferring on to him or her, the full Canadian citizenship. The policy of
enfranchisement was considered to be one of the most significant objectives of the federal
government of Canada to assimilate the aboriginal individuals of the country within the federal
spirit of the nation5. Thus, the significance of the meeting lay in the fact that it sought to examine
the necessity of the policy of enfranchisement and to what extent this policy would degrade the
indigenous identity of an individual of Canada.
The first policy with regard to enfranchisement was made way back in 1857 by the
Gradual Civilization Act6. The name of the Act itself signified the uncivilized character of the
indigenous population and the need for them to be assimilated in the main stream citizenship of
Canada so that they can be endowed with the proper rights and freedoms. The Gradual
Civilization Act of 1857 was based in the preconceived assumption that the aboriginal
4Behan, Cormac. "Prisoners and the politics of enfranchisement." In Citizen convicts. Manchester University Press,
2016.
5Grimshaw, Patricia, Robert Reynolds, and Shurlee Swain. "The paradox of ‘ultra-democratic’government:
indigenous civil rights in nineteenth-century New Zealand, Canada and Australia." In Law, history, colonialism.
Manchester University Press, 2017.
6Flanagan, Tom. First nations? Second thoughts. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2019.

4GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
individuals of the country would be willing to give up their ancestral and societal identity as
indigenous population. They would do this voluntarily for gaining access to Canadian citizenship
and have the advantage of being assimilated in to the society of the country7. A unique feature of
this Act was that in the event that a male member of the family had himself enfranchised, his
wife and children would also be enfranchised in an automatic manner. However, the voluntary
nature of the Act could not instill this temptation within the indigenous population. Very few
number of individuals were willing to give up their ancestral and societal identity and decided to
remain as aboriginals8.
In the meeting of the General Council, it can be seen that the individuals were worried
that there are many indigenous people in Canada who cannot be enfranchised because they do
not possess the necessary skills or the willingness. This would mean a degraded position for
them in the society and for their family members.
In order to circumnavigate this important obstacle, the Council recommended that in the
event that any aboriginal individual wanted to enfranchise himself or herself, then the case would
first be judged by the Council in front of the Tribe to which the individual belonged9. They
would examine if the individual contains and possess all the necessary skills by the way of
education and if they have the necessary skills to be effectively integrated in to the main stream
urbanized society of Canada. In the event that they are found to be eligible, then they would be
allowed to be enfranchised. However, if the Council is not satisfied and believes that they would
7Hogan, Alison. "The Federal Franchise and First Nations." The Corvette 3, no. 2 (2016): 93-111.
8Drouillard, Adam. "The Huron-Wyandottes of the Anderdon Reserve: A Unique Case of Assimilation and
Enfranchisement." (2018).
9Steckley, John L. Indian Agents: Rulers of the Reserves. Vol. 3. Peter Lang, 2016.

5GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
be humiliated and be troubled by the main stream society, then they would not allow the
concerned individual to be enfranchised.
A chief by the name of Henry John addressed the meeting of 1874. He was of the opinion
that the foreigners who came in to Canada during that period of time, were automatically granted
the citizenship of the country, provided they wanted one. However, in the context of the
aboriginals of Canada, they were not given the citizenship in an automated manner10. Rather, a
law had to be created for them and a proper trial had to be held whereby their citizenship was
judged and examined upon. This affected the self-respect and self-confidence of many
aboriginals of the country since they were the natives of Canada itself.
In the meeting held on 1st July, 1874, Chief Henry opinioned that there were not many
individuals of the aboriginal group who were fit to be enfranchised. For instance, referring to the
Six Nations Indians who lived alongside the Grand River, they were three thousand in number.
However, from amongst them, only about two percent were eligible for enfranchisement. This
revealed the ironical position of the federal government in general. They wanted to civilize the
aboriginal individuals of the country but they enacted the enfranchisement law in order to bring
about this change11. Many of the aboriginals were not allowed to be enfranchised unless they
surrendered their own cultural heritage and social identity. This affected their psychological
status since they did not want to give up on their ancestral identity.
The main concern of the aboriginal people lied in the fact that the federal government of
Canada did not grant them the citizenship of Canada on an automated basis. The aboriginals are
the natives of the country, they were the first to inhabit the land and had the full ownership right
10Nichols, Joshua Ben David. "Reconciliation and the foundations of aboriginal law in Canada." PhD diss., 2017.
11Neeganagwedgin, Erica. "The Land Since Time Immemorial: A Review of the Assimilation Policies on Indigenous
Peoples Through Canada's Indian Act." ab-Original 3, no. 1 (2019): 136-142

6GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
over the land. However, the government in Ottawa made it a legal clause for the aboriginals that
they needed to surrender their aboriginal status in order to achieve the full citizenship rights of
Canada. This clause was not there for the foreigners who came to the country, desiring for a
Canadian citizenship. This affected the aboriginals as they believed that the enfranchisement
would mean the loss of their cultural and ancestral heritage12.
In the meeting of 2nd July, 19874, Chief Burning gave an example against the
enfranchisement of the aboriginals. He started that a young individual enfranchised himself and
relocated to the urban areas where upon he came across a lot of material wealth. However, since
he was not aware of how to manage his financial resources, it would lead to him squandering
them away. He would then try to return back to his local community amongst the aboriginals and
this would lead to the consequent rise in the challenge of integration. Thus, the argument of
enfranchisement was not favored in the Meetings of the Grand General Council of 1874.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be observed that the meetings of the Grand General Council of
Canada in 1874 dealt strongly with the issue of enfranchisement. The Chiefs who participated in
the meetings, wanted to protect their aboriginal fellow human beings and wanted to fight for
their rights and liberties. This was sought to be brought about by debating critically on the
political policy of enfranchisement and the related gaining of the citizenship of Canada. They
saw it to bean instrument of evil made by the federal government and this regard, many of the
Chiefs of the Council were against the policy of enfranchisement.
12Kelm, Mary-Ellen, and Keith D. Smith. Talking Back to the Indian Act: Critical Readings in Settler Colonial
Histories. University of Toronto Press, 2018.

7GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
References:
Behan, Cormac. "Prisoners and the politics of enfranchisement." In Citizen convicts. Manchester
University Press, 2016.
Drouillard, Adam. "The Huron-Wyandottes of the Anderdon Reserve: A Unique Case of
Assimilation and Enfranchisement." (2018).
Flanagan, Tom. First nations? Second thoughts. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2019.
Grimshaw, Patricia, Robert Reynolds, and Shurlee Swain. "The paradox of ‘ultra-
democratic’government: indigenous civil rights in nineteenth-century New Zealand, Canada and
Australia." In Law, history, colonialism. Manchester University Press, 2017.
Hogan, Alison. "The Federal Franchise and First Nations." The Corvette 3, no. 2 (2016): 93-111.
Kelm, Mary-Ellen, and Keith D. Smith. Talking Back to the Indian Act: Critical Readings in
Settler Colonial Histories. University of Toronto Press, 2018.
Kirkby, Coel. "Reconstituting Canada: The enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of
‘Indians,’circa 1837–1900." University of Toronto Law Journal 69, no. 4 (2019): 497-539.
Miller, James Rodger. Lethal legacy: current native controversies in Canada. McClelland &
Stewart, 2016.
Neeganagwedgin, Erica. "The Land Since Time Immemorial: A Review of the Assimilation
Policies on Indigenous Peoples Through Canada's Indian Act." ab-Original 3, no. 1 (2019): 136-
142.

8GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL OF 1874
Nichols, Joshua Ben David. "Reconciliation and the foundations of aboriginal law in Canada."
PhD diss., 2017.
Steckley, John L. Indian Agents: Rulers of the Reserves. Vol. 3. Peter Lang, 2016.
Winegard, Timothy C. "“Now it is all over… I am practically No-Body”: Indigenous Veterans of
Canada and Australia and the Great War for Civilization." First World War Studies (2019): 1-19.