Colonial English Treachery - Devoid of Honour

I've often stated that the contents of the Treaty of 1725, because it was written in English, a language that the First Nation delegates had very little expertise in, was deliberately misinterpreted to them by English officials. The following is proof of the gross deception.

Interpretation of Legal English to Indians

"God hath willed that I have no King, and that I be master of my lands in common." Penobscot Chief Laurence (Loron) Sagouarram, August, 1727

At the signing of the Treaty of Peace in Casco Bay, Maine in August 1727 between the English and the Panaouamsqué [Penobscots], Becancour, Norridgewock, and St. Francis Indians [part of the Wabanaki Confederacy], the Penobscot Chief Laurence Sagouarram addressed a large gathering of these Indian nations. He told of his earlier meeting and negotiations in Boston with the English Governor. He wanted to make clear to them "in his own tongue" how he felt, since the legal wording in the treaty document was not his words, but those of British lawyers, and had been interpreted to him. His address to them was translated and written by a Jesuit. He was questioning the interpretation he was given of the English document. This was a ratification of the same treaty signed earlier in 1725 by representatives of four Wabanaki Indian nations, Sagouarram being one of them, and also the St. John River Indians, represented by Francis Xavier. These were the people of the "waban" (light) "aki"( land), the land of the dawn, often referred to as the Eastern Indians by the English.

Below is Sagouarram's famous address:

"I Panaouamskeyen [Penobscot], do inform ye - ye who are scattered all over the earth take notice - of what has passed between me and the English in negotiating the peace that I have just concluded with them. It is from the bottom of my heart that I inform you; and, as a proof that I tell you nothing but the truth, I wish to speak to you in my own tongue.

"My reason for informing you, myself, is the diversity and contrariety of the interpretations I receive of the English writing in which the articles of peace are drawn up that we have just mutually agreed to. These writings appear to contain things that are not, so that the Englishman himself disavows them in my presence, when he reads and interprets them to me himself. I begin then by informing you; and shall speak to you only of the principal and most important matter.

"First, that I did not commence the negotiation for a peace, or settlement, but he [the Governor], it was, who first spoke to me on the subject, and I did not give him any answer until he addressed me a third time. I first went to Fort St. George to hear his propositions, and afterwards to Boston, whither he invited me on the same business.

"We were two that went Boston: I, Laurance Sagourrab, and John Ehennekouit. On arriving there I did indeed salute him [the Governor] in the usual mode at the first interview, but I was not the first to speak to him. I only answered what he said to me, and such was the course I observed throughout the whole of our interview.

"He began by asking me, what brought me hither? I did not give him for answer - I am come to ask your pardon; nor, I come to acknowledge you as my conqueror; nor, I come to make my submission to you; nor, I come to receive your commands. All the answer I made was that I was come on his invitation to me to hear the propositions for a settlement that he wished to submit to me.

"Wherefore do we kill one another? he again asked me. 'Tis true that, in reply, I said to him-You are right. But I did not say to him, I acknowledge myself the cause of it, nor I condemn myself for having made war on him.

"He next said to me - Propose what must be done to make us friends. 'Tis true that thereupon I answered him - It is rather for you to do that. And my reason for giving him that answer is, that having himself spoken to me of an arrangement, I did not doubt but he would make me some advantageous proposals. But I did not tell him that I would submit in every respect to his orders.

"Thereupon, he said to me - Let us observe the treaties concluded by our Fathers, and renew the ancient friendship which existed between us. I made him no answer thereunto. Much less, I repeat, did I, become his subject, or give him my land, or acknowledge his King as my King. This I never did, and he never proposed it to me. I say, he never said to me - Give thyself and thy land to me, nor acknowledge my King for thy King, as thy ancestors formerly did.

"He again said to me - But do you not recognize the King of England as King over all his states? To which I answered - Yes, I recognize him King of all his lands; but I rejoined, do not hence infer that I acknowledge thy King as my King, and King of my lands. Here lies my distinction - my Indian distinction. God hath willed that I have no King, and that I be master of my lands in common.

"He again asked me - Do you not admit that I am at least master of the lands I have purchased? I answered him thereupon, that I admit nothing, and that I knew not what he had reference to.

"He again said to me - If, hereafter, any one desire to disturb the negotiation of the peace we are at present engaged about, we will join together to arrest him. I again consented to that. But I did not say to him, and do not understand that he said to me, that we should go in company to attack such person, or that we should form a joint league, offensive and defensive, or that I should unite my brethren to his. I said to him only, and I understand him to say to me, that if any one wished to disturb our negotiation of peace, we would both endeavor to pacify him by fair words, and to that end would direct all our efforts.

"He again said to me - In order that the peace we would negotiate be permanent, should any private quarrel arise hereafter between Indians and Englishmen, they must not take justice into their own hands, nor do any thing, the one to the other. It shall be the business of us chiefs to decide. I again agreed with him on that article, but I did not understand that he alone should be judge. I understood only that he should judge his people, and that I would judge mine. Finally he said to me - There's our peace concluded; we have regulated every thing.

"I replied that nothing had been yet concluded, and that it was necessary that our acts should be approved in a general assembly. For the present, an armistice is sufficient. I again said to him - I now go to inform all my relatives of what has passed between us, and will afterwards come and report to you what they'll say to me. Then he agreed in opinion with me.

"Such was my negotiation on my first visit to Boston.

"As for any act of grace, or amnesty, accorded to me by the Englishman, on the part of his King, it is what I have no knowledge of, and what the Englishman never spoke to me about, and what I never asked him for.

"On my second visit to Boston we were four: I, Laurence Sagourrab, Alexis, Francois Xavier, and Migounambe. I went there merely to tell the English that all my nation approved the cessation of hostilities, and the negotiation of peace, and even then we agreed on the time and place of meeting to discuss it. That place was Caskebay, and the time after Corpus Christi.

"Two conferences were held at Caskebay. Nothing was done at these two conferences except to read the articles above reported. Every thing I agreed to was approved and ratified, and on these conditions was the peace concluded.

"One point only did I regulate at Caskebay. This was to permit the Englishman to keep a store at St. Georges; but a store only, and not to build any other house, nor erect a fort there, and I did not give him the land.

"These are the principal matters that I wished to communicate to you who are spread all over the earth. What I tell you now is the truth. If, then, any one should produce any writing that makes me speak otherwise, pay no attention to it, for I know not what I am made to say in another language, but I know well what I say in my own. And in testimony that I say things as they are, I have signed the present minute which I wish to be authentic and to remain for ever."

Source: Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, by John Romeyn Brodhead, edited by E.B. O'Callaghan. Vol. IX. Albany, 1855

Please Click to read the Treaty of 1725: http://www.danielnpaul.com/TreatyOf1725.html