Grand Back

History · The Dream · Land Acknowledgments · Legal Posterity · Journal · Contact

We are publishing our press release dated July 11, 2022 that provides detailed information about our plans and our media platform, including our Journal. our main focus has always been to restore the Haldimand Tract to its rightful owners. We have already begun this process and we are now ready to announce it. Read Press Release

The Two Row Wampum: A Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery

In 1493, the year after Columbus made his great or at least so-called discovery, the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed the natural law governing questions of legal rights between natives and newcomers. Because, at that time, the church was universal in Europe the declaration of natural law determining international law.

The declaration took the form of formal legislation, a papal bull entitled Inter Cetera. It enacted that aboriginal people were not humans with souls but rather animals without souls and, for this reason, without rights either of jurisdiction or property in the lands of the new world.

Controversy raged in European legal circles. Not all Europeans had the same attitude of rapaciousness and racism. There was another faction, that saw the new world and its native people as a symbol of salvation, rather than a challenge and a threat; they saw a Garden of Eden peopled by more noble beings, whereas others imagined a dark forest inhabited by sub-human demons in peoples’ form.

In 1537, a subsequent papal bull, entitled Sublimus Deus, repealed Inter Cetera on all points of law. Thus, natural law and international law came to recognize and affirm that aboriginal people are human with souls, jurisdiction, and property, which must be respected as a matter of law. Sublimus Deus concluded by enacting “should the contrary happen, it shall be null and of no effect.”

The contrary has happened, as clearly focused by the set of cases in the 1990s in Canada. Yet, there has been no repeal of Sublimus Deus. On the contrary, the legal point settled by Sublimus Deus became so entrenched in international law as to provide the blueprint for the constitutional law of both Canada and the United States.

On the eve of the American Revolution, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restated Sublimus Deus and the various constitutional instruments reiterated its legal point over the intervening years. Thus, the proclamation confirmed that the aboriginal people could not, legally, be molested or disturbed by newcomer governments, their courts, or their citizens. At least, not upon “any Lands whatever” which were not “ceded to or purchased by” the crown.

When Worlds Collide, The Two Row Wampum history in brief.

In the Two Row Wampum, an agreement between two peoples, the Dutch were the first Europeans to sit down and negotiate with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, doing so in 1613. The English followed suit in 1645, and then the French in 1701. All three of these European powers had colonies in North America at the time, and all three were signatories to the Two Row Wampum.

The concept and agreement of the Two Row "Wampum law" repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery, an agreement that gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they discovered and convert the inhabitants to Christianity under the threat of war. 

The document itself is made up of two rows of purple beads divided by a white bead into three sections, on the left representing the Iroquois Nation (the Iroquois Indians), on the right representing the Christian settlers, and the middle representing their relationship, as brothers. 

It read in part You say that you are our Father and I am your Son. We say 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.' This wampum belt confirms our words. [...] Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel.

Important Events to Consider Pre-Colonial Contact.

  • 1207: Pope Innocent III installs Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury.
  • 1208-14: No religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. King John, himself, was excommunicated.
  • 1213: John‘s concession of which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome. Yoke lifted, services restored.
  • 1215: King John broke the concession by signing the Magna Carta.
  • 1215: Pope Innocent annuls the Magna Carta, takes official ownership of the crown. The Papacy has never given up this authority, and to this day is still the legal power ruling Great Britain. So when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope knelt at the murder scene of Thomas Becket, it was a reminder to Britain that the Papacy still rules.

Only three of the original clauses in Magna Carta are still law. One defends the freedom and rights of the English church, another confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns, but the third is the most famous:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

What is a Papal Bull?

A Papal Bull is a formal document issued by a Roman Pontiff upon a major act of law, curse or claim to extend the power of the Cult over its claimed domination of the world, all nations, all people, all law and all religions. All legitimate Papal Bulls were issued on human skin, usually the skin of a sacrificed child, or some famous heretic. Forgeries are on calf skin or some other lesser medium.
The first legitimate Papal Bull is probably around 1136 called Ex commisso nobis by Pope Innocent II in the claimed ex-communication of the Saxon (German) Pope at Magdeburg.
Unfortunately, many of the key Papal Bulls are missing (such as 1249) and most have been deliberately forged over the centuries onto calf or sheep skin, to re-write history and hide their original form on human skin. However, it is unlikely the originals on the skin of those murdered by the Cult - especially children - have been destroyed as they remain the foundation of the Roman Cult and a core source of their supernatural power.
Any claimed Papal Bulls prior 1136 must be viewed as suspect and any alleged Papal Bulls prior to 1079 are complete frauds as the Roman Cult did not claim Rome as quasi-christians until Gregory VII against the founders of the Catholic Church, the Franks.

Papal Bull used to claim right of Conquest

  • Unam Sanctam Bull of 1302, Boniface VIII proclaimed that it "is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject (son) to the Roman pontiff (father)". 
  • Dum Diversas Bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas V, It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to "perpetual slavery."Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Etsi cuncti, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. 
  • Romanus Pontifex Bull of 1455 has served as the basis of legal arguments for taking Native American lands by "discovery". The logic of the rights of conquest and discovery were followed in all western nations including those that never recognised papal authority. 
  • The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera. 

Original source and concept of Papal Bull

The claim that Papal Bulls are named after the bulla of ancient Roman documents is a complete absurdity - they are dedications to the Dark Lord or Ba'al Satan to whom the Roman Cult dedicate their works in secret.

The use of human skin is a fundamental prerequisite for a Papal Bull to have power as this is a concept of necromancy inherited through the Rabbi of Venice, the successors of the Sarmatians, themselves the successors of the Scythians and Tarsus, the successors of Mari and the amurru, the city founded itself from exiles of Ur.
The Latin word vellum from vellus means not only a fleece or hide but also “human” skin, indicating that in Roman times the meaning of this form of writing material was still known.

The Two Row Wampum

Six Nations' Cayuga Chief Jake Thomas described the meaning of the Two Row Wampum: "one purple row of beads represents the path of the natives' canoe which contains their customs and laws. The other row represents the path of the Whiteman's vessel, the sailing ship, which contains his customs and laws. The meaning of the parallel paths is that neither boat should outpace the other, and the paths should remain separate and parallel forever, that is, as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow, the sun shines, and will be everlasting, and they shall always renew their treaties."

"This belt symbolizes the agreement and conditions under which the Iroquois welcomed the white peoples to this land. 'You say that you are our father and I am your son.' We say, 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.' This wampum belt confirms our words. These two rows will symbolize two paths or two vessels, traveling down the same river together. One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the Indian People, their laws, their customs, and their ways. We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our own boat. Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel."

International Treaties: Quite often we hear about the Guswentah or Tekeni Teiohate more commonly referred to as The Two Row Wampum Treaty. This treaty made between the Nation of Holland and the Five Nations may have been the first treaty between Onkwehonwe and a European nation, but it was certainly not the first treaty that the Onkwehonwe had ever entered into, in fact, Onkwehonwe nations have been engaged in the treaty-making process between them for centuries.

The Forest Magna Carta, The Iroquois Great Charter, or Great Law of Peace

The formation of the Kaianerekowa (Great Law of Peace) is a fine example of possibly one of the most highly advanced Peace treaties ever negotiated between sovereign nations. The agreements reached between each of the Five Nations in order to put an end to the conflict that they had been embroiled in, as well as enable each nation to retain their sovereignty and jurisdiction is beyond anything seen in the history of mankind. 

The first 12 Wampum’s of the Kaianerekowa lays out the procedures and protocol for each nation to follow in order to resolve any issues that may threaten one or all of the Five Nations. These 12 articles also guarantee the jurisdiction and sovereignty of each individual nation so that each nation shall have a forum to voice its position.

What is a Conditional Acceptance?

The legal meaning of conditional acceptance is an agreement to enter into a contract only if certain conditions are met. The doctrine of discovery was repudiated by the two-row wampum, an offer by the pope to be the father of all creatures (sons). The conditional acceptance meant that indigenous peoples would not be treated as inferior, but as equals.  In 1215, king john gave the British crown to the pope and created feudalism in England. In 1494, explorer Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage and brought back 14 natives from Jamaica. The Spanish Crown used this event as a justification for Spain's claim on newly discovered lands; any land unclaimed by Christian nations would belong to Spain because it had been found through Catholic Portuguese navigators like Columbus.

When another so-called explorer namely, Hernando De Soto made his way to the Nache, he was met with a conditional acceptance, that if De Soto was the Son of the Sun, then let him dry the Mississippi, and I will know that he too is the Son of the Sun. This meeting never took place. Desoto backtracked back down the river. However, an Ill crewman was left behind and the tribe was all but wiped out.

The next explorer to come along, Adrien Jolliet and Jacques Marquette met with a similar conditional acceptance. If you want to pass on our water, then let us know that you are not like one who plays and takes something without asking. Because both asked, they were allowed passage in 1673. Had they not been welcomed by Chief Ouisconsing, they would have been killed as trespassers.

The last conditional acceptance happened in 1776 when Samuel Kirkland asked for permission to build a mission at Onondaga, New York. Upon hearing that he was from a foreign country, Chief Canaserage gave his conditional acceptance by saying, when our children come here let them not be frightened away. So it was done and so it continues on today. All treaties signed by indigenous nations are called wampums. In 1985 then-President Ronald Reagan publicly apologized for his country's mistreatment of native peoples.

In a letter to the British king, by the Iroquois council at Six Nations, the letter asked for the Kings advice, when the Indian Act was to be unilaterally foisted by Canada onto the people, the King wrote back to advise: Accept what you can and reject the rest.

King John ceded the Crown to the Pope to restore services

Throughout his reign, King John's authority was continually challenged by his barons. In 1212, they rose up against him and forced him to sign The Magna Carta, which limited his powers. Despite signing it, John ignored its mandates and civil war ensued in England.

In 1215, King John gave the British crown to the pope in an attempt to restore religious services. However, this act was seen as an act of betrayal by many of his subjects. In 1215 Pope Innocent annuls the Magna Carta, takes official ownership of the crown. The Papacy has never given up this authority, and to this day is still the legal power ruling Great Britain. So when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope knelt at the murder scene of Thomas Becket, it was a reminder to Britain that the Papacy still rules.

Although there are conflicting versions, one popular version is that in 1215 King John of England granted Pope Innocent III complete jurisdiction over Wales. After King John had been excommunicated by Pope Innocent III, he would do anything to get back into his good graces. What he did was give a portion of his kingdom over to the pope. Wales was officially ceded on May 26, 1216, by letters patent from King John. This included Wales and all its territories such as Carmarthenshire and Gowerland etc.

You must remember that at the time of "conquest", European kings had been appointed as supreme spiritual leaders of their realms and granted divine authority by the Pope. When John came back from exile in France, he surrendered his kingdom to Philip Augustus who turned England into a vassal state under his rule.

European Sovereignty over First Nations Territory

In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal Bull called Inter Caetera which granted sovereignty over newly discovered lands to Christian rulers. This doctrine, known as the Doctrine of Discovery, was used by European colonizers to justify their claims to First Nations territory. The doctrine was repudiated by the two-row wampum, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and the Dutch in 1613, and the English followed suit in 1645, and then the French in 1701.

In a Nutshell

The Doctrine of Discovery was a formalized process by which Europeans could claim ownership over indigenous lands. The doctrine was repudiated by the two-row wampum, an agreement between indigenous peoples and Europeans in which they agreed to live in peace and respect one another's land and sovereignty. 

The offer by the pope was to be the father of all creatures (sons), but the indigenous people's conditional acceptance stated that they would not be like father and son, but like brothers. In 1215, king john gave the British crown to the pope as a way for him to own everything within Christendom; it was only until 1259 that this arrangement with papal Rome became permanent through royal decree.

Today many people want the pope to retract or dismiss these doctrines because we have seen that our ancestors wisely rejected these deals, which are still unjustified. If you believe in what was promised on those Wampums which were never really written down anywhere else but exist only there in nmumonical form, then you can plainly see how easily we refuted these rules with more power than before. 

So take hold of the two-row wampum, and let us now swear anew, lest we forget. Let us think about each other so deeply and carefully that no single aspect is overlooked. For each feature of our world is interconnected with every other feature, affecting both this generation and generations yet unborn.

By Benjamin Doolittle UE · July 23, 2022 · Comments: 3 · RSS · Permalink

Comments: Comments are the heart of our community. They're what make us human. We believe in a place where we all can share ideas, opinions, thoughts, and feelings.

I support the Indigenous people and their effort to uphold the Two Row Wampum. This is new education for me. I also repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery and any other Papal Bulls that seek to control the lives of any people.
by Janet Marren @ July 29, 2022, 10:13 pm
History shows a need to hide our heads in shame while we acknowledge and atone for past wrongs led by the Papacy and past governments against indigenous peoples. It must be taught in schools so youth can also acknowledge and atone. Discrimination continues today and only awareness will eradicate it in our societies, our courts and our law enforcement.
by Pat MARTIN @ July 30, 2022, 4:09 pm
Precedents and legislation recognizing and affirming that aboriginal rights are unlimited rights of absolute jurisdiction and possession subject only to the one restriction that if such rights are going to be relinquished it can be in favour of none other than the crown in Canada or in the United States to crown's successor the United States. The preclusion of crown jurisdiction pending purchase precludes crown court jurisdiction no less than other forms of jurisdiction: - see, especially, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (PC, 1704); R. v. Nadean and Le Compte (Athabaska Territory, 1788); R. v. Lamothe (Saskatchewan Territory, 1802); R. v Cadien (Quebec, 1838); Connelly v. Woolrich (Quebec, 1867 & 1869); St Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. v. R. (SCC, 1887, per Gwynne J. re Restigouche grants).

Sublimus Deus, 1537.
Statute of Frauds, 1670.
An Act for Preventing Frauds, and Regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade, 7 & 8 Wm. III, c. 22 (1696), s. 12.
Order in Council of 9 March 1704. In re Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut.
Order in Council of 31 July 1740. In re Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut.
Capitulation of New France, at Montreal, 1760, article 40.
Royal Proclamation of 1763, part 2 paragraphs 1 and 2 and part 4 paragraphs 1-6.
An Act for the Better Securing the Dependency of His Majesty's Dominions in "America" upon the Crown, and Parliament of "Great Britain", 6 Geo. III, c. 12 (1766), ss. and 2; Royal Regulation (Spain), 1772, a. 6.
Order in Council of 15 January 1773. In re Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut; Quebec Act 1774,ss.3 and 4.
Campbell v. Hall (1774), 98 ER 848, 895-9 (PC).
R.V. Nadeau and Le Compte (Athabaska Territory, 1788). See, Foster, "Forgotten Arguments: Aboriginal Title and Sovereignty in Canada Jurisdiction Act Cases." 1992 Manitoba Law Journal 343-89.
Marshall v. Clark, 1 Kent 77, 80-1 (CA, 1791).
Hughes v. Dougherty, 1 Yeat's 497, 498 (SC Penn., 1791).
Plumstead v. Rudebagh, 1 Yeat's 502, 504 (SC penn., 1791).
Weiser v. Moody, 2 Yeat's 127, 127-8. (SC Penn., 1796).
Sherer v. McFarland, 2 Yeat's 224, 225 (SC Penn., 1797).
R. V. Lamothe (Saskatchewan Territory, 1802). See Foster, "Forgotten Arguments." An Act for Extending the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada to the Trial and Punishment of Persons Guilty of Crimes and Offences within Certain Parts of North America, 43 Geo. III, c. 138 (1803), a. 1.
Strother v. Cathey, 1 Morgan's 162, 168 (SC North Carolina, 1807).
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch's 87, 121 (USSC, 1810).
New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch's 164, 166 (USSC, 1812).
Thompson v. Johnson, 6 Binney's 68, 68 (SC Penn., 1813).
Meigs v. McLungs Lessee, 9 Cranch's 11, 17 (USSC, 1815).
An Act for Regulating the Fur Trade, and Establishing a Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction within Certain Parts of North America, 1 & 2 Geo. IV, c. 66 (1821), ss.4 and 5.
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheaton's 543, 574, 592, 597 (USSC, 1823).
Danforth v. Wear, 9 Wheaton's 673, 675 (USSC, 1824).
Cornet v. Winton, 2 Yearger's 129, 130 (CA Tenn., 1826).
Lee v. Glover, 8 NYR 189, 189 (SC, 1828).
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peter's 1, 17, 48, 49, 55, 58, 71 (ussc, 1831).
United States v. Arredondo, 31 us 691, 712-13 (1832).
Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Peter's 515, 541, 544, 546, 549, 560, 581 (ussc, 1832).
Cameron v. Kyte (1835), 12 PR 678, 682 (PC).
Mitchel v. United States, 9 Peter's 711 (USSC, 1835).
Harris v. Doe, 4 Blackf. 412, 414 (SC Indiana, 1837).
R. v. Cadien (Quebec, 1838); Instructions to jury per Chief Justice James Reid. An Indian in the unceded Indian territory is one "over whom no jurisdiction could be maintained" by the non-native court system of Quebec. See, Foster, "Forgotten Arguments."
Clark v. Smith, 38 us 19, 201 (1839). Georgia v. Canatoo, 8 Washington National Intelligencer 24 (SC Georgia, 1843).
Stockton v. Williams, 1 Michigan Reports 546, 560 (SC, 1845).
Bown v. West (1846), 1 P & A 117, 118 (CA Upper Canada).
Ogden v. Lee, 6 Hill's 546, 548 (SC New York, 1846).
Montgomery v. Ives, 13 Smedes & M. 161, 171, 174-5, 177, 179 (Mississippi HC of E & A, 1849).
Stuart v. Bowman (1851), 2 LoR 369, 394.
Rowland v. Ladiga's Heirs, 21 Ala. Reports 9, 28 (Sc, 1852).
Sheldon v. Ranisay (1852), 9 UCQIs 105, 127, 133.
R. v. McCornick (1859), 18 UoQB 131, 133.
Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 56, 90, 91(24), 92(13)(14), 109, 129, 146.
Connelly v. Woolrich (186, 11 L0J 197, 205-7, (1869) RLos 253, 356-7 (CA).
Minter v. Shirley, 3 Miss. 376, 384 (SC, 1871).
Holden v. Joy, 84 us 211, 244 (1872). Wood v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 2 Kansas Reports 248, 264 (so, 1873).
Leavenworth Railroad Company v. United States, 2 Otto's 733 (usso, 1875); Order in Council (Canada) of 23 January 1875. In the matter of the power of disallowance; United States v. 43 Gallons of Whisky, 93 US 188, 196 (1876); Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 US 55, 67-8 (1877).
Church v. Fenton (1878), 28 UUCP 384, 388, 399, (1879) 4 OAR 159, 5 ScR 239.
Butz v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 119 US 55, 67-8 (1886).
St. Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. V. R. (1886),13 OAR 148, 169.
St. Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. V. R. (1887), 13 SCR 577, 608-10, 628, 631-2, 647 (see, especially, Owynne J. re Restigouche grants).
St Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 AS 46, 51,53,60 (PC).
AG Ont. v. Francis (1889), PAD, Irving Papers, u43, P 42, Item 9, at 13 (High Court of Ontario).
AG Ont v. AG Can. (1895), 25 SCR 434, 504, 535.
AG Ont. V. AG Can. (1894 ), AS 199, 205 (PC).
Ontario Mining Co v Seybold (19O3), AC 73, 79 (PC).
AG Can. v. AG Ont (1910), AC 637, 644, 646 (PC).
Doherty v. Girour (1915), 24 QKB 433, 436.
R.. V. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. (1925), AS 196, 197 (vs).
R. v. McMaster (1926), Ex. 68, 73. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 5. 7(1). Lasterbrook V. R. (1932), 5 SSR 210, 217-18.
R. v. Wesley, [ 2 wwR337, 348, 351.
Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, articles 2(b), 2(e), 3(e), 4 and 6.
St Ann's Island Shooting & Fishing Club Ltd, v. R. (1950), SSR 211, 212-13.
R. v. George (1964), 2 OR 429, 433 (CA).
R. v. Sikyca (1964), 46 WwR 65, 66 (NMSA), 1964J SSR 642.
Brick Caftage Ltd. v. R. (1965), 1 Ex. 102, 105 (ID).
Calder v. ASPS (1973), scr 313, 320, 323, 379, 401, 402.
Constitution Act, 1982, ss. 25(a), 35(1), 38 & 52
by Benjamin Doolittle UE @ August 2, 2022, 11:29 am • • Restore the Haldimand Tract!
LegalTerms of UseCookiesPrivacy