13 The Credit Mission
In 1826, the Mississaugas of the Credit moved back to the Credit River to live in the model village established for them by the government with the band’s annuity funds—the fulfillment of an 1820 treaty promise. In 1827, the annual report of the Episcopal Methodist Church presented a glowing portrait of the “progress” of civilization at the Credit Mission:
The whole community consists of 260 souls—the society of 120 [church members], is formed into six classes, with as many leaders. Three stewards have the management of their funds for religious purposes, and provide for the communion, and several exhorters frequently visit the neighbouring tribes, from 50 to 100 miles around them. Of those who belong to this body, two families only remain in a wandering state, several families having embraced religion during the past year. In the month of October they were put in possession of the houses erected by the government; but as 20 houses were insufficient to accommodate 40 families, the Indians are themselves fitting up several more. To these was added last fall, a house for meetings and schools . . . By the efforts of the Missionary (Mr. Ryerson), the building was erected, and the expense, £75 ($300) has been defrayed by the liberality of the inhabitants in the neighbouring towns. Mr. Jones’s School during the year, has averaged 32; of these, 24 read in the testament, and English reader, and ten are writing. A number of these children possess minds of more than ordinary capacity for improvement, and being pious, the society may hope that, at no very distant period, the Saviour will employ them as messengers of mercy to other tribes of their pagan brethren. Indeed more than 20 of these children are now employed in the pleasing task of instructing their parents, for they are often heard reading in the testament the words of our Saviour.1
The report noted that “in the spring of this year, the Indians, out of their funds in the hands of the Government, purchased two yokes of oxen, one wagon, three ploughs, chains, harrow-teeth, hoes and other implements of husbandry, to commence the new business of agriculture. A few friends from York and Yonge street sent them a good Scotch plough, to break up the soil.”2
Credit Mission and land cessions on the Credit River. The area outlined in purple is the one-mile tract on either side of the Credit River reserved by the Mississaugas in Treaty 13A, signed in 1805. The area outlined in yellow is part of the area ceded in 1820 in Treaty 22. The red area is the two-hundred-acre reserve that was the only unceded land remaining after Treaty 23 was signed at the same time as Treaty 22. The blue area is the site of the Credit Mission Village (1826–47) | Courtesy of Heritage Mississauga
It was quite a source of contention when we first moved into the Credit River Mission Village. How do we hold land, for example? Do we hold this mission village in common, with no private ownership? So that was a big thing. Eventually, people decided, okay, we still hold land like the old ways. Everybody shares the land. The land belongs to everybody. We are attached to this land communally.
—Darin Wybenga, Mississaugas of the Credit.3
In 1828, the government ordered Indian agent James Givins to take a census of the Credit Mission settlement after the harvest. Note the high number of deaths, which still exceeded the number of births.
- Men 64
- Women 74
- Children 88
- Families 47
- Houses 30
- Births (year) 17
- Marriages 2
- Deaths 19
- Baptisms 40
- Members of church 132.
- Land cultivated 61 acres
- Wheat 65 bushels
- Oats 23 bushels
- Indian corn 1,045 bushels
- Onions 9 bushels
- Beets and carrots 16 bushels
- Cabbages 670
- Cartloads pumpkins 30
- Cows 27
- Oxen 18
- Horses 11
- Hogs 122
- Wagon 1
- Ploughs 4
- Harrows 14
The Mississaugas received £470 annually from the government for lands surrendered, “and the King’s presents were worth nearly as much more. Added to this, their hunting, fishing, manufacturing, the natives were in a comfortable condition.”5 In fact, their living conditions compared favourably with many settlers.
Sketch of John Jones’ house at the Credit Village, from Egerton Ryerson’s The Story of My Life
In March 1828, the Methodist missionary James Magrath visited the Credit Mission. He reported that John Jones taught thirty-five boys while a female schoolteacher taught thirty-six girls. Both were taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and religion, but the Mississaugas wanted tradespeople at the village to instruct the boys. “The girls were also taught to sew and knit, and wanted to own spinning wheels. Miss Sillick said that the Governor ordered a supply of Bible and Testaments.”6
Magrath inventoried 206 tilled acres and “a work-house for all Trades, a sawmill and a store for the merchants on the River.” The villagers also manufactured baskets, moccasins, and gloves—“best gloves of deer skin, 7s. 6d. a pair.”7
The village’s economic success was so great that the band’s missionary, Benjamin Slight, wrote in 1837: “A great proportion of the peasantry of even happy old England, might envy many in this villiage.”8 The village was comparable to the kind that The Village at Black Creek represents.
Stories of the Mississaugas’ transformation into model Christian farmers appeared in the Christian Guardian (founded in York in 1829) and other Methodist newspapers and circulated throughout North America and Britain. They were regarded as the vanguard of Indigenous “civilization,” countering the argument that Indigenous peoples were unredeemable “savages” doomed to extinction.9
Mission Governance
Elected Chief in 1829, Peter Jones created a legal code for the Credit Mississaugas. Approved by Council in 1830, it stipulated that “according to the old customs of our nation, the Chiefs shall be chosen by a majority of our people, and shall retain their office during life.” The Head Chief was given “supreme authority” but had to govern according to Council-approved laws. A General Council, conducted according to our old customs and composed of at least two-thirds of households, would be held every year. New laws would be passed by majority vote. A vote of two-thirds would be required to choose a new Chief or Chiefs and to depose a Chief “for great offences, gross immorality, or notorious incapacity.” Occasional Councils of “at least one chief and ten or more householders” could meet regarding “general improvement and welfare,” including offences against timber use, residence, and lands, which were all held in common.10
By replacing consensus-based decision-making with majoritarian democracy, Jones’ code diverged from the historical practice of Anishinaabe law and governance. But there were significant continuities. It is unclear whether Clan-based governance continued under the new code, but families remained central. Smaller Councils were used for day-to-day decision-making while General Councils (which required the presence of most families) made larger decisions about leadership and law. Land, timber, and the fishery continued to be held in common. The Council allocated land to families and approved its exchange or sale.11 Most significantly, decision-making authority was derived from the community and its jurisdiction was respected by colonial governments. Between 1830 and 1847, the Mississaugas maintained self-government through their legal code.12
Because they served as intermediaries with white society, Methodist leaders were named Chiefs or assumed leadership roles in most communities. Peter Jones was made a Chief of the Credit band in 1829; his uncle Nawahjekezhegwabe (Joseph Sawyer) was elected Head Chief after the death of James Ajetance that same year.
Mississauga Literacy and Political Advocacy
The spread of literacy and the biculturalism of Peter Jones and a few others gave the Mississaugas powerful voices to call out government and settler mistreatment. Jones stated:
Col. Givins issued our payments and presents. On reading the receipt of the land payments presented for the Chiefs to sign, I discovered a discrepancy between the amount of the original agreement and the amount of goods now received. The original agreement stated that the Credit Indians were to be paid for lands ceded to the Crown, the annual sum of £522 10s. currency, in perpetuity. Whereas the amount of goods now paid to the Indians, was £472 10s. Thus cutting of L£50. I directed the attention of the Inspecting Officer to the same, and asked him why this was done. He immediately called Col. Givins to explain to us why this reduction had been made. He replied that he was not at liberty to explain.13
In numerous letters and petitions, the Mississaugas affirmed their fishing rights and title to their land. For example, an 1829 petition to Sir John Colborne stated the Mississaugas had received the first Europeans as friends and granted them land to live on but were now being abused by their neighbours, who were destroying their fishery and obstructing their efforts to farm and be self-sufficient. The petition succinctly related their experience with treaties since the arrival of the British:
Father,
Your children who now petition you are a remnant of the great nations who owned and inhabited the country in which you now live and make laws; the ground on which you and your children stand covers the bones of our fathers for many generations . . . But the white man made us sick and drunken, and as they increased we grew less and less, till we are now very small. We sold a great deal of land to our great father, the King, for very little, and we became poorer and poorer. We reserved all the hunting and fishing ground, but the white men soon grew so many that they took all . . . We reserved one mile on each side of the Credit, where we now live. About four years ago, the Great Spirit sent to us good men with the Great Word, the Gospel of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and we became a new people; we have thrown away our sins; we live in houses in a Village where we worship the Great Spirit, and learn his word and keep his Sabbaths; our children and young men learn to read, and many of our people from a distance have joined us. We now want the fish in our River, that we may keep our children at home to go to School, and not to go many miles back to hunt for provisions. We also catch Salmon, and sell them very cheap to industrious white men, who bring us flour, and other provisions, and cattle; and they say it is much better than to fish themselves. But now, Father, we will tell you how wicked white men have used us—These are almost all lazy drunken white men, who will not work. They come in the Fall and Spring, and encamp for many weeks close by our Village—they burn and destroy our fences and boards in the night—they watch the Salmon, and take them as fast as they can be come up—they swear and get drunk, and give a very bad example to our young people, and try to persuade them to be wicked like themselves . . . Others go to the mouth of the River and catch all the salmon—they put the offals of Salmon in the mouths of the River in the Lake; and often in the dark they set gillnets in the River, and stop all the fish. by these means we are much injured, and our children are deprived of bread.
Now, Father, once all the fish in those Rivers and those Lakes, all the deer in these woods, were ours; but your red Children only ask you to cause laws to be made to keep these bad men away from our fishery at the River Credit . . . and to punish those who attempt to fish here. We will not fish on Saturday night, Sunday night, and Sunday, but will let the fish pass up to our white brothers up the River.14
Legislation to protect the Mississauga fishery followed in 1829 but was only in effect until 1834.15
Oominewahjeween (Pleasant stream) / William Herkimer | By Arvilla Louise Thorpe, reproduced in Smith, Sacred Feathers
Resistance—Bluejay on the Humber and the Herkimer Faction
After enthusiastic conversions in the 1820s and early 1830s, some Anishinaabek became disillusioned with Methodism. They switched to other Christian faiths or went back to a more traditional lifestyle and worldview. Some traditionalists left the church but remained at the Credit Village. Bluejay, an early convert in 1825, rejected Christianity for reasons unknown and left the mission with a group of followers. Jones called them “the wicked Indians on the Humber” because they consumed alcohol.16
Research committee member Darin Wybenga, Traditional Knowledge and land use coordinator, Mississaugas of the Credit | Courtesy Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
A more serious challenge to the changes initiated by Jones was a faction led by Lawrence and William Herkimer that included the Johnsons, Keshegoos, and Tobecos, all Christians and church members of mixed heritage.17 In the 1830s, they challenged Jones’ leadership and resisted his rejection of traditional Anishinaabe culture, particularly his insistence on European-style “family government” and physically disciplining children to “have them in complete subjection.” Traditionally, no one had the right to command another, even a child. The Herkimers and their followers insisted that all Credit lands remain communal, while Peter and John Jones sought (and eventually received) individual landholdings.18
My family goes back to the very founding of the Credit Mission Village and maybe even a little bit before that. My fourth great-grandfather was Lawrence Herkimer, son of the fur trader Lawrence Herkimer, born at Rice Lake. And he moved to New Credit, well not New Credit, you know, the old Credit.
—Darin Wybenga, Mississaugas of the Credit19
The Jones faction tried to control behaviour to ensure conformity to Methodist discipline. For example, they passed a resolution “that James Tobeco be required to put away his fiddle.”20 But the Herkimer faction persisted in challenging Jones. From the available evidence, it appears that about one-third of the band remained traditionalists, about half supported the Jones brothers and their radical reforms, and roughly one-sixth were moderates such as the Herkimers who accepted some changes but resisted others.21
Views of Peter Jones and the civilizational agenda remain divided. As a recent Mississaugas of the Credit publication puts it:
He is often vilified as a leader who “sold out” his people’s culture and traditions in favour of a non-indigenous world and life view. Others view Jones as a person striving to help his people cope, survive, and even prosper amidst the flood of incoming settlers to Upper Canada . . . It is somewhat ironic, that Peter Jones, the agent of transition, would help to preserve in the History of the Ojebway some of the cultural history that was lost.22
Maybe the government was successful in some things, but I think one thing they weren’t as successful at was to get Peter Jones to assimilate, because it backfired . . . I can argue the good and the bad. But the thing was survival at that time. You had to do what you had to do to survive as a people and make those changes. You give and you take, and you try to gain back what . . . you can.
—Margaret Sault, Mississaugas of the Credit23