America's first foray into foreign relations is not as straightforward as history class taught us. The Revolution is usually cast as a struggle between two powers: the British government and its representatives in modern-day Canada, and the American colonists. However, this ignores the Indigenous nations who pursued their own sovereign interests. 

The Wabanaki perspective of the Watertown Treaty of 1776, presented by Tribal Ambassador for the Houlton Band of Maliseets Osihkiyol Crofton-Macdonald, was the focus of Boothbay Harbor Memorial Library’s final talk for its revolutionary-themed series Sept. 2.

The Watertown Treaty was the first foreign treaty signed after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, with representatives from the Mi'kmaq and St. John's Tribes (Maliseet and Passamaquoddy) for military aid. It was also a defiance of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which limited negotiations with native nations to the Crown and banned colonists from settling beyond the Appalachians. In American history, this is taught as an exciting moment of a new nation exercising independence and gaining Indigenous allies against British rule. 

For Canada, it's a blip in British-Indigenous relations swiftly corrected by the Peace and Friendship Treaty (1778) signed at New Brunswick's Fort Howe. From Canada's perspective, the Royal Proclamation is portrayed as Britain adhering to native treaties, and the refusal to honor these agreements was the main reason beyond the Revolution. This story emphasizes British respect for the rule of law, which doesn't explain all the times the rule of law was ignored, explained Crofton-Macdonald. 

“Each side has used this history to reinforce their own national myths on this land."  

But Indigenous tribes were more than pawns between jockeying forces; they were their own players and pursued alliances to further their interests.

Unlike traditional methods of national expansion through conquest and the creation of governments to control the inhabitants of conquered land, 18th-century overseas colonialism was often based on diplomatic treaties between European powers who had never seen the areas they claimed, explained Crofton-Macdonald. 

For example, the Massachusetts Bay colonial charter granted land from Boston to the St. Lawrence River, despite very few British colonists exploring or settling outside the coasts. The established governments in these territories were also for the settlers, not Indigenous peoples.

"From many European or American perspectives, the very point of a treaty was to claim land and cede rights. From our perspective, that is not what treaty is. It is not about domination or control. A treaty is a relationship."

The very act of forming a treaty recognizes another's sovereignty, right to self-determination and responsibility to honor the formed relationship; Wabanaki Confederacy, made of the Abenaki, Mi'kmaq, Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet), Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, is such a relationship. These treaties can also be formed with non-humans, as it's a person's responsibility to maintain healthy relations with flora and fauna. 

From the Wabanaki perspective, they never gave up land rights or sovereignty, and this cultural mindset about treaties is important for understanding that. 

The Watertown meeting did not begin as a treaty negotiation; it was a request for more supplies to be available at a truck house (government-regulated trading post) in Machias due to a native boycott of Nova Scotia- based ones. The boycott was a result of Britain breaking treaties promising a fixed price for fur trading, as well as encroaching on native lands. 

The tone of the meeting changed when a letter came from George Washington. At the time, the Americans wanted Nova Scotia to join their cause partially to split British forces and take pressure off the 13 colonies, and thought securing Wabanaki aid would mean Nova Scotia would be pressured into fighting, said Crofton-Macdonald.

The issue was that while representatives could join the American side as individuals, they didn't have the authority to make decisions on their nation's behalf. While this idea was reflected in the meeting minutes, the treaty does not indicate that. The other issue was communication. The meeting relied on a translator and a single Mi'kmaw man who spoke French. The native representatives later indicated the treaty had not been properly read to them. 

“It was possible that there was some miscommunication that occurred in the translation process. It is also possible that this miscommunication was intentional."

Nova Scotia was alarmed, expecting a Mi'kmaq attack; 12 Mi'kmaq chiefs collectively signed a letter delivered to Halifax and Boston, clarifying the situation, and ended up remaining neutral. 

The Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) situation was different. They were willing to fight, but the fixed fur prices they thought they'd been promised at Watertown did not materialize. This was a verbal promise that never made it into the treaty. Unwilling to send military aid without terms being met, another 1777 treaty was signed (copies of which no longer exist), but it was not ratified by the Continental Congress. 

The result was the Fort Howe treaty. This still has effects today, with the majority of the Maliseet being considered a Canadian tribe, despite their ancestral lands taking up much of modern-day Maine. Today, many Wabanaki have to walk a tightrope between America and Canada's competing narratives, said Crofton-Macdonald.

"From their perspective, (the Wabanaki) deserve rights and respect today, not because we are a vibrant, meaningful, and respected nation and people who formed relationships of peace and alliance, but because we helped contribute to their own sovereign claims to land and nationhood."

And if Indigenous claims to rights and nationhood were not done in a way within or understood by the colonial legal system, then they do not deserve those rights now, he added.

While Crofton-Macdonald is unsure how to navigate the political landscape shaped by centuries of injustices, the first step is ensuring history is shared. "Our future on this planet would never recreate the past, but teaching the accurate history at the core of our relationship can help us all to create something new together."