The mixing of these individuals in white society, through social and civic organizations, and ultimately through elected office, demonstrates a high degree of integration and acceptance in the community. It is directly contrary to the petitioner's claim these families "remained on the margins of white society" (Petition: 149). These are not the type of things one would see if the Indian community was a separate, distinct community apart from the rest of Swanton as the petitioner contends.
There Has Not Been a Continuous Geographic Concentration of Indians in Franklin County
The geographic concentration of the residences of the petitioning group can be used geographic petitioning to satisfy Criterion (b). It can be used for "high evidence" of geographical concentration, by demonstrating that "[m]ore than 50 percent of the members reside in a geographical area or almost exclusively composed of members of the group, and the balance of the group maintains consistent interaction with some members of the community" (25 C.F.R. 83.7(b)(2)(i)). Or, it can be used as part of the overall presentation of evidence as was done in the Wampanoag and Narragansett cases (BIA Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head 1987:5, BIA Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island 1982:9). Significant numbers of Narragansett Indians lived within a ten-mile radius of the town of Charlestown from the mid-1750's to the time the petition was filed. Emigration from the area was limited (BIA Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island 1982:9). The lack of geographic concentration can also be important. The MaChris case illustrated the need for both geographic clustering and identification of an area as Indian:
While Federal census and county records show there has been some residential clustering and interaction among the principal families in the group from 1850 to the present at various and somewhat scattered locations in
southeastern Alabama, these family enclaves have never been regarded by others as being American Indian communities. (BIA MaChris Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe 1987:3).
The St. Francis/Sokoki Abenaki materials follow the latter illustration. The petition
admits that the outsiders did not regard the areas where petitioner lived as Indian (Petition:159). In addition, although the petition talks a lot about the continuity of habitation in Swanton and surrounding areas of Franklin and Grand Isle counties, the federal census records present a picture of Indians scattered around the state from 1860 to 1970, with almost no at all Indians in Swanton (see Table 1 above).
Even within Franklin County, the federal census records do not depict a distinct
community. The census records from the late nineteenth century show the petitioner's ancestors living in French Canadian neighborhoods, holding jobs that were the same as their non-Indian neighbors (Davis Affidavit, Attachment A:1-2).
The Petitioner Did Not Immigrate to Vermont as a Group at Any One Time
In contrast to the Narragansett, the St. Francis/Sokoki group was not stable. It
exhibited a great deal of immigration and emigration. Movement alone does not disqualify a group from federal acknowledgment. However, the movement must fall in a pattern that shows "a group whose history could be traced through time and place" (BIA Steilacoom Tribe of Indians 2000:5881). To satisfy the "community" criterion, the evidence should "demonstrate that immigrants to the same place had preexisting ties based on earlier marriages, common residence in a settlement, or membership in a group" (BIA Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, Charts, 2000:4). They need to have migrated to the area together as a group, or in waves that show a connection between the old place of
habitation and the new one. A crucial question to ask is: "Do the migrants have any previous connection with each other that might inform the analysis of community once in Montana, including continuing ties with predecessor groups?" (BIA Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, Charts, 2000:4). The criterion of community will not be satisfied if a number of unconnected people come together as a group in the twentieth century.
However, that is exactly what we have here. The petitioner's Family Descendancy Charts provide a useful means of examining the immigration pattern of the families that supposedly make up the present community. Those charts, supplemented with information from other parts of the petition, show that families came to Swanton, or the surrounding area, over a hundred and twenty year period, from a variety of locations:
Table 2
Dates of Immigration of Families on Petitioner's Family Descendancy Charts
Family: Morits, John
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1820's
Former Location: Quebec Date Arrived in Swanton: 1820's
Source: John Morits was born in Quebec; no town given. His son, John F. Morits, was born in Highgate in 1826.
Family: St. Laurent
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1830's
Former Location: Quebec
Source: Hippolyte St. Laurent was born in Quebec; his children Sophie and Marie (and their husbands, Joseph Bourgeois and Lewis Colomb) were also born in Quebec, according to census records. The first grandchild to be born in Vermont was Mary Colomb in 1833. Family: Colomb
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1830's
Former Location: Waterloo, Quebec
Source: Joseph Colomb was born in Quebec, as were his three children. His first grandchild to be born in Vermont was Mary Colomb in 1833. Joseph Colomb Chart.
Family: Medor
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1834-1841
Former Location: St. Regis, Quebec
Source: Peter and Marguerite Julia (St. Pittie) Medor both born in St. Regis, Quebec. Their second child was born in St. Regis, their third child was born in Swanton. Their sixth child was born in New York state in 1853. Peter Medor Chart.
Family: Hance
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1849-1854
Former Location: St. Gregoire, Quebec
Source: Dates and places of birth of children of Antoine and Caesarie Hance, Antoine Hance Chart.
Family: Phillips
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1848-1850
Former Location: Quebec
Source: Antoine and Catherine (Cadaive) Phillips were both born in Quebec. Their children were all born in Quebec between 1829 and 1848. They first show up in the 1850 federal census for Highgate, VT. The children and grandchildren of Antoine and Catherine did not stay in Vermont. Granddaughter Mary was born in Fort Edward, NY, and three of her children were born in Fort Edward, Morris Forks, and Scotia, NY. Antoine and Catherine's grandson Louis was born in Maine, and two of his children were born in Saratoga and Amsterdam, NY.
Family: St. Francis
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1850
Former Location: Iberville, Quebec
Source: The 1900 census indicates Mitchell St. Francis was born in Quebec and immigrated to the U.S. in 1850. Mitchell's sisters were married at Ste. Brigide in Iberville in 1851.
Family: Desmarais
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1850's
Former Location: Quebec
Source: Louis Desmarais was born in Quebec; his son George Demar was born in Franklin, Vt., in 1857.
Family: Hoague
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1868-1870
Former Location: St. Hyacinthe and St. Dominique, Quebec.
Source: Flavien Hoague and his parents were born in Quebec. He married Adele (Belair) Hoague who was also born in Quebec. Their first six children were born in Quebec. Their seventh child was born in Swanton. Flavien Hoague Chart. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1870b).
Family: LaFrance
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1869
Former Location: Quebec
Source: Charles and Mary LaFrance were both born in Quebec; four of their seven children were born in Quebec. Charles LaFrance Chart.
Family: Ouimette
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1870's
Former Location: St. Armand, Quebec
Source: Theodore Ouimette and his children were all born in Quebec. Two of his children were married in Swanton. Theodore Ouimette Chart.
Family: Hakey
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1890
Former Location: Massachusetts and Quebec
Source: Eli Hakey was born in Massachusetts; his parents and grandparents were born in Quebec. Eli was married in Swanton in 1891. Eli Hakey Chart. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1900e).
Family: Partlow
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1900
Former Location: New York
Source: Charles Partlow was born in Alburg, VT, but he married Sophie Blair in Clinton County, NY, and all their children were born in New York. Only two family lines are provided for the subsequent generations. Their son George married a woman from Massachusetts and they moved to Swanton before their first child was born in 1902. Charles and Sophie's son Frank married a woman from New York and their first two children were born in New York. Charles Partlow Chart.
Family: Obomsawin
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1901-1909 (to Charlotte, Vt.)
Former Location: Odanak, Quebec
Source: Simon Obomsawin and his children were born on the Abenaki reserve at Odanak/St. Francis, Quebec. They went to Grand Isle County around 1900 and then settled in Charlotte, Vt., at the southern tip of Lake Champlain late that decade. (Royce 1969).
Family: Gibeau
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1920's
Former Location: Trois Rivieres, Quebec
Source: Margaret Gibeau was born in Trois Rivieres, Quebec. She was married in 1924 in Swanton.
Family: (Joseph) Gardner
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1940's
Former Location: New York
Source: Petition:85-86.
Family: (Lawrence/Pete) Lapan
Date Arrived in Swanton: 1940's
Former Location: New York
Source: Petition:85-86.
Family: Nepton
Date Arrived in Swanton: Late 20th c.
Former Location: Massachusetts, Quebec, Connecticut, and Rhode Island
Source: There is not a single birth, marriage, or death listed in Vermont on the Nepton Family Chart for six generations.
Not only does this demonstrate that no single group moved from one location to another, but it shows a lack of community relations among, the ancestors of the petitioner. Since these people were not all living in the same place in the 1840's or the 1890's, they did not constitute one community at that time. They were certainly not one community in Swanton, since they had not yet all arrived. And, they were not one community in Quebec or New York, since they did not all come front same town or parish.
This evidence corresponds with the example of the United Houma Nation. In theproposed finding against federal acknowledgment for the United Houma, that evidence led to finding against conclusion that the petitioner did not exist continuously as a distinct community from historical times to the present. As the Proposed Finding stated, there was "no evidence for a Finding stated, there was "no evidence for a
UHN ancestral community (Indian or non-Indian) prior to 1830" (BIA United Houma Nation 1994:11). The specific deficiencies were described thus:
The UHN ancestors who first settled the bayous of southern Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, Louisiana, did not enter the area together. The UHN petitioner presents a situation in which a small number of individual Indians, from partially unknown tribal backgrounds (two unrelated Indian women and a single Indian nuclear family), and numerous non-Indian individuals, coalesced into a distinct community on Bayou Terrebonne between 1810 and 1830. Geographically, the origins of the individual families can be traced to several locations...
The petitioner's ancestors who would meet in Louisiana's lower bayous had few, if any, previous relationships, other than those within nuclear families.... The documentation indicates that the vast majority of the ties among the UHN's ancestors developed only after the families had settled on their land in Terrebonne Parish after 1800. After moving onto Spanish-era grants along Terrebonne Bayous near present-day Montegut, they united through marriage, economic undertakings, and other social interactions. After these immigrants had become one another's neighbors, over the course of a generation, the settlers evolved into the small farming community shown on Federal census records and General Land Office records in the 1830's. (BIA United Houma Nation 1994:12).
There is another way to examine a cross-section of the group described by petitioner. Instead of using the Family Descendancy Charts which list the ancestors of the present day community, we can examine names from the petitioner's list of prior generations in the petition's Appendix 1B to the Petition Addendum. 67. Names found in the federal census for 1870 and 1900 include information on the birthplace of the individual and his or her parents, as well as immigration and naturalization dates (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1870a, 1870b, 1900d, 1900e). This is summarized in the following table:
_________________
FOOTNOTE:
67. This list contains some names not found in the 1995 Family Descendancy Charts because petitioner narrowed its focus over time. The changing lists demonstrate the high decree of uncertainty in petitioner's proof.
Table 3
Continuity of Generations in Canada with
Pattern of Immigration of Individuals in Petition Addendum
Name:
Town:
Date of Immigration or Naturalization:
Number of Generations born in Canada:
Census:
John Martin
Highgate
1796-1844
2
1870
Isaiah Ramo
Highgate
1808-1859
2
1870
Charles Martin
Highgate
1808-1852
2
1870
Peter Medor
Swanton
1832-1854
1870
Peter Greenia
Highgate
1822-1852
2
1870
Stephen Brow
Swanton
Before 1826
1
1870
John White
Highgate
1830
2
1900
Mitchell Young
Swanton
1837-1866
2
1870
Joseph Martin
Highgate
1839-1863
2
1870
Peter Medor
Swanton
1840
2
1900
Martha Campbell (wife of George)
Swanton
1841
2
1900
Abram Campbell
Swanton
1844-1863
2
1870
Moses Greenia
Highgate
1847
2
1900
Edward Bushey
Highgate
Before 1848
1
1900
Nelson Hakey
Swanton
1850
2
1900
Mitchel St. Francis
Swanton
1850
2
1900
Edward Hance
Swanton
1854
2
1900
Eliza Vancelette (wife of Moses)
Swanton
1860
2
1900
Joseph Hoague
Swanton
1860
2
1900
Mary Medor (wife of Charles)
Swanton
1863
2
1900
Peter Hoag
Swanton
1863
2
1900
Tuffield Bushware
Swanton
1864
2
1900
Albert LaFrance
Highgate
1866
2
1900
Joseph LaFrance
Highgate
1867
2
1900
Sophia Greenio (wife of Justin)
Swanton
2
1900
Flavius (Fayvan) Hoag
Swanton
1870
3
1870
William Hakey
Highgate
1870
2
1900
John Lafarer
Swanton
1870
2
1900
Maggie Bushey (wife of Joseph)
Swanton
1880
2
1900
Gilbert Ouimette
Swanton
1880
2
1900
Name:
Town: Date of Immigration or Naturalization:
Number of Generations born in Canada:
Census:
Joseph Remillard
Swanton
1893
3
1900
Emma Penell (wife of Frederick)
Swanton
1895
2
1900
Sarah Bushware (wife of Fred)
Swanton
1898
2
1900
Once again, the obvious conclusion is that the people who supposedly comprised the Abenaki community in Franklin County did not move to the area all at the same time. Moreover, they did not move there after only a short, temporary sojourn in many cases they had lived in Canada for 2 or 3 generations before taking, up residence in northwestern Vermont.
There is one interesting exception to the disordered picture of immigrants to Swanton who now claim to be Abenakis of Vermont--that is the Obomsawin family. They did retain a connection to a "predecessor community," and it was an Indian community. They kept up their ties to relatives at Odanak/St. Francis. They appear on the rolls of Abenakis maintained at Odanak/St. Francis. The 1875 census of the Abenakis in the village at St. Francis lists dozens of members of the extended Obomsawin family. Simon himself, the father of Marie, Elvine, Marion, and William, appears as a young man with his father and siblings in the list of tribal members who lived off the reserve in other parts of Canada 68. (Canada, Indian Affairs 1875:6).
That 1875 census for Odanak/St. Francis counts how many members of the tribe were "Absents aux Etats," or absent in the United States (Canada, Indian Affairs 1875:5). The
________________
FOOTNOTE:
68. The Family Descendancy chart for Simon Obomsawin says he was born in 1850. That fits with the individual listed on the 1875 Odanak/St. Francis census here.
specific names of the Odanak members who were in the United States at that time are given on the last page. Not a single one of these individuals shows up in the Family Descendancy Charts of the St. Francis/Sokoki petitioner. A similar list exists for the 1873 census; there too, none of the individuals in the United States show up in the petitioner's family charts. (Canada, Indian Affairs 1873).
The example of the Obomsawin family stands out, over and over in the evidence. In contrast to the petitioner, whose members from Swanton never identified themselves as Indian, were unknown to the Abenakis at Odanak/St. Francis, and who never shared their cultural knowledge with the researchers who sought to learn about it, the Obomsawins repeatedly shine through. But one family at Thompson's Point in Charlotte does not make a tribe in Swanton.The Abenaki Language Was Not Spoken by Petitioner
One type of evidence listed in the federal regulations that will satisfy Criterion (b) is retention of a unique cultural trait such as the speaking of an Indian language (25 C.F.R. 83.7(b)(1)(vii)). The Jena Band of Choctaw kept their language; this was positive evidence in favor of acknowledgment in their case (BIA Jena Band of Choctaw 1994:4). Among the petitioner's ancestors the Abenaki language died out. The petition stated in 1982 that "Research to date has not found any contemporary speakers" of Abenaki in Vermont (Petition:95). When Homer St. Francis spoke of large gatherings at his father's house in the first half of the twentieth century, he said the visitors all spoke French—and he could not understand them (Petition:92).
