Treaties & Compacts

By Blood, by Law, by Sacred Mandate

Preface

The treaties and compacts listed below are living instruments of law. They remain fully binding today, as at the time of execution, and continue to impose enforceable obligations.

The United States affirms this principle through its own constitutional order: treaties do not lapse by age, but remain in force unless lawfully abrogated. This rule applies equally to treaties with foreign nations and to treaties with Native Nations.

Accordingly, these agreements confirm that the sovereignty of the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation endures by inherent right and binding obligation. Each treaty, compact, and ruling reflects uninterrupted continuity and establishes that the Nation has never been extinguished, its authority remaining secured under the same principles of law that govern sovereign nations internationally.

Preamble

The Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation holds sovereignty through binding treaties, deeds, and compacts operative under Indigenous, United States, and international law.

Connections to additional treaty-holding Native Nations, including Cherokee and Haudenosaunee peoples, arise through separate and documented lines of descent, adoption, and recorded succession. These inheritances operate alongside — not in substitution for — Northeastern Algonquian ancestry.

Indigenous law does not require exclusivity of descent. Multiple lawful kinship, treaty, and successor inheritances may coexist within a single lineage, each retaining independent legal force.

Sachem Mongotucksee “Long Knife” (Montaukett, late 1500s–early 1600s) – my 13th great-grandfather; Paramount Sachem of the Montaukett and father of Grand Sachem Wyandanch, remembered for his leadership of eastern Long Island prior to colonial consolidation.
Grand Sachem Canonicus (Narragansett Nation, 1539–1647) – my 12th great-grandfather; principal sachem of the Narragansett, signer of early colonial treaties and land agreements in Rhode Island and the Long Island Sound region, and a central figure in Narragansett sovereignty.
Sequin (Mattabesett) (early 1600s) – my 13th great-grandfather; sachem of the Mattabesett whose kinship and alliance networks connected the Connecticut River peoples with coastal Algonquian nations, extending sachemic authority inland.
Sowheag (Sequasson) (Mattabesett/Wangunk, 1600s) – my 13th great-grandfather; sachem leader of the Connecticut River tribes, recorded in colonial diplomacy, whose bloodline reinforced Mattabesett–Narragansett–Montaukett alliances.
Quashawan (Pequot–Narragansett noblewoman, 1500s–1600s) – my 14th great-grandmother; a sachemic matriarch uniting Pequot and Narragansett lines, carrying inter-nation authority through New England councils and kinship succession.
Grand Sachem Wyandanch (Montaukett, c. 1620–1659) – my 11th great-grandfather; Paramount Sachem of the Montaukett, son of Mongotucksee, whose deeds, petitions, and diplomacy are preserved in colonial records, anchoring Montaukett sovereignty within early treaty and petition history.
Catoneras (c. 1603–1659) – my 10th great-grandmother; a Matinecock sunksqua (female sachem) of the North Shore of Long Island, operating within Montaukett-aligned confederated kinship networks. Her marriage to Cornelius Jansen Van Texel formed the Catoneras–Van Texel Compact (1640s), among the earliest Native–European sovereign alliances in New York.
Chief Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) Hertel (c. 1570–1630) – my 11th great-grandfather through a collateral ancestral branch; his lineage enters our family through allied kinship and marriage networks connected to Quashawan and related Pequot–Narragansett lines, establishing lawful Haudenosaunee kinship continuity later reflected in treaty-recognized domains.
Powhatan–Cherokee lineage (18th–19th centuries) – documented through Dawes-era Cherokee–Powhatan kinship within the Price family lines (Flint District). This descent anchors treaty continuity under the Powhatan treaties (1607–1677) and the Cherokee treaties of Hopewell (1785) and Holston (1791), all remaining operative under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Choctaw kinship lineage (18th–19th centuries) – arising through documented Southeastern intermarriage and allied kin networks shared with Cherokee and Powhatan-descended families during the late colonial and removal periods. This lineage reflects lawful Indigenous kinship succession recognized across Southeastern treaty domains, operating alongside and in continuity with Cherokee–Powhatan descent rather than as a separate or conflicting claim.

Through these ancestors, the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation inherits treaty-protected sovereignty under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI), reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020).

Foundational Treaties & Deeds

Active Federal Treaties: Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), all treaties made with Native Nations are the supreme law of the land. They remain binding unless Congress explicitly nullifies them.

Wampanoag Treaties (Massasoit, 1621 onward) – Early mutual-defense and recognition agreements with Plymouth, establishing an enduring diplomatic framework between Wampanoag leadership and New England settlers.
Narragansett Treaties (Grand Sachem Canonicus, 1630s–1640s) – Colonial compacts with Rhode Island and Long Island Sound settlers, recognizing Narragansett sovereignty within Crown-acknowledged diplomatic arrangements.
Pequot & Narragansett Compacts (Quashawan, Sassacus, 1638) – The Hartford-era treaties and related accords following the Pequot War, linking Pequot, Narragansett, and colonial authorities within a binding post-war framework.
Montaukett Deeds & Petitions (Sachem Mongotucksee “Long Knife” and Grand Sachem Wyandanch, 1640s–1650s) – Recorded in New York colonial archives, anchoring Montaukett sovereignty through land deeds, petitions, and intergovernmental recognition.
Mattabesett/Wangunk Compacts (Sequasson / Sowheag, mid-1600s) – Connecticut River agreements preserved in Hartford Colony records, documenting Mattabesett sovereignty and diplomatic standing within colonial law.
Mohegan Compacts (Sachem Uncas, 17th century) – Agreements recognized by the English Crown and colonial courts, later cited in federal jurisprudence affirming Mohegan sovereignty.
King Philip’s War Compacts (1675–1678) – Post-war settlements involving Wampanoag, Narragansett, Nipmuc, and colonial governments, embedding tribal–colonial agreements into the permanent legal record.
Albany Indian Commissioners’ Compacts (17th–18th century) – Recorded agreements between Dutch and English authorities and Mohawk, Mahican, and allied nations; a critical documentary bridge to later federal-era treaties.
Powhatan Treaties (1607–1677, Virginia) – Early colonial agreements with the Powhatan Confederacy, including the Treaty of Middle Plantation (1677), establishing continuity later carried through intermarried Cherokee–Powhatan descendants.
Treaties of Fort Stanwix (1768, 1784) – Foundational Haudenosaunee agreements shaping territorial and diplomatic relations prior to and following U.S. independence.
Treaty of Canandaigua (1794) – Federally binding agreement with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, reaffirmed annually by the United States and guaranteeing sovereignty and land rights in perpetuity.
Cherokee Treaties (1785–1835; Dawes Roll lineage) – Including the Treaties of Hopewell (1785), Holston (1791), and New Echota (1835). These remain binding under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; Dawes-era ancestors extend treaty protections through bloodline continuity.

Together, these treaties, compacts, petitions, and deeds reflect a continuous foundation of Indigenous sovereignty and governance—from early coastal agreements and New York colonial records through the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Powhatan kinship network of the Chesapeake, and the Cherokee treaty domain of the Southeast.

This record evidences unbroken continuity of sovereign authority carried forward by kinship, treaty, and succession, situating the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation within multiple interrelated treaty spheres maintained across regions and generations.

These interlinked spheres reflect Indigenous governance carried by bloodline and alliance rather than confined by later colonial boundaries.

Recorded Treaty-Era Lineal Continuity

Verified via federal Dawes Commission record.
This document reflects documented family continuity within the Cherokee treaty domain and U.S. treaty protection framework.

Dawes Roll Card — Cherokee Nation (c. 1900).
This federal record reflects documented lineal continuity within the Cherokee treaty domain and is presented here as corroborative archival evidence. Additional genealogical materials are retained in secured archives and are not displayed publicly to prevent misuse or misrepresentation.

Federal Pension Record – Mohawk Ancestor Gawengo (Tuskarhighto, Mohawk)
Filed July 11, 1911 – U.S. Volunteer Infantry

This federal pension record stands as documentary proof of continuity and acknowledgement by the United States government of Mohawk service and sovereign identity. As a federally issued record, it affirms that the Mohawk people were not only recognized but also honored within the framework of U.S. military and legal systems.

By bloodline, this record confirms the unbroken link between treaty-protected ancestors and their descendants today, establishing the legitimacy of tribal sovereignty carried forward into the present. It demonstrates that the U.S. government itself acknowledged our ancestors as warriors and allies, reinforcing the binding nature of our treaties under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

This is not genealogy alone—it is federal evidence of sovereign continuity, proof that our Nation’s existence, service, and rights remain acknowledged in both law and history.

Archival Record — Southeastern Treaty Domain

These records reflect documented kinship continuity within the Cherokee and Choctaw treaty domains and are presented as corroborative archival evidence alongside older sachemic and intertribal records.

Colonial Compacts & Deeds: Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), colonial compacts and deeds entered into with Native Nations remain enforceable as the supreme law of the land unless expressly nullified by Congress.

Treaty of Hartford (1650) – Colonial accord acknowledging the sovereignty of the Matinecock, Montaukett, and Wappinger Nations on Long Island, establishing recognized territorial boundaries and sachemic authority.
Montaukett Land Deeds (1660s–1680s, signed by Grand Sachem Wyandanch) – Affirmed Montaukett and Matinecock territorial rights in colonial land registries. As my direct ancestor, Wyandanch’s deeds remain admissible as legal proof of title, sovereignty, and jurisdiction.
Montaukett Petitions (1685 & 1705) – Filed in colonial courts to defend Montaukett land and sovereignty. Preserved in the New York State Archives and still cited as precedent in land rights and tribal recognition cases today.
Powhatan Treaties (1607–1677) – A series of compacts between the Powhatan Confederacy and colonial Virginia, among the earliest Native–colonial treaties in North America. Through intermarriage and Dawes-era enrollment of the Price–Powhatan family in the Cherokee Nation, these treaties anchor Southeastern kinship rights into federally recognized Cherokee jurisdiction.

Recognized Intermarriage Compacts

Catoneras-Van Texel Compact (1640s) – Marriage alliance conferring sovereignty, land, and inheritance rights. Descendants include the Travis, Lent, Outhouse, Knapp, and Van Texel families, preserved in our Grand Chief’s line.

Modern Validations

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) – Recognized inherent Indigenous sovereignty and original land rights predating the United States.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) – Defined tribes as “domestic dependent nations,” establishing the federal trust responsibility.
Worcester v. Georgia (1832) – Affirmed tribes as distinct, independent political communities immune from state interference.
United States v. Winans (1905) – Clarified that treaties reserve pre-existing tribal rights rather than grant new ones.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) – Reaffirmed that treaties remain valid unless explicitly abrogated by Congress.
Montaukett Recognition Cases (1890s–2020s) – Confirmed tribal survival and continuity despite dispossession and denial.
Supremacy Clause (U.S. Constitution, Art. VI) – Makes all treaties the supreme law of the land.

International Standing

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) – Recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain political, legal, and cultural sovereignty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) – Establishes in international law that treaties are binding contracts.
Montevideo Convention (1933) – Defines the criteria for statehood and international personality, a standard applied to sovereign and non-territorial nations alike.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) – Affirms the right of all peoples to self-determination.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – Reinforces sovereignty through rights to resources, culture, and development.
ILO Convention 169 (1989) – Protects Indigenous peoples’ rights to autonomy over their institutions and ways of life.
Treaty of Westphalia (1648) – Foundation of the modern sovereign system, establishing principles of sovereign equality still invoked in Indigenous sovereignty claims.

Asian Dynastic Treaties Covering Our Ancestry

Our sovereignty is not limited to North America. Through our lineages, we inherit protections under international dynastic compacts:

Xiongnu–Han Treaty of Heqin (198 BC) – Peace and kinship alliance between the Han Dynasty and the Xiongnu confederation, ancestral to the Hunnic lines.
Xiongnu/Hunnic–Roman/Byzantine Embassies (1st–5th century) – Diplomatic missions and exchanges of kinship, affirming recognition between Eurasian steppe empires and Rome.
Tang–Korean Compacts (7th century) – Treaties and alliances with Goguryeo and Silla, establishing recognition of Korean sovereignty in early East Asian international law.
Goryeo–Song Dynasty Relations (10th–12th century) – Diplomatic recognition and compacts between Goryeo Korea and the Song Dynasty of China.
Yuan–Goryeo Marriage Alliance (1270s–1300s) – Princess Jeguk, daughter of Kublai Khan, married into the Korean Goryeo royal House, fusing Mongol imperial and Korean dynasties.
Joseon–Ming Compacts (15th century) – Recognition of Joseon sovereignty by the Ming dynasty, covering direct descent from Joseon royal lines.
Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) – Treaty between Qing China and Russia, establishing borders and demonstrating East–West sovereign treaty precedent.

These treaties are recognized under international law as dynastic contracts. Combined with UNDRIP (2007), they extend our sovereignty across continents, ensuring that our Nation’s authority is acknowledged not only in America, but internationally.

Declaration of Enforcement

All treaties and compacts listed herein are alive, binding, and enforceable. Violations constitute breaches of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal trust obligations, and international law under the United Nations Charter, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Such breaches are not merely historical grievances but active violations of living law, triggering accountability under both domestic and international frameworks:

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) affirms that all treaties made with Native Nations remain the supreme law of the land, binding on all states and governments unless explicitly repealed by Congress.
The Federal Rules of Evidence establish that genealogy, documented records, and DNA analysis are admissible as proof in federal courts, validating lineal descent, continuity, and sovereign inheritance.
The United Nations Charter (1945) enshrines sovereign equality and the right of peoples to self-determination, extending international recognition to Indigenous and non-territorial nations.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) codifies the principle that treaties are binding agreements under international law, ensuring that compacts with Indigenous nations remain enforceable globally.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) sets the global standard affirming Indigenous rights to political, legal, and cultural sovereignty, including the right to maintain treaties and agreements with states.

Together, these instruments form the Declaration of Enforcement, guaranteeing that the sovereignty of our Nation is not symbolic but legally binding, enforceable in domestic courts and recognized in international law.

Modern Acknowledgments & State Recognitions

The enduring force of these treaties is further reflected in modern recognitions and institutional acknowledgments:
• U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (Title VI Classification EX-298309) – acknowledging the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation as a distinct tribal government for educational and demographic purposes.
• New York State Tax Exemption Certificate ST-119.1 (EX-298309) – recognizing sovereign tax-exempt status for official tribal operations.
• State Health and Insurance Registrations – Tribal status recognized in state-level systems for healthcare and coverage.
• Pending Acknowledgments (New Jersey and others) – active filings and agency dialogues continuing the process of parity recognition.

These acknowledgments demonstrate that the Nation’s sovereignty—rooted in ancestral and treaty law—remains active within both state and federal frameworks today.