Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Violation

Fort Stanwix 1784: cession by Haudenosaunee delegates who lacked authority

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

At Fort Stanwix in 1784 Six Nations delegates yielded claims west of a line; the Six Nations never ratified it, and 1789 renewed it.

Treaty
Treaty of Fort Stanwix
Nations
Haudenosaunee (Six Nations); Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Mohawk, Oneida, Tuscarora
When
1784-1789
Land affected
Claims to the Ohio country, a strip along the Niagara River, and land west of Buffalo Creek (Pennsylvania 'Last Purchase').

What happened

At Fort Stanwix on October 22, 1784, commissioners Oliver Wolcott, Richard Butler and Arthur Lee gave "peace to the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and Cayugas" on conditions. Article II secured the Oneida and Tuscarora in the lands where they were settled. Article III drew a boundary line and said the Six Nations "shall and do yield to the United States, all claims to the country west of the said boundary." East and north of it they were to be secured in peaceful possession of their lands, except six miles square around the fort of Oswego.

The National Park Service says the federal negotiators "dictated the terms of the treaty" to the Six Nations, treating four of the nations as defeated enemies, which it says they were not. It says individuals selected by the federal representative "may have been coerced into signing." The Park Service adds that the United States ratified the treaty in 1785, "but the Six Nations never ratified the treaty." The New York Almanack reports that Six Nations leaders refused on the grounds the delegates lacked the authority to agree to the terms.

On January 9, 1789, at Fort Harmar, Governor Arthur St. Clair made a treaty with the Six Nations to "renew and confirm all the engagements and stipulations" made at Fort Stanwix. The database lists the Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Mohawk and Tuscarora nations among successors.

Good to know. The Six Nations never ratified the treaty, and whether their delegates had authority to agree, or were coerced, is disputed.

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Supported by the sources below; some details rest on one source.

  1. the Six Nations shall and do yield to the United States, all claims to the country west of the said boundaryTribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 (Fort Stanwix)
  2. The federal negotiators then dictated the terms of the treaty to the Six NationsNational Park Service: Treaty and Land Transaction of 1784
  3. The United States ratified this treaty in 1785, but the Six Nations never ratified the treaty.National Park Service: Treaty and Land Transaction of 1784
  4. Six Nations leaders later refused to ratify the treaty on the grounds the delegates lacked the authority to agree to the termsNew York Almanack: Treaties Between the Six Nations and the United States
  5. to renew and confirm all the engagements and stipulations entered into at the beforementioned treaty at fort StanwixTribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 (Fort Harmar)

Research notes. The Wikipedia-only claims in the old text (Joseph Brant's quoted remark, the Buffalo Creek council, Cornplanter and Aaron Hill signing) were removed. The authority point rests on the New York Almanack, a non-primary source; the NPS gives the coercion point. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is the proper voice on authority and consent. Acreage is not stated in the sources opened. The 7 Stat. 15 citation matches the OSU page.

Treaty under documented pressureShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Land return and Native-led work nearby

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Nations named 7

Located in 2

Policy era 1

Concerns the instrument 1

Sources

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Stanwix_(1784)pointer
The record’s fields
What happened
Fort Stanwix 1784: cession by Haudenosaunee delegates who lacked authority -- Signed after the Revolutionary War by Haudenosaunee representatives (Brant left early; Cornerplanter and Aaron Hill signed). The Six Nations council at Buffalo Creek refused to ratify, arguing its delegates had no authority to give away such large tracts, and asked for the deeds back. The United States renewed its claims in the Treaty of Fort Harmar (1789). This is a contested-authority/duress problem, not a statute-based abrogation.
Legal aftermath
Treated by the United States as valid; no court remedy. Later Haudenosaunee land claims in New York rest on the Nonintercourse Act rather than on Stanwix (see V018).
Kind
Violation
Confidence
Medium
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details not yet checked against a source
  • Some details unverified

Correct this record