Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Violation

Oneida land (New York): 1795 sale without federal approval

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

The US promised not to disturb Oneida land and required federal approval of sales; New York bought most of it in 1795.

Treaty
Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), Treaty of Canandaigua (1794), Nonintercourse Act (1790/1793/1834)
Nations
Oneida Indian Nation; Haudenosaunee
When
1795-2005
Land affected
Most of the Oneida homeland in central New York; sovereignty over reacquired parcels (Sherrill).

What happened

In the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794), Article II acknowledged the reservations of the Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga as their property. The United States said it "will never claim the same" and would not disturb them in its "free use and enjoyment," and the land would stay theirs until they chose to sell it to people of the United States. A federal law, the Nonintercourse Act of 1793, added a rule: no one could purchase Indian land without the federal government's approval.

In 1795 New York State negotiated with the Oneida and bought most of their remaining land, paid for in annual cash payments. According to the Supreme Court's 1985 opinion, Secretary of War Pickering warned New York's governors that federal commissioners had to oversee such deals. The trial court found that "no United States Commissioner or other official of the federal government was present." The State ignored the warnings, the Court says. The Oneida ancestors conveyed 100,000 acres in that 1795 agreement, according to the Court's 2005 opinion.

The Oneida sued in 1970. In County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the Oneida could sue over the sale, based on federal common law, and rejected the counties' defenses. In City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (2005), the Court ruled 8-1 that the Nation could not revive sovereignty over parcels it had bought back on the open market, citing the long passage of time.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 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

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. the United States will never claim the same, nor disturb them or either of the Six NationsTreaty with the Six Nations, 1794 (Treaty of Canandaigua), OSU Tribal Treaties Database
  2. no United States Commissioner or other official of the federal government was presentCounty of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (Cornell LII)
  3. The Oneidas long ago relinquished governmental reins and cannot regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders.City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (Cornell LII)

Research notes. Input says the 1784 Fort Stanwix treaty and New York's 'treaties' with several nations; I did not open Fort Stanwix and left it out. The 1985 opinion states 100,000 acres for the 1795 conveyance; Sherrill describes a 300,000-acre reservation; I give only the 1795 figure. I did not verify any later land-claim settlements or acreage, so the input's 'largely settled' line is omitted. The Sherrill vote (8-1, Stevens dissenting, Souter concurring) is from the syllabus. Canandaigua Article II protects reservations 'until they choose to sell the same to the people of the United States', which is why the Nonintercourse Act is the main legal hook.

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

Who is doing the work

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.

Taken to court in 2

Carried out through 2

Nations named 2

Concerns the instrument 2

Located in 1

Policy era 1

Land returns that respond to this 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/226/legal text copy
  2. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/177legal text copy
  3. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/legal text copy
  4. nps.gov/articles/000/state-of-new-york-treaties-and-land-transactions-with-the-oneida-ononreference work
The record’s fields
What happened
Oneida land (New York): 1795 sale without federal approval -- New York began its own treaties with the Oneida, Tuscarora, Onondaga and Cayuga less than a year after the 1784 Fort Stanwix treaty, arguing it could do so because they lived within the state. The Nonintercourse Act barred sales of Indian land to states or individuals without federal approval. The Court held in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (1985) that the Oneida had a federal common-law right to sue over the 1795 conveyance and that no state statute of limitations applied. In City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (2005), 8-1, the Court held that the Nation could not revive sovereignty over parcels it had repurchased on the open market, citing laches, acquiescence and impossibility, and pointed to the trust-acquisition process.
Acreage
not stated in sources read (reservation was once millions of acres; unverified)
Legal aftermath
Liability for the 1795 sale confirmed (1985); remedies narrowed by Sherrill (2005). Land claims in New York are now largely settled or settlement-driven; details not verified this session.
Kind
Violation
Confidence
High
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details unverified

Correct this record