Download Whose Land? An Introduction to the Iroquois

Whose Land?
An Introduction to the Iroquois Land Claims
in
New York State
written by Philip Harnden
for the American Friends Service Committee
February 2000
American Friends Service Committee
Upper New York State Area Office
420½ Gifford Street
Syracuse NY 13204
1
American Friends Service Committee
Upper New York State Area Office
420½ Gifford St.
Syracuse NY 13204
Phone: (315) 475-4822
February 2000
Phil Hamden and Upper New York State American Friends Service Committee thank the
following for their willingness to read this manuscript and for their helpful comments.
• Arlinda Locklear
• Joyce Mitchel, Administrator for the Mohawk Nation of Chiefs
• The Religious Society of Friends Syracuse Monthly Meeting Indian Land
Claims Committee
• June Lorenzo of the Indian Law Resource Center
• Aura Kanegis of the Friends Committee on National Legislation
Special thanks to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Indian Committee and New York Yearly
Meeting Indian Affairs Committee for their generous financial support in making this report
possible.
2
Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................5
Maps
Map 1. Aboriginal Territories of the Haudenosaunee
Map 2. Locations of Current Land Claims
8
27
PART ONE: An Introduction to the Iroquois Land Claims
Who Are the Iroquois? ....................................................................9
The Loss of Indian Lands ..............................................................10
An Overview of the Land Claims..................................................13
The Dilemma of Non-Indian Residents.........................................15
Reaching Conclusions ...................................................................18
PART TWO: Further Considerations
Understanding Indian Sovereignty ................................................21
Frequently Asked Questions..........................................................23
PART THREE: The Six Nations and Their Claims
CAYUGA Gayohkohnyoh People of the Great Swamp ...............28
MOHAWK Kahnia'kehaka People of the Flint .............................30
ONEIDA Onyota'a:ka People of the Standing Stone ....................32
ONONDAGA Ononda'ge People of the Hills ...............................35
SENECA Onondawahgah People of the Great Hill ......................37
TUSCARORA Ska:ru:re Shirt-Wearing People............................40
PART FOUR: Resources and Responses
Resource Addresses.......................................................................42
Reading List...................................................................................45
Feedback Form ..............................................................................46
3
4
Preface
Behind the peaceful scenery of rural New York State, a controversy rages. The Iroquois
people, whose ancestors once lived here unchallenged, are trying to recover a part of the lands
their forebears lost. In federal courtrooms over the past 30 years, they have laid claim to some
350,000 acres that they say were taken from them illegally by New York State. Their claims
have been met by a wave of disbelief, worry, and opposition from landholders in the claim
areas.
The controversy has already spilled from the courtrooms into the communities, where the
atmosphere is now heavily laden with age-old resentments, misunderstanding, and anxiety.
Hostility has torn apart families and friendships. Open violence is a real possibility.
"There's a powder keg out there," one resident told a newspaper reporter. "It will take a very
small spark."
Where did this controversy originate? Who are the Iroquois people? On what basis do they
claim these lands? What will become of non-Indians now living in the claim areas? And what
direction offers the best hope for a peaceful and fair resolution to these disputes?
This booklet is a brief introduction to the Iroquois land claims in New York State. It attempts
to answer these questions concisely but carefully. It is written for people who have sincere
concerns about the issue and are looking for reliable, understandable explanations.
The booklet was prepared by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization
that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace, and
humanitarian service. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) was founded in 1917
by the Religious Society of Friends to provide conscientious objectors to war with a
constructive alternative to military service. AFSC sent Quakers to France and Germany to
distribute food and clothing and to help rebuild villages shattered by World War I. In 1947,
AFSC and its British counterpart were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The American Friends Service Committee bases its work on Quaker beliefs in the worth of
every person and in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice. Today it carries on
programs of emergency relief, development, social justice, and peace education in 22 foreign
countries and in 43 places in the United States. A regional AFSC office in Syracuse, New
York, established in 1969, offers various community programs, including school workshops
on nonviolent conflict resolution and a self-help project for people using welfare.
At the American Friends Service Committee, we have been engaged with American Indians
for the past 50 years. A project of our Syracuse office, for example, assists the efforts of
Mohawk people to clean up toxic waste and revive traditional economies at their Akwesasne
home on the St. Lawrence River. Because of such partnerships, we know the Iroquois people
have waited for generations to have a fair hearing and a just resolution of their land claims.
But we also know that non-Indians in the claim areas have important concerns that must be
addressed. For many of these people, the changes they see coming are downright frightening.
Given this complexity, what does justice require? That is the question we ask ourselves as we
consider this issue. We believe that the Iroquois land claims cannot be resolved without a
5
mutually respectful conversation about that question. Such a conversation must include a
careful study of history. We hope this booklet will encourage that conversation. We hope it
will help you ask yourself the question, What does justice require?
A booklet of this nature can never be completely up to date. Significant events continue to
unfold. Nevertheless, we hope this booklet will provide a solid basis for understanding new
developments.
On the following pages, you will find a brief narrative history of the Iroquois people and their
land claims. Included is a discussion of the concerns raised by non-Indian landholders and of
the position of opponents of the land claims. Next, you will find an explanation of the
conclusions we at AFSC have reached for ourselves about this dispute. After that comes a
short explanation of AFSC's position on Indian sovereignty and AFSC's answers to frequently
asked questions about the land claims. Then each of the Iroquois nations is profiled and their
current land claims are described in more detail. We also provide an address list of these
nations and of other groups involved, as well as some suggestions for further reading. Finally,
a feedback form solicits your questions, concerns, and suggestions. We welcome your
response.
6
PART ONE:
An Introduction to the Iroquois Land Claims
7
MAP 1. ABORIGINAL TERRITORIES OF THE HAUDENOSAUNEE.
This map shows the approximate locations of the Five Nations before the Tuscaroras joined
the Confederacy in the early 1700s. Their full territories extended beyond this area into what is
now Ontario, Quebec, Vermont, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the Ohio Valley.
8
Who Are the Iroquois?
For many centuries before Europeans arrived, the area now called New York State was
occupied by five Indian nations. Today they are known as the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga,
Cayuga, and Seneca. Though related, these nations had their own separate territories, and they
were often at war with each other and with the other Indian nations surrounding them. Finally,
two men traveled from village to village proposing the formation of a confederation of the five
nations. This confederation brought peace between the five nations and gave them strength
against their enemies. On today's maps, their lands would stretch from near Montreal south
into Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and from western Vermont into the Ohio Valley. They
called their alliance the Haudenosaunee.
By the time Europeans settled in the area, this confederation had long established itself as the
greatest power on the continent. It had also woven together sophisticated concepts of culture,
spirituality, government, and land. The Europeans called it the Iroquois Confederacy.
In the Haudenosaunee, the five nations became an extended family based on kinship groups
called clans. These clans crossed nation lines. The Turtle Clan, for example, had members
from every one of the five nations. Members of each clan traced their lineage through women,
the Clan Mothers, who selected chiefs for their own clans. Representatives from each nation
met in a Grand Council of Chiefs to oversee the Confederacy. This matrilineal system became
the traditional form of Iroquois government. Here persuasion was valued over coercion,
consensus over majority rule, healing over punishment. At its finest, the Haudenosaunee
concept of justice went beyond simple right and wrong to search for balance and harmony
with all creation.
Through their interlocking relationships, the five nations came to see themselves as living
together in one extended lodge, like the bark-covered lodges of their villages. Haudenosaunee
means "People Building a Long House." The Senecas, living furthest west, became the
Keepers of the Western Door. The Mohawks, living in the east, became the Keepers of the
Eastern Door. And the centrally located Onondagas, where the Confederacy chiefs met for
consultation, became the Keepers of the Great Council Fire.
The formation of this Confederacy is the central event in Iroquois history. Its symbol is the
pine tree, with its Great White Roots of Peace spreading north, south, east, and west.
The Tuscaroras were an Iroquois group that had migrated south before the formation of the
Confederacy. In 1713 they were defeated in a war with the North Carolina colonists. Some
fled north to seek refuge in Pennsylvania and New York. These Tuscaroras were adopted into
the Confederacy, becoming the sixth nation of the Haudenosaunee, now sometimes called the
Six Nations.
9
The Loss of Indian Lands
The Revolutionary War in America had a devastating impact on the Haudenosaunee. The
Grand Council of Chiefs remained officially neutral. But warriors of the individual nations
were divided and drawn into the conflict by the British and the Americans. Most Mohawk,
Seneca, Cayuga, and Onondaga warriors sided with the British. Most Oneida and Tuscarora
warriors sided with the Americans. Iroquois sometimes fought Iroquois. Both sides felt the
ravages of war, as Indian villages were destroyed and the inhabitants scattered.
By 1783, the Iroquois on the British side thought the war was going in their favor. But the
British suddenly surrendered and signed a peace treaty with the Americans that made no
mention of their Indian allies. These Iroquois were stunned. Many fled to Canada, where they
were given land along the Grand River on the Ontario peninsula. Today what is left of that
tract is known as the Six Nations Reserve.
The formation of the United States created a new international boundary line with Canada that
artificially divided the traditional lands of the Haudenosaunee. The Iroquois who stayed south
of this boundary hoped for an honorable peace with the Americans, since they considered
themselves undefeated. But New York, Massachusetts, and the emerging national government
each had their own designs on the homelands of the fragmented Haudenosaunee, and each
vied with the others for control.
The Continental Congress was anxious to establish its authority over Indian land, especially
the rich Ohio Valley. It also wanted to eliminate the possibility of having a powerful Indian
confederation on its frontier. So after the war, in 1784, it sent hostile commissioners to impose
peace terms on the Six Nations. Negotiations at Fort Stanwix, near Oneida Lake, were held at
gunpoint, and the Americans took Indian hostages to further intimidate the Iroquois delegates.
American commissioners, arrogant and aggressive, were especially harsh on the Senecas,
whose warriors had fought fiercely for the British. They stripped the Senecas of most of their
land. The Americans fixed a western boundary for the Six Nations and denied them access to
the Ohio Valley. The Americans' allies, the Oneidas and the Tuscaroras, were promised
protection for their lands.
All of these provisions were later confirmed in another treaty, this one at Fort Harmar in 1789.
Then the Congress, to solidify federal authority over Indian affairs, passed the Indian Trade
and Intercourse Act of 1790, commonly called the Nonintercourse Act. This law, still in force
today, forbids all transfers of Indian land without the approval of the federal government. It
means no state can legally acquire Indian land without federal consent.
Meanwhile, New York State hoped to strengthen itself politically and economically by
populating its western frontier with non-Indian settlers. The new state wanted land to give as
bounty to war veterans. It also needed revenue to finance itself during these early years. To get
this revenue, the state intended to acquire Indian land and then sell it to speculators—who in
turn would reap huge profits by selling parcels to settlers. So, under the leadership of Gov.
George Clinton, New York relentlessly pressured the Six Nations to give up their lands to the
state.
In 1784, New York State representatives told the Oneidas, "We have no Claim on your lands:
its just extent will ever remain secured to You." But the next year, New York began pushing
10
the Oneidas toward land cessions by warning them that the state would not protect them from
squatters—yet would hold the Indians responsible for any disorders. At a meeting in 1788,
New York representatives led the Oneidas to believe that they had lost their land to an
investment company, though this was untrue, and that the state simply wanted to help them
recover the title. Through this deception, New York acquired some five million acres for
$2,000 in cash, $2,000 in clothing, $1,000 in provisions, and $600 in annual rent. So cunning
was the ploy that the Oneidas thanked the governor for an agreement that "secured to us so
much of our Property which would otherwise have been lost." In similar ways over the next 50
years, New York systematically defrauded the Oneidas out of their entire territory. A 32-acre
reservation was restored to them in 1920.
Under pressure from encroaching settlers and faced with hardships from the ravages of war
and pestilence, the other Iroquois fared no better. They became easy prey for the high-pressure
tactics of the state. New York maneuvered the Cayugas into agreements in 1789, 1795, and
later that took away all their land. In 1788, the Onondagas sold to the state all but a hundredsquare-mile reservation, then ceded two-thirds of that in 1793. In 1796, Mohawks who had
moved to Canada ceded to New York all Mohawk land in the state except for some small
tracts along the St. Lawrence River—but the Mohawk nation in New York was not a party to
the agreement. In 1797, the Senecas lost most of their remaining land to financier Robert
Morris of Philadelphia, who prepared for the negotiations by first laying aside a store of
clothing for the women, bribe money for the men, and whiskey—later calculated at 25 gallons
a day for 30 days. The Senecas moved onto small reservations.
These agreements were written in English, a language that most Iroquois people neither spoke
nor read. They relied on non-Indian translators for an interpretation. And in nearly all of these
land transfers after 1790, the buyers flouted the federal Nonintercourse Act by not bothering to
obtain federal approval.
In 1838, New York State attempted to have all the Iroquois people removed to a territory west
of Missouri. To do this, the state devised a treaty stating that the Six Nations had become
"convinced from the rapid increase of the white settlements around, that the time was not far
distant when their true interest must lead them to seek a new home among their red brethren in
the West." But this treaty, exposed by Quakers as fraudulent, was repealed.
Of course, some Iroquois leaders genuinely wanted to sell their land and expected thereby to
gain a better life for their people. But the deliberate American practice of undermining the
social fabric of the Iroquois and subverting their political systems had left few other options.
Combat, starvation, and disease during the Revolutionary War and its aftermath cut the
Iroquois population in half. By 1850, the Confederacy was shredded by discord, and the vast
territories of the Haudenosaunee had been reduced to a few scattered settlements.
But even this meager land base was not secure. In the twentieth century, New York State
found it convenient to take over still more Indian land for various public projects. In the
1950s, despite determined resistance by Senecas, the Kinzua Dam flooded 9,000 acres of the
Allegany reservation, including sacred burial grounds. In 1960, the Tuscaroras lost a similar
battle when the State Power Authority confiscated 550 acres to construct a hydroelectric dam
and reservoir, a project doggedly promoted by the engineer Robert Moses. Another Robert
Moses project, the St. Lawrence Seaway, took land from the Mohawks at Akwesasne and
Kahnawake. By industrializing the area, the seaway also contributed to the pollution that has
virtually destroyed the Mohawk's fishing and agricultural practices, threatened their health,
11
and weakened their self-sufficiency and traditional culture. The New York State Thruway and
Interstate 81 took additional land from the Senecas and the Onondagas.
At the same time that Indians were losing their lands, their cultural identities were under
persistent attack. The U.S. government pressured the Six Nations to give up their traditional
form of governance. Some complied by adopting elective systems fashioned on the American
model; some resisted successfully; and some had the new systems imposed on them.
The federal government also embraced various policies designed to "civilize" native people by
forcing them to accept Christianity and a European way of life. For example, the government
and private religious institutions operated boarding schools for Indian children that were
characterized by military-style discipline, coercive and illegal "recruitment," and strict
prohibition of Indian languages, dress, and customs.
Such policies did profound and long-lasting damage to Indian communities and cultures.
Families were disrupted; languages were decimated. The effects have extended into our own
time. In the 1970s, a third of all Indian children nationwide were living either in institutions or
in adoptive or foster homes, mostly non-Indian. At a 1997 conference on the status of the
Iroquois language, the Senecas estimated that they had just 25 fluent speakers of their own
language. The Onondagas knew of 17; the Tuscaroras, only 12.
12
An Overview of the Land Claims
In 1492, Christopher Columbus stepped onto the shores of a world that was not his own.
Rather, it was home to countless nations of indigenous peoples. From sea to sea, they had
inhabited the land for as long as any of them could remember. Clearly, this land in its entirety
belonged to Indians.
But over the next 500 years, Europeans steadily took possession of the land, often convinced
by church and state that it was theirs to "discover" and own. Today, Indian nations in the
United States have access to about 50 million acres of land in reservations just 2 percent of the
total land area. Nevertheless, the memory of their ancestral lands has been sustained for
centuries in the recollections of elders. In Indian communities across America, there have
always been native people who believed their lands were taken from them unjustly.
In New York, the Iroquois people have ceaselessly pursued the return of their land. For
example, as early as 1794 an Oneida leader complained to the federal government about New
York's illegal confiscations. The government promised to investigate but never did.
Throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, Oneidas petitioned state and federal
agencies for a hearing on their land claims. All their appeals were rebuffed or ignored.
Meanwhile, both state and federal courts refused to consider Indian land claims cases, each
citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Left with no other recourse, the Oneidas decided to challenge this jurisdictional roadblock.
Though most observers considered their cause hopeless, in 1970, the Oneidas filed a test case
in U.S. District Court. Their lawsuit was carefully written to convince the federal courts to
accept the responsibility of settling an Indian land claims dispute. In 1974, the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the Oneidas' right to have their claims settled in federal court. This landmark
decision opened the federal courts, not only to the Oneidas, but also to other Indian nations
seeking to recover land.
The case thus strengthened the other land claims that were arising, not only in New York, but
also in other eastern states. The Passamaquoddies and Penobscots in Maine, the Wampanoags
in Massachusetts, the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans in Connecticut, the Narragansetts
in Rhode Island, the Pamunkeys in Virginia, the Seminoles and Miccosukees in Florida, and
the Catawbas in South Carolina all asserted that land had been illegally taken from them.
The legal basis for these claims rested primarily on the Nonintercourse Act of 1790, the
federal law that forbids all transfers of Indian land without the consent of the federal
government. Indian nations pointed to land transfers made after 1790 without federal approval.
They argued that, without such approval, these transfers were illegal. In 1977, in a second test
case brought by the Oneidas, a federal court accepted this argument and
ruled in the Oneidas' favor. This ruling was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the
first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act, and it had obvious
implications for other land claims.
Most of the states subsequently negotiated pretrial settlements in their land claim disputes.
Typically, these settlements compensated the Indian nations with a combination of money and
land. The money came from federal and state funds. The land was either public land turned
13
over to the nations or it was private land purchased from willing sellers using federal and state
funds.
In most cases, the Indian nations accepted much less money and land than they had originally
wanted. In Maine, for example, the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot nations had sought 12.5
million acres and damages of about $25 billion. But a 1980 agreement provided the two
nations with an $81.5 million federal trust fund and 300,000 acres of forest land purchased
from lumber companies with federal funds. The agreement also created a tribal-state
commission to continually review the effectiveness of the settlement and to address issues of
jurisdiction.
Out-of-court settlements were also reached in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. In none of these cases were landholders forced from
their homes. No Indian nations acquired the homes of American citizens against their will.
Although land claims in these other states have been settled, the Oneida claim in New York
remains unresolved. The court has delayed awarding damages in order to give the parties an
opportunity to negotiate their own out-of-court settlement. But negotiations between the
Oneidas, the state, and the counties have languished for years. Many observers blame the state
for the delay. Unlike Maine, which addressed land claims promptly, New York has dawdled
for more than a decade and apparently still hopes to somehow avoid paying compensation to
the Oneidas. Today, the Cayugas, the Senecas, the Onondagas, and the Mohawks also have
unsettled land claims in New York.
14
The Dilemma of Non-Indian Residents
Today, Iroquois people are not the only ones with a strong emotional attachment to the land in
the claim areas. Many non-Indian families have lived on and nurtured this land for several
generations. Now they find themselves in a dilemma. While they may empathize with the
Iroquois people, they also have misgivings about what might happen if parts of the land they
love become an Indian reservation. As one resident noted, "Two sets of people loving and
claiming the same land is painful the world over."
These residents raise important questions about how the claims will be settled. Those who
have labored hard to promote ecological awareness in their communities want to know what
will become of environmental regulations and zoning protections on lands that become part of
a reservation. Others ask, Who will pay the compensation in a land settlement? Who will bear
the loss of property tax revenues when these lands go off the tax rolls? What will become of
law enforcement and fire protection in the claim areas? And what about financing schools and
municipal services?
Residents also worry that reservations will become ever larger, that the claims will never end.
They wonder if the tax-exempt status of reservations won't give Indian businesses there an
unfair advantage over non-Indian merchants nearby. And they find especially worrisome the
idea that a gambling casino might be built next door. They point to serious problems that have
arisen around some Indian-run casinos elsewhere. What is to prevent such problems from
arising here? How might a casino affect the community's character?
Such concerns are similar to those raised whenever a community anticipates a "new neighbor'
—be it a large corporate retailer, a landfill, a prison, a military base, or a tax-exempt nature
preserve. Responsible citizens wonder how their communities will be affected, and they ask
legitimate questions. Try substituting the words Wal-Mart Superstore for Indian reservation to
better understand these people's concerns about impacts on local businesses, schools, traffic,
jobs, taxes, and the environment.
Many residents fear that they will be left with the tab when the land claims are settled. They
wonder why they should be held any more responsible for past injustices than other American
citizens. Assurances of state or federal assistance often sound suspect to rural people who
know from experience how quickly Albany and Washington can lose interest in their
problems. Understanding how these governments have treated Indians only deepens their
worries about how they themselves will be treated.
Their distrust is not misplaced. After all, it was New York State that misled them into
believing that they held legal title to this land. In effect, the state had convinced the Indians to
sell the land and then convinced non-Indians to buy the land—in both cases knowing full well
that these transactions were illegal. And it is New York that now seems content to leave the
residents hanging in a vulnerable, uncertain position. As a resul their property titles are
clouded, and the real estate market is collapsing around them. Meanwhile, they look at the
settlement negotiations and worry that their own futures are being decided by unknown power
brokers bargaining behind closed doors.
These grievances against the state might well have given landholders common cause with the
Iroquois people, whose main grievance is likewise with the state. But in 1998, the Oneidas
9
15
sought to revive their unsettled lawsuit by amending it to include as defendants the 20,000
non-Indian property holders in the Oneida claim area. Many residents reacted with shock and
anger, convinced that the Oneidas were bent on taking away their homes. This sudden
polarization deepened the dilemma of those residents who had been hoping to find a practical
compromise that would address everyone's concerns. The possibility of landholders and
Indians together pressing the state for a resolution faded quickly as tempers on both sides
flared.
Today, the most fervent opponents of the land claims in central New York have erected
billboards on their properties, some of them menacing. On one sign, a resident sights down the
barrel of a gun and suggests that the Oneidas "come and get your rent." At least one of these
signs has been vandalized by equally zealous activists from the other side. Opponents and
supporters have traded inflammatory rhetoric, hate mail, and phone threats. Anonymous
callers have threatened to disrupt opposition activities with bombs. And in November 1999, a
letter to a Utica newspaper, purportedly from a group calling itself the United States National
Freedom Fighters, threatened to kill one Indian every three days beginning on Thanksgiving
Day.
"I never knew hatred was so deep in this community," one resident told a Syracuse newspaper.
This firestorm of controversy is all the more unfortunate since it is apparently fueled in large
part by a misconception that the Iroquois nations want to drive non-Indians from their homes
and that this is likely to happen. Yet time and again, various Indian leaders have stated that
this is not their intention. In the Cayuga case, all parties in the negotiations have agreed that
any settlement will not involve forcing landholders off their properties. The presiding judge
(who is also the judge in the Oneida case) has stated that he will not consider eviction as a
remedy in the dispute. And the governor has promised that he will not agree to evictions.
Furthermore, in the other land claims settlements in eastern states, no Indian nations have ever
acquired the homes of any American citizens against their will.
But despite this, many landholders remain firmly convinced that their properties are in
jeopardy. They fear losing their homes, their farms, their businesses—if not directly by
eviction then indirectly by economic pressures or because of drastic changes in their
communities that would force them out. They point to a community in Connecticut where
heavy traffic to an Indian casino is so troublesome that several nearby residents have become
"willing" sellers and left the area. This is seen as an ironic parallel to the way Indians
themselves "willingly" sold their homelands to overbearing non-Indians two centuries ago.
These fears have mobilized scores of residents to demand that the Iroquois land claims be
overturned. They have organized into grassroots groups such as the Madison-Oneida
Landowners, Inc., the Central New York Fair Business Association, the American Citizens
Association, and the Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc.
With some 8,200 members, the Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE) has maintained the
highest profile. In 1999, it led a "Motorcade to End Indian Land Claims," a convoy of over a
hundred cars that drove from western New York to the state capitol in Albany. The
organization has also lobbied legislators, held local rallies, picketed and boycotted Indian
businesses, and suggested that landholders in the claim areas should withhold their property
tax payments.
16
In the Oneida claim area, opposition has sometimes mixed with resentment over that nation's
newly found prosperity from its gambling casino. Some non-Indians in this working-class
region have watched the Oneidas rocket from poverty to affluence while their own incomes
have stagnated. Opponents complain that Indians do not have to play by the same rules, since
they are exempt from taxes and certain regulations. Some see reservations as "islands of
privilege" that put nearby non-Indian merchants at a disadvantage. UCE literature describes
tax-exempt reservation enterprises as "race-based apartheid businesses."
UCE leaders favor trials—rather than out-of-court negotiations—to settle the land claims
disputes. One reason is that they say negotiated settlements elsewhere have not worked out as
promised for landholders. Another reason is that they still hope to reverse the court decisions
that have validated Indian land claims. UCE hopes, for example, that on appeal, the Cayuga
land claim decision might be overturned by a higher court—perhaps even by the Supreme
Court. UCE believes that the political climate has changed since 1985, when the Oneida claim
was upheld by that court in a slender five-to-four vote. None of those five supporting justices
remains on the bench today, and the positions of the current justices are unclear. Reversing the
Cayuga claim would, in turn, jeopardize all the other Iroquois land claims. But those court
decisions cannot be appealed until after a trial is held to award compensation to the Indians for
the loss of their lands. If an agreement on this compensation is negotiated outside the
courtroom, the appeal process ends.
UCE believes that the land transfers from the Cayugas to New York State were "fair,
equitable, and just" and that the land claim lawsuits are "based on technicality." Scott
Peterman, president of UCE, has written that "the Cayugas were paid amply and repeatedly for
their land." He argues that the "land claim is a scam, and the Cayugas deserve nothing more!"
17
Reaching Conclusions
The subject of Indian land claims is complex and sometimes bewildering. Who can hope to
become an expert in all the historical, political, cultural, economic, and legal issues? The court
documents alone would form a mountain of paper that only a lawyer could climb.
Nevertheless, ordinary people can understand the important elements. We can carefully weigh them
in our minds and in our hearts. At the American Friends Service Committee, we have tried to do
just that. After much listening, study, and quiet deliberation, the following conclusions have
emerged. We offer them here for your consideration:
•
The Iroquois nations are the rightful owners of the lands they claim. The legal basis for
these claims has already been upheld in federal courts. But just as importantly, these claims
stand proven in the court of conscience. We believe that fair-minded people who seriously
study the history of these claims will conclude that these lands were unjustly and illegally
taken from the Iroquois nations.
•
The non-Indian residents of the claim areas have legitimate concerns about the future of
their communities. To be fair and enduring, any resolution of these disputes must address
the concerns of residents regarding tax burdens, environmental laws, zoning regulations,
law enforcement, fire protection, schools, road access, municipal services, reservation size,
and unwilling loss of land, among others. It is reasonable for residents to insist that their
government reach agreements with the Iroquois nations that ensure the safety and wellbeing of their communities. We oppose evicting any residents from the claim areas as well
as forcing any landholders to unwilling sell their homes or businesses.
•
The Iroquois nations have a right to receive just compensation for their losses. We want our
federal and state governments to put right, at last, these grievous illegalities. We also
support the Iroquois people's desire to reconnect with the land of their ancestors and to
recover the traditions imbedded in it. We believe this can be accomplished through the
transfer of public lands and/or through the purchase of private lands from willing sellers. No
residents need lose their homes or businesses.
•
The state of New York bears primary responsibility for the unjust and illegal land
acquisitions that caused this problem. The state's misdeeds have now hurt both Indians and
non-Indians. New York has an obligation, to the Iroquois nations as well as to its own
citizens, to pursue a prompt resolution of these disputes. It is the state along with the federal
government—not the private landholders or the local towns and counties—that must
shoulder the greatest burden of compensation.
•
Negotiated settlements, conducted with wide community involvement, hold the best hope for
a just resolution of these disputes. Landholders and Indians alike have a right to expect and
to feel assured that their negotiators are responsible representatives of their communities,
without personal agendas or conflicts of interest. The courts should provide every feasible
avenue for these negotiators to hear the opinions of their neighbors and to release regular,
accurate updates about the negotiations. But all the parties must enter the negotiations in a
spirit of respect and fair play and with a willingness to compromise for the good of all.
18
Our conclusions have emerged from a diligent search for what justice requires in these
disputes. Having concluded that the Iroquois land claims are legitimate, it follows that justice
requires fair compensation for the losses suffered. That, in turn, leads us to oppose all attempts
to overturn the court decisions or to deny fair compensation to the Iroquois nations.
We realize that this compensation cannot be made without some hardship, some
inconvenience, some uncertainty. This is especially unfortunate for residents of the claim areas
because the Iroquois people have made clear that their real dispute is with the state, not with
these private individuals. While some hardships are inevitable, it is unfair to expect people in
the claim areas to bear them alone. The best way to share these hardships as equitably as
possible is for the state, along with the federal government, to provide the compensation and
to bear the other costs that will surely arise.
Finally, at the American Friends Service Committee, we seek more than simply the righting of
past wrongs. Those wrongs put our world out of balance, and we must work to restore its
harmony. We want a full reconciliation between Indians and non-Indians in New York State, a
reconciliation that establishes peace and respect between our peoples. We believe that people
of goodwill from all sides of the issue can bring together their integrity, compassion,
intelligence, and creativity to find a resolution that will strengthen and affirm both our
communities. With that hope, we commit ourselves to the pursuit of both justice and
reconciliation in the settlement of these disputes.
We invite you to join with us in this hope and this commitment. And we encourage you to take
an active role in convincing your family, neighbors, and public officials to do the same.
19
PART TWO:
Further Considerations
20
Understanding Indian Sovereignty
Undoubtedly, for many non-Indians the most disturbing aspect of the land claims dispute is
the issue of Indian sovereignty—Indian people's right of self-governance in economic, social,
political, and cultural affairs.
Some people think this sounds un-American. "They are trying to create countries within
countries," as one person put it. Scott Peterman of UCE told a Syracuse newspaper that
sovereignty "is an outdated and outmoded concept. The Indian tribes are not sovereign.
They're not going to be sovereign. They're not nations in any sense of the word." Peterman
calls Indian sovereignty "simply a federally subsidized system of special privileges based on
race," which he calls "America's version of apartheid."
Such disparagement of Indian sovereignty is deeply troubling to many Indians. They believe
the Iroquois nations never surrendered their inherent sovereignty, though it has often been
challenged and sometimes limited by the federal government. True, many Indians would
welcome acceptance into the American mainstream. But for others, sovereignty has long been
at the heart of their struggle to survive as a people. To these Indians, hostility toward Indian
sovereignty looks like another assault in an unending siege against their lands, their languages,
their identities. History, case law, and the record of treaties signed by the United States show
them that they are still nations—not simply "Native Americans," another ethnic minority in
America's melting pot.
To better understand the issue of sovereignty, imagine two sovereign nations somewhere else
in the world. Call them "China" and "Tibet." Now imagine that one day China decides to
"annex" Tibet. It drives Tibet's leaders into exile and installs its own system of government. It
disrupts Tibet's culture, language, and traditional religion and imposes its own. Then this
China encourages thousands of Chinese people to settle in Tibet. Before long, many more
Chinese than Tibetans live there. Over time, various politburos in China make
pronouncements rationalizing China's behavior and instituting restrictive policies regarding
Tibet. A high court in Beijing rules that Tibet is now only a "domestic dependent nation." A
party congress passes a law declaring that all Tibetans are Chinese citizens. After 200 years of
this, most Chinese people come to think of Tibetans as simply the name of the Shanghai
soccer team. The people who used to bear that name are now known as "Native Chinese."
Yet, despite all this, a remnant of Tibetan people still insists that Tibet is—rightfully—a
sovereign nation. Would you tell them that they are wrong?
In approaching the issue of sovereignty, we at the American Friends Service Committee draw
on our Quaker beliefs, especially our belief in the worth of all people. We also draw on our
experiences working with indigenous peoples in the United States and elsewhere. These lead
us to strongly support the right of all indigenous peoples to self-determination.
We believe they have the right to determine freely their political status and their economic and
cultural development. They have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political,
economic, social, and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems.
In New York, this means that we strongly support the sovereignty of the Six Nations.
Affirming the sovereignty of these indigenous people challenges us to deeper understandings
21
of what it means to be a country, a community. It can help all of us—Indian and non-Indian—
work together in new and creative ways to support and sustain each other. We believe this
provides the best hope for insuring that the abuses and misunderstandings of the past will not
be repeated.
At the same time, we note that AFSC often works to persuade sovereign nations to abide by
high standards of human rights, labor practices, and environmental safekeeping. We think it
appropriate for any nations to seek such protections by respectfully negotiating with each
other on a government-to-government basis, as in treaties. So, it seems likewise appropriate
for American citizens to expect their own government to negotiate with the Iroquois nations
for similar protections needed by their communities. Negotiations and compromises over such
issues, in a context of mutual respect and fair play, do not diminish sovereignty but strengthen
it.
22
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions are typical of those being raised by non-Indian people who have concerns
about the land claims issue. The responses attempt to address those concerns and to explain further
the position of the American Friends Service Committee.
• Throughout history, strong nations have often dominated weak nations. The Iroquois
defeated the Hurons. The Europeans pushed out the Iroquois. Isn't that just the way it works
with winners and losers?
History does give us many examples of nations dominating other nations—and today we can still
see the sad consequences of that injustice in many conflicts raging around the world. This cycle will
continue until people agree to reasonable, workable compromises that restore dignity and security
to both the "winners" and the "losers."
• Isn't the logical extension of these land claims to give all the land back to the Indians?
The Iroquois land claims in New York State pertain to specific, definable territories. At issue are
particular land transfers that were unjust and illegal. The Indians involved have indicated a
willingness to relinquish other claims as a condition of settlement. In other words, we can resolve
the land claims dispute in New York State without having to figure out an answer to this intricate,
theoretical question.
• Yes, the Indians were mistreated and swindled—but not by me. Why should I have to pay for
someone else's wrongs?
Certainly you did not participate in the wrongs of the 1700s and would not condone such
activities today. The state of New York bears primary responsibility for these wrongs and
must, along with the federal government, shoulder the greatest burden of compensation. (Both
these governments, when young and cash-strapped, financed themselves largely by acquiring
Indian land and then selling it at a profit.) Of course, this compensation will come from our
tax dollars. But let's remember that nearly all of us non-Indians in America have benefited in
some way from the massive shift of wealth and power that took place when Indians lost their
land to our ancestors. Too often we simply assume these benefits as our natural right, without
examining their origins in other peoples' suffering. Do we want to make our children heirs to
this legacy of mistreatment and fraud—or heirs to a new legacy of reconciliation?
• Most Indians look like me and seem to want to live like me. They're not real Indians, are
they?
All the land claims in New York have been brought by nations that are duly recognized by the
federal government. The nations themselves each have procedures for authenticating their own
memberships. People in the Six Nations can choose to live and look however they please. And
certainly they are as susceptible as the rest of us to the enticements of American materialism. But
driving a Chevy or wearing Nike sneakers does not in any way dilute their right to nationhood or to
determine freely their own political, economic, social, and cultural affairs. How would we like
being told to look and live like our eighteenth-century ancestors?
• Can't Congress simply ratify the old treaties and make the old land sales valid?
23
In 1982, Rep. Gary Lee and Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, both of New York, and Sen. Strom Thurmond
introduced in Congress the Ancient Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. It proposed to solve the
land claims dispute by validating all prior land transfers and allowing Indian nations to sue only for
monetary damages. The bill died in committee, as had several similar predecessors. Observers say
the same fate would befall any such legislation today. Congress seems much more inclined toward
supporting out-of-court settlements negotiated by the states, localities, and Indian nations, as in
Maine and other eastern states.
• I believe gambling is unethical and harmful to community life. Isn't AFSC concerned that
Indians will build gambling casinos on their new land?
Certainly the growth of gambling in America keenly troubles many Quakers and other people,
including many Indians. We fear its negative impacts on both Indian and non-Indian communities
alike. But these concerns should not be used to undermine Indian sovereignty, and sovereign
nations have the right to decide such things for themselves. For a number of Indian nations,
gambling has seemed the most viable of the few opportunities available to them for achieving
financial security. (And in fairness, we should note that our own state has also embraced gambling
as a way to make money.) Some other Indians, including the Haudenosaunee Grand Council of
Chiefs, oppose gambling and believe gaming compacts themselves violate sovereignty by granting
jurisdictional authority to the state. Our concerns about gambling can be raised in the land claim
negotiations, but this should be done only with great sensitivity to all the issues involved. And our
concerns should be matched by our efforts to help develop workable economic alternatives for
Indian nations.
• My land is in a claim area. Will I lose it?
Time and again, various Indian leaders have stated that they have no desire to force non-Indians
from their homes. But the peculiarities of litigation and 200 years of New York State intransigence
have driven Indian nations to use the possibility of repossession as leverage in their land claims. In
some land claim settlements elsewhere, nations have bought land from willing sellers. But never
have landholders been forced to simply vacate their homes, as happens through condemnation or
eminent domain. A study conducted by The Buffalo News in 1998, prompted by the Seneca land
claim, confirmed this. It concluded, "In land claims similar to the one involving Grand Island, no
Indian nations ever acquired the homes of any American citizens against their will." So this is
unlikely to happen in New York, especially in negotiated settlements.
• I've heard that Indian nations are allowed to expand their reservations by buying additional
land. Why is this?
Currently, Indian nations can apply through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for permission to
add land to their reservations. This procedure is intended to help reverse the catastrophic
consequences of the General Allotment Act of 1887, a federal law that subdivided most reservation
land across the country into personal tracts. The primary beneficiaries of this law turned out to be
land speculators, who quickly acquired large portions of the most valuable Indian land, often at
bargain prices. Some 90 million acres of reservation lands were lost as a result. The application
process for restoring land into reservations is difficult, and applications have been known to
languish for years or even decades in BIA offices. In 1996 (the latest year for which data are
available), the average amount of land involved in an application was about 30 acres. To date, less
than 8 percent of lands lost through allotment have been restored to the ownership of Indian
nations.
24
• I'm concerned about the fate of environmental and zoning regulations that currently protect
my community. Will these protections be lost on land that becomes part of an Indian nation?
Such protections will always be a concern to communities, no matter what the local regulating
body. In the case you describe, the power of enacting and enforcing these regulations will
probably shift to the Indian government. But do not assume this will mean a weakening of the
protections. The Mohawks of Akwesasne, for example, have enacted environmental
regulations that are more strict that those of the federal government. These concerns, however,
can be addressed in a negotiated settlement. In Maine's settlement, a tribal-state commission
was created to continually review the effectiveness of the settlement and to help resolve
regulatory and jurisdictional issues.
• When land goes back to the Indians, what about the loss of property taxes for our schools
and municipalities?
This is a common problem faced by communities whenever new tax-exempt "neighbors" move in
be they tax-exempt parks, military bases, prisons, or industries that have been promised tax breaks
as inducements to relocate. In other land claim settlements, the federal government has made
compensation for such losses. AFSC believes such federal compensation is right and necessary. It
can be made part of a negotiated settlement.
• I'm concerned about the secrecy of the settlement negotiations. For all I know, deals are
being made between these anonymous power brokers. Can anything be done?
Courts often impose "gag orders" on settlement negotiations to encourage candid discussion.
Unfortunately, this secrecy does nothing to put rumors to rest or to reassure worried landholders
who feel excluded from the process. AFSC believes that, to gain widespread community support,
any settlement must first have widespread community input. Of course, practicality requires that
negotiations be conducted by a limited number of people. But citizens have a right to expect and to
feel assured that these negotiators are responsible representatives of their community, without
personal agendas or conflicts of interest. In some of the current cases, the presiding judge has
released a list of all the negotiators. This is a helpful move. AFSC encourages the courts to provide
every feasible avenue for negotiators to hear the opinions of their neighbors and to release regular,
accurate updates about the negotiations.
• Why not let the question of compensation be settled by a jury trial?
Some opposition leaders seem to think a jury would award Indians little or no compensation.
But counting on this unlikely outcome forfeits several advantages that property holders have
in an out-of-court settlement. For example, in land claim settlements elsewhere, the federal
government has paid a substantial share of the compensation. In a settlement, arrangements
can be made regarding a county's lost tax revenues. A settlement could also address
community concerns about environmental regulations, zoning protections, and municipal
services. None of these are possibilities in a jury trial. Moreover, a jury is composed of a
handful of randomly selected individuals who will deliberate in secret. But a settlement is
negotiated by a much larger committee of representatives, chosen from a cross-section of the
community and more responsive to it. AFSC supports out-of-court negotiations as holding the
best hope for a just and workable resolution of these disputes.
25
PART THREE:
The Six Nations and Their Claims
26
27
CAYUGA
Gayohkohnyoh
People of the Great Swamp
Location/Government:
The Cayuga Nation has a traditional system of government and participates in the
Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs. It has no reservation. Its citizens live on or near the
Seneca Nation of Indians' Cattaraugus reservation south of Buffalo. The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe
of Oklahoma, descendants of Cayugas who were relocated there by the U.S. government in
1831, are also plaintiffs in the current lawsuit.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
The Cayugas claim about 64,000 acres around the northern end of Cayuga Lake in Cayuga and
Seneca counties. This acreage was their reservation in 1789. They wish to reestablish a
Cayuga reservation.
Basis for Claim:
Land acquisitions by New York State in 1795 and 1807 violated the federal Nonintercourse
Act of 1790.
History:
The Cayugas once inhabited nearly two million acres stretching from Lake Ontario to the
Pennsylvania border in the area now known as the Finger Lakes Region. During the
Revolutionary War, Cayuga warriors reluctantly sided with the British. American troops laid
waste all the main Cayuga settlements during General John Sullivan's infamous raid of 1779.
Peace treaties imposed by the Continental Congress at Fort Stanwix in 1784 and at Fort
Harmar in 1789 promised that the Cayugas would be "secured in the peaceful possession of
the lands they inhabit." But by then, two-thirds of the Cayuga population had moved to
Canada. Those left behind divided into two groups, one at Buffalo Creek and one at Cayuga
Lake. Both groups faced economic hardship from the devastation of the war and neither was
strong enough to turn back the tide of non-Indian settlers encroaching on their lands. Under
this duress, each group explored ways to trade land for cash. The Cayuga Lake group was
persuaded in 1789 to sell to New York all Cayuga land except for 64,000 acres, which became
their reservation. For this sale they received $2,125 plus a $500 annuity. The next year, the
Buffalo Creek group reluctantly consented to that sale and received an additional $1,000. But
encroachment continued. In 1795, the state purchased the reservation itself, except for three
small tracts. By the mid-1800s, even these tracts had been sold and the dwindling Cayuga
population either found refuge with the Senecas or agreed to relocation in Oklahoma.
In 1977, the Cayuga Nation began contemplating a lawsuit to recover its lost land. In response,
a federal-state-tribal task force negotiated a settlement of the land claim. But it was defeated in
Congress, largely due to opposition from landholders in the claim area.
So in 1980, the Cayuga Nation brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking the return of
the 64,000 acres lost in 1795 and 1807, the eviction of the current occupants, and $350 million
28
in trespass damages. The Cayugas alleged that these transactions were illegal because they had
not been approved by the federal government, as required by the Nonintercourse Act of 1790.
Defendants named in the suit included the state, the two counties, and 7,000 private property
holders in the claim area. Renewed efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement failed. In 1992,
the U.S. Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit on the Cayugas' behalf.
In 1994, U.S. District Judge Neal McCurn upheld the Cayugas' claim but delayed awarding
damages in order to encourage settlement talks. Subsequently, the Cayugas, New York State,
the federal government, and the two counties attempted to negotiate an out-of-court settlement
with the help of a court-appointed settlement master. A jury trial to determine the Cayugas'
compensation was scheduled and delayed several times to allow more opportunity for these
negotiations. But finally, with the talks apparently stalled, the trial was held. In February 2000,
the jury recommended that the Cayugas be awarded $36.9 million for their lost land—far less
than most observers had expected. The presiding judge must now decide whether to adjust that
award, upward or downward, before entering a final judgment. Whatever the outcome, the
court decision will likely be appealed by one side or the other.
Additional Information:
In April 1999, the court-appointed settlement master, Eric E. VanLoon, announced that all
parties involved in the claim had agreed that any settlement would not involve forcing
landholders off their properties. In June 1999, U.S. District Judge Neal McCurn said he would
not consider eviction of current landholders as a possible remedy in the land claim dispute. He
has also ruled that a trial will consider only damages against the state, not against the counties
or the property holders.
Summary of Current Status:
A U.S. District Court has ruled that the Cayugas rightfully own 64,000 acres in Central New
York. A federal mediator has tried unsuccessfully to help the parties negotiate an out-of-court
settlement. Following a 15-day trial, a jury recommended that the Cayugas receive $36.9
million as compensation for their lost land. The presiding judge must now decide whether to
accept that award or adjust it before entering a final judgment. Whatever the outcome, an
appeal is expected.
29
MOHAWK
Kahnia'kehaka
People of the Flint
Location/Government:
Akwesasne is a 24,000-acre Mohawk community that straddles the St. Lawrence River and is
bounded by New York, Ontario, and Quebec. The three governments there have joined
together in the current lawsuit. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne is the elective government
on the Canadian side. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe is the elective government on the
American side. The Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs is the traditional government. It rejects
the Canadian-American division of Akwesasne and participates in the Haudenosaunee Grand
Council of Chiefs.
Other Mohawk communities elsewhere include Kahnawake, Kanatsiohareke, Tyendinega,
Ganienke, Kanesatake, Ohsweken, and Wahta. None are parties to the current lawsuit in New
York.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
The Mohawks claim 15,000 acres adjoining Akwesasne on its American side in Franklin and
St. Lawrence counties; a square mile in Fort Covington; a square mile in Massena at Alcoa
Point; and certain lands along the Grasse River. The current lawsuit also includes Barnhart,
Croil (formerly Baxter), and Long Sault islands in the St. Lawrence River.
Basis for Claim:
The claim relies on language in a 1796 agreement regarding lands "reserved for the Indians of
the village of St. Regis" and on the Nonintercourse Act of 1790.
History:
Mohawk territory once extended over nearly 10 million acres from the Delaware River,
through the Adirondack Mountains, north to the St. Lawrence River. Most settlements were
clustered in the Mohawk River Valley. During the Revolutionary War, Mohawk warriors
fought alongside the British and joined in numerous raids that terrorized frontier settlements in
New York and Pennsylvania. Fierce reprisals ravaged the Mohawk settlements and forced the
Mohawks to abandon them. Though Iroquois warriors eventually regained control of the
territory, by war's end the only Mohawk settlement remaining in New York was Akwesasne,
along the St. Lawrence River.
In 1796, Mohawks who had moved to Canada ceded to New York all the Mohawk land in the
state except for some small tracts at Akwesasne. A federal commissioner witnessed the
agreement, in accordance with the Nonintercourse Act. But ambiguity remained, especially
given the uncertain border between the United States and Canada. More importantly, the
Mohawk Nation in New York was not a party to the agreement. Sales between 1816 and 1845
further reduced the size of the territory at Akwesasne.
In 1802, New York State appointed three "trustees" for the Mohawks. Though never
recognized by the Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs, this system was codified by state
30
law in 1892. It became the basis for today's elective government on the American side—the
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
In 1956, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe filed a suit against New York in the Court of Claims,
seeking compensation for the loss of Barnhart Island. The state contended that the dispute had
been settled by a reimbursement made to Mohawks in 1856. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
argued that this 1856 payment had been, not a reimbursement, but a purchase, in violation of
the Nonintercourse Act. The court ruled that the tribe had no right to bring such an action in
state court and dismissed the case. Barnhart Island is now the site of a New York Power
Authority power project and the Robert Moses State Park.
In the late 1950s, the St. Lawrence Seaway expropriated land from the Mohawks at
Akwesasne and Kahnawake. Indians had protested the proposed seaway as early as 1941,
when surveyors crossed into Mohawk territory without permission. But the project was
relentlessly promoted by engineer Robert Moses. He belittled Mohawk resistance and their
persistent claims to Barnhart Island, calling their protests "merely little incidents that brighten
our days." By industrializing the area adjoining Akwesasne, the seaway contributed to the
pollution that has virtually destroyed the Mohawk's fishing and agricultural practices,
threatened their health, and weakened their self-sufficiency and traditional culture.
The current Mohawk land claims, first brought to the courts in 1982, have been consolidated
into one lawsuit brought by all three Akwesasne governments. Negotiations for a settlement
began in 1987. In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the suit on
behalf of the Mohawks. Although all the parties were reportedly near to an out-of-court
settlement in 1998, talks have since been broken off by New York State. In 1999, the St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe rejected the court's offer of a settlement master to help negotiate an out-ofcourt settlement. In September 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Neal McCurn heard arguments
for and against dismissal of the Mohawk lawsuit. His decision is pending.
Additional Information:
During the last 20 years, Akwesasne has been buffeted by sometimes violent internal discord
over tribal political leadership and gambling. Inept or conniving intrusions by non-Indian
governments have often worsened the tensions between traditionalists and supporters of the
elective system. Smuggling across the Canadian-American border and disputes over sales tax
collection have brought additional confrontations with federal and state authorities. A series of
referendums, elections, and court rulings has apparently not yet resolved Akwesasne's
complex and long-standing divisions over tribal direction.
In 1999, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe opened its Akwesasne Mohawk Casino on the American
side of Akwesasne. In addition, it is seeking federal and state approval to open a casino at the
Monticello Raceway in the Catskills.
Summary of Current Status:
All three governments at Akwesasne have joined in a lawsuit to recover Akwesasne Mohawk
territorial lands along the St. Lawrence River. The court has not yet ruled on the legitimacy of
these claims. Attempts to settle the dispute out of court have broken down.
31
ONEIDA
Onyota'a:ka
People of the Standing Stone
Location/Government:
For 12 years, the New York Oneidas did not have federally recognized status because of
leadership conflicts. The current lawsuit is brought by the Oneida Indian Nation, which has an
elective system and does not participate in the Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs. The
U.S. government recognizes its leader, Ray Halbritter, as the official representative of the
Nation. The Haudenosaunee Grand Council, however, recognizes Wilbur Homer, Jr. of the
Traditional Oneida Nation as the official representative. The Traditional Oneida Nation is not
a party to the lawsuit. The Grand Council says no land claim should be resolved without the
Confederacy's consent.
A few Oneidas live on a 32-acre reservation south of the city of Oneida in Madison County.
Most others live about 30 miles away with the Onondaga Nation. The Oneida Indian Nation
also reportedly owns some 11,000 acres that it has bought from willing sellers within the claim
area.
Two other Oneida groups have joined the Oneida Indian Nation in the current lawsuit. The
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin has a large reservation near Green Bay, Wisconsin. The
Oneida Nation of the Thames includes Oneidas living on a reservation near London, Ontario.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
The Oneidas claim 250,000 acres of land lost after 1790, plus back rent and damages, in
northern Madison and western Oneida counties.
Basis for Claim:
Some 26 transfers of land to New York State made after 1790 violated the federal
Nonintercourse Act. (A separate Oneida lawsuit regarding the six million acres lost before
1790 meandered through federal court for 10 years before it was dismissed without a trial.
Such "pre-1790" legal challenges cannot rely on the Nonintercourse Act and have so far
foundered in court.)
History:
The Oneidas once inhabited a 50-mile-wide swath stretching from the St. Lawrence River
south to below the Susquehanna River. During the Revolutionary War, Oneida warriors gave
active support to the Americans. It was Oneidas who brought food to George Washington's
beleaguered troops at Valley Forge, enabling them to survive the winter of 1777-78. At the
end of the war, the Continental Congress, in a 1784 treaty at Fort Stanwix, guaranteed its allies
that they would be "secured in the possession of the lands on which they are settled." In the
same year, New York State representatives also told the
Oneidas, "We have no Claim on your lands: its just extent will ever remain secured to You."
But the next year, New York began pushing the Oneidas toward land cessions by warning
them that the state would not protect them from squatters—yet would hold the Indians
32
responsible for any disorders. In 1788, New York led the Oneidas to believe that they had lost
their land to an investment company, though this was untrue, and that the state simply wanted
to help them recover the title. Through this deception, New York acquired some five million
acres for $2,000 in cash, $2,000 in clothing, $1,000 in provisions, and $600 in annual rent. So
cunning was the ploy that the Oneidas thanked the governor for an agreement that "secured to
us so much of our Property which would otherwise have been lost." In another transaction, the
state acquired 125,000 acres for fifty cents per acre and, two years later, resold the land at a
600 percent profit. Over a span of 50 years, New York systematically defrauded the Oneidas
out of their entire territory. A 32-acre reservation was restored to them in 1920.
For 200 years, Oneidas have ceaselessly pursued the return of their land. As early as 1794, an
Oneida leader complained to the federal government about New York's illegal confiscations.
The government promised to investigate but never did. Throughout the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, Oneidas petitioned state and federal agencies for a hearing on their land
claims. All their appeals were rebuffed or ignored. Meanwhile, both state and federal courts
refused to consider Indian land claim cases, each citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Left with no other recourse, the Oneidas decided to challenge this jurisdictional roadblock.
Though most observers considered their cause hopeless, in 1970, the Oneidas filed a test case
in U.S. District Court. Their lawsuit was carefully written to convince the federal courts to
accept the responsibility of settling an Indian land claims dispute. In a landmark 1974
decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Oneidas' right to have their claims settled in
federal court. In a subsequent test case involving 872 acres lost in 1795, the Oneidas argued
that land transfers made after 1790 without federal approval violated the Nonintercourse Act,
which forbids all transfers of Indian land without the consent of the federal government. In
1977, a federal court accepted this argument and ruled in the Oneidas' favor. This ruling was
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985. It was the first Indian land claim case won on the
basis of the Nonintercourse Act. It immediately called into question all 26 transfers of Oneida
land to New York made after 1790—some 250,000 acres. Further litigation regarding this land
was put on hold while U.S. District Court Judge Neal McCurn brought together the Oneidas,
New York State, and the two counties to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. But the talks
stalled; many observers blame New York State intransigence. In 1998, the U.S. Department of
Justice filed its own lawsuit in support of the Oneidas. Also in 1998, the Oneidas sought to
revive their unsettled lawsuit by amending it to include as defendants the 20,000 non-Indian
property holders in the claim area. These moves ignited a firestorm of opposition from many
residents. In February 1999, Judge McCurn named Ronald Riccio as settlement master in the
dispute.
Additional Information:
Opposition to the land claim sometimes mixes with resentment over the Oneida Indian
Nation's newly found prosperity from the Turning Stone Casino Resort it operates on the
reservation. With a payroll reportedly over $50 million a year, the Nation has become the
area's largest employer, and it holds the upper hand in the local economy. But its prosperity
has given jobs to 3,000 people, 90 percent of them non-Indians. And the economic boost has
also helped upgrade the county's municipal bond rating, reportedly saving taxpayers $3.2
million in borrowing costs.
The Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs opposes the gambling enterprise.
33
Summary of Current Status:
A U.S. District Court has ruled that the Oneidas rightfully own 872 acres in Central New
York. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this decision and ordered the lower court to determine
damages. Further litigation on the entire 250,000-acre claim is on hold while the parties
attempt to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with the help of a federal mediator.
34
ONONDAGA
Ononda'ge
People of the Hills
Location/Government:
The citizens of the Onondaga Nation live on a 7,300-acre territory five miles south of
Syracuse. They maintain a traditional system of government and participate in the
Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
The Onondagas claim 100 square miles in Central New York. The tract includes the city of
Syracuse except for its northern tip and eastern edge; all of the town of Onondaga and the
villages of Solvay and Liverpool; and parts of the towns of Camillus, Geddes, Lafayette,
Otisco, and Salina. This acreage was their reservation in 1788.
Basis for Claim:
Land acquisitions by New York State after 1790 violated the federal Nonintercourse Act.
History:
The Onondagas' ancestral territory covered some 2.6 million acres in what is now central New
York State. Its borders followed the St. Lawrence River in the north, the Chittenango Creek in
the east, the Susquehanna River in the south, and the Montezuma wetlands in the west.
During the Revolutionary War, many Onondaga warriors sided with the British after a surprise
American attack. The war years brought disaster to the Onondagas. In 1777, a smallpox
epidemic devastated their principal village and the great council fire there was extinguished. In
1779, a series of American raids left all their villages destroyed or abandoned. Hostilities
ended with the 1784 Treaty of Fort Stanwix. This treaty set a western boundary on the Six
Nations and promised that "they shall be secured in the peaceful possession of the lands they
inhabit" east of that boundary. But New York State made little effort to hold back non-Indian
squatters, and the weakened Onondagas were hard pressed to defend their territory. At a 1788
meeting with state representatives, the Onondagas were persuaded that a smaller land base
would be easier to secure. So they ceded to New York all their land except for a reservation of
100 square miles. Encroachment continued. In 1793, they gave up two-thirds of their
reservation to the state. In 1795, 1817, and 1822, they sold further tracts on the edges of the
reservation, leaving it with its present boundaries. An 1838 agreement would have removed
the Onondagas to a territory west of Missouri and sold all their land in New York State. But
this agreement, exposed by Quakers as fraudulent, was repealed.
In February 1998, Onondaga chiefs met with Gov. George Pataki and notified him of their
plans to file a lawsuit reclaiming the 100 square miles they possessed as a reservation in 1788.
In subsequent meetings with New York officials, they sought to resolve the dispute through an
out-of-court settlement involving a combination of money, land, environmental cleanup, and
economic development projects. But the parties were unable to reach an agreement. The
Onondagas have now announced that early in the year 2000 they will file a lawsuit to press
35
their claim. This lawsuit will reportedly seek millions of dollars in compensation for the land
and back rent. Chief Irving Powless has said the Nation will not sue individual property
holders nor will it evict residents from their homes. In addition, a lawsuit may be filed by the
U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Onondaga Nation.
Additional Information:
In the twentieth century, industrial chemical production polluted parts of the claim area,
especially Onondaga Lake. Since 1970, there has been a ban on eating fish from the lake, now
designated as one of the most polluted sites in America. The Onondagas reportedly plan to sue
several corporations responsible for the pollution.
Summary of Current Status:
The Onondagas say that early in the year 2000 they will file a lawsuit to press their claims for
specific lands in Central New York, including the city of Syracuse. In addition, a lawsuit may
be filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Onondaga Nation.
36
SENECA
Onondawahgah
People of the Great Hill
Location/Government:
The Senecas divided in 1848 when some formed an elective system of government and
became the Seneca Nation of Indians, Inc., which does not participate in the Haudenosaunee
Grand Council of Chiefs. Its citizens live on the 17,025-acre Cattaraugus reservation near
Lake Erie and on the 30,984-acre Allegany reservation near the Pennsylvania border. In
addition, the Seneca Nation of Indians operates enterprises on the Oil Spring reservation,
which is a one-square-mile tract of land with access to Cuba Lake, near Cuba, New York. The
Tonawanda Seneca Nation retained a traditional form of government and still participates in
the Haudenosaunee Grand Council. Its citizens live on 7,569 acres at Tonawanda, outside
Buffalo.
Other Senecas live at the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario. And the SenecaCayugas live on a reservation in Oklahoma, where they were relocated by the U.S.
government in 1831. Neither of these groups is a party to the current Seneca lawsuits in New
York.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
A lawsuit brought by the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Seneca Nation claims
islands of the Niagara River, including 18,600 acres of Grand Island and also Cayuga Island,
which is part of the city of Niagara Falls. A separate lawsuit filed only by the Seneca Nation
of Indians involves 300 acres taken out of the Cattaraugus reservation for the New York State
Thruway. A third lawsuit, also filed only by the Seneca Nation of Indians, involves 50 acres
on Cuba Lake in Allegany County.
Basis for Claim:
New York's acquisition of Grand Island in 1815, of the Cuba Lake land, and of the Thruway
land in 1954 violated the Nonintercourse Act of 1790.
History:
The Senecas once inhabited some 6.5 million acres stretching from Seneca Lake in the east to
the Niagara River in the west and from Lake Ontario south to the Allegheny River. When the
Revolutionary War began, the Senecas were initially cautious about taking sides in what they
saw as a civil war among white people. But eventually, many warriors joined the British side.
They fought fiercely for the British and were the bane of colonials across the western frontier.
With the war going in their favor, these Senecas were surprised when the British army
suddenly surrendered, leaving its Indian allies to their fate. At Fort Stanwix in 1784, the
Seneca warriors hoped to make an honorable peace with the Americans, since they considered
themselves undefeated. But the Continental Congress sent hostile commissioners to impose its
own terms on the Six Nations. The American commissioners, arrogant and aggressive, were
especially harsh on the Senecas. They were stripped of most of their land and denied access to
37
the Ohio Valley. Two Indians given up by the Senecas for punishment under white law were
later lynched by a white mob.
In 1788, the eastern half of the remaining Seneca land was lost to the Phelps and Gorham
Land Company, which misled the Senecas into thinking the conveyance they signed was a
lease, not a purchase. Then in 1797, the Senecas lost their western land to financier Robert
Morris of Philadelphia, who prepared for the negotiations by first laying aside a store of
clothing for the women, bribe money for the men, and whiskey—later calculated at 25 gallons
a day for 30 days. Morris sold his interest in the land to the Holland Land Company. The
Senecas moved onto small reservations.
In 1838, the Ogden Land Company—using fraud, bribery, alcohol, and forgery—deprived the
Senecas of their remaining reservations. For $202,000, the company purchased land appraised
at $2,000,000. This transaction was approved by Congress. But Quakers publicized the fraud
and managed to have the treaty rewritten. The new version, in 1842, returned the Allegany,
Oil Spring (Cuba Lake), and Cattaraugus reservations to the Senecas, but not Buffalo Creek or
Tonawanda. The Tonawanda Senecas, after a long struggle, recovered most of their
reservation land in 1857.
In 1946, the Senecas at Allegany successfully fought off a plan to remove them from their
reservation so that the entire tract could be developed for recreation and flood control. In the
1950s, despite determined resistance by the Senecas, the Kinzua Dam flooded 9,000 acres of
the Allegany reservation, including sacred burial grounds. In 1954, New York expropriated a
300-acre swath through the Cattaraugus reservation for the New York State Thruway.
In 1993, the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Seneca Nation filed a lawsuit
seeking the return of Grand Island (and other islands in the Niagara River) and the ejection of
its 6,000 current property holders. The Seneca Nation of Indians alone also sued for the return
of the 300 acres taken out of the Cattaraugus reservation for the New York State Thruway. In
addition, the Seneca Nation of Indians has filed a lawsuit involving 50 acres on Cuba Lake in
Allegany County. The U.S. Department of Justice has joined in the Grand Island and Cuba
Lake lawsuits but not in the Thruway suit. In November 1998, U.S. District Court Judge John
Curtin ruled that New York violated federal law a century ago when it took by eminent
domain the 50 acres on Cuba Lake. Meanwhile, the Senecas say that they have repeatedly
sought to begin a negotiated settlement of the Grand Island lawsuit. But New York State has
rebuffed their inquiries and instead continues to pursue legal challenges to the Senecas' right to
sue the state. In November 1999, the presiding judge in that suit was removed from the
litigation and appointed to serve as settlement judge.
Additional Information:
In the late 1800s, the city of Salamanca was built on the Allegany reservation by non-Indians,
who leased the land from the Senecas. Over the years, the Senecas resisted numerous efforts
by these non-Indians to seize title to this reservation land. After 99 years, the leases expired,
and the Seneca Nation of Indians negotiated with the city, state, and federal government
regarding new leases under updated terms. Several Salamanca residents refused to sign the
new leases and refused to compensate the Senecas for their use of Seneca land. After being
given several years to comply, these people were removed from their homes by U.S. marshals.
The others signed leases and continue to live on Seneca land.
Summary of Current Status:
38
A U.S. District Court has ruled that New York violated federal law a century ago when it took
possession of the 50 acres on Cuba Lake. The Grand Island and Thruway disputes are still in
litigation. The Senecas have indicated a willingness to enter settlement negotiations, but New
York State continues to pursue legal challenges.
39
TUSCARORA
Ska:ru:re
Shirt-Wearing People
Location/Government:
The citizens of the Tuscarora Nation live on 5,778 acres in Niagara County, north of Buffalo.
They maintain a traditional system of government and participate in the Haudenosaunee Grand
Council of Chiefs.
Acreage & Location of Land Claim:
Currently, the Tuscaroras have filed no land claims in New York State.
History:
The Tuscaroras were an Iroquois group that had migrated south before the formation of the
Confederacy. In 1713, after years of harassment by white settlers, they were defeated in a war
with the North Carolina colonists. Some fled north to seek refuge in Pennsylvania and New
York. These Tuscaroras were adopted into the Confederacy, becoming the sixth nation of the
Haudenosaunee. In the Revolutionary War, many Tuscarora warriors sided with the
Americans. After the war, a small group of Tuscaroras moved to the Six Nations Reserve
along the Grand River in Canada. But the majority remained in New York, some residing on
Seneca land along the Niagara River. In 1797, the Senecas lost most of this land to the
Holland Land Company. But a small area was reserved for the Tuscaroras. Later, using
payments received from the North Carolina legislature for their former homeland, the
Tuscaroras purchased an additional 4,200 acres. By 1809, they had a land base totaling some
6,000 acres.
In the late 1950s, New York State condemned 550 acres of Tuscarora land to construct a
hydroelectric dam and reservoir. Robert Moses, the engineer who was promoting the project,
told the Tuscaroras that the loss of this land would "impose no hardship on your community"
because much of "your land is presently uncultivated and unused." The Tuscaroras vigorously
resisted the project in the courts and on their land but lost.
Summary of Current Status:
The Tuscaroras have filed no land claims in New York State.
40
PART FOUR:
Resources and Responses
41
Resource Addresses
Cayuga
Cayuga Nation PO Box 11
Versailles NY 14168
(716) 532-4847
www.tuscaroras.com/cayuganation
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma
PO Box 1283
Miami OK 74355
(918) 542-6600
Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs
www.sixnations.org
Mohawk
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
PO Box 579
Cornwall, Ontario K6H 5T3
(613) 575-2377
Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs
Akwesasne Mohawk Territory
PO Box 366
Rooseveltown NY 13683
(518) 358-3381
www.slic.com/mohawkna
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Akwesasne Community Bldg.
412 State Route 37
Hogansburg NY 13655
(518) 358-2272
Oneida
Oneida Indian Nation 579A Main St.
Oneida NY 13421
(315) 361-6300
www.oneida-nation.net
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
PO Box 365
Oneida WI 54155
(920) 869-1600
www.oneidanation.org
Oneida Nation of the Thames
2212 Elm Ave. RR2
Southwold, Ontario NOL 2G0
(519) 652-3244
Onyota:aka Ka'nikuhli:yo
Traditional Oneida Nation
PO Box 351
c/o Onondaga Nation
Nedrow NY 13120
Onondaga
Onondaga Nation
Box 258C, Route 11A
Nedrow NY 13120
(315) 492-1922
www.indianlaw.org/body_onondaga.html
Seneca
Allegany Reservation:
Seneca Nation of Indians
G.R. Plummer Bldg.
PO Box 231
Salamanca NY 14779 (716) 945-1790
www.sni.org
Cattaraugus Reservation:
Seneca Nation of Indians
William Seneca Bldg.
1490 Route 438
Irving NY 14081
716) 532-4900
www.sni.org
Tonawanda Territory:
Tonawanda Seneca Nation
7027 Meadville Rd.
Basom NY 14013
(716)542-4244
Tuscarora
Tuscarora Nation
c/o Chief Leo Henry
2006 Mount Hope Rd.
Lewiston NY 14092
(716) 297-9528 (phone messages)
www.tuscaroras.com
42
New York Counties
Madison County
www.madisoncounty.org
Click "Oneida Indian Land Claim Site"
Oneida County
www.oneidacounty.org
Click "Local Issues"
Land claim hotline: (800) 541-0151
Opposition Organizations
American Citizens Association
PO Box 492
Canastota NY 13032
Central New York Fair Business Association
PO Box 577
Oneida NY 13421
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
PO Box 23205
Santa Fe NM 87502
(605) 374-5836 www.citizensalliance.org
"Land Claim Ground Zero" website
www.landclaim.homepage.com
Madison-Oneida Landowners, Inc.
PO Box 1925
Syracuse NY 13202
(315) 687-7811
"Unofficial Oneida Indian Land Claim Website"
www.madisoncountyny.com/landclaim/
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc.
PO Box 65
Wampsville NY 13163
www.madisoncountyny.com/uce
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc.
Cayuga-Seneca Chapter
PO Box 24
Union Springs NY 13160
(315) 889-5836
www.ucelandclaim.com
43
Support Organizations
American Friends Service Committee
Upper New York State Area
4201/2 Gifford St.
Syracuse NY 13204
(315) 475-4822
www.afsc.org/mar/nys.html
American Friends Service Committee
Native American Affairs Program
1501 Cherry St.
Philadelphia PA 19102
(215) 241-7000
www.afsc.org
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE
Washington DC 20002
(202) 547-6000
www.fcnl.org
Publishes Indian Report newsletter
HONOR (Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights)
PO Box 694
Bayfield WI 54814
(715) 779-9595
www.ncis.net/honorinc
Members receive HONOR Digest newsletter
Indian Law Resource Center
602 N. Ewing St.
Helena MT 59601
(406) 449-2006
www.indianlaw.org
Publishes Indian Rights-Human Rights newsletter
Native American Rights Fund
1506 Broadway
Boulder CO 80302
(303) 447-8760
www.narf.org
Publishes Justice newsletter
44
Reading List
Akwesasne Notes. Basic Call to Consciousness. Rooseveltown, NY: Akwesasne Notes, 1978.
Explains the spiritual roots and historical perspective of the Haudenosaunee.
Calloway, Colin G. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native
American Communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Portrays the
struggle of the Six Nations to stay out of the Revolutionary War.
Hauptman, Laurence M. Conspiracy of Interest: Iroquois Dispossession and the Rise of New
York State. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1999. Details the collision of indigenous
people with the fast-growing state during the period between the American Revolution and the
Civil War.
Hauptman, Laurence M. The Iroquois Struggle for Survival: World War H to Red Power.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Examines recent efforts of Iroquois nations to
renew their cultures and to resist land takeovers.
Pevar, Stephen L. The Rights of Indians and Tribes: the Basic ACL U Guide to Indian and
Tribal Rights. 2d ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Explains the
legal status of Indians, as seen by the U.S. government.
Price, David. The Second Civil War: Examining the Indian Demand for Ethnic Sovereignty.
Denver, CO: Second Source, 1998. Argues that Indian sovereignty is an unacceptable attempt by
Indians to secede from the United States.
Shattuck, George C. The Oneida Land Claims: A Legal History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1991. Summarizes the first Oneida lawsuit, by the attorney who represented the
Oneidas.
Snow, Dean. The Iroquois. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. Traces Haudenosaunee history
and culture from the foundation of the Confederacy to the present.
Sutton, In-ire, ed. Irredeemable America: The Indians ' Estate and Land Claims.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1985. Presents essays on Indian land
claims nationwide.
Vecsey, Christopher, and William A. Starna, eds. Iroquois Land Claims. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press, 1988. Presents papers on both sides of the issue, from a symposium
held at Colgate University in April 1986.
Wallace, Anthony F. C. The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca. New York: Random House, 1969.
Traces the history of the Seneca to the early 1800s, including much about other Iroquois nations.
45
Feedback Form
We welcome your responses to this booklet. You can send them to us using this form or your
own paper. Or you can call us. Please let us hear from you.
American Friends Service Committee
4201/2 Gifford St.
Syracuse NY 13204
Phone: (315) 475-4822
Fax: (315) 475-0304
• Questions or special concerns you have about the Iroquois land claims:
• Areas of common ground that you see between Indians and non-Indians, which could be
explored:
• Suggestions you have on how the various land claim issues might be resolved: • Other
suggestions or comments you would like to give us:
............................................................................................................
We would appreciate knowing who you are (but this information is optional):
Your Name:
Your Mailing Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Your Phone Number: ( )
[ ] I would like to receive more information about the land claims, as it becomes available.
[ ] I would like to get involved with AFSC on the land claims issue.
[ ] I'm willing to help in any way I can.
[ ] I could volunteer to do the following:
[ ] I would like more information about AFSC and its programs.
46