DOCSLIB.ORG

Historic Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historic Development Livingston County Historical Museum Historic Structure Report 30 Center Street, Geneseo, NY SECTION II – HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Image II -2: Teachers Minnie Toole, Ms.Shepard, and Mis Euchner standing outside of the School (nd). Photo Courtesy of Livingston County Historical Society. Image II - 1: Children playing outside of the schoolhouse (nd). Photo Courtesy of Livingston County Historical Society Copyright 2010 Clinton Brown Company Architecture, pc SECTION II: HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT-1 Livingston County Historical Museum Historic Structure Report 30 Center Street, Geneseo, NY HISTORICAL CONTEXT agricultural industry and came to own a large portion of the area to be incorporated as the Village of Geneseo in 1832. VILLAGE OF GENESEO Their stewardship of much of agricultural Geneseo continued and as community leaders they established many facilities, The Livingston County Historical Society Museum, known including several educational institutions in the Village. formerly as the Cobblestone Schoolhouse, is located in the historic Village of Geneseo, NY about 35 miles to the south of Because of its significance in the development of New York Rochester, NY. Its name is derived from Gen-nis-he-yo, State, in 1977 the Geneseo Main Street area was listed on the Iroquois for “beautiful valley” as it is located with scenic vistas New York State and National Registers of Historic Places, the overlooking the Genesee River Valley. official lists of sites worthy of preservation because of their architectural and cultural significance. The Livingston County Established in the 1790s, the Village of Geneseo was part of Historical Museum at 30 Center Street, in the ca. 1838 the acquisition of Seneca Indian land encompassing Cobblestone Schoolhouse, was deemed a contributing building approximately two-thirds of New York State west of the to the Historic District during the subsequent 1985 boundary Genesee River. The ability of non-natives to officially settle the expansion of the established historic district. Indicating its great Village of Geneseo on these Seneca Indian lands came after significance to the settlement of New York State, the Village of the Treaty of Big Tree in 1797 when they ceded rights to their Geneseo was distinguished as a National Historic Landmark land allowing greater European influence in the area.1 The District in 1991. This is the highest level of distinction for Treaty brought together representatives of the Seneca Indian historic places and the Village of Geneseo is one of only Nation, the Holland Land Company - a group of Dutch twenty-four National Historic Landmark Districts in the United investors, and influential businessmen of the region, including States. James and William Wadsworth. Meetings regarding the treaty were held on the Wadsworth property located along the Today, the Village of Geneseo, lying within the Town of Geneseo, is the county seat of Livingston County. As of the Image II - 3: The Village of Geneseo as depicted in the Atlas of Livingston Genesee River in a densely forested area known for large oak County, New York published in 1872. 2000 Census, the Town has a population of 9,654, with 7,579 trees, hence the moniker of the area, Big Tree. residing within the Village itself. Much of the Village of Owned by Phelps & Gorham who had purchased their tract Geneseo is utilized by the nearly 5,000 full-time students at the from the State of Massachusetts, it was later bought by the State University of New York at Geneseo, one of the most Holland Land Company, a group of thirteen Dutch investors, recognized public universities in New York State. well known for their role in the development of Western New York. The Holland Land Company then sold off portions of the massive parcel, including large tracts in the Genesee Valley and present-day Village of Geneseo, to members of the Wadsworth Family from Connecticut. To oversee the family land, the brothers James and William Wadsworth, a land agent and farmer respectively, moved to the area in the late 1780s. Exerting considerable influence in brokering the Treaty of Big Tree, the Wadsworths saw the prospect of successful 1 Barnes, Katherine. The Genesee Country. Maxon Publishing, 1972, pg 6. Image II - 4: Historic postcard of Main Street, view north (nd). Copyright 2010 Clinton Brown Company Architecture, pc SECTION II: HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT-2 Livingston County Historical Museum Historic Structure Report 30 Center Street, Geneseo, NY COBBLESTONE CONSTRUCTION The cobblestone buildings are heavily concentrated in Wayne, Society which was certified as a contributing building to the Monroe, and Ontario Counties along Lake Ontario’s southern National Historic Landmark District of the Village of Geneseo. 7 Cobblestone construction is characterized by the use of a shore, with fewer examples in more western and southern naturally rounded stone larger than a pebble and smaller than counties. The development pattern is attributed to the a boulder used in masonry construction, averaging roughly 3”- prevalence of round, glacially deposited stones more near the 6” in diameter. The first cobblestone buildings appeared in edge of receding glaciers from the north, than in other parts of Europe, specifically England. There are three defined periods New York. A survey indentified 21 cobblestone buildings in of cobblestone masonry recognized in New York State, Livingston County, with the greatest concentration in the considered to extend from 1825 to the 1860s.2 With many Villages of Lima, York and Geneseo. masons having come to New York to work on the Erie Canal, there appears to have been a ready workforce in the region. Over 75% of the cobblestone structures were constructed as This, with the abundance of cobblestones, led to the residences, followed in popularity by agricultural buildings and construction method’s popularity. educational facilities. Of the approximately 50 cobblestone schoolhouses identified in Central and Western New York, the Cobbles most commonly used in this type of construction are majority were far less detailed than the Livingston County sedimentary stones that originated in the shallow waterbed of Historical Museum, and were most typically one story, one- the region that were then lifted into and eroded by expanding room buildings.5 glaciers before their deposition by retreating glaciers. Some metamorphic rocks from Canadian lands further north, may A National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property 3 also be used in cobblestone buildings. Documentation Form (MPDF) was written for “Cobblestone Architecture in New York State” and this cover document was Image II - 5: Cobblestone schoolhouse in Childs, Orleans County, NY. Cobblestone construction was described well by Buffalo accepted by the New York State Historic Preservation Office Courtesy of Historic American Building Survey, NY-6241-1. architect Olaf William Shelgren, Jr. as architectural “folk art” and the National Park Service in 1992. 6 This MPDF document unique to Central and Western New York.4 Construction of this covers cobblestone buildings with this related building type required several masons, but no mason is thought to have construction technique and material, largely unique to New been specifically trained in cobblestone masonry. The York State. materials used were found locally, often the result of pulling glacially-deposited stones from topsoil during farming. The As of September 2010, ten cobblestone resources located in finished buildings featured a structurally sound design, typically Livingston County are listed on the National Register of augmented with limestone quoins, required minimal upkeep Historic Places, including the Livingston County Historical aside from regular repointing of mortar joints, and were naturally fireproof, a concern of the times when heat, cooking 5 Roudabush, Robert. Unpublished inventory of cobblestone buildings in and lighting were accomplished with open flames. New York State, completed 1976-1980. On file at the Landmark Society of 7 Western New York, Rochester, NY. National Register-listed cobblestone buildings in Livingston County 6 A Multiple Property submission contains two parts: a Multiple Property include the Barnard Cobblestone House, Lima (09NR03183); Cobblestone Documentation Form (MPDF) and individual registration forms. The MPDF Caretaker’s Cottage as part of The Geneseo Livingston Homestead, acts as a cover document for the submission; it includes a broad narrative Geneseo (90NT01378); Coverdale Cobblestone House, Leicester historical overview of the area, and serves as a basis for evaluating related (04NR05350); Ganoung Cobblestone Farmhouse, Lima (09NR01358); 2 Schmidt, Carl F. Cobblestone Masonry. Scottsville, NY. 1966, pg 2. properties. The form may be used to nominate thematically-related historic Markham Cobblestone Farmhouse and Barn Complex, Lima (09NE01362); 3 Todd, Nancy. “Cobblestone Architecture of New York State,’ Multiple properties simultaneously in one submission, or over time. The MPDF cover Morgan Cobblestone Farmhouse, Lima (09NR01364); Payne Cobblestone Properties Documentation Form, New York State Office of Parks, document does not list a property on the National Register; the actual House, Conesus (06NR05639); School No. 6, Lima (90NR01368); Sliker Recreation and Historic Preservation, 1993. nomination of each building, district, site, object or structure is made on the Cobblestone House, Conesus (06NR05665); Tenant Farmhouse as part of 4 Shelgren, Jr., Olaf William. Cobblestone Landmarks of New York
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Canada, New York, and the Iroquois Six Nations, 1783-1815 Author(S): Alan Taylor Reviewed Work(S): Source: Journal of the Early Republic, Vol
    Society for Historians of the Early American Republic The Divided Ground: Upper Canada, New York, and the Iroquois Six Nations, 1783-1815 Author(s): Alan Taylor Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 55-75 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press on behalf of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3124858 . Accessed: 02/11/2011 18:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press and Society for Historians of the Early American Republic are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Early Republic. http://www.jstor.org THE DIVIDED GROUND: UPPER CANADA, NEW YORK, AND THE IROQUOIS SIX NATIONS, 1783-1815 AlanTaylor In recentyears, historians have paid increasing attention to bordersand borderlandsas fluidsites of bothnational formation and local contestation. At theirperipheries, nations and empires assert their power and define their identitywith no certainty of success.Nation-making and border-making are inseparablyintertwined. Nations and empires, however, often reap defiance frompeoples uneasily bisected by theimposed boundaries. This process of border-making(and border-defiance)has been especiallytangled in the Americaswhere empires and republicsprojected their ambitions onto a geographyoccupied and defined by Indians.Imperial or nationalvisions ran up against the tangled complexities of interdependentpeoples, both native and invader.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protocols of Indian Treaties As Developed by Benjamin Franklin and Other Members of the American Philosophical Society
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (Religious Studies) Department of Religious Studies 9-2015 How to Buy a Continent: The Protocols of Indian Treaties as Developed by Benjamin Franklin and Other Members of the American Philosophical Society Anthony F C Wallace University of Pennsylvania Timothy B. Powell University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, Religion Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Wallace, Anthony F C and Powell, Timothy B., "How to Buy a Continent: The Protocols of Indian Treaties as Developed by Benjamin Franklin and Other Members of the American Philosophical Society" (2015). Departmental Papers (Religious Studies). 15. https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers/15 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers/15 For more information, please contact [email protected]. How to Buy a Continent: The Protocols of Indian Treaties as Developed by Benjamin Franklin and Other Members of the American Philosophical Society Abstract In 1743, when Benjamin Franklin announced the formation of an American Philosophical Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge, it was important for the citizens of Pennsylvania to know more about their American Indian neighbors. Beyond a slice of land around Philadelphia, three quarters of the province were still occupied by the Delaware and several other Indian tribes, loosely gathered under the wing of an Indian confederacy known as the Six Nations. Relations with the Six Nations and their allies were being peacefully conducted in a series of so-called “Indian Treaties” that dealt with the fur trade, threats of war with France, settlement of grievances, and the purchase of land.
    [Show full text]
  • Dendrochronological Analysis of Three Seneca Iroquois Log Structures at Letchworth State Park, New York
    Hist Arch (2017) 51:194–217 DOI 10.1007/s41636-017-0014-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The Edges of Wood: Dendrochronological Analysis of Three Seneca Iroquois Log Structures at Letchworth State Park, New York Cynthia A. Kocik Accepted: 26 January 2016 /Published online: 29 March 2017 # Society for Historical Archaeology 2017 Abstract Letchworth State Park in Castile, New York, Genesee a principios del siglo XIX. El análisis maintains the Caneadea Council House, the Nancy dendrocronológico de muestras de estas estructuras ha Jemison Cabin, and Thomas “Buffalo Tom” Jemison proporcionado una fecha de construcción más precisa de Cabin, all built in Seneca communities along the 1820 ca. para la vivienda social, significativamente pos- Genesee River valley in the early 19th century. terior a 1759–1780, tal como se derivaba de los Dendrochronological analysis of samples from these documentos históricos. Sin embargo, los resultados structures has provided a more precise construction date apoyan las fechas de construcción históricas en torno a of ca. 1820 for the council house, significantly later than 1800 para la cabaña de Nancy Jemison, y de 1818 ca. the 1759–1780 range derived from historical docu- para la cabaña de Thomas Jemison. Aplicando el tipo ments. However, the results support the historical con- intercultural/creolizado de K. Jordan (2008) y el tipo struction dates of around 1800 for the Nancy Jemison “casa de troncos de la reserva” de Brown (2000) junto Cabin and ca. 1818 for the Thomas Jemison Cabin. con la lente de hibricidad se esclarece
    [Show full text]
  • G:\OSG\Desktop
    No. 05-905 In the Supreme Court of the United States SENECA NATION OF INDIANS AND TONAWANDA BAND OF SENECA INDIANS, PETITIONERS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION PAUL D. CLEMENT Solicitor General Counsel of Record SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM LAZARUS SAMUEL C. ALEXANDER Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, because the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized that the historic Seneca Indian Nation owned the Niagara River Islands, the State of New York’s purported purchase of the Niagara Islands in 1815 without ratification by Congress violated the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. 177. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 1 Statement............................................ 2 Argument........................................... 10 Conclusion .......................................... 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 (1876) ................. 12 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ....................................... 2 FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) . 5, 16 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) ...... 12 Jones v. Soulard, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 41 (1860) ....... 11, 12 Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U.S. 65 (1926) ........ 13 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) ......................................... 13 Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) ....................................... 2 Oneida Indian Nation v. New York, 860 F.2d 1145 (2d Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • "Make Your Minds Perfectly Easy": Sagoyewatha and the Great Law of the Handenosaunee
    granville ganter St. JohnsUniversity "MakeYour Minds PerfectlyEasy5 Of all the Native orators of the early nineteenth century, Sago or was one yewatha (pronounced Shay-g?-ye-w?tha Sa-go-ye-wat-ha) of themost famous inAngloamerica. Better known as Red Jacket,for the red as a runner coat given to him by the British for his services message in the on Revolution, Sagoyewathas defiant opposition to missionary presence Seneca reservations and his resistance to land sales earned him the title the "last of the Senecas" in his obituary in theNiles Weekly Register (13 Febru ary 1830: 411). His speeches appeared in broadsides, pamphlets, and even in schoolbooks during the early national period (Densmore 69). Although these records are subject to a variety of editing and transcription problems, a large number were translated by experienced interpreters, and many evoke the figurative language and irony forwhich Sagoyewatha became known (Taylor 23).1And in contrast tomany eighteenth- and nineteenth century publications where Natives took no part in the print circulation of theirwords, toward the end of his career, Sagoyewatha had his speeches as a published in newspapers and handbills part of deliberate publicity to campaign that the Senecas undertook after theWar of 1812 protect their lands. Given that the Senecas often intended to enter the Euroamerican sphere of printed discourse after the Revolution, this essay interprets the archive of Red Jacket speeches (as well as those of a few other politically active an Senecas of the early national period) from Indigenous cultural frame work. It foregrounds Seneca traditions and thoughtways that have received over two only token acknowledgment from literary scholars the past hun dred years, drawing on historical and anthropological work (both Native and non-Native authored) thathas not yetmoved significantly into English literature studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Haudenosaunee Land Dispossession Timeline
    Timeline of Haudenosaunee Land Dispossession to Clear the Route for the Erie Canal Routes of the Erie Canal and the lateral canals Sullivan Clinton Campaign To Generals Sullivan, Clinton, Van Schaick and Colonels Brodhead, Butler and Gansevoort: "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their (Haudenosaunee) settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every sex and age possible. It is essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting." Gen. George Washington's orders to attack the Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca, 1778 Washington gave these orders to retaliate against the Loyalist and Haudenosaunee raids at Wyoming Valley, and Cherry Valley. The Continental Army of 6,200 men scorched and destroyed about 50 Haudenosaunee villages destroying 1 million bushels of corn, 50 thousand bushels of vegetables, and 10 thousand fruit trees. Over 5,000 Haudenosaunee are forced to flee to Fort Niagara to be under the protection of the British. The Winter of Hunger 5 feet of snow covered Fort Niagara for most of the winter British did not have enough accommodations or supplies for the unexpected refugees About 5,000 Haudenosaunee lived in poorly constructed shelters Many wild food source animals died due to weather Families froze to death or died of hunger or disease Ft. Niagara Some Haudenosaunee try to move back to ancestral land but little is left due to the scorched earth policy Most of the Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee stay under British protection and settle together in Canada, by Fort Niagara or at Buffalo Creek (present day Buffalo) Sculpture at Ganandagon State Historical Site Treaty of Paris: No mention of the Haudenosaunee in the treaty, even though the British had promised to look out for their interests and those of other allied Native American Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Livingston County Historical Society 30 Center Street Geneseo, NY 14454
    Livingston County Historical Museum 30 Center Street, Geneseo, NY HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Livingston County Historical Society 30 Center Street Geneseo, NY 14454 PREPARED BY: Clinton Brown Company Architecture pc 653 Main Street, Suite 104 Buffalo, NY 14203 In cooperation with: Barbara P. Moore Conservation Consultant 2 Lacoma Lane Pittsford, NY 14534 This project is funded in part by: A grant from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation through Title 9 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1993 Preserve New York, a grant program of the Preservation League of New York State and the New York State Council on the Arts DECEMBER 2010 Copyright 2010 Clinton Brown Company Architecture, pc Livingston County Historical Museum Historic Structure Report 30 Center Street, Geneseo, NY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Jon Perkins, Treasurer Jensen BRV Engineering PLLC The following individuals are acknowledged for their 1653 East Main Street contributions to this report. Liz Porter, Trustee Rochester, NY 14609 Livingston County Historical Society Ken Richardson, Trustee Jason Vigil, P.E., Structural Engineer 30 Center Street Ellen Wyckoff, Trustee Geneseo, NY 14454 Conservation Consultant LCHS HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 2 Lacoma Lane STAFF PROJECT COMMITTEE Pittsford, NY 14534 Anna Kowalchuk, Museum Administrator William Brummett, Trustee Barbara P. Moore, Conservation Consultant Jeanne Galbraith, Research Secretary NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Livingston County Historian’s Office Richard Lind, Volunteer Preservation 5 Murray Hill Drive Mt. Morris, NY 14510 Ken Richardson, Trustee Karen Ferguson, Regional Grants Administrator Amie Alden, Livingston County Historian Anna Kowalchuk, Museum Administrator Christine Capella-Peters, Technical Reviewer State Historic Preservation Office Geneseo Village and Town Historian BOARD OF DIRECTORS Preservation League of New York State David W.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary Jemison (Dehgewanus), White Seneca Adoptee in New York
    MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791 PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION “a large and powerful army of the rebels . was making rapid progress towards our settlement” The Revolutionary War experiences of Mary Jemison, (Dehgewanus), an Indian captive adopted by the Seneca * A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, 1824___SELECTIONS The teenaged daughter of Scotch-Irish immigrants in Pennsylvania, Mary Jemison was captured in 1758 by French soldiers and Shawnee Indians raiding her family’s farm in Pennsylvania during the French and Indian War. With the sure knowledge that her parents and siblings had been killed, she feared for her life but was traded to two Seneca women as a replacement for their brother recently killed in battle. Soon given in marriage to a Delaware Indian, she settled in Seneca territory in western New York and lived there for the rest of her life. As an aging widow in 1823, she related her life experiences to a local physician who published her memoir the next year. Deemed accurate by historians, A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison became one of the most widely read and reprinted captivity narratives in American history. At the outset of the Revolutionary War, Jemison was a wife and mother in her thirties, living in the Seneca village of Little Beard’s Town in western New York. (see maps, pp. 2-3). The war came directly to her village with the Sullivan Campaign of 1779, ordered by Gen. Washington to eradicate Iroquois support for the British by destroying the Indian villages and farmland of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Seneca Nation of Indians V. Christy: a Background Study
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 46 Number 3 Symposium on Law, Sovereignty and Article 7 Tribal Governance: The Iroquois Confederacy 10-1-1998 Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy: A Background Study Laurence M. Hauptman State University of New York at New Paltz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Laurence M. Hauptman, Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy: A Background Study, 46 Buff. L. Rev. 947 (1998). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol46/iss3/7 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy: A Background Study LAURENCE M. HAUPTMANt The decision is one of local, state, and national importance alike... If the claim of the plaintiffs had been substantiated, it would have not only challenged the title of every purchaser and holder of land included in the Ogden Land Company's purchase of August 31, 1826, but also the title to many millions of acres2 of lands in the state held under similar treaties with the Indians. INTRODUCTION On January 21, 1974, the United States Supreme Court overturned one hundred forty-three years of American law. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida allowed this Indian nation access to federal courts in the pursuit of its land claims.3 This landmark decision held the federal Trade and Intercourse Acts (Non- Intercourse Acts) applicable to the original thirteen states, thereby providing access of the federal courts to the Oneidas as well as to other Indians seeking their land returned to them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Archaeology of Ohagi and the Post-Revolutionary Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Ca
    CROWDING THE BANKS: THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF OHAGI AND THE POST-REVOLUTIONARY HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY, CA. 1780-1826 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Beth Ryan January 2017 © 2017 Beth Ryan CROWDING THE BANKS: THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF OHAGI AND THE POST-REVOLUTIONARY HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY, CA. 1780-1826. Beth Ryan, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 This dissertation examines the settlement pattern, housing styles, subsistence practices, and trade relationships of Haudenosaunee communities in New York State and Ontario in the post-Revolutionary era (1783-1826). Historical and ethnohistorical literature has described the period as one of despair, cultural loss, factionalism, and dependency among the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and the communities have been labeled as “slums in the wilderness,” confined on small tracts of land and isolated from one another. My excavation at Ohagi, a Tuscarora village in Seneca territory in the Genesee River Valley (ca. 1780-1792), in combination with previously unanalyzed museum collections and a reevaluation of county histories and primary source documents, reveals that the Haudenosaunee communities in post-Revolutionary New York and Ontario built villages in a network of settlement complexes, encircling an area of rich natural resources and facilitating movement between communities and nations. The evidence reveals that housing styles did not immediately shift to European-style log cabins, as often assumed, and the shift to smaller houses did not necessarily accompany a change in matrilineal family structure and relationships. This dissertation employs recent literature on Settler Colonialism to critique both the exiting interpretations of the post-Revolutionary era as well as the practice of archaeological excavation of Native sites.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exact Date of the Founding of a Permanent Seneca Community
    1 The Tonawanda Community Early History he exact date of the founding of a permanent Seneca community Tat Tonawanda is unknown; however, Seneca settlement there was no accidental occurrence. In the seventeenth century, Tonawanda and its environs had been in the vicinity of Neutral, Erie, and Wenro territory, three nations conquered and absorbed by the Senecas from 1638 to 1680.1 In June, 1788, Reverend Samuel Kirkland, Presby- terian missionary to the Oneidas, who was traveling from the Sen- eca territory along the Genesee River to Buffalo Creek, noted when passing through Tonawanda that ruins of three ancient fortifications were visible.2 Indeed, Arthur C. Parker, the noted anthropologist of Seneca ancestry, later suggested that some of the Senecas who set- tled at Tonawanda had Neutral ancestry.3 Although it is difficult for archaeologists to separate exactly Neutral from later Seneca sites, some scholars maintain that the Senecas were establishing fishing camps and hunting in the vicinity of Tonawanda and trading with the French (and later English) at Fort Niagara by the mid-eighteenth century.4 Migrations to Tonawanda continued to occur from the Ameri- can Revolution well into the 1830s. In the summer of 1779, George Washington’s army in the Sullivan-Clinton campaign devastated the Iroquois villages in the Genesee River Valley and sent the Indians fleeing westward. One group of Seneca refugees settled along the Tonawanda Creek.5 Other Senecas later came to Tonawanda after the land cession of the entire Little Beardstown Reservation in a feder- ally ratified treaty in 1802.6 Still others arrived at Tonawanda with Handsome Lake (Ganiodayo), the Seneca prophet, after he was ostra- cized from the Allegany Reservation and went into exile before the 1 © 2011 State University of New York Press, Albany 2 The Tonawanda Senecas’ Heroic Battle Against Removal War of 1812.7 Another major Indian migration to Tonawanda from the Genesee Valley occurred after the federal treaty of 1826 when a large number of Canawaugus Seneca were forced off their Genesee Valley lands.
    [Show full text]