This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Second Treaty of Buffalo Creek | |
|---|---|
| Name | Second Treaty of Buffalo Creek |
| Date signed | 1838 |
| Location signed | Buffalo, New York |
| Parties | United States, Seneca Nation of New York, Ogden Land Company |
| Language | English |
Second Treaty of Buffalo Creek
The Second Treaty of Buffalo Creek (1838) was a controversial agreement involving the United States and several members of the Iroquois Confederacy, primarily the Seneca Nation of New York, negotiated in Buffalo, New York and associated with land transactions involving the Ogden Land Company. The treaty followed earlier accords such as the Treaty of Big Tree and preceded later disputes culminating in litigation before the United States Supreme Court and interventions by figures like William Seward and institutions including the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The document reshaped territorial arrangements in western New York and influenced relations among the Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Tuscarora nations, with repercussions felt in state politics, commercial speculation, and tribal sovereignty debates.
In the wake of the War of 1812 and rapid expansion tied to the Erie Canal, pressure mounted on Iroquoian lands held under the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794) and the Treaty of Big Tree (1797). Land speculators such as the Ogden Land Company sought titles tied to parcels around Genesee River, Allegany Reservation, and Cattaraugus Reservation, invoking precedents set by the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and administrative actions by the Department of War (United States) and later the Department of the Interior (United States). New York state officials including William H. Seward allies and private entities like the Holland Land Company pushed for consolidation of holdings, while Iroquois leaders such as Cornplanter’s successors, Red Jacket’s contemporaries, and Seneca chiefs debated responses amid changing economic forces tied to Erie County (New York), Monroe County, New York, and markets in New York City.
Negotiations convened in Buffalo, New York with delegates representing the United States federal negotiating team, agents of the Ogden Land Company, and various delegations from the Seneca Nation of New York, Onondaga Nation, Cayuga Nation, and Tuscarora Nation. Prominent negotiators included state commissioners aligned with New York governors and federal agents who had ties to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and political patrons in Albany, New York and Washington, D.C.. Signatories on the Native side were a mix of recognized chiefs and other representatives whose authority was later contested by leaders associated with the Seneca Nation of Indians and traditional councils at settlements such as Tonawanda Reservation and Cattaraugus Reservation. Observers from newspapers like the Buffalo Gazette and political figures including members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate attended or commented, creating a contentious public record involving legal advisors from firms with ties to the New York State Legislature.
The treaty purported to extinguish Native title to large tracts in western New York in exchange for monetary payments, reserved reservations such as Allegany Reservation, and provisions for relocation of some groups to lands west of the Mississippi River in territories associated with the Indian Territory (United States). It referenced compensation mechanisms tied to entities like the Ogden Land Company and arrangements for annuities administered via agencies under the Department of the Interior (United States). Specific articles addressed land conveyance procedures, compensation schedules, and relocation logistics invoking precedents from treaties such as the Treaty of Buffalo Creek (1834), while also intersecting with state statutes enacted by the New York State Legislature regarding property titles and transactions administered through county courts in Erie County (New York) and Cattaraugus County, New York.
The treaty provoked immediate resistance among communities at Tonawanda Reservation, Cattaraugus Reservation, and Allegany Reservation, as traditional councils and prominent figures allied with organizations such as the emerging Iroquois National Council contested the legitimacy of signatories and the fairness of compensation. Displacement pressures echoed experiences from events like the Trail of Tears and produced divisions among the Seneca between those seeking accommodation and those asserting traditional land tenure rights. Outcomes affected relationships with neighboring entities including the Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York, commercial actors in Buffalo (city), and New York philanthropists who had previously engaged with educational institutions such as Genesee College.
Litigation and political advocacy followed, with challenges brought before state courts, petitions submitted to the United States Congress, and cases that eventually reached the United States Supreme Court and administrative review by the Department of the Interior (United States). Figures such as Ely S. Parker and legal counsel associated with the Seneca Nation of Indians later advanced claims leading to partial reversals, renegotiations, and the 1842 and 1846 supplemental agreements that modified implementation. Legal doctrines engaged included issues of conveyance under state law, the role of federal treaty-making authority under the Constitution of the United States, and remedial measures reflected in subsequent settlements influenced by advocates in New York City and federal legislators sympathetic to Native petitions.
Long-term consequences included retention of several reservations, shifts in tribal governance structures, and precedents informing later cases involving tribal land claims adjudicated by the United States Court of Claims and decisions like those overseen by the United States Department of Justice. The treaty’s contested history shaped later activism by Native leaders, contributed to scholarship at institutions such as Harvard University and Columbia University, and influenced historical narratives promoted by museums including the National Museum of the American Indian and regional archives in Buffalo (city). Contemporary debates about sovereignty, reparations, and cultural preservation trace threads to the treaty era, informing modern dialogues within the Seneca Nation of Indians and among scholars of Native American history.
Category:1838 treaties