Talk:Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida

As a reader
What I find missing in this article is a simple description of what happened leading up to the suit. Here is what we say:

"In 1970, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York State and Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin filed suit against Oneida County, New York and Madison County, New York in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Oneidas alleged that vast swathes of tribal lands had been conveyed to the state of New York in violation of the Nonintercourse Act and three Indian treaties: the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), the Treaty of Fort Harmar (1789), and the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794). Although the complaint named over 6,000,000 acres conveyed in such manner, the suit involved only the portion of that land held by the two counties. As damages, the tribes asked only for the fair rental value of the lands from the period January 1, 1968, through December 31, 1969."

That's fine, as far as it goes, but what I don't know is - when were the lands conveyed to the state of New York? What were they to be used for? Was this a sort of "eminent domain" case, i.e. did the state try to take it for some purpose? Was the taking on January 1, 1968? Was it even a taking, or was it a purchase in contravention of an old tready? Why didn't they ask for damages for time after 1969 (maybe the state already gave the land back?) and why didn't they ask for the land back (maybe they did?).

We learn that over 6 million acres were named, but how many acres were at issue in this case? Our article on Oneida III (City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y.) gives a hint that we are talking about maybe 300,000 acres?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, I'm honored by your interest. Unfortunately, the lead-up to this suit is anything but simple. There's about 200 years of dealings with the Oneida, NY, and the federal government, and dozens of separate lawsuits. There's a rather crude summary of it here: Oneida Indian Nation. I'm still trying to figure out what might make sense for an article about the entire dispute, which would make it easier to provide context to the individual articles.
 * I think I can answer some of your questions, but not all, as I have not yet finished researching this question. The lands were conveyed in 1795, although the court did not mention this in Oneida I because it did not become relevant until Oneida II. No doubt, NY then turned around and sold most of the land to settlers. At issue in this suit was land held by the counties (to wit, highways and such), having received it from the state. It was a purchase, alleged to violate the Nonintercourse Act (again, this did not become relevant or discussed until Oneida II). It could not have been a taking, as aboriginal title has been interpreted not to be property under the 5th amendment (see: Aboriginal title in the United States). They didn't ask for damages after 1969, because trespass/ejectment damages are only for the past; they asked for the two-years preceding the filing of the claim.
 * This case, and Oneida II (the same case, really), involved 300,000 acres. The 6,000,000 were the subject of another suit (that I intend to write about separately); it failed in the Second Circuit, on the ground that the precursor to the Nonintercourse Act exceeded Congress's power under the Articles of Confederation. Sherrill is an entirely separate case. Sherill involved land that the tribe purchased in on the open market and then refused to pay taxes on, and thus wasn't really a land claim at all.
 * As for why they didn't ask for possession, that's a very complicated question. However, I imagine it was a litigation strategy issue, similar to the fact that they only asked for two-years of damages. Savidan 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's really that much information (200 years), it needs a navbox for people to find all the other stuff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here: Oneida... pile on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)