Promised Land

Five or six years ago, Sidney Hill’s young son came to him with a question Hill didn’t know how to answer.

“We lost all this land,” Hill recalls his son saying. “How can that be?”

The boy had learned that day about the millions of acres of land that his people, the Onondaga, had once called home, and how their homeland had been taken piece by piece by the state of New York, until all that was left was 11 square miles south of Syracuse.

Hill tried to reassure his son that all that injustice was in the past. But he knew how hard it was to accept past wrongs. As Tadodaho, the spiritual leader of the Onondaga Nation, Hill is one of a handful of elders who have worked for decades to fight back against the historic injustices his son now sought to understand.

The Onondaga claim that the United States violated a 1794 treaty, signed by President George Washington, that guaranteed 2.5 million acres in central New York to them.

Five or six years ago, Sidney Hill’s young son came to him with a question. Hill didn’t know how to answer it.

“We lost all this land,” Hill recalls his son saying. “How can that be?”

The boy had learned that day about the millions of acres of land that his people, the Onondaga, had once called home. Then he learned how the state of New York had taken their homeland piece by piece until all that remained was 11 square miles south of Syracuse.

Hill tried to explain to his son that all that injustice was in the past. But he knew how hard it was to accept past wrongs. Hill is Tadodaho, the spiritual leader of the Onondaga Nation. He and a handful of elders have worked for decades to fight back against the historic injustices.

The Onondaga claim that the United States violated a 1794 treaty, signed by President George Washington. Under the agreement, 2.5 million acres in central New York was guaranteed to them.

The land, which includes the cities of Binghamton and Syracuse, has long since been transformed by highways and shopping malls, universities and airports. Pollution has left the area’s streams and rivers too dirty for fishing; by the late 20th century, Onondaga Lake, once a sacred part of Onondaga territory, was known as the most polluted lake in America.

In 2014, the tribe filed claims against the U.S. and New York State with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The international panel finally agreed to review the claims in 2023, and a finding is expected as soon as this year. The Onondagas’ case is the most direct human rights challenge of the United States’ treatment of Indigenous people to date.

The cities of Binghamton and Syracuse are part of the disputed land. The area has been transformed by highways and shopping malls, universities and airports. Pollution has left the area’s streams and rivers too dirty for fishing. Onondaga Lake was once a sacred part of Onondaga territory. By the late 20th century, it was known as the most polluted lake in America.

In 2014, the tribe filed claims against the U.S. and New York State with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The international panel agreed to review the claims in 2023. Their finding is expected as soon as this year. The Onondaga’s case is the most direct human rights challenge of the United States’ treatment of Indigenous people to date.

Even if the Onondaga succeed, the result will mostly be symbolic. Unlike the U.S. courts, the commission has no power to enforce a finding or settlement, and the U.S. government has said it does not consider the commission’s recommendations to be binding. But its investigations of human rights violations can be a tool for swaying public opinion or exerting political pressure.

By filing the petition, the Onondaga hope to get a seat at the table on environmental decisions across the original territory, and an acknowledgment that New York, even if only in principle, owes them 2.5 million acres.

Some Native nations have been willing to drop land claims in exchange for licenses to operate casinos. But there’s really just one thing that Hill says would be an acceptable form of payment: land.

The result will mostly be symbolic if the Onondaga succeed. The commission has no power to enforce a finding or settlement and the U.S. government has said it does not consider the commission’s recommendations to be binding. But its investigations of human rights violations can be a tool for swaying public opinion or exerting political pressure.

By filing the petition, the Onondaga hope to get a seat at the table to make environmental decisions across the original territory. They also want
an acknowledgment that New York, even if only in principle, owes them
2.5 million acres.

In the past, some Native nations have been willing to drop land claims in exchange for licenses to operate casinos. But there’s really just one thing that Hill says would be an acceptable form of payment, and that is land.

The Onondaga’s claims date back to the aftermath of the Revolutionary War. At that time, the U.S. worked with the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations—a confederacy of Native peoples that still exists today and includes the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora nations—to maintain peace in the region.

The federal government entered into three treaties that affirmed the alliance’s independence and ownership over much of northern New York State, and guaranteed that no one but the federal government would have the authority to deal with the Haudenosaunee.

One of those treaties, the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, explicitly recognized the Haudenosaunee territories as “their property,” and promised the tribes’ “free use and enjoyment” of their lands.

But New York State had already started to chip away at the Haudenosaunee land and sovereignty and would continue to do so. By 1822, it would control nearly all of the Onondaga land, as well as most of that owned by the other Haudenosaunee nations—because of transactions that the Onondaga say were illegal.

The Onondaga’s claims date back to after the Revolutionary War. At that time, the U.S. worked to maintain peace with the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations. The confederacy of Native peoples still exists today and spans the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora nations.

The federal government entered into three treaties that confirmed the alliance’s independence and ownership over much of northern New York State. The agreements guaranteed that no one but the federal government would have the authority to deal with the Haudenosaunee.

One of those treaties, the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, explicitly recognized the Haudenosaunee territories as “their property,” and promised the tribes’ “free use and enjoyment” of their lands.

But New York State had already started to chip away at the Haudenosaunee land and sovereignty. It would continue to do so and by 1822, New York State would control nearly all the Onondaga land. (New York State also controlled most of the land owned by the other Haudenosaunee nations.) The Onondaga say the transactions were illegal.

The state’s governor, George Clinton, convinced a group of Onondagas to “sell” nearly 2 million acres of land, without the knowledge of the tribe’s chiefs. In another transaction, the state led the Onondaga to believe they were leasing out, rather than selling, more than 50,000 acres.

“The [New] York people have got almost all of our Country and for a very trifle,” Onondaga chiefs told federal officials in that period, according to the papers of Timothy Pickering, who served as U.S. Indian Commissioner in the late 18th century.

George Clinton, governor of New York at the time, convinced a group of Onondagas to “sell” nearly 2 million acres of land. This was done without the knowledge of the tribe’s chiefs. In another transaction, the state led the Onondaga to believe they were leasing out, rather than selling, more than 50,000 acres.

“The [New] York people have got almost all of our Country and for a very trifle,” Onondaga chiefs told federal officials in that period, according to the papers of Timothy Pickering, who served as U.S. Indian Commissioner in the late 18th century.

For the next two centuries, the Onondaga continued to unsuccessfully press their case in face-to-face meetings with presidents, members of Congress, and governors of New York. Legal options were limited: In New York, for example, Native peoples didn’t have the right to sue on their own behalf until 1987.

The Onondaga chiefs didn’t initially embrace the idea of a lawsuit, and they debated taking their claims to court for more than 20 years.

“Our elders were always afraid of going into courts,” Hill says. Many were concerned that losing in court could lead them to lose what little land they had left.

“We finally said, we have to do something,” Hill says.

For the next two hundred years, the Onondaga continued to plead their case in face-to-face meetings with presidents, members of Congress, and governors of New York. They were unsuccessful and legal options were limited. In New York, for example, Native peoples didn’t have the right to sue on their own behalf until 1987.

The Onondaga chiefs didn’t initially embrace the idea of a lawsuit. For more than 20 years they debated taking their claims to court.

“Our elders were always afraid of going into courts,” Hill says. Many were concerned that losing in court could lead them to lose what little land they had left.

“We finally said, we have to do something,” Hill says.

In 2005, the Onondaga filed a version of their current claim in Federal District Court in the Northern District of New York, suing the state of New York, its governor, Onondaga County, the city of Syracuse, and a handful of the companies responsible for the pollution over the past centuries. A similar case filed by the Oneida Nation was, at the time, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But just 18 days after the Onondaga filed their petition, the Supreme Court rejected the Oneidas’ case. The decision referenced the Doctrine of Discovery, a colonial-era legal theory that said by “discovering” land, Europeans automatically owned it.

Returning the land to the Onondaga now would be a “disruptive remedy,” after so much time had passed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion for the 8-1 decision.

In 2005, the Onondaga filed a version of their current claim in Federal District Court in the Northern District of New York. They sued the state of New York, its governor, Onondaga County, the city of Syracuse, and a handful of the companies responsible for the pollution over the past centuries. A similar case filed by the Oneida Nation was, at the time, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But just 18 days after the Onondaga filed their petition, the Supreme Court rejected the Oneidas’ case. The decision referenced the Doctrine of Discovery, a colonial-era legal theory that said by “discovering” land, Europeans automatically owned it.

Returning the land to the Onondaga now would be a “disruptive remedy,” after so much time had passed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion for the 8-1 decision.

Lawyers for the Onondaga used the rejection as the premise for the new argument they presented to the human rights commission. They contended that the U.S. court system’s refusal to rule in their favor proved that they could not find justice in the United States.

In legal documents, the federal government argued that the Onondaga’s central claims have been rejected in prior cases and they’ve already had “abundant opportunity” for their claims to be heard. It also contended that since the bulk of the Onondaga Nation’s losses took place centuries before the commission was established, it has no authority to rule on the case.

“The judicial process functioned as it should have in this matter,” the U.S. government wrote in legal papers.

The commission’s decision could come at any time, but Sidney Hill is trying not to focus on it.

“We aren’t sure how it’s going to go,” he says. “But at least it won’t be hanging there for the next generation.”

Lawyers for the Onondaga used the rejection as the premise for the new argument they presented to the human rights commission. They argued that the U.S. court system’s refusal to rule in their favor proved that they could not find justice in the United States.

In legal documents, the federal government argued that the Onondaga’s central claims have been rejected in prior cases and the Onondaga have already had “abundant opportunity” for their claims to be heard. Since the Onondaga Nation’s losses took place centuries before the commission was established, the federal government argues it has no authority to rule on the case.

“The judicial process functioned as it should have in this matter,” the U.S. government wrote in legal papers.

The commission’s decision could come at any time, but Sidney Hill is trying not to focus on it.

“We aren’t sure how it’s going to go,” he says. “But at least it won’t be hanging there for the next generation.”

Grace Ashford covers New York government and politics for The New York Times. With reporting by Lauren Vespoli.

Grace Ashford covers New York government and politics for The New York Times. With reporting by Lauren Vespoli.