The passage suggests that the Oneida delegates viewed the Canandaigua Treaty as

Naz August 4, 2015

In lines 28-32 we are told that the BIA tried to offer a lump sum payment to the Oenida delegates in lieu of, i.e. to replace, the $0.52 annuity guaranteed in perpetuity to each member under the Canandaigua Treaty.

We know from lines 33-53 that the Oneida refused to change the Treaty in this way because it wasn't to their benefit. Further, we are told this change was "unanimously opposed by the Oneida delegates" because they believes that changing the terms of the treaty could "jeopardize the many pending land claims based upon the treaty," (lines 49-53).

Thus, the Treaty kept some of the tribes pending land claims in tact, in other words: the Treaty was a safeguard of certain Oneida rights and privileges, i.e. answer choice (A).

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

pajberman September 3, 2019

I'm confused on where the Canandaigua Treaty is explained further. Our only mention of the treaty is at the end of the second paragraph, where it says that the treaty would pay $60,000. How do we know that this is against the Oneida's benefits? I do see that it says that it changes terms of the treaty, but it doesn't specifically say which treaty. Therefore, how can we make the inference that the treaty is a safeguard, if the only evidence in the passage suggests the treaty is to pay them $60,000 (I hope this made sense)?

lxnxrd19 October 6, 2020

Right, I read the question stem as if it was against Oneida's benefits, this was definitely ticky.

phyeamang April 8, 2021

I guess the best way to think about this is that there is an existing treaty (Canandaigua Treaty) and proposed changes from the BIA. The tribe is rejecting the proposed changes.

Victoria May 2, 2021

Hi @pajberman, @lxnxrd19, and @phyeamang,

@phyeamang is correct! The Canandaigua Treaty guaranteed each member of the tribe $0.52 annually in perpetuity. The BIA proposed a one-time $60,000 payment which would replace the $0.52 annuity (Lines 28 to 32).

Lines 49 to 53 tell us that the Oneida delegates rejected the one-time $60,000 payment because they believed that "changing the terms of [the Canandaigua Treaty] might jeopardize the many pending land claims based upon the treaty."

Therefore, the Oneida viewed the Canandaigua Treaty as protecting certain rights and privileges that supported their many pending land claims.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.