What It Looked Like Inside the Thomas Indian School
It's a little-known chapter in New York history: For decades, the state oversaw a boarding school where native children were systematically stripped of their culture and language and subjected to abuse.
Originally called the Thomas Asylum for Orphan and Destitute Indian Children and later shortened to the Thomas Indian School, the institution was on the Cattaraugus Territory of the Seneca Nation of Indians, about an hour south of Buffalo.
On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul thrust the school into the spotlight when she issued a formal apology for the atrocities — including forced family separations, physical and sexual abuse and hard labor — that occurred there. Ms. Hochul didn't mince words. She called the school, in operation from 1855 to 1957, a 'place of nightmares' and 'a site of sanctioned ethnic cleansing.'
According to the tribe, the event marked the first time a sitting New York governor has made an official visit to the traditional Seneca territories. During her visit Ms. Hochul met with over a dozen Seneca Nation members who attended the school. One of them, Elliott Tallchief, 85, recalled having his mouth washed out with soap for speaking his native language at the school in the 1940s.
Some applauded Ms. Hochul for the apology. Dianna Beaver, whose grandmother attended Thomas Indian School, said 'it's about time that someone acknowledged the harm' it caused.
But Tim Cooper, 62, a retired carpenter whose father attended the school, said Ms. Hochul's apology means nothing to him and many other tribal members who experienced, either directly or indirectly, the trauma inflicted by New York State.
'The wounds and scars and all the things that go with that are still there,' Mr. Cooper said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Newspaper seeks public release of Centennial Park feasibility study
Niagara Falls City Council Chairman Jim Perry has talked with Mayor Robert Restaino about the unreleased feasibility study for the proposed Centennial Park arena and events campus and said he's encouraged by what he's been told about it so far. In response to questions from the Niagara Gazette on Thursday, Perry did not say whether he would support releasing the study to the public in response to a Freedom of Information Law request filed by the newspaper. Instead, Perry said he spoke to city attorney Tom DeBoy who acknowledged receipt of the newspaper's formal request for the document and was assured that the city's legal department is working on it. 'I'm not part of that process, but (DeBoy) assured me it's being done,' Perry said on Thursday. Restaino confirmed in an interview with the members of the local press on May 13 that he received what he described as an incomplete version of the study, which was prepared by the private Florida-based consulting firm Sports Facilities Advisory, LLC at a cost of $140,000, plus expenses. While he has since indicated that the study results support the city building Centennial Park, he has declined to release the contents publicly. In an interview with the Gazette earlier this week, Restaino said he intends to do so by the end of the month after the results are shared with 'stakeholders,' namely representatives from New York's lead economy development agency Empire State Development Corp. and National Grid, the two entities that covered the city's cost for the study. 'One of the things we will do is meet with the stakeholders who paid for the study and show it to them,' Restaino told the Gazette in an interview earlier this week. 'And then we'll release it to the public. This month everything is going to be out in the open.' During an appearance on Monday on 'Your Community Accountability with Sam and Jon,' a Falls-based social media program aired on Facebook and YouTube, Perry said he has had a 'lot of discussions about it' and that it 'looks positive.' On Thursday, Perry told the newspaper he hadn't seen the study but had talked to the mayor about it. 'I can't share everything because this will be up to the mayor to unveil, but this project should be one of the more positive advancements to our local economy I've seen in my 70-plus years here in the city if everything falls into place,' Perry said. On Thursday, the newspaper filed a formal Freedom of Information request with the city's legal department and clerk's office, requesting a copy of the study from Restaino's administration. The newspaper's request cited two opinions from the New York State Committee on Open Government that indicate state law allows public agencies to release documents in their possession even in instances where they are considered to be drafts or incomplete. 'Draft records are subject to FOIL,' said Paul Wolf, a Williamsville attorney and founder of the government transparency group, the New York Coalition for Open Government. The city clerk's office acknowledged the newspaper's request on Thursday afternoon. Under state law, public agencies are allowed up to 20 business days to either grant or deny requests for information. In its initial response, the city clerk's office indicated that should 'circumstances arise' that prevent the delivery of a response within 20 business, the newspaper would be contacted with a 'new response date.' 'Examples of circumstances that may lead to extended response times include staff shortages, requests for a large volume of records and requests that require significant document redaction and/or seek documents that are not maintained electronically,' the response from the clerk's office notes. The results of the feasibility study are expected to more clearly define elements of the Centennial Park project and shed light on whether it would, as proposed, be viable in the Falls. A previous arena study, commissioned by Niagara County in 2017, concluded that the city lacked a sufficient number of hotel rooms needed to support such a project at that time. City officials, including Restaino and Perry, are seeking to acquire, using the city's power of eminent domain, 10 acres of land currently owned by the private firm Niagara Falls Redevelopment for the purposes of building Centennial Park. The courts have sided with the city's argument that it has the right to forcibly acquire the property — located off John B. Daly Boulevard at the intersection of 10th and Falls streets — for the purposes of developing the 'park.' The city is currently engaged in litigation, arguing that 5 of those 10 acres are actually still owned by the city as NFR failed, more than a decade ago, to properly obtain permission from the state to annex what was at the time public parkland formerly known as 10th Street park. NFR is disputing the city's position in court. The company also insists it intends to use the 10 acres for the first phase of a project of its own, a proposed $1.5 billion data center it says it intends to build in partnership with the Canadian firm, Urbacon. During his interview on Sam Archie's social media program on Monday, Perry backed the city's position that the city, not NFR, owns the 5 acres because it was formerly public parkland that was never properly acquired by the company. He said he agrees with the city's position based on maps and other documents that show the area in question was a public park dating back to the 1940s. 'A park is a park forever until you get that it is no longer parkland by permission from the state,' he said. 'When it was transferred over, those papers were never filed,' he added. 'You can argue all you want, that is still a park. Unless it's done legally, there is no claim to it.' As to NFR — a company owned by the Milstein family of real estate developers in New York City — Perry said the city has heard 30 years of promises and stories from the company with no tangible results. He also said there 'is no two solutions,' a reference to what some residents and officials have suggested could be a compromise that would allow both projects to happen. 'The convention center is real,' Perry said, referring to Centennial Park, 'and I know that because I've been working on issues and I've been talking to people. The data center, to me, is another pie in the sky.' 'If we gave this fight up tomorrow, (and said), 'OK, you guys can have the park, we'll do the paperwork and turn it over to you.' Let them have it, turn it over to NFR, all the stuff, you know what's going to happen? They are going to say, 'Well, you took so long Urbacon's not interested in it anymore' because that's the M.O.' Perry did concede in his interview with show host Sam Archie that, if the city is successful in its claim for the 5 acres, it may be required to reimburse NFR for taxes paid on the property in the past. 'I would assume that is correct,' Perry said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
State Thruway Authority OKs added funds for firm handling Seneca Nation lawsuit
ALBANY — New York State Thruway Authority officials have agreed to increase by $1 million the payment cap on a contract with the Buffalo-based law firm that is representing the public agency in an ongoing legal dispute with the Seneca Nation of Indians. During a meeting on Tuesday, members of the authority's board of directors unanimously authorized an amendment to an existing contract with Nixon Peabody that will raise the maximum amount payable to the law firm to $1.8 million. The authority's original 2022 agreement capped the amount to be paid to Nixon Peabody at $800,000. The resolution supporting the move notes that Nixon Peabody has provided 'substantial services' pertaining to ongoing litigation involving the Seneca Nation. Seneca leaders filed a lawsuit in 2018 claiming that the state agency failed to obtain the necessary federal approvals for an easement that has allowed the thruway to run through the tribe's Cattaraugus territory for decades. The Nation's lawsuit seeks to compel the state authority to obtain a new easement or compensate the Nation for tolls collected from motorists using the authority on reservation land. It also seeks to end toll collection along the roughly 3-mile section of the thruway, which is about 30 miles south of Buffalo. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District allowed the lawsuit to continue after it rejected an attempt by the state to have it dismissed. The decision upheld a 2020 U.S. District Court ruling. The resolution supporting the pay increase for Nixon Peabody notes that the law firm has provided 'substantial services' pertaining to the litigation over the easement while also serving as bond counsel for authority debt transactions that are reimbursable by the state. The resolution describes the Seneca litigation as 'complex' while indicating that there is also a 'continued need for support' with the authority's state debt transactions.
