The Shinnecock found themselves tenants on their home soil. The important issue which is raised by these documents, however, concerns the validity of the 1703 deed. The Duke's Laws, the Andros and Dongan Patents, and the precedents established by the colonial governor made it clear that all purchases of Indian land must be approved by the Crown. The 1703 deed appears to involve the sale of new land to the townspeople. The land between Mecox and Wainscott was not included in the 1640 deed. The anonymous testimony given in 1657 regarding the boundary of the 1640 deed seems inconclusive. Were the Indians in 1657 asked the correct questions in the first place? Were they asked to state the boundary in the 1640 deed or were they merely asked how far east the Shinnecock lands ran? If it can be determined that the 1703 deed included land which was not conveyed in the 1640 deed then it would have to have been approved by the Crown. If it was not, and I have been unable to find any reference to a confirmation in the records of Lord Cornbury's administration, then the validity of the deed is open to serious question.

The last group of documents in this section concerns the transactions in 1859 which abrogated the thousand year lease granted in 1703 in exchange for a deed to the land at Shinnecock Neck where the reservation is now located. The land under the control of the Shinnecock was reduced to a fraction of the former holding; all of the Indian lands from the western boundary of Southampton Village to Canoe Place were taken away from the Shinnecock. The strategy used to set the stage for this land concession was probably not coldly calculated because it involved several generations of settlers, but it was, nonetheless, effective. The Indians were constantly pressed over the years with challenges to their rights granted in the lease. The colonists cut wood, ploughed, mowed hay and grazed their cattle on lands included in the lease. The town records are scattered with references to conflicts over land use. This problem is documented in the testimonies given by David Killis, James Cuffee, and Nathan Cuffee before a senate subcommittee hearing on Indian affairs held in New York, September 22, 1900. The testimony of David Killis indicates that Indians were actually sued by the proprietors for cutting firewood on their own land. James Cuffee testified that during the winter months cattle belonging to the whites were given full range over the whole Reservation, "...eat up right around by the houses and everywheres" . As Jennings pointed out, year after year of this kind of pressure gradually wore people down. Then at the right moment, the Indians were approached with an offer which would put an end to all this trouble. All they had to do was to sign away the land area in contention! The Sioux were told that because the U.S. government could not prevent the incursion of prospectors into the Black Hills, they could "resolve" the issue by selling the sacred lands to the newcomers. the Cherokee and the Choctaw were pressed in the same manner. The local authorities or the U.S. government would feign helplessness in the face of constant incursions of whites and urge that the issue be settled by a land sale. And so it was in 1859 on eastern Long Island. Nathan Cuffee's testimony clearly illustrates the manner in which the tactic was used in negotiations with the Shinnecock. In their proposition to the Shinnecock Cuffee stated that the whites said " . . . for the sake of stopping the strife engendered by cattle breaking fences..." the Indians should sign away the hills.

The documents suggest that in addition to these pressures, which gradually eroded the will to resist, the settlers resorted to outright fraud. There were other problems as well. The 1703 lease and deed clearly asserted that the parties to the transaction were the Shinnecock Indians and the representatives of the Commonality of the Town of Southampton. The 1859 transaction is between the Shinnecock and the Trustees of the Proprietors only. The proprietors, therefore, abrogated a lease to which they were not even a party. The documents signed in 1859 are, therefore, of questionable validity. This point was initially raised by George Rogers Howell in an article published by the Sea Side Times on March 2, 1882:

It is therefore a question for the courts to determine if the agreement of 1859 was not vitiated by this changed name in the parties to the deed, and therefore also whether the sale of the hills in 1861 is not void. This is not said to foment strife and contention but to arrive at truth and justice. As well call the fire bell an alarmist as one who only publishes facts. The fire bell does not cause the fire and the historian does not make the facts.