3 ms·

This is the relevant piece I believe: > The Articles also required that its terms and conditions “be incorporated into, and become and be a part of any Constit

This is the relevant piece I believe: > The Articles also required that its terms and conditions “be incorporated into, and become and be a part of any Constitution, provisional or other, under which the Government of the said proposed State, shall, at any time hereafter, be administered; subject however, to be modified, or annulled by the agreement of the Legislature of both the said States; but by no other power or body whatsoever." They couldn't remove the sections because the terms of their statehood had them inherit obligations from Massachusetts that supersede their state constitution.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
I don't think needing Massachusetts to sign off on your reneging would be a meaningful barrier.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  As far as I can tell the historical context around the decision is lost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Massachusetts could have been a legitimate barrier to actually eliminating the sections. One piece of historical context we do have is this: > In 1967, Maine’s first Indian affairs commissioner, anthropologist Edward Hinckley, discovered Maine had received $30,000 from Massachusetts in compensation, but the state never actually set aside new land for the tribes. If you're Mass. and you created those articles for a reason then I wouldn't find it surprising if you didn't want to help Maine throw them out after they've already violated your will at least once. All of that is secondary to the fact that they did renege on their promises repeatedly and unabashedly for the next century. Hiding the sections from print could have been an attempt to stop legal challenges before they started, it could have just been out of spite. Who knows, maybe they were very eco-friendly and were worried about all that wasted paper! I find it quite silly to extend such extreme benefit of the doubt to the state government that we already know wanted to escape those treaties and successfully did so before, during, and after passing this amendment.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    >If you're Mass. and you created those articles for a reason then I wouldn't find it surprising if you didn't want to help Maine throw them out after they've already violated your will at least once. If you created those articles, you were probably dead by 1870, and definitely dead by 1967. Any generation of lawmakers would have been willing to renegotiate the terms if it benefited them. >find it quite silly to extend such extreme benefit of the doubt to the state government that we already know wanted to escape those treaties and successfully did so before, during, and after passing this amendment. I said that the US at that point cared so little about honoring treaties with Native tribes that I doubted they'd bother formally amending a constitution to do so. That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      > I said that the US at that point cared so little about honoring treaties with Native tribes that I doubted they'd bother formally amending a constitution to do so. That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I see where you are coming from here, but I see actions like this as one of many that contribute to creating the environment where they can pursue the goal of violating the spirit of the law. They probably could have gotten away with much the same without any one anti-native action including this one, but the collective effect is a government system and electorate that endorses and upholds an unjust status quo.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

I don't think needing Massachusetts to sign off on your reneging would be a meaningful barrier.

enragedcacti 3y ago
As far as I can tell the historical context around the decision is lost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Massachusetts could have been a legitimate barrier to actually eliminating the sections. One piece of historical context we do have is this: > In 1967, Maine’s first Indian affairs commissioner, anthropologist Edward Hinckley, discovered Maine had received $30,000 from Massachusetts in compensation, but the state never actually set aside new land for the tribes. If you're Mass. and you created those articles for a reason then I wouldn't find it surprising if you didn't want to help Maine throw them out after they've already violated your will at least once. All of that is secondary to the fact that they did renege on their promises repeatedly and unabashedly for the next century. Hiding the sections from print could have been an attempt to stop legal challenges before they started, it could have just been out of spite. Who knows, maybe they were very eco-friendly and were worried about all that wasted paper! I find it quite silly to extend such extreme benefit of the doubt to the state government that we already know wanted to escape those treaties and successfully did so before, during, and after passing this amendment.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  >If you're Mass. and you created those articles for a reason then I wouldn't find it surprising if you didn't want to help Maine throw them out after they've already violated your will at least once. If you created those articles, you were probably dead by 1870, and definitely dead by 1967. Any generation of lawmakers would have been willing to renegotiate the terms if it benefited them. >find it quite silly to extend such extreme benefit of the doubt to the state government that we already know wanted to escape those treaties and successfully did so before, during, and after passing this amendment. I said that the US at that point cared so little about honoring treaties with Native tribes that I doubted they'd bother formally amending a constitution to do so. That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    > I said that the US at that point cared so little about honoring treaties with Native tribes that I doubted they'd bother formally amending a constitution to do so. That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I see where you are coming from here, but I see actions like this as one of many that contribute to creating the environment where they can pursue the goal of violating the spirit of the law. They probably could have gotten away with much the same without any one anti-native action including this one, but the collective effect is a government system and electorate that endorses and upholds an unjust status quo.