4 ms·

It is interesting that the redaction happened one month before the final judgement in the Granger v. Avery court case. https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/

It is interesting that the redaction happened one month before the final judgement in the Granger v. Avery court case. https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/display?use_mmn=1 https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/...

s1artibartfast 3y ago
The redaction had and has no bearing on the law, because the redacted portion is still fully binding. What exactly is the meat of this conspiracy theory. That The judges were duped with misleading constitutions? That it was some sort of government psyop to influence public sentiment in the long run by distributing misleading documents?
- eigenket 3y ago
  Its not really a conspiracy theory. I think Maine would have ignored its obligations regardless of whether they were written in the documents or not so I don't think there is any influence or duping there. Essentially my view is that they were knowingly ignoring their treaty obligations, and so it was convenient for them to remove them from the constitution. This essay is a good summary of the situation https://www.academia.edu/60751074 https://www.academia.edu/60751074 The whole thing is worth reading, but I'll copy and paste a relevant portion here. > It is likewise remarkable that the court did not rule on Granger until after the legislature agreed to the put the redaction before voters and that final judgement did not come until after voters had given the redaction final approval, ensuring that the part of the constitution con-taining Maine’s responsibilities regarding Native treaties was no longer being printed right when Maine became liable for paying the tribe for its lost treaty land and covering the costs of safe-guarding that land. After the redaction officially took effect on January 1, 1876, Maine never compensated the tribe for the fifteen islands it lost due to the ruling. It also charged Granger’s damages to the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund in defiance of the unprintable Article X, Section 5. In 1878 the Committee on Indian Affairs strongly suggested that these actions violated the terms of Article X, Section 5, but the government remained silent. The redaction of Article X, Section 5 all but authorized the existing and ongoing practice of disregarding Maine’s constitutional obligations regarding Wabanaki treaties made with Massachusetts.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

The redaction had and has no bearing on the law, because the redacted portion is still fully binding. What exactly is the meat of this conspiracy theory. That The judges were duped with misleading constitutions? That it was some sort of government psyop to influence public sentiment in the long run by distributing misleading documents?

eigenket 3y ago
Its not really a conspiracy theory. I think Maine would have ignored its obligations regardless of whether they were written in the documents or not so I don't think there is any influence or duping there. Essentially my view is that they were knowingly ignoring their treaty obligations, and so it was convenient for them to remove them from the constitution. This essay is a good summary of the situation https://www.academia.edu/60751074 https://www.academia.edu/60751074 The whole thing is worth reading, but I'll copy and paste a relevant portion here. > It is likewise remarkable that the court did not rule on Granger until after the legislature agreed to the put the redaction before voters and that final judgement did not come until after voters had given the redaction final approval, ensuring that the part of the constitution con-taining Maine’s responsibilities regarding Native treaties was no longer being printed right when Maine became liable for paying the tribe for its lost treaty land and covering the costs of safe-guarding that land. After the redaction officially took effect on January 1, 1876, Maine never compensated the tribe for the fifteen islands it lost due to the ruling. It also charged Granger’s damages to the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund in defiance of the unprintable Article X, Section 5. In 1878 the Committee on Indian Affairs strongly suggested that these actions violated the terms of Article X, Section 5, but the government remained silent. The redaction of Article X, Section 5 all but authorized the existing and ongoing practice of disregarding Maine’s constitutional obligations regarding Wabanaki treaties made with Massachusetts.