4 ms·

> In reality it seems like the redaction was done to eliminate from the printed copies provisions specific to the implementation of Maine’s separation from Mass

by _moof 3y ago

> In reality it seems like the redaction was done to eliminate from the printed copies provisions specific to the implementation of Maine’s separation from Massachusetts. Sounds like a great way to sell "hey let's not talk about that whole Wabanaki thing" without having to come right out and say "hey let's not talk about that whole Wabanaki thing." A political tactic as old as the hills: package your unpalatable agenda in something that sounds totally reasonable on its face. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, but I am saying that just because they also stopped printing other sections and billed it as something benign doesn't necessarily mean that was the actual motivation.

rayiner 3y ago
Among other things, you’re projecting modern sensitivities onto people in 1876. At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it in 1876 or the public would have cared if the relevant text was more visible.
- brucecrust 3y ago
  [flagged]
- zen928 3y ago
  Any reason why your doubts have any higher validity than their suppositions? If you want to shut down their viewpoint, you could augment your statement with examples backing the level of confidence you seem to display about your stance despite it being a assertion based entirely on your personal feelings. I doubt you can make a claim on the self imagined apathetic response of a faceless group of people 150 years ago. You "doubting" isn't any more valid. I don't see it as unreasonable that institutional discrimination existed in 1876.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think that the burden lies with those making a positive claim of intent. As far as the facts: 1) The legislature and courts in Maine were ignoring the treaty obligations long before this change. 2) There is no evidence that this made it easier to ignore treaty obligations 3) The change had no bearing on actual application of the law with respect to treaties 4) The vast majority of the content marked for redaction is procedural, describing the how the state of Maine would be formed. When elections happen, who gets the guns, and who has the treaty obligations. 5) Treaty obligations are not typical contents of constitutions, nor do they need to be to be binding. I dont think that you need to deny the existence of institutional discrimination to make this case
    - eesmith 3y ago
      > 1) The legislature and courts in Maine were ignoring the treaty obligations long before this change The change took place one month before the courts decided against the Passamaquoddy Tribe in a land ownership case. The state would have been under treaty obligation to compensate them for losing the case - except that you are right, and Maine never really felt obliged to uphold those treaties. Instead, the courts found that the Passamaquoddy Tribe has to pay compensation for Granger’s costs and damages (he won his land claim). > 2) There is no evidence that this made it easier to ignore treaty obligations Correct. There is no direct evidence, only inferences based on the people involved and how it benefited Maine over the Passamaquoddy Tribe. In any case, those treaty obligations are still valid now, so continued redaction would suggest that relationships between the state and tribes still isn't that important or worthwhile. > 5) Treaty obligations are not typical contents of constitutions, nor do they need to be to be binding. That point seems irrelevant. Maine's obligations do exist, and they are binding, due to the Articles of Separation that were incorporated into Maine’s constitution. "As part of that division, Maine assumed all the “duties and obligations” Massachusetts had as regards the “Indians within said District of Maine.” 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." The Articles of Separation were included in the Maine Constitution as Section 5 of Article X. This was one of the Sections redacted from printed copies in 1876." - https://www.mitsc.org/library/research-report-on-the-1876-removal-of-article-10-section-5-from-printed-copies-of-the-maine-constitution-2021 https://www.mitsc.org/library/research-report-on-the-1876-re...
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Re 1) this point is diminished by the fact that Maine had been ruling against tribes for since formation. The Passamaquoddy case represented more of the same, not a change. Re 2) see 1 Re 5) I agree, but You missed my point. My point was that you don't need an alternative motive explanation for reacting them. They were binding either way, and this type of content normally isn't in constitutions, so redaction as simplification seems entirely plausible. They didn't need the parts about voting days and how Maine and mass will split militia guns either.
- eesmith 3y ago
  There was an ongoing trial, "Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery in 1874, a case related to the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s 1794 Treaty with Massachusetts. The case began over a dispute whether the Tribe or Calais lawyer Joseph Granger owned Grass Island in the St. Croix River." - https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/display?use_mmn=1 https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/... Granger has been trying to get the courts to recognize his claim since 1855. https://legislature.maine.gov/backend/app/services/getDocument.aspx?doctype=test&documentId=10011860 https://legislature.maine.gov/backend/app/services/getDocume... Several of the people involved in the redaction were in a position to know about the lawsuit (see "Mocikuwin mawi (Passamaquoddy for: Old Boys Club Decisions)" at https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/display?use_mmn=1&page=2 https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/... ) As https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/10/09/a-matter-of-not-hiding-history-wabanaki-leaders-and-allies-rally-behind-question-6/ https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/10/09/a-matter-of-not-hidi... says, "The reason officials had for redacting sections of the Constitution are still being debated due to sparse historical evidence", but there are enough connections that surely people were talking about it then.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    How common were these Indian cases in the 50 years before the redaction? Is there any reason to believe it’s not a coincidence? Especially since the redaction, by its own terms, has no legal effect on any obligations to the tribe.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      You will need to do that research yourself. My comment was to highlight how 'At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it' is likely incorrect.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        If the article theory is that this was done in response to the court cases, all that should be in the article.

by _moof 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

Among other things, you’re projecting modern sensitivities onto people in 1876. At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it in 1876 or the public would have cared if the relevant text was more visible.

brucecrust 3y ago
[flagged]
zen928 3y ago
Any reason why your doubts have any higher validity than their suppositions? If you want to shut down their viewpoint, you could augment your statement with examples backing the level of confidence you seem to display about your stance despite it being a assertion based entirely on your personal feelings. I doubt you can make a claim on the self imagined apathetic response of a faceless group of people 150 years ago. You "doubting" isn't any more valid. I don't see it as unreasonable that institutional discrimination existed in 1876.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think that the burden lies with those making a positive claim of intent. As far as the facts: 1) The legislature and courts in Maine were ignoring the treaty obligations long before this change. 2) There is no evidence that this made it easier to ignore treaty obligations 3) The change had no bearing on actual application of the law with respect to treaties 4) The vast majority of the content marked for redaction is procedural, describing the how the state of Maine would be formed. When elections happen, who gets the guns, and who has the treaty obligations. 5) Treaty obligations are not typical contents of constitutions, nor do they need to be to be binding. I dont think that you need to deny the existence of institutional discrimination to make this case
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > 1) The legislature and courts in Maine were ignoring the treaty obligations long before this change The change took place one month before the courts decided against the Passamaquoddy Tribe in a land ownership case. The state would have been under treaty obligation to compensate them for losing the case - except that you are right, and Maine never really felt obliged to uphold those treaties. Instead, the courts found that the Passamaquoddy Tribe has to pay compensation for Granger’s costs and damages (he won his land claim). > 2) There is no evidence that this made it easier to ignore treaty obligations Correct. There is no direct evidence, only inferences based on the people involved and how it benefited Maine over the Passamaquoddy Tribe. In any case, those treaty obligations are still valid now, so continued redaction would suggest that relationships between the state and tribes still isn't that important or worthwhile. > 5) Treaty obligations are not typical contents of constitutions, nor do they need to be to be binding. That point seems irrelevant. Maine's obligations do exist, and they are binding, due to the Articles of Separation that were incorporated into Maine’s constitution. "As part of that division, Maine assumed all the “duties and obligations” Massachusetts had as regards the “Indians within said District of Maine.” 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." The Articles of Separation were included in the Maine Constitution as Section 5 of Article X. This was one of the Sections redacted from printed copies in 1876." - https://www.mitsc.org/library/research-report-on-the-1876-removal-of-article-10-section-5-from-printed-copies-of-the-maine-constitution-2021 https://www.mitsc.org/library/research-report-on-the-1876-re...
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Re 1) this point is diminished by the fact that Maine had been ruling against tribes for since formation. The Passamaquoddy case represented more of the same, not a change. Re 2) see 1 Re 5) I agree, but You missed my point. My point was that you don't need an alternative motive explanation for reacting them. They were binding either way, and this type of content normally isn't in constitutions, so redaction as simplification seems entirely plausible. They didn't need the parts about voting days and how Maine and mass will split militia guns either.
eesmith 3y ago
There was an ongoing trial, "Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery in 1874, a case related to the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s 1794 Treaty with Massachusetts. The case began over a dispute whether the Tribe or Calais lawyer Joseph Granger owned Grass Island in the St. Croix River." - https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/display?use_mmn=1 https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/... Granger has been trying to get the courts to recognize his claim since 1855. https://legislature.maine.gov/backend/app/services/getDocument.aspx?doctype=test&documentId=10011860 https://legislature.maine.gov/backend/app/services/getDocume... Several of the people involved in the redaction were in a position to know about the lawsuit (see "Mocikuwin mawi (Passamaquoddy for: Old Boys Club Decisions)" at https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/display?use_mmn=1&page=2 https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3283/page/5208/... ) As https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/10/09/a-matter-of-not-hiding-history-wabanaki-leaders-and-allies-rally-behind-question-6/ https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/10/09/a-matter-of-not-hidi... says, "The reason officials had for redacting sections of the Constitution are still being debated due to sparse historical evidence", but there are enough connections that surely people were talking about it then.
- rayiner 3y ago
  How common were these Indian cases in the 50 years before the redaction? Is there any reason to believe it’s not a coincidence? Especially since the redaction, by its own terms, has no legal effect on any obligations to the tribe.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    You will need to do that research yourself. My comment was to highlight how 'At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it' is likely incorrect.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      If the article theory is that this was done in response to the court cases, all that should be in the article.