4 ms·

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 o

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.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      It appears there simply isn't strong evidence for the reason for the redaction. There are several views. Yours seems to be the members of the 1876 commission were either negligent when they redacted the state's obligation to the tribes, or believed it wasn't relevant any more. Neither put them in a good light. On the other hand, there is enough evidence to cast strong doubt on the 'At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it' statement. The fact remains that the redaction exists, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it, and none of the suggested reasons seem like something to perpetuate.

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.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    It appears there simply isn't strong evidence for the reason for the redaction. There are several views. Yours seems to be the members of the 1876 commission were either negligent when they redacted the state's obligation to the tribes, or believed it wasn't relevant any more. Neither put them in a good light. On the other hand, there is enough evidence to cast strong doubt on the 'At the time, I doubt anyone was talking about it' statement. The fact remains that the redaction exists, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it, and none of the suggested reasons seem like something to perpetuate.