> Absolutely That interpretation - which may be correct, but there is little evidence one way or the other - isn't that much better. It reflects the then wide-

> Absolutely That interpretation - which may be correct, but there is little evidence one way or the other - isn't that much better. It reflects the then wide-spread view of Euro-Americans that their culture to be superior, and the native tribes should be treated essentially as children or second-class citizens, with inferior claims to white people and the state. > The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000. Don't forget the Penobscot, who also had treaty obligations. I have a hard time accepting the "cruft" hypothesis. The tribes had non-voting representation at the capital, and https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads/sites/320/2017/07/Pawling2016.pdf https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads... shows the Euro-American population of Maine were mighty annoyed by those 'few hundred people' in the mid-1800, for example; "Perry citizens collectively petitioned Maine twice in 1839, complaining that Indians took birch bark from their land to make fishing torches and that they dismantled fences around their farms for firewood.67 In all these attempts to obtain retribution for damages, many of which supplied ample evidence, the Maine legislature dismissed the requests. Maine had not sorted out the idea of property and homeland, the latter of which entailed the continual use of resources. Ambiguities remained around absolute property title to the land, especially around harvesting resources." and "In April 1857 Maine governor Joseph Williams wrote to the Indian agent expressing his “displeasure” about repeated trespass by the Passamaquoddy on private property in Perry. He stated that the charges violated the 1794 treaty in which the Indians agreed not to molest any townspeople." That was less than 20 years before the redaction. > It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then So why did the well-trained lawyers of the constitutional committee think it was cruft? > I honestly dont understand what this means I mean is there any interpretation of the history which justifies keeping the text redacted when there are ongoing and improved relationships between Maine and the tribes? If the text continues to be redacted, why shouldn't is be interpreted as a continuation of the history of treating the local tribes as cruft?