Hacker News Reader

Comment by _moof | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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

> 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-re...

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.

So what is your hypothesis for why the text was redacted?

1) negligence? ("Oh, we didn't see the text was there")

2) the belief it was historical cruft of no importance (so why say it was still in effect?)

3) the belief it was a minor thorn that could be swept under the rug, but of no current impact

4) the belief it was a thorn with near-term impact on a pending case - and a case the redactionists likely knew about.

5) something else?

You seem to be saying that #2 is the most likely, so #4 should be dismissed.

My point was the relationship between the Passamaquoddy and Maine have changed since the 1800s - and certainly improved since the Carter era. Why continue with the redaction given that points 1-4 would seem to put a chill on that relationship?

>You seem to be saying that #2 is the most likely, so #4 should be dismissed.

Absolutely. to answer your questions.

>2) the belief it was historical cruft of no importance (so why say it was still in effect?)

It had to stay in effect because the text said it could not be altered or removed without the approval Massachusetts. The cruft Hypothesis is supported by the fact that the sections were suggested by a panel charged with identifying cruft, discussed as cruft, and 99% of the material WAS cruft.

>4) the belief it was a thorn with near-term impact on a pending case - and a case the redactionists likely knew about.

This is undermined by the fact that legally, the change has no impact and said so. Maine was already routinely ignoring treaty obligations. The best argument that can be made here is that it was some sort of implied signal or dog whistle to to the court, emboldening it to keep doing what it was doing. But then again, that supposes that the a signal was both necessary and needed to be covert, in a time where people casually and openly ignored their treaty obligations.

Putting this together, I think it is most likely that people (redactionists and voters) felt it was cruft. The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000.

>My point was the relationship between the Passamaquoddy and Maine have changed since the 1800s - and certainly improved since the Carter era.

I have no problem whatsoever with reversing the redaction. I just dont think we need to invent or believe an unlikely conspiracy theory to justify doing so. It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then, but we dont now, because we think it is important to highlight and honor our agreements.

>Why continue with the redaction given that points 1-4 would seem to put a chill on that relationship?

I honestly dont understand what this means. Are you saying that we should actively define history as to not put a "chill on the relationship"? If so, I think this is the kind of revisionist history that other people are reacting to. We shouldn't need to build some loosely supported theory about why and how things happened, if the goal is to simply reverse a redaction.

> 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... 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?

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/...

Granger has been trying to get the courts to recognize his claim since 1855. 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/... )

As 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.

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.

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.

If the article theory is that this was done in response to the court cases, all that should be in the article.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com