Talk:Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton

Issues in early history
The expedition that settled St. Croix Island in 1604 was led by Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons. A Google Book search of "Acadia 1604" (without the quotes) will turn up a large number of sources confirming this. Please pick one of your choosing to substantiate it. Some of them may also address the second issue, which is perhaps why you (and not I) should choose the source.

As far as my claim that two sentences contradict each other: "English speakers did not arrive for another 15 years" (after the French settlement in 1603-4) and "Private purchases of land were common in the 17th century" begs the question of who those purchasers were. At a minimum this needs to be clarified, since the current phrasing suggests they may have been English. A more explicit statement of when more permanent European settlements took place, and by whom, in the relevant geographic area is called for.  Magic ♪piano 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the first issue, the exact wording of the source is: "Their first extended encounter with whites did not take place until the winter of 1604-05, however, when Samuel de Champlain and the Huguenot leader Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, built a fort on Dochet Island, in the St. Croix River." I have amended the text to list both names and use the word "built." I hope you will find this change satisfactory. Otherwise, I am not inclined to omit de Champlain's name merely because some sources list du Guast and not him. At a minimum, I would want to see a source that says de Champlain had no part of it and that accounts like Brodeur's are a misconception. Savidan 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the second issue, I have reluctantly specified that the purchasers were English. The article is silent on the subject of French purchases and has "Anglo" in the title. The few purchasers that it discusses by name have English names. If there were similar French purchases, I have not read anything that indicates they were of relevance to the legal issues in the case. Savidan 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re the first issue: the common misconception is that Champlain led the expedition, which he did not. There are plentiful sources that get his role in the expedition right.  Your current phrasing is acceptable.


 * Re the second, if your sources are silent on the issue, then they are inadequate, and you should seek additional sources that actually answer the question. In the time between what I wrote above and this writing, I was able to find at least one suitable secondary source that identifies French settlements in the area; no original research was needed. source The current phrasing continues to beg the question: if there are English deeds dating to 1639 why were there no English settlers on the deeded landed until the 1750s, as the other source claims?  If you think it is important to date English settlement (i.e. permanent occupation vs. title acquisition) in the area in this article, I'd look for a source containing a more clear and definite statement of somewhat permanent English occupation; otherwise, you might just leave out the statements about English settlers arriving 150 years later. (You might weasel around this by saying something like "English interest in the area was also apparent by the 1630s, evidenced by deeds acquired by English-named individuals.")  Magic ♪piano 12:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This 1859 history claims an English trading post (deeded) at Machias in 1633, but that it was eventually abandoned, and the English/British did not return for over 120 years.  Magic ♪piano 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading Brodeur, he and Baker are not in conflict. Broduer's claim is only that the Passamaquoddy were generally out of the range of the settlements until mid-18th century. Baker's is just that there was one transaction in 1639. That doesn't mean that all the Passamaquoddy lands were overrun with English in 1639. Thus, no contradiction. For the purposes of this article, two things are relevant: the dating of the first transactions (even though these aren't the transactions at issue in the litigation, they give context) and the dating of how long the Passamaquoddy alone occupied the bulk of the land (just to give a general idea, at the very least, of their de facto land tenure). Trading posts for chattel goods are not generally relevant to land title. Savidan 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that both title and extent of occupation are important here. There may be no actual contradiction (given that early deeds appear to have been associated with basically seasonal trading activities), but the article previously read like there was one.  I think your recent changes to this are fine.  Magic ♪piano 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)