Wabanaki Views

The settlement provoked controversy within the Wabanaki communities.  Because there never had been a claim like this before, it was difficult to determine what a reasonable settlement would be.  If the case were handled like previous claims by the Indian Claims Commission, for example, the outcome would likely have been $1 million and no right to regain land.  On the other hand, the Native People were theoretically entitled to their claim to 12.5 million acres of land and $25 billion. 

A majority of the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot People had favored pursuing negotiation, and the tribal councils appointed negotiators to represent them.  A majority also voted to accept the settlement.  But some in favor of negotiation opposed the particular settlement offered to them, and others wanted further court action and were against the very idea of negotiation.

Arguments by opponents of the settlement included the following:

. They felt that Native Peoples are sovereign peoples (even when they are not treated as such) and that the settlement fell far short of paying respect to this idea.  No amount of land and money could compensate them for the loss of sovereignty.  Some believed that a world forum would be more appropriate than the United States court system for deciding an issue involving sovereign people.
 
. Many were concerned that treating the reservations like municipalities would undermine their capacities to continue as separate and cohesive communities. 

. Many people objected to various settlement provisions concerning jurisdiction, including the applicability of state laws on reservations; state hunting and fishing controls; payments in lieu of taxes on reservation properties; state power of eminent domain over trust land, no matter how limited; and the veto power given to the U.S. Secretary of Interior in regard to such things as land use plans. 

. Many pointed out that a vote on the complicated legal document was taken so quickly that many people were not entirely sure what was included in the settlement terms.

Arguments by supporters included the following: 

. Like the opponents, supporters of the settlement also believed that self-determination was imperative.  They saw land and money as the practical means of obtaining a new measure of self-determination.  They hoped that through wise use of the new wealth they could provide for themselves into the indefinite future, without outside aid and the interference that accompanies it. 

. Given their past experience, they had many questions:  Could they rely on a non-Native court system to return two-thirds of the State of Maine and award billions of dollars in damages, when the law demanded it?  Could they rely on a non-Native Congress in Washington to be fair, when some claimed it had the power to extinguish much of their claims simply by passing a law that ratified the old treaties?  How many people in Maine would turn angrily against them due to the economic disruption caused by such a protracted legal struggle? 

. They were concerned that outcome could not be foreseen.  There was no guarantee that they would emerge from such a struggle with something they wanted or even with those rights already recognized. 
The arguments of settlement supporters carried the day and resulted in the agreement of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the Houlton Band of Maliseets to the Land Claims Settlement of 1980.