Resolution condemning 1638 treaty that targeted Pequots moves forward in legislature
The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted 14-5 Wednesday night to approve the measure, sending it to the Senate for further consideration. Two members of the southeastern Connecticut delegation, Democrats Nick Gauthier of Waterford and Nick Menapace of East Lyme, voted with the majority.
Five of the committee's six Republican members cast the dissenting votes.
During a public hearing earlier this month, Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, who sponsored the resolution, said the state's official condemnation of the treaty's language would 'greatly benefit' state-tribal relations and represent 'an important step forward in attempting to right wrongs of the many people before us ...'
Latoya Cluff, vice chairwoman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, testified in support of the resolution, as did several academics, including Andy Horowitz, the Connecticut state historian and an associate professor of history at UConn, and David Simon, a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs.
The Mohegan Tribe, which did not offer testimony, supports the resolution as it is written, Chuck Bunnell, the Mohegans' chief of staff, said.
In testimony submitted to the committee, Horowitz wrote that certain facts surrounding the Treaty of Hartford, signed Sept. 21, 1638, among the Connecticut Colony and the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes, 'are clear and, to my knowledge, not in dispute.'
'Among these facts,' he wrote, 'are that the Treaty of Hartford declared that 'the Pequots ... shall no more be called Pequots,' confiscated the Pequots' traditional lands, and condemned Pequots either to death or slavery.'
Scholars have identified the Pequot War as 'a key event in the history of native dispossession and the rise of slavery in North America,' Horowitz wrote.
Cluff, speaking for her tribe, said it survived the 'genocidal provisions' of the treaty and managed to pass down its culture, language and history to future generations — 'often in secret, always with hope.'
'We have reclaimed our lands, revitalized our governance and reinvested in our culture and people,' said the tribe, which owns Foxwoods Resort Casino, in a statement. 'We are proud to contribute to Connecticut's economy, create thousands of jobs, and maintain our sovereign government's relationship with the state and federal governments.'
Connecticut's historical treatment of the Pequot War will remain complicated regardless of whether the legislature embraces the resolution condemning the treaty.
As Horowitz noted in his testimony, in the early 1900s, state lawmakers commissioned 'An Attack on an Indian Fort,' a stone engraving that depicts the burning of Pequot men, women and children in the 1637 Massacre at Mystic, as well as a statue of Capt. John Mason, the English commander who led the attack.
Both pieces are still in place at the State Capitol, the statue on a high perch on the building's exterior.
'Thus, an observer might reasonably wonder whether Connecticut continues to endorse the Treaty of Hartford,' Horowitz wrote.
b.hallenbeck@theday.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Storer H. Rowley: Six months into his presidency, Donald Trump has created a police state
Six months into Donald Trump's second term, a lawless president is solidifying his law enforcement powers to create something most Americans didn't vote for and don't want: a police state increasingly robbing residents of their rights and due process. Unaccountable, masked immigration agents, many in plainclothes, are arresting farm workers in fields, raiding Home Depots and car washes, hunting unauthorized workers 'like animals,' and grabbing immigrants in courthouses, mothers and children in their homes, high school soccer stars and kids at baseball practice. Even U.S. citizens have been rounded up by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including children, and other children here legally seeking refuge, some of them sick, along with their parents in the country without legal permission. Many people snatched are quickly deported without due process. Some are 'disappeared' into detention facilities or shipped abroad before they can get legal representation. This hellscape of fear and chaos does not match up with Trump's campaign promise to mass-deport criminals and arrest 'the worst of the worst.' Residents here without legal authorization with no criminal records pleading their cases dutifully in court have been abducted by agents at courthouses. It is a shameful showcase for the cameras, an authoritarian regime running roughshod over constitutional rights, immigrant rights and human rights. Trump is improperly using the military on U.S. streets, defying court orders, caging detainees in deplorable gulags and dispatching ICE agents to grab anyone they can to meet arbitrary White House quotas of 3,000 a day. He makes a mockery of the rule of law by arresting Americans. Trump is escalating his war on immigrants as poll numbers on his immigration policies hit a record low. Six months in, the executive orders, court challenges, crypto corruption, firings and budget cuts seem bottomless, as well, and now he is grappling with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. And he's just getting started. Brace yourselves. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Look for the National Guard or the Marines coming next to Chicago. Recently, the GOP-led Senate narrowly confirmed Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, Emil Bove, to a lifetime appointment on the federal appellate bench after he was accused of defying the courts. Bove denied it, but one whistleblower said he told fellow Justice Department officials to ignore court orders if necessary to make sure deportation flights took off, alleging: 'Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'f––– you' and ignore any such court order.' To be clear, Republicans and Democrats both agree that illegal immigration needs to be controlled. A bipartisan effort came close to finding a longer-term solution last year until Trump killed the comprehensive reform bill to weaponize the issue against Democrats in the Nov. 5 election. The question is how to do deal with illegal immigration legally and humanely. Americans voted to get the border under control, and to be fair, Trump's administration has done that. Crossings and apprehensions have slowed to a trickle. But they didn't vote for, nor do they support, what he is doing now: lawless crackdowns leaving migrants and Americans alike living in a republic of fear, danger and violence. 'Show me your papers' used to be the catchphrase for villains in World War II movies. Now, it's the harsh reality for many legal residents. Migrants who may have crossed the border illegally but are now going through the court system to plead their cases can be swept up and disappeared before their day in court. Worse, Trump and his top White House anti-immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, deliberately appeal to white nationalists and white grievance, leaving the feeling among immigrants that they are targeted in a deportation war aimed mainly against people of color. His administration has attacked diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and ICE agents have been accused of racially profiling immigrant communities. ICE denies this, but how many white European immigrants do you see in their detention centers? We have seen this pattern before, when whole groups of people are targeted — such as Japanese Americans sent to internment camps during World War II. The inhumane immigration detention center in the Everglades is Exhibit A. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem insists her immigration agents are behaving legally and building cases correctly. She denies racial profiling: 'It's been done exactly how law enforcement has operated for many years in this country, and ICE is out there making sure we get the worst off the streets,' she said. It's not hard to do this legally. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, when they were president, fought illegal immigration within the law. In fact, Obama upset many Democrats by being the 'Deporter-in-Chief,' deporting more immigrants at a higher rate than Trump has — and he did it legally. But Trump's lawlessness and authoritarian conduct goes way beyond immigration, and it has provoked sustained nationwide protests since he took office. He has threatened a number of law firms into submission, tried to quell free speech and dissent at universities, attacked the media with frivolous lawsuits to try to bend them to his will and silence his critics in the entertainment world. But his police state tactics are causing blowback too. Americans who care about their democracy must continue to rally to defend it. Only people power and voters can stop a criminal president. Even his unprecedented weaponizing of the Department of Justice to target perceived enemies has caused revulsion among the ranks over abominations such as his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. The unit that prosecutes those cases has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff as DOJ attorneys leave rather than further his corrupt attempts to tear down the constitutional system. Trump's approach toward immigratioin has squandered his support. Many MAGA supporters still approve of his actions, but a majority of Americans in a recent CBS poll now see his deportation program as a net negative. Moreover, more Americans now see the value of immigration way more than they did a year ago, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today, according to a recent Gallup Poll — and a record-high 79% of U.S. adults now say immigration is a good thing for the country. Clearly, the police state tactics aren't working, and that's a good thing for America.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats contemplate walkout in Texas
Democratic legislators in Texas could flee the state to prevent the GOP from approving new maps that could expand Republicans' congressional majority. Texas and national Democrats have vowed to fight back while blasting the GOP plans, which could give Republicans five more seats, as discriminatory. Visiting with Democratic state lawmakers in Austin, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed Thursday that 'all options' should be on the table to stop the GOP plan. But because Democrats are a minority in the state Legislature, they have few options to stop the GOP and face an uphill battle legally and politically. One very real option would be to seek to deny the quorum necessary to keep the Texas state House and Senate functioning, something Democrats might have the numbers to accomplish. 'Democrats don't have many arrows left in their quiver. There simply aren't a lot of things they can do to be able to challenge these maps in the near term,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. A quorum break could be the 'nuclear option,' Rottinghaus said, 'because most members don't want to do it that way. They want to stay and fight.' 'But the problem is that they simply don't have a lot of tools legislatively, or in terms of their total numbers to stop or slow things here in Austin.' The map proposal, filed this past week during a special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), comes after President Trump pressed Texas Republicans to draw new maps to protect the party's narrow 219-212 House majority. A public hearing before the state House's Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting was held Friday. Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut, chair of the redistricting panel, said he expects committee action in the coming days, followed by a full state House debate early next week. Specifics of the proposed lines could change as the plan works its way through the state chambers. But it's unlikely that Democrats have enough leverage in the state Legislature — where Republicans are 88-62 in the House and 19-11 in the Senate — to significantly change things in their favor. Faced with similar dynamics in 2003 and 2021, Democrats walked out to stall the Legislature on redistricting efforts and voting restrictions. 'Breaking quorum is a big task, and there's a lot of problems that come with it,' said Lana Hansen, executive director of Texas Blue Action, an Austin-based Democratic advocacy group. 'And I think this situation is particularly volatile because … this [redistricting] is a call from the president of the United States.' Fleeing would likely draw more attention to the brewing redistricting battle, but Abbott could continue to call sessions and the Democrats' absence would stall other business. A quorum break would also be expensive, due to new rules that impose fines for each day a lawmaker has fled, as well as the threat of arrest. Democrats are reportedly fundraising to help pay up if that happens, according to The Texas Tribune. 'In the past, it worked to sort of pause the conversation and start over,' Hansen said of the previous quorum breaks, but she noted that Republicans still got their way. 'At the end of it, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped.' Asked about a potential walkout, U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) told reporters Thursday that 'there are a lot of ways to fight.' Jeffries, asked whether he's urging Texas Democrats to break quorum, said ' all options should be on the table ' but deferred to Texas Democrats. If Democrats can't block the GOP efforts within the Legislature, they'll likely pursue legal action as leaders in and out of the state decry the proposal as discriminatory. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), one of the lawmakers whose district would be impacted, called the moves 'part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and brown [Texans] from having a voice.' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called it 'a power grab to silence voters and suppress votes.' Democrats' chances of success with potential legal challenges likely relies on the fate of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), said Mark McKenzie, an Texas Tech associate professor of political science who has practiced law in the state. A major Louisiana redistricting battle is set to be reheard by the Supreme Court next term, and Republicans are increasingly bullish on chipping away at the VRA. 'I think the Democrats, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't eviscerate the Voting Rights Act … would have a good case, in terms of African American majority districts in Texas and how they'll be impacted,' McKenzie said, noting that they might be harder pressed to argue the same of Latino voters, who have increasingly leaned toward the GOP in Texas. 'Legally speaking, the Democrats are not in a great position,' McKenzie added. The party appears to be gearing up for a political battle either way. 'The current map violates the law, and this congressional map will double and triple down on the extreme racial gerrymandering that is silencing the voices of millions of Texans,' Jeffries said Thursday in Austin. 'We will fight them politically. We will fight them governmentally. We will fight them in court. We will fight them in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Texas and beyond.' House Majority PAC, a House Democratic super PAC, announced a new Lone Star Fund this week. It is hoping to raise millions for 2026 challengers if the lines are redrawn. 'If the GOP and the Trump administration think that Texas is the first state that they should look at doing this in, the place that he's most concerned with losing ground in, then we are in play, and my hope is that national investment will come this way,' Hansen said. 'There's still an opportunity for Democrats in Texas. We just might not be able to help flip to the congressional majority that we would like.' And Democrats may have avenues for offsetting GOP gains in Texas with redistricting efforts in other states. 'There's a phrase in Texas: 'what happens here sometimes changes the world.' Well, this is the case where what's happening here is setting off a cascade effect across the country,' said Jon Taylor, the University of Texas at San Antonio's department chair of political science. The developments in Texas have sparked congressional map conversations in several other states, including in California — where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has said the Golden State might make its own midcycle changes if Texas moves forward. There's also a chance that Lone Star State redistricting backfires on Republicans. For one, the party may appear more focused on redistricting than on deadly Independence Day floods, another special session agenda item. It may also be hard to predict midterm voting patterns. 'Just because Trump won in 2024 in certain parts and certain areas that are currently held by Democrats doesn't mean that's going to translate to success in a midterm election of '26, particularly a midterm election that, nationally, is expected to be potentially a wave election for Democrats,' Taylor said. 'So you could end up with a situation where you've drawn districts that are supposedly for, you know, friendly for Republicans, and all of a sudden, in a year where the economy is going south, Trump's opinion poll numbers continue to decline, you end up with Democrats winning in districts that were designed for Republicans.'
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Push to ban lawmaker stock trading gets new life
The years-long effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is back in the spotlight following a House Ethics Committee report that took issue with transactions made by a member's spouse, and after a Senate panel advanced legislation to prohibit lawmakers from making transactions. And some lawmakers are vowing to keep the topic front and center into the fall as they look to make headways on a matter that has mystified Congress. Leading that effort is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who plans to file a discharge petition on legislation to prohibit lawmakers and their immediate families from owning, trading or controlling stocks, commodities or futures, directing lawmakers to divest their holdings within 180 days of the bill's enactment. If the procedural gambit is successful, the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), would hit the floor in the fall. But if the past is prologue, getting the measure over the finish line will be a tall task. Supporters, however, are optimistic they will find success. 'I think America is aware of what's going on,' Burchett told The Hill. 'They know it's not natural for somebody to, day in and day out, pick stock and have a 100, 200, 300 percent return, and they're tired of seeing Congress members making $170,000 a year retiring worth millions.' While the idea of banning members from trading stocks is widely popular among the public, some lawmakers for years have balked at the push, raising concerns about the level of pay for members — a $174,000 salary, which has been frozen since 2009, constituting a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. And even among those who support banning members from trading stocks, there is disagreement about the details. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week advanced a bill that would bar not only members, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, but also the president and vice president — with a carve-out for President Trump, since the requirement would not apply until the start of the elected officials' next terms. The hearing over the bill became contentious, with some Republicans on the panel arguing against a ban altogether, Democrats arguing in support and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asking why Trump should be exempt. Trump, who earlier in the day had said he liked the stock trading ban 'conceptually,' attacked Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for his support of the bill. Hawley later said Trump was under the mistaken impression it would apply to him. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who as leader of the House opposed a stock trading ban and after whom Republicans cheekily named a previous effort to ban trading — threw her support behind the bill as well. Pelosi had opened the door to supporting a stock trading ban in 2022, but her outright endorsement was nonetheless notable. But Burchett's bill that Luna hopes to force a vote on, as well as several other stock trade bills — such as the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, from Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) — do not include the barring trades by the president. Despite those hangups, proponents of the ban are optimistic they can get it done this time around. 'It's an increasingly public fight that people care about,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a large supporter of a prohibition on lawmaker stock trading, told The Hill. 'And Congress is running out of runway with the people.' 'We will force votes,' he added. The difficulty in crafting a stock trading ban is personified in Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who has caught heat for continuing to trade stocks despite saying he wants to ban member stock trading. Bresnahan, a businessman whose estimated net worth is in the multi-millions, has continued to report many stock trades despite writing a letter to the editor during his campaign calling to ban stock trading. Bresnahan has introduced a stock trading ban bill and says that he has no involvement with the trades that his financial advisers have made on his behalf. While he has said he wants to keep his current financial advisers and create a blind trust that would put a more stringent firewall between him and those trades, he has found problems in crafting that plan with the House Ethics Committee. Local public news organization WVIA noted that Bresnahan could simply ask his advisers to not make any more trades, but Bresnahan dismissed that idea. 'And then do what with it?' Bresnahan said to WVIA News. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Despite some critics, supporters of a stock trading ban are plowing full-steam ahead, hoping to make headway on the headwinds created by the House Ethics Committee. 'Members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks because their access to privileged, nonpublic information creates unavoidable conflicts of interest that erode public confidence in government,' Luna said in a statement. 'As lawmakers, we receive classified briefings, shape economic policies, and interact with industry leaders, giving us insights that can influence stock prices.' 'Even if no laws are broken, the appearance of profiting from this access fuels distrust among Americans,' she added. 'The American people do not trust the US government, and this is a step forward to building that trust.' The impetus for the current push was a report from the House Ethics Committee that said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated the lower chamber's code of conduct when his wife traded stocks for the company Cleveland-Cliffs — which has a facility in Kelly's district — after the congressman learned non-public information about the firm. On April 28, 2020, Kelly learned that the Commerce Department would make an announcement that would benefit Cleveland-Cliffs. The day after, the congressman's wife, Victoria Kelly, bought 5,000 shares of the company for $23,075. The department's news was ultimately made public on May 4. She sold all her shares of the company in January 2021 shortly after Cleveland-Cliffs acquired a steel manufacturing corporation, turning a $64,476.06 profit. 'Representative Kelly's conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife's stock purchase raised significant concerns for the Committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,' the committee wrote in its report, later adding that Kelly 'has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.' It is, to be sure, already illegal for members of Congress to make transactions based on information they receive through their job, and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which was enacted in 2012, requires that lawmakers report their stock trades within 30 days. But some ethics advocates believe the law should be stronger. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), while he said he is supportive of the efforts to ban stock trades, has noted the difficult position the restrictions could put on members and their families, given the salary for members of Congress has been frozen since 2009. That amounts to around a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. Most members make a salary of $174,000. 'If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress,' Johnson said in May. 'I mean, just people just make a reasonable decision as a family on whether or not they can come to Washington and have a residence here, residence at home, and do all the things that are required.'
