Will the state pass the slot machine proposal which is intended in large part to finance the state budget and allow for property taxes to be cut?

Does anyone think full scale casino's(table games) + slots will be a part of Philadelphia's future?.... I'm sorry but if you are going to allow slots you may as well do it the right way and scare the living hell out of Atlantic City. Table games should be part of any gambling proposal.

Philadelphia could save themselves hundreds of millions of dollars on Tourism campaigns as droves of gamblers from NY and mid atlantic regions would invade the city. The weekends around Philly would be off the charts.

What is the story with the Oklahoma based , Delaware Indian tribe trying to open up a casino in Philaelphia?

i've heard nothing will be done on it until next year. personaly, i'm against gambling in philly. AC is a dump. vegas is thriving without the gambling sector. gambling brings in little revenue for most of us. it all goes to the top and they generally show little profit. moreover, it syphons money away fomr those who can least afford it. don't get me wrong, i think it should be legal but i don't think it's good. plus it's only going to be through connected casino developers.

Logically, not likely to happen - William Penn was a quaker, and was fastidious about paying the Lenape for land- Philadelphia is one of the few places where european settlers paid for land and have clear title and clear conscience.

About a week ago I wrote something to Elmer Smith of the Inquirer about the lenape claims when there was an article about the Delaware claims to Easton Lands-


(snip)
Interesting and timely, article,

But there are several layers of history and politics that negate the Lenape claims to Easton.

There's a thick book " The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania" by C. Hale Sipe that I'd read about a year ago- which really helps when looking at a complex history.

First- and simplest, at the time of the contested sale it wasn't the Lenape's land anymore- is belonged to the Shawnee and Iroquois. The Iroquois nation out of New York had defeated the Delaware in the early 1700s, and part of the settlement between the tribes was that the Iroquois got control over the Delaware's Land.

Second, English colonists in Pennsylvania fought a bloody skirmishes against Delaware Indians during the 1750s. These were nightmarish times, brutal Indian raids where babies heads dashed out before the parent's eyes, immigrant families scalped alive and burned in their homes, and equally brutal retribution by the Colonists who indiscriminately killed combatants, and peaceful Delawares at Conestoga and Moravians. But, the end of the French and Indian war settle all the land claims. Both sides as rough equals, with a conference where Iroquois and Delaware met AT Easton, where both sides put the bloodshed behind them.

The land claims first came up at the Third Easton Peace Council of July 1757 which did create a peace treaty, but left the land sale complaint for later, due to some incredibly complex politics -

1) Philadelphia's ruling class of Quakers were under immense political pressure because they refused to raise an army to defend western Philadelphia (the first Philadelphia - Harrisburg schism?!). The Quakers were jockeying with the sons of William Penn for control of the assembly- so the Philly Quakers came up with a solution - they would claim the Easton lands had been stolen by the Penn brothers, and thus the Indians were justified in their attacks.

2) The large majority of Pennsylvanians on the frontier had lost relatives to Delaware Indian raids, and wanted to raise funds to pay for an army to pursue and punish the english driven Delaware raids- but the Penn brothers refused to pay taxes to the popular government, so there wasn't enough money. All of Pennsylvania was a royal land grant to the Penns direct from the King England, and when Penn 'patented' the land to settlers, they never totally sold it, so the Penn's refused to pay a tax to anyone but the King, certainly not taxes by THEIR tenants, the colonists.

3) The Delaware leader Teedyscung, was caught between factions - the warring Delawares who wanted to move back into the land they had lost to the Iroquois, which had been sold to the Colonists. Teedyscung needed to arrange a peace between the Delaware people, - but he had no authority as the former Delaware's lands still belonged to the Iroquois He had to settle the peace treaty before the

4) The Iroquois were ticked off that Teedyscung and the conquered Delaware were stirring up trouble in lands that the Iroquois had sold to English Colonists - since by selling the conquered Delaware Lands, the Iroquois weakened their foes the Delaware, while they bargained with New York for better terms on the frontier.

So, we had the 4th council, or "Grand Council" at Easton October 8, 1758, with EVERYONE in attendance.

The Six nations started by reminding everyone that in 1742, the Six nations spokesperson Canassatego, ORDERED the Delawares to abide by the Walking Purchase Treaty -

The Six Nations argued the Teedyscung had now credentials, but was a troublemaker sent by the French,

October 18th saw Pennsylvania Governor Denny meeting with the Six Nations chiefs, Conrad Weiser brought out the disputed deeds, the Iroquois confirmed it was genuine, and that was the end of the Walking Purchase fiasco.

One foot note, the Delawares avoided a humiliation and becoming homeless when the Iroquois agreed to let the Delaware move to Iroquois territory in Wyoming Valley - which was still the subject of a dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, but since it was clear the Walking Purchase Lands weren't Delaware, they had to go somewhere....

Third, the bands of Delaware who claimed the Walking Purchase fought with the British during the Revolutionary War.
The British and their allies lost, and all the land claims were settled in the treaty. Queen Elizabeth's claim to Pennsylvania was extinguished at the same time the Delaware's claim to Easton was extinguished- by a treaty between several nations - Indian Nations like Iroquois and Delaware, and Western Nations like England & France.

Hal

Hal, your first post makes you sound like Fast Eddie. But I agree with you. It would siphon so much money from other areas, including our own. Think of all those bus loads of senior citizens that go to AC or Dover Downs once a month. I agree that we should scare the crap out of AC and allow real casinos, not just slot parlors. I do agree that gambling is bad. I gamble occasionally (1-2 times a year), and I think slots are a waste of time and money, unless you get lucky, which you rarely do. However, people are suckers, and as long as they're spending billions in other states, why not allow them to spend it here? It's just another example of how far behind the curve PA tends to be.

I see 2 things that could happen. 1 is that the whole proposal will die. The other is that we're going to get alot more than just slots at just race tracks. I think the money to be made is too good to pass up (unless you are a politician representing Amish, Mennonites, or Baptists), and at the last minute they are going to pass a major gaming bill. A majority of these politicians won't vote against hundreds of millions of new revenue, if not billions, and they sure as heck don't want to cut spending, so they'll do the gaming thing instead.

sweet, gambling will cure our ills just like to did for AC.

Well, I am totally against casinos and gambling. Truth be told, I'm not really a fan of the state of Pennyslvania running numbers games and calling it "lotto" either. Yes it makes money for the state, but anytime a state does something that's normally illegal it should be able to make money. So, slot machines in the local Sons of Italy lodge are illegal, but not at a racino backed by the Governor's friends? - The only difference is that state gambling means the state incarcerates their competition, in contrast to mob gambling where they break your arms.

Back to reality -

Well, I dislike what I see as a phony claim on behalf of Delaware Indians-
What settles things is that the Delaware Indians were allies with the British against the US in the Revolutionary War - if we have to give back land to the Delaware, then don't we owe land to the Queen of England too?

Yes, but this way Atlantic City gets the money they loose, but they're stuck with the social costs of caring for the loosers. The winners take their money back to Pennsylvania. Perhaps that's better for Pennsylvania.

State involvement in "cash for sin" schemes reminds me a little of the old church practice of selling indulgences. Yes, you can make money on excusing sin. That doens't make gambling a good thing, nor does it clean the tinge from the money you've made. Big deal, just think of the money the state could make from Nevada style prostitution, start selling adultury permits, $50 day pass that allows you to legally beat the wife and kids, state stores carring heroine and crack would make a fortune.

Heck, if you're worring about the bottom line, Pennsylvania could replicate the english opium trade with China- have the state start dispensing hard drugs in prison in return for sweatshop labor- the addicts wouldn't complain and it would make money- so it has to be a good idea eh?

Hal

actually Hal, i think those are great ideas. then we could skip the casinos completely.
lotto is a scam.

I hear what you are saying, but we have to look at the different things you mentioned. I think most people would agree that it's better to pull a slot machine lever then it is to beat your wife and kids. It's kind of the same thing with guns. If we trust people to own guns, can't we trust them to make decisions about gambling? The Constitution allows people to own guns, regardless of the negative side effects of gun ownership. Yes, gambling has negative side effects, but what doesn't? Of course, as your example illustrates, we could argue this question back and forth forever. I say let's take a good chunk of the money that NJ and DE are making off of PA residents and use it for the state budget.

aside from the beating the wife deal, legalizing brothels and drugs is probably a good idea. if you are going to legalie gambling, shouldn;t be depoliticize the process and allow some competition. we'll probably end up with two casinos run like our airport.

Kinda depends on which constitution - State or Federal?
Pennsylvania State Constitution pre 1776, or the Federal Constitution of 1787?

Off topic,
While it's another case of hair splitting - there's was never a right for people to PURCHASE guns. The Federal Constitution talks about a right for members of the militias to "keep and bear arms" - but the guns belonged to the militia, not to the members. The "keep and bear arms" would have referred to guns beloning to the City which were kept at the Frankford arsenal, not personal weapons.

So, early claims about rights to bear arms didn't work unless you were in the militia. The philly militia seem to have even confiscated "legal guns" from people. The idea was that clearly that there was no allowance for individuals to carry guns- only as part of the police power of the milita. The Philadelphia sherrif's deputies even confiscated guns people had bought, from private homes of during the riots in Kensington and Pennsport.

I was reading a history of the 1840s & 1850s riots, it was interesting that local the Pennsylvania Militia even got into a minor artillerty battle with rioters who had at Christian Street. So, yes, you did have people firing cannons and claiming protection under the 2nd Amedment.

The Sherriff's deputies knew the people with the gun caches weren't really in the militia- they claimed they had just bought the weapons-
Militia don't buy their weapons, they're provided by the state,
just like the army provides guns, clothes, tanks etc.

The other problem was that the milita was basically a police force in those times. There was only a night watch (essentially colonial versions of mall rent a cop) one sherrif with a gun, or the militia. Now that we have a police force, the modern police are doing what the militia did.

So "a well regulated [police force], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

So, based on the history, my take on the 2nd amendment is that the
Federal Government can't order a modern city police force to disarm,
nor prevent a state from keeping weapons for it's militia.

I have a right to wield a guns as a police officer, or a member of the National Guard, or even the US Army, as part of the responsibility of being a citizen of the State. I don't have cart blance to buy what I want because I wanna play with a gun.

Hal