The Vermont Constitution currently reads: “no person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person’s own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.”
The amendment approved by the Senate Wednesday would replace that entire passage with the words: “slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited.”
Wednesday’s sole “no” vote came from Sen. Dick McCormack (D-Windsor), who argued during the Senate debate that the amendment would erase a crucial piece of history that Vermonters are rightly proud of. The state was the first to ban slavery.
“The existing language has no legal power nor would the new language have legal power,” McCormack said, noting that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did away with slavery for good. “What it does have is historical power. It’s an artifact like the fossils in the floor of the Statehouse, like the Liberty Bell with its crack. It’s an artifact of history and a point of pride.”
The Vermont League of Cities and Towns began advocating for a change last year because the current language has some exceptions for indentured servitude.
On Wednesday, Sen. Debbie Ingram (D-Chittenden) deemed McCormack’s argument “grossly insensitive” and emphasized that the idea of slavery isn’t the same for a white state senator as it might be to people of color.
“The ancestors of many black people in this country were ripped from their homes in Africa … chained, thrown into ships like so much cargo and sold, sold to the highest bidder to work on land owned by someone else,” Ingram said.
She said it would be “a shame” if the Senate opted for the historical value of the existing language above the need to counteract generations of racial injustice.
“We need to be able to use our imaginations to walk in another person’s shoes,” she said, “to have empathy with others. With black people in Vermont specifically.”
Before it can officially become part of the Vermont Constitution, the amendment must pass the House, then pass both chambers again after the 2020 elections.
If it passes all of those steps, the proposed amendment would go to a statewide vote on Election Day 2022. If a majority of voters approve it at that stage, it would become effective immediately.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime..
Shouldnt the language of the 13th amendment be changed as well?
Except as punishment for a crime
This exact language allows slavery to still exist.
I fail to understand Senator Ingram’s reasoning. How does amending the state constitution — which, given the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, all agree will have absolutely no real impact — “counteract generations of racial injustice?”
Dick McCormack’s reasoning makes more sense: the amendment, like the previous language in the VT Constitution has “historical power” but “no legal power.”
If Senator Ingram wants to show her compassion for black oppression, perhaps she should consider taking action to fix the remaining racial scars in Vermont’s legal system: blacks are many times more likely to be stopped, arrested, and imprisoned than whites in today’s Vermont. Similarly, children of color are more likely to be punished in Vermont’s schools. Not 200 years ago. Today.
I don’t pretend to speak for people of color — they do that just fine. But as a white man who has fought for racial justice since childhood, I see no virtue in attempting to rewrite history (in this case, quite literally) while simultaneously ignoring ongoing injustices.
Thank you Senator McCormack for standing up to the social pressure of pretending to change what does NOT require change while ignoring what does.
“Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.”
What a bunch of useless idiots. How much time have they spent on this nonsense? In the meantime, actual issues that matter to Vermonters lives are ignored while Ingram and her ilk fiddle around with meaningless gestures.
Indentured servitude is not slavery. It was an opportunity for poor (white) Europeans to secure passage to America in return for a contractual agreement to work to repay their debt. Close to half of the immigrants during our early history (up to the early 20th century) came here as indentured servants.
The question in my mind is whether the Vermont prohibition in fact allowed slavery to be imposed on those under 21. If so, was that exception limited to those of African descent?
If a consensus can be definitively reached on those questions [fat chance], then perhaps an explanatory amendment should be added to the existing language, and if necessary prohibiting slavery completely as of passage.
I agree with Senator McCormack that we should not be re-writing history. Any Amendment should leave in place the original language. If an explanation of how the current language was construed in the past, add that explanation.
Igram is quoted as saying “The ancestors of many black people in this country were ripped from their homes in Africa chained, thrown into ships like so much cargo and sold, sold to the highest bidder to work on land owned by someone else,” What about their very own tribesmen selling them into slavery…does that matter or factor in? I agree with JTW and Roy.
I for one think the language should be left alone as VT was the first state to abolish slavery, but then I am in the minority as my family has been in VT since the 1750s unlike most of the legislators pushing for this amendment. What a waste of time and money
So glad our legislature is spending its valuable and limited time to deal with issues like this that impact everyday, ordinary Vermont residents on a day to day basis. Issues like this must take precedence over pocketbook issues such as ever escalating property taxes that hit every single Vermont resident, whether homeowners or through increasing rent. . .
But seriously, Senator Ingram sounds almost as silly as US Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, who said the Democratic Party could never support chain migration reform in our immigration system because, in Senator Durbin’s words, “When it came to the issue of, quote, ‘chain migration,’ I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe they migrated to America in chains and when you talk about chain migration, it hurts them personally.” With zero acknowledgement that his own former colleague, African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, strongly recommended chain migration reform as part of the many recommendations of President Clinton’s Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform (aka Jordan Commission). “Chain migration” was a neutral, academic term that arose in the 1960’s as a result of the changes enacted under 1965’s Immigration and Nationality Act. Used largely by demographers.
If legislature is going to amend VT Constitution, why not do something that helps every Vermonter today and eliminate the language relied upon by VT Supreme Court in Brigham school-funding decision? Well-intentioned decision that has had disastrous, unintended long-term consequences.
Glad to know our legislators took time away from banning plastic bags to take up this very important discussion. What will be next, the improper use of kids toys?