Anti-slavery amendment broadly supported, but not by three Lakes Region representatives

Rep. Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester) had a generational debt on her mind when she was elected to the state’s House of Representatives, and sponsoring a bill to make emancipation part of the New Hampshire Constitution was one way for her to make amends for some of her ancestors’ actions.

The bill that Bouldin brought, CACR 13, proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude in the state. It still needs to be recommended by the Senate, and if that succeeds, it would then need the support of two-thirds of voters statewide.

It’s a high bar that any constitutional amendment must clear, but CACR 13’s track record to date is strong, as it easily earned an “ought to pass” designation from the House of Representatives, where the legislation was introduced on Jan. 3. The bill was referred to the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and received a 20-0 vote of support. Then on Feb. 1, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of it, 366 to 5.

Of the five who indicated their view the question should not be put before voters, three of them — Reps. Tom Ploszaj, Lisa Smart and John Sellers, all Republicans — are in the Lakes Region. When asked for their rationale, they each provided a different reason for their “nay” vote.

“No, I’m not for slavery,” asserted Ploszaj, representing Belknap District 1, explaining his vote.

Ploszaj said he grew up on a farm, where children were obligated to help with chores. The simplicity of Bouldin’s language, he felt, made it possible for children to refuse to lend a hand at home.

“I am pro-parent rights, I think the parents should be raising the children, not the state,” Ploszaj said. “I don’t know where we would be today if I had a right to say, 'No Dad, I’m not working without pay.'”

Ploszaj added he didn’t feel it an issue pressing enough to warrant amending the state’s constitution, considering slavery was abolished throughout the country with the enactment of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was passed by Congress in 1865.

“We have the 13th Amendment already, no need for duplication,” Sellers, who represents Grafton District 18, wrote in an email.

Sellers also listed what he perceived to be technical deficiencies in the legislation. He felt the language should be aimed at the first part of Article 2-C, not the second part, as it is currently proposed.

“Lastly, the prime sponsors did not clarify what involuntary servitude means in the bill, therefore leaving it open to interpretation,” Sellers wrote. “Without a good definition, this leaves it open to interpretation and when dealing with the NH constitution [sic] it should be spelled out.”

Smart, Belknap District 2, said her “nay” vote was because she considered the amendment unnecessary.

“I have a tendency to not vote for House bills if there’s already a law pertaining to that,” Smart said. “I certainly am not going to open up our Constitution to change what is already in there for something that nowadays is a pretty much nonexistent problem.”

Smart felt there was adequate legislation prohibiting slavery in New Hampshire. “I feel strongly that if it’s already in existence, and if for some reason it’s not being upheld, writing it again isn’t going to address it ... I feel there’s no sense in rewriting it again.”

Bouldin, representing Hillsborough District 25, said she was motivated to bring the legislation by the Abolish Slavery National Network, which points out that the 13th Amendment was written to explicitly permit involuntary servitude when used as punishment for a crime.

According to the Abolish Slavery Network, the vast majority of states have no laws prohibiting the forced labor of convicted persons, and five states — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas — force incarcerated people to work without pay.

She said she considered it fitting that she was the one who brought the legislation.

Bouldin said that her fifth-great-grandfather was Thomas Tyler Bouldin, who owned between 30 and 40 slaves while he served in Congress for Virginia. He died in office, and his brother, James Wood Bouldin, who owned a similar amount of slaves, won a special election to succeed him. Both were outspoken advocates for the practice of slavery.

“Clearly, slavery abolition is a very personal matter for me,” Bouldin wrote in an email. When those ancestors were serving, she noted someone like her would not have been eligible to get divorced, to own property, to vote or to hold elected office. “I’m proud to reject everything that was commonplace in his lifetime.”

Bouldin quoted her ancestor, James Wood Bouldin, who gave an impassioned speech in Congress, in which he questioned whether enslaved people would be able to function in a free society, and asserted they would be happier as slaves.

“But on the issue of slavery abolition, James also said, ‘Leave it to God. In the ripeness of time, and in his own way, he will do right about it,’” Bouldin said. “I would like to believe that a Bouldin descendent bringing forward CACR 13 is precisely that.”

Her efforts were supported by the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire. The trail's Executive Director JerriAnne Boggis wrote a letter to legislators.

“As an organization devoted to disseminating and sharing information about New Hampshire’s Black History, we are often in the position of having to tell our visitors and program participants that slavery has never been formally abolished by the State of NH,” Boggis wrote. “The horrors of enslavement in our past, alone should be sufficient to compel the passage of this measure. What makes its passage essential at this time, is that enslavement and involuntary servitude persist even today. If enshrined in our Constitution, it would be possible for anyone aware of violations of this amendment to bring legal action against these practices.”