To the Editor:

Should white America, or the United States government, pay reparations to African Americans for slavery? 

I answer emphatically NO! First off, it is illegal; where in the Constitution did we delegate authority to the federal government to make amends for past transactions against specific groups? And where does it have the ability to punish the children for the sins of the father?

How would we determine who pays? Most whites never owned slaves. At the height of slavery, according to the 1860 census, less than 2% of Americans owned slaves. In my state of Vermont, we never had legal slavery. Must Vermonters pay for what others who look similar to us did in the past? Further, many slave owners were Native Americans, Jews, or blacks themselves. Thousands of blacks owned slaves in the South, and so do they receive money from whites who never owned any slaves? Some areas of Louisiana and South Carolina had a higher percentage of free black slave owners than the white community in which they lived.  Do they pay other blacks for owning them? 

Every race of people has been enslaved; it is just a matter of how far back. Whites enslaved whites, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites, and so on. So where do we draw the line? 

Also, if they do not see it as unfair to punish later generations who do not own slaves, then it is not unfair for modern disadvantaged blacks to be unfairly treated. You cannot have it both ways; you can’t make modern whites suffer for sins they did not commit and also claim modern blacks should be treated fairly. Otherwise, you are creating a new disadvantaged racial group; you are not ending racism and mistreatment but promoting it. 

If anyone owes anyone money, would it not be the blacks, descendants of both free and enslaved blacks, who today owe America money? Blacks in America are better off financially, medically, and materially than anywhere in Africa. They are still reaping the rewards of their ancestors being brought here as slaves (as many white who are ancestors of slaves also do). Remember, Africa is the center of slavery; they enslaved each other and other races as well. It was white Christians who pressured Africa to abolish slavery. Freedom is a “white privilege idea”; it did not derive from pagan Africa. Meaning blacks owe America twice, once for benefiting from this country, and secondly for whites ending slavery in Africa (to the extent that it has) and freeing blacks in predominantly white countries.

However, there is one group, one entity that I think ought to pay Reparations, and that is the United States Government. Nobody has been more oppressive, stolen more forced and unwilling labour and wealth from a greater number of people than the politicians in D.C. As professor Jason Brennan points out, “we are not volunteers, we are conscripts, we cannot opt out, we are forced into it….governments do not merely advise us to follow their rules….they enforce their laws and rules with violence or threats of violence.”In the “land of the free, but home of the slave,” our government places a heavier financial burden on us today than slaves faced in the Old South; they steal our money without our consent and place us in prison if we avoid paying, where we have far less liberty than slaves had.

Should they not start paying us? Or at least stop treating us as tax slaves? Why are we blind to the most oppressive group, the government, and instead focus on a small minority of white slave owners so long ago? Let’s stop looking at us as various races but as people, as friends, not enemies, then we might just realize who is committing the true crime today and who sets us at war with each other, so we are so busy fighting amongst ourselves, so we miss the most cruel master of all. 

-Jeb Smith

Dear Editor,

As a Vermonter deeply concerned about the erosion of our fundamental rights, I urge lawmakers to repeal or substantially amend ACT 181. This law, passed over Governor Scott’s veto, threatens the unalienable property rights enshrined in our Vermont Constitution by imposing sweeping regulatory controls without just compensation.

Chapter I, Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution declares that all persons are born equally free and independent, with natural, inherent, and unalienable rights including “the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property”. Yet Act 181 subordinates rural landowners’ rights to centralized planning. By creating a tiered system—designating vast areas as Tier 2 or Tier 3 it expands Act 250 jurisdiction statewide. The controversial “road rule,” set to trigger mandatory state permitting for any new private road over 800 feet (or combined roads/driveways over 2,000 feet) in these tiers, prevents families from building modest homes, driveways to a child’s property, or farm expansions on ancestral land. Farmers and rural residents face months of review, thousands in fees, and potential denial if projects “fragment habitat.” This is not mere environmental stewardship; it is a regulatory straitjacket that strips practical ownership from the countryside where Vermonters have long exercised it.

Article 2. is unequivocal, “That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it, nevertheless, whenever any person’s property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money.” Act 181 makes rural property subservient to public goals, preventing fragmentation, protecting ecosystems, and directing growth to urban centers in without demonstrating case-by-case necessity or providing any monetary equivalent. Tier designations and the road rule automatically curtail development rights, diminish land value, and impose costly burdens. No direct cash payments, buyouts, or value-restoring compensation exist for affected owners.

Proponents point to incentives like tax credits, streamlined permitting, and exemptions. But these flow almost exclusively to **Tier 1A/1B** growth areas (downtowns and designated centers) to reward “smart growth.” Rural properties receive no comparable offsets; existing programs like Current Use (taxing land at working value) are voluntary, predate Act 181, and do not compensate for new restrictions. General tax breaks cannot substitute for the Constitution’s demand for an “equivalent in money” when core use rights are taken for public benefit.

Article 9 reinforces that “every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property” and that “no part of any person’s property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person’s own consent, or that of the Representative Body.” Act 181 bypasses individual consent: regional commissions draw future land-use maps, the Land Use Review Board approves them, and rules apply statewide often without full notification or input from thousands of impacted owners. The “Representative Body” may have enacted it, but over a veto and without compensating those bearing the costs.

Vermont’s courts have long upheld vigorous protection for private property. Act 181 inverts this by treating rural land as a public resource allocated by state maps rather than the unalienable possession of free individuals. With rural opposition growing which is evident in community stories, Farm Bureau collections, and legislative efforts like S.325 to delay implementation, lawmakers have a constitutional duty to act. Postpone, amend, or repeal Act 181 to restore balance: protect the environment through targeted, compensated measures, not unconsented takings.

Private property is not a privilege granted by planners; it is a natural right government exist to safeguard.  It is time to stand and be counted. We all need to attend the Protest for Act 181 repeal at the State House, Tuesday  March 24th at noon.

I do not Consent, Period! 

-Gerry Mittica