The Vermont
Eugenics Survey and
the Western Abenaki
Indians:
How the Sterilization
Movement Impacted the Tribe
and their Fight for Recognition
Nicole Vendituoli
Summer 2006
Social Sciences Research Center
1
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Preface
Introduction
Eugenics in Vermont
Adjusting to Changing Times
The Abenaki and the Eugenics Survey
Abenaki Population and Tribal Membership
Background on Sterilization
Petition for Recognition
Using the Vermont Eugenics Survey as a Tool to
Achieve Federal Recognition
The Eugenics Survey In Regards to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs Decision on Recognition
Conclusions
Bibliography
Appendixes
2
Preface
When I originally undertook this research project, I planned to conduct a
series of interviews with members of the Abenaki tribe. In order to do this through
the proper channels, I contacted Chief April Rushlow to gain her permission and
make her aware of my project. Over the summer spent doing my research, I
wrote three times, and did not receive any response from Chief Rushlow. My
project was forced to take a different direction because of this unforeseen
development and I instead focused on the petitions for recognition and the
responses provided by the state of Vermont and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
This altered my paper in such a way that it became an analysis of already
published materials, instead of a first person account of events. This paper also
is distinctly one-sided for the sole reason that I was unable to obtain the Abenaki
perspective and position. In other words, the data may be biased because a lack
of Abenaki input. I personally remain open-minded about the topic, but have
presented the information that I was able to gather and the conclusions that were
developed by the BIA and the state of Vermont in regards to the Vermont
Eugenics Survey and how that was used in the fight for recognition.
It is of importance to note that the box of materials containing the lists of
people sterilized by the state of Vermont as a part of the Eugenics movement
has gone “missing.” The state archivists do not know what happened to it, but
even if it were to be located, the information contained in those files is considered
confidential due to the delicate subject matter. If this information was available, it
would provide a concrete answer as to whether or not the Abenaki people were
3
targeted by the Eugenics Survey, but since it is not, we must rely on other
sources of material and information.
4
Introduction
People often think of history as a collection of facts, but often there are
areas of grey that result from incomplete or conflicting data. These conflicting
accounts allow historians to draw conclusions and to speculate about what
actually happened. These “grey” areas are often thought of as history’s
mysteries. Vermont has its own share of mysteries and dark secrets, including
the Eugenics Survey of the 1920s and 1930s. The results of the survey can be
felt in every town and corner of the state, but due to the sensitive nature of its
content, it is rarely discussed. One group of people residing in Vermont has
argued that they were specifically targeted by the Vermont Eugenics Survey: the
Western Abenaki Indians.
The Western Abenaki Indians reside in Vermont and New Hampshire, but
are primarily located in the area around Lake Champlain. Those living in the Lake
Champlain area are generally members of the Sokoki/ St. Francis tribe. The
native Abenaki language is Algonquin, and the English translation for Abenaki is
“people of the dawn.”1 Over their long history, the Abenaki have made multiple
attempts to become recognized by the state of Vermont and the Federal Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Their efforts were seriously renewed in the 1970’s, and since
then, they have been faced with constant political struggle. In November 2005,
the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs declined to acknowledge the Abenaki as an
official Indian tribe, but that did not stop them from pursuing other avenues
1
William H. Sorrell and Eve Jacobs-Carnahan, “State of Vermont’s Response to Petition for
Federal Acknowledgment of the St. Francis/ Sokoki Band of the Abenaki Nation of Vermont,”
(2002), 2.
5
towards some form of recognition. Their efforts reached fruition on May 3, 2006
when the Vermont Legislature passed Bill S.117 which recognized the Abenaki
people, and Governor Jim Douglas signed it into law.
While the recognition process was ongoing and the history of the Abenaki
people analyzed, the Abenaki connection to the Vermont Eugenics Survey was
established. The Abenaki used the Eugenics Survey as a tool to fight for their
recognition, while also claiming that they were specifically targeted by the survey.
From this, they concluded that had they not been targeted by the survey, they
would not have had to hide their Indian ancestry for several decades of the 20 th
century. The purpose of this research paper is to explore the connection between
the Abenaki Indians and Vermont Eugenics survey, which also lends itself to a
discussion of the Abenakis’ efforts to gain recognition both from the state of
Vermont and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The available evidence shows that the
Abenaki Indians were not specifically targeted by the Eugenics Survey, but as
noted in the preface to this paper, the Abenaki perspective, as well as valuable
state evidence is missing from this analysis.
Eugenics in Vermont
Mid-nineteenth century America flourished, and boatloads of immigrants
arrived on our shores everyday. They came from a wide variety of different
countries, had many unique cultures, and brought with them a plethora of native
tongues. While industrial employers welcomed their presence, many “native
born” Americans resented them, and felt that immigrants were responsible for all
of the country’s problems, including a rising rate in mental deficiency. At the
6
same time, a new scientific movement was on the rise, poised to address the
immigrant problem. Eugenics had been developed in Europe, and it “applied the
concepts of scientific plant and animal breeding to humans.”2 When you took
these principles and combined them with the contemporary wisdom of racial and
ethnic superiority and inferiority, it appeared that a solution had been found.
Eugenics was praised as the way to protect Americans from the invasion of
undesirable ethnic traits that were quickly closing in on them.3
American scientists looked to Vermont “as the last ‘great white hope’ of
New England. This area seemed to be a New England without the increasing tide
of ethnic “others” that plagued the coastal urban zones.”4 As a result of this
perception, the Commission on Country Life was created in the 1920s to study,
and perpetuate this image. A part of this plan was to deny the existence of the
Abenaki Indians, since they were seen as a flaw in Vermont’s lily-white image.
The Vermont Eugenics Survey was organized in 1925, under the
leadership of Henry F. Perkins, professor of zoology at the University of Vermont.
There were three main purposes for the survey: to conduct eugenics research, to
educate the public on those findings, and to generate support for social
legislation that would aim to reduce the number of “inferior” people in Vermont. 5
The first three years of the Survey focused on gathering information that would
support campaigns for negative eugenics, such as sterilization, colonies for the
2
Frederick Matthew Wiseman, The Voice of the Dawn: An Autohistory of the Abenaki Nation
(Hanover: University Press of New England, 2001), 146.
3 Wiseman, 146.
4 Ibid.
5 University of Vermont, “The Eugenics Survey of Vermont 1925-1936: An Overview, “ Vermont
Eugenics: A Documentary History, 2001, <http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/overview.html> (31
May 2006).
7
feebleminded, and an increase in the use of mental testing among the
population. Families were identified for further study for a variety of reasons,
which included: family reputation, community rejection, case files of state
institutions and child rescue initiatives from the previous decade. Information was
gathered on these chosen families through interviews and correspondence. The
information was then organized into pedigree charts and summarized so that the
“bad seeds” in each family could easily be identified.6 Families who were
targeted by the survey were labeled negatively by society, and the ramifications
of the survey were felt for years after its completion.7 The Eugenics Survey
closed in 1936, after its main benefactor decided to no longer fund the enterprise,
but eugenics research continued in the state under the supervision of the
Department of Public Welfare.
Adjusting to Changing Times
In the beginning of the 20th century, the Abenaki people began to realize
that society was changing around them and that adaptation was necessary. Their
adaptation varied in a variety of ways; from limited assimilation to total immersion
in mainstream culture. Frederick Wiseman writes, “Each family band came to a
new consensus about how to endure, since to remain unchanged in our old
villages quickly invited genocide.”8 This may be an exaggeration, since genocide
is a very strong term, defined by the United Nations on December 9, 1948 as:
University of Vermont, “Family Studies of the Rural Poor: 1925-1928,“ Vermont Eugenics: A
Documentary History, 2001, <http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/famstudies.html> (1 June 2006).
7 University of Vermont, “1925-1928: The Search for “Bad Heredity” in Vermont: “Pedigrees of
Prejudice”, “ Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History, 2001,
<http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/overview1.html> (31 May 2006).
8 Wiseman, 115.
6
8
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group as such: (a) Killing members of
the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members
of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.9
By using the term genocide, Wiseman implies that there was an effort to destroy
all of the Abenaki people in Vermont. No specific examples are given of why he
implies that a genocidal policy was created towards the Abenakis, but he does
appear to believe that the Abenaki people themselves lived in fear of being killed,
and this is why they felt the need to go into hiding or adapt to Vermont culture.
There were five different options for Abenaki families during this time
period. They could exile themselves, fade into the forests and marshes, live the
“Gypsy”/ “Pirate”/ “River Rat” life between Native and European culture, merge
with the French community, or “pass” into Anglo-American society.10 According to
Wiseman, the majority of families blended in with the working class French of
Vermont, but other family bands chose to take a different route.11 The Pirates
and River Rats were river-and-lake-oriented Abenaki families, and their nickname
depended on their location (River Rats in Swanton, Vermont, versus Pirates in
Grand Isle County, Vermont). The Pirates lived on their boats on Lake
Champlain, while the River Rats lived in shantytowns on the side of rivers.
Wiseman contends that in order to protect their traditional sovereignty, they
9
Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide (London: Yale
University Press, 1990), 44.
10 Wiseman, 115.
11 Ibid., 139.
9
sought out land that would not be desired by the “Europeans.”12 This lifestyle
declined during the 1930s, but some families continued to live on the margins
until the 1950s, when government began to restrict their subsistence hunting and
fishing on a more regular basis.13
The other group that requires more explanation is the Gypsy bands. They
lived in upland environments, usually in tarpaper shack shantytowns. In addition
to their homes, they also had a wagon and horses to draw the wagon so that
they could remain mobile. Each year they followed a geographic circuit where
they sold the crafts and other goods, such as baskets, that they produced during
the cold winter months.14 There is a good deal of speculation among the
academic community as to whether or not the Gypsy people were Abenaki
Indians or simply transient Vermonters/ Canadians. This confusion is expressed
by the fact that the “Gypsies” are often referred to by a variety of names. To
tourists they were called “Indians,” to their Vermont customers they remained
“Gypsies,” to the people that they lived with they were “French,” and they called
themselves “Alnoba.”15 This has made them difficult to trace (probably on
purpose) and these problems will likely take a considerable amount of time to
come to terms with and solve.
The Abenaki and the Eugenics Survey
In recent years, some historians have claimed that the Abenaki Indians
were targeted by the Vermont Eugenics Survey, and that it was an organized
12
Ibid., 120.
Ibid., 131.
14 Wiseman, 138.
15 Wiseman, 139.
13
10
effort by the state to reduce their numbers, and presence in the state. Rhetoric is
abundant on both sides of the argument, which makes it difficult to conclude how
much the Eugenics Survey, if it at all, affected the Abenaki Indians. One of the
reasons why the Abenaki’s were perceived as different was because many of
them were Roman Catholic, which went against the traditional Protestant
background of New England. Many of the Abenaki also had dark eyes, skin and
hair that set them apart from their neighbors. The Abenaki way of life was
manifested in “communalism, social and genetic isolation, subsistence hunting
and fishing, disregard for increasingly restrictive laws and social programs, and
the persistence of a seasonally mobile lifestyle”16 which further segregated them
from the general Vermont population. All of these differences brought attention to
the Abenakis in ways that may have been detrimental to their society.
In his work, The Voice of the Dawn, Fred Wiseman claimed that the
Vermont Eugenics Survey group quickly began to focus their efforts in on the
Abenakis. In the Eugenics Survey papers, Wiseman believes that the Abenaki
were referred to as Gypsies, Pirates, and River Rats, rather than simply calling
them Abenaki Indians, which explains how the Abenaki could be targets of the
Survey without being explicitly mentioned in the Survey’s papers. Wiseman also
claims that Gypsies and Pirates, who were really Abenaki families, had their
children taken away from them, and as a result, “Any family who still had
thoughts about standing forth as Abenaki… quickly retired to obscurity as the tide
of intolerance rose.”17 If Abenaki families truly believed that losing their children
16
17
Wiseman, 147.
Wiseman, 148.
11
was a possibility, it does make sense that they would hide their heritage in order
to remain safe, and this is the argument that Wiseman presents.
In 1931, the Vermont State legislature passed An Act for Human
Betterment by Voluntary Sterilization. Wiseman argues that this law brought
sterilization to the Abenaki people. In his studies, he identifies specific families
who were singled out and harassed by the Vermont Eugenics Survey because
they were different. He then goes onto mention that over 200 people were
sterilized in Vermont under this law, but does not make any direct correlation
between those sterilizations and the Abenaki people. Instead, he does make the
point that the racism in that period and the law permeated into Abenaki society,
and led the Abenaki to feel shame at being different and fear what would happen
if they were discovered to be Abenaki by the state of Vermont.18
Within the existing Vermont Eugenics Survey’s materials, there are
several references to Native Americans. One of those papers was entitled,
“Special Capacities of American Indians,” and was written by W. Carson Ryan
Jr., (date unknown) of the US Indian Service. It is interesting to note that this
document praises the American Indian, rather than discriminating against them. It
is worth quoting in length as evidence that it is unlikely that the Abenakis were
targeted for sterilization by the Vermont Eugenics Survey:
Indians are not inferior. Traditional ideas of the mental superiority or
inferiority of races, including Indians, which had a revival during the
early years of American intelligence measurement, have recently
been subjected to a more discriminating analysis at the hands of
competent psychologists, such as T. R. Garth, who now says that
“we have never, with all our searching, “found indisputable
18
Wiseman, 148-149.
12
evidence for belief in mental differences which are essentially
racial.”19
The article goes onto praise Indian arts and culture, and explaining how valuable
to society they are. This may be speculation, but if the Vermont Eugenics Survey
planned to destroy the Abenaki population, they would not have kept records of
articles praising the value of Native Americans, nor would they have believed that
the Abenakis were “inferior” when they were presented with scientific evidence
that they were in fact not.
Abenaki Population and Tribal Membership
Population figures for the Abenaki people of Vermont have the potential to
help solve a variety of mysteries: how large their community actually is, if they
were indeed effected by sterilization programs (low birthrates), and if they should
be recognized as a federal or state tribe. Unfortunately, these figures vary widely
based on the collection agency, and no one consensus has been reached.
20
Data from the early twentieth century is relatively sparse, and it isn’t until the
1970s and the Indian resurgence movement, that few efforts were made to
identify the various members of the Abenaki tribe. On the Swanton, Vermont
town birth records, there were several children who were identified as IndianWhite between the years of 1904 and 1920. The Abenaki themselves
hypothesize that the reason for the appearance of their Indian identity was
because of Cordelia Brow, an Abenaki midwife, who filled out the original
W Carson Ryan Jr, “Special Capacities of American Indians,” in Vermont Eugenics Survey
files.
20
Detailed census information, charts and graphs are included at the end of this paper.
19
13
records.21 This evidence was used to support the Abenakis claim that they were
a continual presence in Vermont in the early twentieth century, but the birth
record forms are difficult to interpret, due to inconsistencies in handwriting and
racial categories, which caused historians, and the government, to regard the
information with skepticism.
The relationship between population size and the topic of this paper, the
Vermont Eugenics Survey, lies in the fact that the Abenaki population would have
a difficult time expanding if they were the victims of forced sterilization. It is
obvious that the Abenaki were not destroyed, but it would make sense that their
population statistics would grow very slowly if their men and women had been
sterilized. As was mentioned previously, it wasn’t until the 1970’s that abundant
population data became available, but one can see that the population then
began to spike, and has continued to do so with every census count since then.
In particular, the formal membership of the St. Francis/ Sokoki band has
increased since 1976 as more families and relatives have filled out
enfranchisement forms and gained formal membership status. At the time of the
Tribes Petition for Federal Recognition, the Tribe had a membership of 935
adults and 750 children under the age of fifteen.22 The majority of those
members, two-thirds of the total population, live in three towns in Franklin
County: Highgate, Swanton, and St. Albans, all of which are a part of the
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, “A Petition for Federal Recognition as an American Indian Tribe,”
Submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (October 1982), 147.
21
22
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 116.
14
Abenakis historic land area.23 In contrast to the membership figures presented by
the Abenaki people, the United States Census has regularly underreported the
number of Native Americans living in Vermont, but those numbers continue to
dramatically rise with every new census. The Abenaki explain this in the
following way:
This dramatic increase can be largely attributed to the activities of
the Abenaki Tribal Council and the resulting changes of attitudes
among Native Americans throughout the state who became
increasingly willing during the last decade to identify themselves as
American Indians.24
The discrepancies between Abenaki membership counts and Federal Census
numbers can be clearly seen in the chart listed below. The Abenaki claim that
the number differences can be attributed to the fact that the Census Bureau has
difficulty in recording minority groups due to frequent changes in address, above
average rates of illiteracy and a general lack of interest.25
Location
Swanton
Highgate
St. Albans
Franklin & Grand
Isle Counties
Current
Membership (adults
only)
334
142
160
723
1980 U.S. Census
Difference in
members
182
91
92
444
152
51
68
279
The first major increase in population happened in 1970, when the Census
recorded 229 Native Americans living in Vermont, up from 57 the decade before.
The state of Vermont rationalized this in the following way: “These figures may
reflect a new consciousness of Vermonter’s Indian ancestors. It is striking,
23
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 118.
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 119.
25 Ibid.
24
15
however, that the large increase in reporting did not reveal a concentration of
Indians in Franklin or Grand Isle counties…”26 Another interesting discrepancy is
that that in 1975, the Boston Indian Council’s Manpower census reported 1,700
Native Americans living in Vermont, and that 80 percent of them were Abenakis.
This is in contrast to the Federal Census of only five years prior (1970) that had
229 Native Americans in the state.27 The explanation that William Haviland, the
author The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and Present, gives for
this is that between 1970 and 1975, there was a resurgence of pride among
Vermont’s Abenakis. He says, “It was not until after a rise of Native American
activism throughout the part of indigenous peoples to stand up for their human
rights—that they were ready to declare publicly what they had known themselves
to be all along: Abenakis…”28 No matter what the explanation for these
population increases are, the Abenaki people are making their presence in the
state known, and will continue to do so in the future.
The Abenaki’s increased presence can be seen from the wealth of
newspaper articles that have focused on them over the last few years. The most
pertinent of those relate to the size of the Abenaki population. In 1980, 1,074
Vermonters identified themselves as American Indians, but in 1990, that number
had increased by more than sixty percent.29 This was fantastic news for the
Abenaki community, but then in 1998 they learned that the Vermont American
26
Sorrell, 109.
William Haviland, The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and Present (Hanover: University
Press of New England, 1994), 247.
28 Haviland, 247.
29 Richard Cowperthwait, “Abenaki Count Stressed: Panel vies for accuracy in Census,”
Burlington Free Press, 24 September 1999, sec. B.
27
16
Indian population had decreased by 11.5 percent in the years from 1990 to
1998.30 This simply didn’t make sense and in 1999, the Burlington Free Press
wrote: “Members of the Abenaki nation, based in the Swanton area, are
perplexed by the latest Census estimates. They say after decades of feeling
ashamed of their heritage, more and more Vermonters are identifying themselves
as American Indians.”31 This sentiment was repeated eight years earlier, in 1991,
when another Free Press author wrote: “Most people agree that there are not
that many more Indians in Vermont now than in 1980. Instead, most experts
attribute the increase to a larger number of people reclaiming their Indian
heritage.”32 This reclaiming of heritage has brought the Vermont Abenaki
population up to over 2,000 people33 according to William Haviland, the author of
the Original Vermonters. Now that the Abenaki have gained state recognition, it
is possible that they will experience another renewal of energy and spirit that
ultimately will add numbers to their membership rolls.
In their efforts to become a federally recognized American Indian Tribe,
the Abenakis were told that they had to provide copies of their membership roles
and criteria for membership to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They complied, but
problems arose from the fact that membership was not formalized until 1975. The
BIA was trying to look for a continued Abenaki presence in the state from 1900
on, but for seventy-five of those years, they had no idea as to who was and
Michael Corkery, “Abenaki doubt Census Numbers,” Burlington Free Press, 15 September
1999, sec. A.
31 Ibid.
32 Laura Decher, “Figures show Indians have toughest route in VT,” Burlington Free Press, 7 July
1991, sec. A.
33 Haviland, 260.
30
17
wasn’t a member. After 1975, members of the Abenaki tribe were issued
membership cards and their names were placed on file cards, but no
membership rosters or lists were created. More cards were added to the
collection as needed, or were removed in the case of death.34
Membership lists were eventually created for the tribe, and the 1995 list
contained 1,257 names of adults and children, which included seven double
entries, and one triple entry, which made the correct count 1,248.35 Since then
the membership numbers have varied considerably from 1,257 in 1996, up to
1,361 in May 2005, and only three months later it fell to 1,171.36 Note: Please
see census data and figures for counties in Vermont.
Over the years, the Abenaki have amended their requirements for tribal
membership. In their original petition for federal recognition, they had five
different criteria for membership. These criteria are as follows:
1. Any person of Abenaki descent, whether through the male or female
linde, who is not currently a member of another recognized North
American Indian tribe, is eligible for membership in the St. Francis/
Sokoki band of the Abenaki nation.
2. In the absence of documented verification of Indian ancestry,
membership in a family with long-standing local community recognition
as Indian shall make a person eligible for membership
3. Other individuals who claim Abenaki descent, and who are closely
affiliated with or related by marriage to current band members shall
also be eligible for membership.
4. The Tribal Council shall be responsible for determining all
membership.
5. The Tribal Council may adopt into the band and nation any Indian or
non-Indian as they so choose.37
34
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 169.
James E. Cason, “Summary under the Criteria for the Proposed Finding on the St. Francis/
Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont, “ (9 November 2005), 141.
36 Cason, 143.
37 Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 168.
35
18
Apparently, the BIA had some questions about these criteria, because in their
Second Addendum to the Petition for Federal Recognition as an American Indian
Tribe, they were revised. The first three criteria remained intact, but a new clause
was added that said that the Tribal Council could not authorize the
enfranchisement of any adult Indians or non-Indians by adoption or by honorary
membership.38 It appears that they were trying to accurately discover who
belonged on their membership roles, while at the same time, prevent
questionable Indians from being admitted to those roles in the future.
Background on Sterilization
Scholars have claimed that the Abenaki were targeted by the Vermont
Eugenics Survey and were actively sterilized during the 1920’s. To better
understand this claim, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of the
sterilization movement in the United States. During this time period, the belief
existed that human races had been produced by degeneration from an original
type, and that color showed how degenerated a person was.39 In relation to
Native Americans, this meant that they were degenerate, because they often had
a darker skin tone. This added to the prejudices that people felt already, and
gave the sterilization movement even more power.
Once the movement to put sterilization bills into action began, it picked up
speed very quickly. Between 1907 and 1913, legislatures in sixteen states
passed sterilization bills, of which four (Pennsylvania, Vermont, Oregon, and
38
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, “Second Addendum to the Petition for Federal Recognition as an
American Indian Tribe: Genealogy of the Abenaki Nation of Missiquoi,” (11 December 1995), 3.
39 Philip Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States
(London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1991), 5.
19
Nebraska) were vetoed by governors. The twelve states that put sterilization laws
into place were: Indiana, Washington, California, Connecticut, Nevada, Iowa,
New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Michigan, Kansas, and Wisconsin.40 A
note of interest is that in the majority of legislatures, the vote was overwhelmingly
favorable and with the exception of Vermont, the governors’ vetoes most likely
contradicted popular sentiment.41 By 1926, twenty-three states had sterilization
laws on their book and seventeen states had active programs that resulted in the
sterilization of some 6,244 people.42
Several parts of sterilization legislation and general discussion were
focused on Native Americans. African Americans were disproportionately
targeted for sterilization due to their color, but African Americans and Native
Americans often mixed together, creating a unique racial mix and they were
targets as well. As a result, the Pocahontas exception came into being, which
created a loophole for remnants of the original Indians who had lost their Indian
identity and had mixed with African Americans.43 Walter Plecker, a Virginia state
legislator, was determined to deny white status (and thus avoid sterilization) to
any Indian who had any African American ancestry. He was convinced that many
Indians had just as much African American blood in them as they did Indian
blood, and that they should be considered colored, not Indian. In 1930, he
convinced the Virginia state legislature to amend its race law so that “Every
40
Reilly, 39.
Reilly, 45.
42 Reilly, 67.
43 Reilly, 73.
41
20
person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed a
colored person.”44
One study of eugenics reveals some interesting details that may
potentially have happened in Vermont. This study followed 270 patients who had
been sterilized in Elwyn, Pennsylvania. Since Pennsylvania had never enacted a
law permitting sterilization, this suggests that the actual number of sterilizations
carried out in the United States were significantly larger than the numbers
allowed under state law.45 The Surgical Solution puts forth the following
conclusions about the sterilization movement in the United States:
1. More than 60,000 people were sterilized under the laws
2. Programs were most active during the 1930’s, but in some states
they were also active in the 1940’s and 1950’s
3. During the Depression there was a major change in the factors
that most concerned the officials who had the power to sterilizeless concerned with preventing the birth of children with genetic
defects and more concerned with preventing the parenthood in
those individuals who were thought to be unable to care for
children- this resulted in a dramatic change of who was to be
sterilized
4. Beginning in 1930, there was a steady rise in the percentage of
young women who were sterilized
5. Germany’s sterilization programs did not have a negative affect
on those in America- instead advocates pointed to Germany to
illustrate how a good program could reach its goals
6. There was a sharp decline in the number of people sterilized in
the 1940’s in the United States, but this was due to the war and the
shortage of civilian physicians.46
Sterilization may not be one of America’s proudest policies, but it did occur
throughout the nation, and it had lasting effects on the generations to come.
44
Reilly, 74.
Reilly, 90.
46 Reilly, 94-95.
45
21
The early sterilization efforts were focused on men. This had to do with the
fact that men made up the vast majorities of people in jails, and convicts were
deemed to be the problem. At the same time, vasectomies were much easier to
perform than hysterectomies.47 At the end of 1927, 53% of all persons legally
sterilized in the United States were male. Then from 1932 to 1934, sterilizations
were performed on 4,258 women (60%) and 2,842 men (40%).48 The gender
balance had switched, but the reasons for that switch remain unknown.
Petition for Recognition
If the Abenaki claims are true, their history, present, and future, have been
largely impacted by the Vermont Eugenics Survey. This discussion has been
brought to the forefront because of the desire of the Abenaki to gain federal
recognition as an American Indian Tribe. Through this process, an exhaustive
search was done for materials that related to the Abenaki, and thus the
discussion of the Vermont Eugenics Survey and its effects on the Native
American population of Vermont.
In the 1982 petition for Federal Recognition as an American Indian Tribe,
the Abenaki write that they have been discriminated against for centuries, and
the Vermont Eugenics Survey only made things worse. They write that this
discrimination resulted in the Abenaki hiding their heritage, and how this has hurt
Abenaki society over time. “It is also clear that Indians eventually came to feel
unwanted and unliked by local whites, with the result that they often concealed
47
48
Reilly, 34.
Reilly, 98.
22
their identity…There is no doubt that “Indian” had become a degraded status.”49
Apparently, this was not just the case in Vermont, but prevalent around the
country. The Abenaki repeat their message by saying: “As in many Indian
communities nationwide, the negative stereotyping so prevalent among the local
white community gradually became a part of Abenaki self-identity as well,
reinforcing feelings of resentment and despair.”50 A picture is painted of a people
who have been pushed to the fringes of society and have suffered greatly due to
the stereotypes and cruelty of their neighbors. This is most likely true, but what
comes into question is how the Eugenics movement added to (or didn’t add to)
the growing dislike towards “others” in Vermont.
The Abenaki petition for Federal Recognition obviously takes a very proAbenaki position since it was written for the Abenaki. Before you look at the other
side of the argument, it helps to get the full spectrum of the arguments the
Abenaki presented for discrimination and the Eugenics Survey. The petition
reported that they believed that the discrimination that they had endured could
have prevented parents from passing on their knowledge and traditions to
younger generations.51 This implies that this would effectively end the Abenaki
civilization over time, because there would be a lack of tribal members with any
knowledge of their history. In addition to sharing their knowledge with their own
kin, the Abenaki suggest that they had no desire to share their culture with the
rest of Vermont and the primary reason for this decision was the pain caused by
the Eugenics Movement. “Any desire of the Abenaki people…was brutally
49
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 98.
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 99.
51 Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 99-100.
50
23
shattered by the infamous Eugenics Movement that took hold in Vermont… and
its ethnic cleansing and sterilization of ‘undesirables.’”52 This is used as further
proof of why the Abenakis have had a decreased presence in Vermont since the
in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
Other researchers and historians have agreed with the theory that the
Abenaki were targeted by the eugenics survey. This idea gained significant
publicity after it appeared in a 1999 Boston Globe article written by Ellen Barry.
She says:
And among the more angry of the Abenaki, sterilization simply
seems like another aspect of a multi-faceted campaign to destroy
them. Homer St. Francis, a longtime chief of the Abenaki, reels of
the names of childless family members who he assumes were
sterilized. He sees sterilization as part of a larger government
conspiracy to eliminate his family- a campaign that he said includes
generations of abduction and outright murder.53
This is a very strong view and a potentially convincing one. Kevin Dann reminds
his readers that the Eugenics Survey investigated “gypsy” and “pirate” families,
which it did. He then suggests that those families were actually Abenaki
Indians,54 and that this is just another example of how they were targeted. Nancy
Gallagher, the author of Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the
Green Mountain State, seconds his position by saying: “Recent research by the
Abenaki people has revealed that Perkins and Abbott’s Gypsy family were
indeed Abenaki families…”55 The important phrase in that sentence is that the
Abenaki Nation of Vermont: Second Addendum…, 4.
Ellen Barry, “Eugenics Victims Heard at Last,” Boston Globe,
<http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/archive4.htm> (15 July 2006).
54 Kevin Dann, “From Degeneration to Regeneration: The Eugenics Survey of Vermont: 19251936,” Vermont History 59 (1999): 14.
55 Nancy L Gallagher, Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the Green Mountain
State (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1999), 81.
52
53
24
Abenaki people have uncovered this information. In order to stay purely
objective, an outsider with no stake in the research would need to concur before
a direct connection is made.
In 1951, a report was released by the American Journal of Mental
Deficiency that estimated that 210 peopled had been sterilized in Vermont. When
asked about this, Perkins, the head of the Eugenics Survey, responded that
many more people had actually been sterilized.56 The majority of those sterilized
were women, and by 1936, sixty-five women had been sterilized in Vermont
compared to thirty-two men.57 What remains unknown is if any of these victims
were Abenaki, and if yes, how this has affected the Abenaki communities
population counts. Nancy Gallagher explains this glitch:
The Eugenics Survey archive does not document sterilizations
resulting from the law…Because legal sterilizations took place for
the most part in institutional settings, the identities of persons
sterilized under the law remain hidden in confidential case files of
the Department of Public Welfare.58
Much is still unknown about this topic, but the Abenaki were convinced that they
were significantly wronged by the state of Vermont and the Eugenics Survey. In
fact, they believe that Vermont had its reputation blemished by its participation in
the movement, since the state government “embraced the doctrine of the ‘inferior
race’ under the guise of voluntary sterilization.”59 From this, the Abenakis have
incorporated the Eugenics Survey into their fight for federal recognition.
56
Dann, 29.
Dann, 13.
58 Gallagher, 124-125.
59 Abenaki Nation of Vermont, Second Addendum…, 9.
57
25
The movement for federal Abenaki recognition began in the early 1970s.
At this point in time, Abenakis began to gather and hold meetings on a more
regular basis. This was partly a result of the American Indian Movement which
gained popularity and support in the 1970s. Several Abenakis began to think
more about their status as Indians and what could be done to improve their
status and way of life.60 By 1975, The Abenaki had established a Tribal
headquarters in Swanton, Vermont (which now includes a Tribal Museum and a
cultural center) and began to formally organize membership in the tribe. At the
end of 1975, they had a membership of 375 people. To become a member at this
time, you had to be a member of one of the recognized Abenaki families, or be
close to a council member. You were given a card that identified you as a
member of the St. Francis/ Sokoki band of the Abenaki Nation of Vermont, and
membership was based upon the personal knowledge of individual Abenaki
families.61 To the Abenaki, the “purity” of the Abenaki was not the real issue,
instead the central point was that they were a community of people who
recognized themselves as Indian and had decided to act out on that identity. 62
The state of Vermont has a slightly different perspective of the events
leading up to the Abenakis decision to apply for recognition. They state that
“There is very little to say about the Abenakis in Vermont in the twentieth century
until the 1970’s. From 1900 to 1974 they were invisible, if they were here at
all…There was no noticeable Abenaki community in Vermont, let alone Franklin
60
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 104.
Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 106.
62 Abenaki Nation of Vermont, 113.
61
26
county, from 1900 to 1970.”63 The state’s position is also that it was only because
of the increase in ethnic consciousness around the United States, that the
Abenakis became detectable and came together once again. One of the criteria
for federal recognition is that “the petitioner has maintained political influence or
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the
present64, and the state believes that the Abenaki do not meet this requirement.
Using the Vermont Eugenics Survey as a Tool to Achieve Federal
Recognition
While the Abenaki people contend that the Vermont Eugenics Survey had
a profound effect on their tribe, both the state of Vermont and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs question this connection. The state of Vermont notes the Second
Addendum to the Petition for federal recognition, which was filed in 1995, lists
one of the Abenakis’ sources as the Vermont Eugenics Survey. The Second
Addendum describes the Vermont Eugenics Survey as a discriminatory program
that was aimed at the eradication of mental and moral defectives in the Vermont
community.65 The Abenaki’s petition briefly mentions the notion that Indians were
targeted by the survey, but this idea has become a substantial argument as to
why the Abenaki feel that they should be granted federal recognition.
The first published connection between the Vermont Eugenics Survey and
Abenakis comes from Kevin Dann’s 1991 article in Vermont History: “From
Degeneration to Regeneration: The Eugenics Survey of Vermont, 1925-1936.” In
63
Sorrell, 67.
Cason, 91.
65 Sorrell, 68.
64
27
this article Dann writes that the “gypsy” and “pirate” families that were studied
under the Eugenics Survey were of Abenaki and French-Canadian ancestry.66
When this was brought to the attention of the state, it was noticed that citations
were not provided for the source of Dann’s information. Nor did he suggest that
the Abenakis needed to conceal their identities because of the Eugenics Survey,
or that they were one of the primary targets of the survey. Dann’s information
was used by other historians, including Nancy Gallagher. Her comprehensive
history of the Vermont Eugenics Survey did not verify a eugenic focus on
Abenaki families and in fact, her only references to Abenaki subjects are based
on the ideas presented by Dann.67
The next time the connection between the Abenaki and Eugenics Survey
was espoused was in the late 1990’s when it became a part of a history kit
published by the Vermont Historical Society. This history kit claimed that:
From the 1920’s through the 1940’s the Eugenics Survey of
Vermont…sought to “improve” Vermont by seeking out “genetically
inferior peoples” such as Indians, illiterates, thieves, the insane,
paupers, alcoholics, those with harelips, etc…As a result of this
program, Abenaki had to hide their heritage even more. They were
forced to deny their culture to their children and grandchildren.68
It is likely that the Abenaki Indians would have felt threatened by the Vermont
Eugenics Survey, but there is no proof that they were systematically targeted.
This piece of evidence shows how information can be used to convince the
audience of a fact, without presenting proof for that argument.
66
Sorrell, 74.
Sorrell, 75.
68 Ibid., 69.
67
28
Over the next several years, the connection between the Abenakis hidden
heritage and the Eugenics Survey continued to be discussed in public venues.
One newspaper article that reported the death of Chief Homer St. Francis said
that St. Francis’s tribe had been “driven underground by racism. That racism
found its purest expression in the ‘eugenics’ campaign of the 1920’s and 30’s,
which promoted the sterilization of Abenaki and other groups of Vermont’s
‘undesirables.’”69 By placing such information in the newspaper it ensured that
public sympathy would be garnered, even if there was no proof of that
information actually existing.
What makes this sudden connection more interesting is that neither the
original petition for federal acknowledgement, which was filed in 1982, nor the
first Addendum to the Petition filed in 1986, contained any mention of the
Vermont Eugenics Survey. If the Vermont Eugenics Survey had such a
significant impact on the Abenaki people that it forced them to go underground
with their culture and heritage, it can be argued that they would have used this
information as a primary source in their first petition, but they did not. The first
mention of the Eugenics Survey is the Second Addendum, from 1995, where it is
referred to, but there are no arguments on its effects of the invisibility of Abenaki
families and individuals.70
The State of Vermont instead argues that there is nothing in the Eugenics
Survey papers that indicate that the Abenakis were targeted. Instead, they
believe that if one group was targeted, it was the French Canadians. They do
69
70
Ibid., 70.
Sorrell, 70.
29
agree with the fact that some persons of Indian descent were included in the
survey, and in particular there were two families who intertwined with others of
Indian descent. On the other hand, there is no proof in the survey that those
people were Abenaki Indians.71 Fred Wiseman believes that Indians were
described in the survey as gypsies or basketmakers instead of being referred to
as Indians. He contends that this was because the people conducting the survey
did not know they were Indians because they were so good at hiding their true
identities. From this, the state of Vermont argues that it is hard to believe that
Henry Perkins would have been blind to the presence of Indians in Swanton and
the surrounding areas, particularly if these were the people that he aimed to
study in the Eugenics Survey.72
One of the state of Vermont’s strongest arguments against the use of the
Eugenics Survey in relation to Abenaki recognition lies with World War I draft
registration cards. These documents indicate a lack of self-identification with any
Indian tribe, including the Abenaki. Members of the Lampman and St. Francis
families indicated their race to be white or Caucasian on their draft registration
cards. The Lampman and St. Francis families have strongly advocated their
Abenaki heritage throughout history and have been leaders in the fight for
recognition, so it makes it interesting that they did not self-identify on those
cards. What the state of Vermont finds interesting about these cards is that they
pre-date the Vermont eugenics movement by several years. In this case, any
argument that the petitioner’s ancestors tried to hide their Indian identities
71
72
Sorrell, 242.
Sorrell, 77.
30
because they feared the repercussions of the Vermont Eugenics Survey is
incorrect. The survey had not yet started, so there is no reason at that point in
time for the Abenaki individuals to be afraid of self-identifying themselves as
Indian, rather than white or Caucasian.73
When the state of Vermont came to the conclusion that there was no
connection between the Eugenics Survey and the Abenaki Indians, they
wondered why the Abenaki had made the connection in the first place. Their first
reason is that the Eugenics Survey has been used as a tool to try to explain why
the Abenaki have had no presence in history since the American Revolution. If
they had felt threatened, this could potentially explain why they went
underground. The state also believes that the Abenaki used the Eugenics Survey
to their benefit in the following ways:
1. By using such a disagreeable subject as ethnic cleansing to
excuse their lack of documentation as a tribe. 2. By eliciting
sympathy from Vermonters who were no doubt ashamed of their
state’s participation in the Survey. 3. By swaying public opinion
towards allowing less documented facts and more insinuation. 4.
By influencing historians and others writing about them to include
undocumented suppositions on the grounds that the Eugenics
Survey had made real evidence scarce.74
From these conclusions, it is fair to say that the state of Vermont’s official
position is that the Abenaki Indians have used or created a connection to the
Vermont Eugenics Survey that paints them in a favorable light and helps to
advance their own motives. The Abenaki would undeniable argue that this was
not the case, but because they were reluctant to participate in this research
effort, their position cannot be clearly stated.
73
74
Sorrell, 192.
Sorrell, 242.
31
The Eugenics Survey in regards to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Decision on
Recognition
When the Bureau of Indian Affairs published its findings on the Abenaki
Indians, it decided that the Abenaki were missing several criteria that they were
required to have to become a recognized tribe. Several of these areas of concern
included references and information about the Eugenics Survey. Criterion 83.7
(b) requires that: “a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a
distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the
present.”75 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) found that the Abenaki tribe did not
meet this requirement, which requires that the group must have regular social
interactions among members of the community and be a community that is
distinct from other communities in the area.
In the petition for recognition, the Abenakis claimed that the Vermont
Eugenics Survey was directly responsible for the group’s reluctance to identify
themselves as Indians at that time. No evidence was presented that showed that
the petitioner’s ancestors knew about the Eugenics Survey or were affected by
the actions of the survey. The BIA admits that people might be reluctant to talk if
they had been sterilized involuntarily, but there is only one example of a group
member who told the story of how she believes her aunts were sterilized:
“Actually, in my family two of my aunts were sterilized. They were picked up, and
brought to the State Hospital, in the state of Vermont, drugged up, sterilized
without their knowledge…”76 This may be true, but there is no evidence that
75
76
Cason, 44.
Cason, 79.
32
shows that these women were targeted for a specific reason, such as Abenaki or
Indian heritage.
The Abenaki also argued that it was because of the Eugenics Survey that
they did not have a completed tribal membership list. As stated earlier in this
paper, when the group formally organized in the 1970’s, they began to keep track
of their members. Prior to this, they never maintained a list because everyone in
the community knew each other, which rendered a membership list unnecessary.
When a list was compiled, the membership criteria was very open, and in 1982
they claimed to have a membership of 935 adults and 750 children under the age
of fifteen, for a total of 1,685 members.77
The other portion of the petition that the Abenaki failed to meet that relates
to the Eugenics Survey was Criterion 83.7 (a). This requires that: “the petitioner
has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous
basis since 1900.”78 The BIA stated that sources have identified the group as
American Indian only since 1976, and the census records provided does not
provide tribal affiliations or specific Indian entities, so there is no way to show that
those registered as Indians were actually Abenaki. The Vermont Eugenics
Survey is referenced because the Abenaki suggested that some of their Indian
ancestors may have been identified in the papers. The BIA ultimately concluded
that nothing in the Eugenics papers demonstrates that the Vermont Eugenics
Survey identified or dealt with an Indian entity.79 Vermont’s Assistant Attorney
General Eve Jacobs Carnahan agreed with this assessment. She believes that
77
Ibid, 87-88.
Ibid, 22.
79 Ibid, 26.
78
33
there are individuals in Vermont with Native American heritage, but there is a
lack of evidence linking those people to the tribes of long ago.80
Conclusions
The Abenaki Indians of Vermont could very well have been targeted by
the Eugenics Survey, but the evidence to support that claim is not currently
available. Yes, it is probable that some Abenaki individuals were sterilized
because of the Vermont Eugenics Movement, but it may have been for other
factors, such as mental illness, alcoholism, or having children out of wedlock. By
no means is this is a conclusive document on the topic, and with the cooperation
of the Abenaki Indians, a lot more could be learned about this subject.
However, the information that is available is fairly convincing that, no, the
Abenaki Indians were not targeted by the Eugenics Survey, which negates their
use of the survey in their arguments for recognition. The issue itself is complex
and sensitive, making it difficult to research and making individuals reluctant to
get involved in a project devoted to exploring it further. This is in no way intended
to detract from the Abenakis claims that they were hurt by the Eugenics
movement; without knowing their side of the history it is impossible to make that
judgment call. What can be said is that the evidence proving that they were
affected is not available to the public, so until some documentary evidence is
presented, this history mystery will remain unsolved for the time being.
Even if the Abenaki Indians were affected by the Eugenics Survey, they
have achieved great things over the last several decades. The steps that have
80
Nancy Remsen, “Abenaki Plead for recognition,” Burlington Free Press, 16 February 2005, sec.
B.
34
been taken to unite the community, organize the community, and petition for
recognition several times have taken enormous amounts of effort and dedication.
The Abenaki deserve to be acknowledged by the state of Vermont without even
taking the Eugenics Survey into consideration.
35
Bibliography
Abenaki Nation of Vermont. “A Petition for Federal Recognition as an American
Indian Tribe.” Submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. October 1982.
Abenaki Nation of Vermont. “Second Addendum to the Petition for Federal
Recognition as an American Indian Tribe: Genealogy of the Abenaki
Nation of Missiquoi.” 11 December 1995.
Barry, Ellen. “Eugenics Victims Heard at Last.” Boston Globe.
<http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/archive4.htm> (15 July 2006).
Cason, James E. “Summary under the Criteria for the Proposed Finding on the
St. Francis/ Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont. “ 9 November 2005.
Chalk, Frank and Kurt Jonassohn. The History and Sociology of Genocide.
London: Yale University Press, 1990.
Corkery, Michael. “Abenaki doubt Census Numbers.” Burlington Free Press. 15
September 1999. Sec. A.
Cowperthwait, Richard. “Abenaki Count Stressed: Panel vies for accuracy in
Census.” Burlington Free Press. 24 September 1999. Sec. B.
Dann, Kevin. "From Degeneration to Regeneration: The Eugenics Survey of
Vermont: 1925- 1936." Vermont History 59 no.1 (Winter,1991): 5-29.
Decher, Laura. “Figures show Indians have toughest route in VT.” Burlington
Free Press. 7 July 1991. Sec. A.
Gallagher, Nancy L. Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the
Green Mountain State. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1999.
Haviland, William A. The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and
Present. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England,
1994.
Reilly, Philip. The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the
United States. London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Remsen, Nancy. “Abenaki Plead for recognition.” Burlington Free Press. 16
February 2005. Sec. B.
Ryan, W Carson Jr. “Special Capacities of American Indians.” In the Vermont
Eugenics Survey files.
36
Sorrell, William H., and Eve Jacobs-Carnahan. “State of Vermont’s Response to
Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of the St. Francis/ Sokoki Band of
the Abenaki Nation of Vermont.” 2002.
University of Vermont. “The Eugenics Survey of Vermont 1925-1936: An
Overview. Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History. 2001.
<http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/overview.html> (31 May 2006).
University of Vermont. “Family Studies of the Rural Poor: 1925-1928.“ Vermont
Eugenics: A Documentary History. 2001.
<http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/famstudies.html> (1 June 2006).
University of Vermont. “1925-1928: The Search for “Bad Heredity” in Vermont:
“Pedigrees of Prejudice”. Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History.
2001. <http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/overview1.html> (31 May 2006).
Wiseman, Frederick Matthew. The Voice of the Dawn: An Autohistory of the
Abenaki Nation. Hanover: University Press of New England, 2001.
37
The Number of Native Americans Residing in the State of Vermont
Determined by the Federal Census Bureau
2600
2500
2,420
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1,696
1700
Number of Native Americans
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
984
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
229
200
100
10
26
24
36
1900
1910
1920
1930
16
30
1940
1950
57
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
38
Ad
di
so
n
Be
C
nn
ou
in
nt
gt
y
on
C
C
al
ou
ed
nt
on
y
ia
C
C
hi
ou
tte
nt
nd
y
en
C
o
un
Es
ty
se
x
C
o
Fr
un
an
ty
kl
in
G
C
ra
ou
nd
nt
y
Is
le
C
La
ou
m
nt
oi
y
ll e
C
ou
O
ra
nt
ng
y
e
C
ou
O
rl e
nt
y
an
s
C
o
R
un
ut
ty
la
n
W
d
as
C
ou
hi
ng
nt
y
to
n
C
W
o
in
un
dh
ty
am
C
W
ou
in
nt
ds
y
or
C
ou
nt
y
Number of Native Americans
100
93
200
74
hi
tt
ni
a
de
n
do
en
al
e
to
n
on
C
ou
nt
y
nt
y
ou
ou
C
C
Es
nt
y
Co
u
nt
se
y
Fr x C
ou
an
nt
kli
G
y
n
ra
C
nd
ou
nt
Is
La l e C y
m
ou
oi
nt
lle
y
C
O
ou
ra
nt
ng
y
e
O
C
rle
ou
an
nt
y
s
C
R
ou
ut
la
W
nd nty
as
Co
hi
ng
t o unt
y
W
n
Co
in
dh
u
nt
am
y
W
C
in
o
u
ds
nt
or
y
C
ou
nt
y
C
C
ng
di
s
nn
i
Ad
Be
Number of Native Americans
Number of Native Americans Living in Vermont in 1900 By
County
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Series1
County Name
Number of Native Americans Living
in Vermont in 2000 by County
800
700
684
600
500
400
403
300
163
172
104
41
60
76
144
175
97
134
0
County Nam e
39
Native Americans Residing in the Three Vermont Counties That
Are Historically Recognized As Having Been the Homelands of
the Abenaki Indians
750
684
700
650
584
Number of Native Americans
600
550
1900
500
1910
450
1920
422
403
1930
400
1960
350
1970
286
300
1980
1990
250
2000
200
156
150
100
50
60
46
0 9 4 6 9
0 5 0 3 1 9
0 0 0 0 0 1
25 23
0
Chittenden County
Franklin County
Grand Isle County
County Name
40