-Caveat Lector-
http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
___________________________________________________________________
The Missing 13th Amendment
Part 1 of 2
___________________________________________________________________
[01] - "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and
former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for
evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the
Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered
the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the
United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see
this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on
current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the
Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the
principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit
lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding
the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the
unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of
the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered
additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th
Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by
ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822
to 1860.
In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this
missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the
state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the
American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical
errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from
serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our
Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the
Law today. The implications are enormous.
The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times
confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the
American Revolution were different from our own. However, there
are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and,
Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of
ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning
and consequent current relevance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reformatted and Reprinted here for all Americans, to ponder, and
realize the predicument we are all in. If nothing is done soon,
we will all be in worse shape than most realize. (if we aren't
already!)
[ 1] TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
[ 2] MEANING of the 13th Amendment
[ 3] HISTORICAL CONTEXT
[ 4] DON'T BANK ON IT
[ 5] PAPER MONEY
[ 6] CONSPIRACIES
[ 7] TITLES OF NOBILITY
[ 8] INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
[ 9] HONOR
[10] WHAT IF?
[11] PARADISE LOST
[12] RATIFICATION FOUND
[13] THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS
[14] SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
[15] TO THE ARCHIVES!
[16] Article XIII
[17] SUMMARY
[18] STATE PUBLICATIONS
[19] PUBLICATIONS
[20] DEFINITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[02] - MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen
of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office
of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment
(also called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment) seems obscure,
unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor",
"king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty
post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy.
But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles,
anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that
the Amendment can be ignored.
Not so.
Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First,
"titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the
Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already
prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility"
amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to
Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw
such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that
anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the
government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four
decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles
of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our
founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[03] - HISTORICAL CONTEXT
To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must
understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the
American Revolution.
We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless,
and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit
as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern
Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia
spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution
provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to
overthrow their European monarchies.
Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in
1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies.
The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations,
that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies.
The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising
(1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though
we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the
monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary,
the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying
monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized
that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed,
the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies
would be saved.
Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert
the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy
us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political
subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery
and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war".
Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and
money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the
monarchy's counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English
banks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[04] - DON'T BANK ON IT
(Modern Banking System)
The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp,
a former president of the Bank of England:
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born
in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave
them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they
will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great
power away form them and all great fortunes like mine will
disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to
live in... But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of
bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers
continue to create money and control credit." The last great abuse
of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's
abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate
the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians,
and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal,
involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the
Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals
are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of
bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the
political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being
robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of
the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)
The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic
bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a
human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to
America despite early colonial prohibitions.
When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in
1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time,
banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the
early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the
European goldsmith banks.
Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold.
In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes
(paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers
quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes,
(unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the
bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that
they did not own, gold that did not even exist.
Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper
money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the
bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand,
the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding
the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were
sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to
increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members
of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers
"sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the
foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's
unbridled growth.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[05] - PAPER MONEY
If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the
American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war,
Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in
an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another
$200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper
money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from
5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.
It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against
a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the
wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only
in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the
claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.
"Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our
laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice
of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands
who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and
manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality
of our people."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[06] - CONSPIRACIES
A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that
almost succeeded in destroying the United States:
According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in
the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American
revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and
ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's
grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public
up-roar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and
Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors
and publishers for reporting the truth about the government.
Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators
agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree
to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended?
It doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and
later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had
been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American
people. That's subversion.
The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from
the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) wonout
in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000
-- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank
was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in
capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the
bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000
that didn't exist.
However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796,
the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its
shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United
States Bank.)
The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence
representative government by economic manipulation and outright
bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that
european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress
therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the
withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which
in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.
That's destruction.
There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to
subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David
Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of
Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an
un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan
to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements
engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this
amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification ~lost in
the mail.' There is no public record that this book exists."
That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91),
"the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and
13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets
buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[07] - TITLES OF NOBILITY
In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers
committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud,
conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their
crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does.
They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges
money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later
into the newly formed United States of America.
Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated
wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of
organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired
as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so
did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these
thieves by granting them "titles of nobility".
Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as
"Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires".
As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more
civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more
profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens
(bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most
common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[08] - INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no
"title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not
restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar
associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was
the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of
England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the
international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received
the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility".
"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th
Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because
the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers
with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy,
members of an organization whose principle purposes were political,
not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people
today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the
International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted
titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the
Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition
was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate
and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank
charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment
that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in
1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen
in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and
loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding
public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[09] - HONOR
The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility"
Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor),
may be more significant.
According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the
archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment
was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or
privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor"
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:
Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and
powers; non-lawyers cannot.
By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any
advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal
opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore,
the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure
political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting
anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a
special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept
in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility"
may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of
"honor" remains relevant.
For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits
which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a
separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his
right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities"
from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and
bureaucrats currently enjoy.
As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation
our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms
for "special privileges" (honors).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[10] - WHAT IF?
(Implications if Restored)
If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests"
and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The
prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire
government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this
nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our
judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens
without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were
restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself
according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and
liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the
term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to
systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but
eliminated.
Imagine.
Imagine!
A government without special privileges or immunities. How could
we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ...
of the people ... by the people ... for the people!
Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to
the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its
own people!
It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the
entire history of the world.
Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National
Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in
1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states
when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that
ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since
only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified.
The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies
of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title
of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.
Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and
Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would
still be an extraordinary story.
Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a
political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an
extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how
close we came?
One vote. One state's vote.
The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify
this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that
ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays
stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more
state's support.
One vote.
David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims
he has the evidence to prove it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[11] - PARADISE LOST
In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible
Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become
our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate
reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator
Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit
and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of
Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't
passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment
was proposed.
Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another
"Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of
the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to
pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved
in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to
the States for ratification:
"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office
or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince
or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the
United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
trust or profit under them, or either of them."
The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify
a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution.
When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810,
there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify
for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National
Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that
ratified, and their dates of ratification:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out
with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had
burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the
records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a
connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and
the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the
proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.
Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the
status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818,
President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been
ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode
Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their
legislature's position. (House Document No. 76)
(This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary
of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the
proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these
letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of
additional information they would be interpreted to mean the
amendment was never ratified).
On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the
rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129].
There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th
Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified
is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the
executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal
any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However,
there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor
presented the House with an official letter and documents from
Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt
of Adams' letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of
denial.
However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act
No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for
micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there
shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in
which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the
Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by
law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of
the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already
agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day --
the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted.
Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification
would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code:
March 12, 1819.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
