-Caveat Lector-
http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-12.html
___________________________________________________________________
The Missing 13th Amendment
Part 2 of 2
___________________________________________________________________
[12] - RATIFICATION FOUND
The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that
were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this
ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that
it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered,
almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to
send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison
and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded.
He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his
printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)
In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by
publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of
the Constitution.
There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified
the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment.
Some have argued that because such notification was not received
(or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not
legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima
facie evidence of ratification.
Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary
of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the
ratification process. The Constitution only requires that
three-fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added
to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify,
the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise
silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm,
or communicate the ratification of amendments.
Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment,
the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's
ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition
of the Constitution, and so they did.
Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States
and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in
1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Main ordered 10,000 copies of
the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in
the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition.
Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20.
Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in
1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa
Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855;
and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.
So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or
territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate
publications over forty-one years. And more editions including
this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is
onto something.
You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all
of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never
ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which
ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far)
consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments
from their ... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince
the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public
servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special
favors to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's
an awful lot of evidence to be explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[13] - THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS
In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the
New York Revised Statutes:
"In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there
is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from
accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c.
from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the
United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a
resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this
amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had
not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st
session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note
appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of
the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).
It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in
Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in
anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to
discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States
had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1
(carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown.
In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually
printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record
of its existence.
However, because the notes authors reported no further references
to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February,
1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in
failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on
the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore
missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion --
assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the
last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day.
In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia
(which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at
that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton)
wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if
this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston
wrote to J.M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that
this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States.
This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of
State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818,
before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the
Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this
13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not
the requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton's
opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states
and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known
publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).
Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of
American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in
December of 1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War.
In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen,
was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed
amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to
amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the
Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power
to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic
institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or
service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President
Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and
upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this
proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally
removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th
Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states'
rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended
with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who,
in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed
slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the
"new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly
surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified,
replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that
had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[14] - SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now
endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of
nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check.
In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the
disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar
associations began to appear and exercise political power.
Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly
developing bar associations began working diligently to create a
system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility
as "Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions
(like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold.
By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers
have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority
of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly
established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a
majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for
political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary
to Americans' political interests, the nation's economic welfare,
and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit.
The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion
from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never
lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the
Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing
Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing
laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were
unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of
power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current
government system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[15] - QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!
Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against
ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of
the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the
conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's
such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th
Amendment: 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. The evidence of ratification
seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of
un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some
luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.
We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the
eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr.
Hartgrove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a
duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to
concede it's a duck.
Maybe so.
But if we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not.
If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence
against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of
the government's refusal to acknowledge the proof.
We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the
schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the
"missing" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer
and taunt us with cries of "make us".
Perhaps we shall.
The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer
lies buried in the archives.
If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in
the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution
printed between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the
"missing" 13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985,
Taos, New Mexico, 87571.
1) It's worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher,
uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the
Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment.
Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive,
their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the
Colorado archivists.
2) If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in
1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a
fantastic possibility. Since there was no time limit specified
when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly
believed only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in the
ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could
theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary
certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the
Constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] - Article XIII
A few months back there was quite a lot of traffic concerning the
"lost" 13th amendment. It has recently been mentioned again, so
this may be a good time to bring this up. I was able to contact
the researchers, David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March and get a
copy of the latest report on this topic. Many of you are very
familiar with this story, but there is relatively new information
concerning the records that exist which substantiate the validity
of the claim that the "Titles of Nobility" was actually ratified.
It is necessary to go through the report carefully, but it seems
certain from the documents that have been found at the National
Archives and elsewhere that TON was legally ratified. For those
who are new to this I will re-hash the old news and weave in the
new as I go along.
In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn,
while looking for evidence of political corruption in a library
in Belfast Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine
Civil Code. In this document, as I believe is customary, the
Constitution of the U.S. was printed. They noticed that Article
Thirteen of the amendments was not the same Article Thirteen which
is now enumerated in the Constitution. This Article Thirteen,
which is known as the "Titles of Nobility" amendment, (TON) reads
as follows:
Article XIII
------------
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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 post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a
written communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as
I recall, someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in
Washington DC. It appears that the original position of Mitchell
and Hargrave was that this was simply a printing error and that it
had been immediately corrected upon discovery. This does not
appear to be the case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last
count, 24 different state legislatures which printed this amendment
as Article Thirteen, in 77 separate editions of their respective
Civil Codes. This occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876.
It has also been found in school text books and other publications
from that period. At first I was very skeptical, but now I have
seen 2nd generation photo copies of all of these documents. Almost
every document carries a stamp from the library where it was found.
In some cases where the document was hand written I have only seen
a typed version, but after speaking with the researchers at length,
I am sure that these typed reproductions are faithful. In total,
they present compelling evidence that the original Article Thirteen
was wrongfully removed from the Constitution.
Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the
National Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between
Dodge and Mitchell). One such position was that the article in
question had been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in
1810 and subsequently ratified by only 12 states before the close
of 1812. As there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment
was proposed it required that 13 states ratify, and this did not
happen. Dodge and Dunn continued their research. They found a
circular letter, dated 7, Jan. 1818, commissioned by the House of
Representatives for President James Monroe and written by then
Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3
states, of the original 17, that had not yet responded, as to their
disposition on the proposed Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one
of those states. Dodge and Dunn now went to the Library of
Congress and were allowed access to the rare book room. There
they found an un-cataloged book entitled "The Revised Code of the
Laws of Virginia", 1819. The amendment was there, listed as the
Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution. This, of course,
indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the amendment,
constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at the time
the amendment was proposed... and now, the Senator's position
changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that since
there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818 or
1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law.
They contended that it would have then required 16 votes to ratify,
not 13.
This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and
the National Archives, although the Archives legal department has
not yet formally responded to the question. The Constitution is
**silent** on what is to be done concerning the addition of new
states during the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new
states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator
Mitchell and the archivists, claim should have been considered in
this process, all, **without exception**, carried the "Titles of
Nobility" amendment on their U.S. Constitutions for at least
several years after 1818 or 1819. It would appear that those
state's own legislatures considered this to be the law of the land.
There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not
included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a
thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added
during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate
that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on
the amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said
earlier, all four states have been shown to have published the
TON amendment. The letters from those state archives are among
the documents not included in the report. I have seen copies of
all the documents. These guys have done some tremendous research
and documented everything very well.
Another "report to the President" of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the
four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically
the states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN,
THE NEW STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not
available when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include
some of the new material I feel certain that he will.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[17] - SUMMARY
To summarize:
The current position of those in the government is that there may
have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the amendment. However,
at the time that such ratification took place, new states had
entered the union. The required 3/4 majority was not met as
determined by the addition of the new states.
Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation that
supports the claim that at that time the new states were not
considered in the process of ratification.
The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818
The report to the president of feb. 3 1818
Published civil codes of the four new states which clearly show
that those states considered the amendment law even though they
had not been asked to vote on it.
Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of
new states entering the Union during the ratification process.
Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of
time limits on the ratification process itself. Today, time limits
on an amendments ratification must be stipulated at the time of the
acceptance of the proposal. This was not done in the case of TON,
so there was/is no time limit in effect.
I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from the
Constitution other than congressional repeal, which requires the
passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone know of another way
with precedent?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[18] - STATE PUBLICATIONS:
The following states and/or territories have published the Titles
of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified
amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
State
Publications
Colorado
1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut
1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota
1862, 1863, 1867
Florida
1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia
1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois
1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana
1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa
1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas
1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky
1822
Louisiana
1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine
1825, 1831
Massachusetts
1823
Michigan
1827, 1833
Mississippi
1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri
1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845(*)
Nebraska
1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina
1819, 1828
Northwestern
Territories
1833
Ohio
1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania
1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island
1822
Virginia
1819
Wyoming
1869, 1876
Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications.
"Pimsleur's", a checklist of legal publications, does not list many
of the above volumes.
(*) This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published
the "Titles of Nobility" amendment, the second was published right
after Congress set the requirements for Missouri's admission as a
State. The "Titles of Nobility" amendment was replaced with a
notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[19] - PUBLICATIONS:
"The History of the World", Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York,
1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished by Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856,
vol. 2, p.462.
"The Rights of an American Citizen", Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at
Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.
"Laws of the United States of America", Bioren and Duane,
Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See: Note below]
"The American Politician", M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.
"Constitution of the United States", C.A. Cummings, Lynn,
Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.
"Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence",
Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.
"Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for
the use of Common Schools", John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of
Philadelphia High School and Professor of Moral Mental and
Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia, 1850, p.100.
"Potter's Justice", H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh,
North Carolina, 1828, p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does
not have "Titles of Nobility"].
Note: The "Laws of the United States" was published by John Duane.
Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia's plan to ratify this
amendment which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of
banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys.
Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in
turn to many a personal bankruptcy, including that of Thomas
Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always been with
the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate
monopoly. [** See: "Acts of Virginia", Feb. 20, 1812, p.143]
The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave
the following description of a title of nobility:
To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of
persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest
of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection
to it rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than
to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are
forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and
"emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of
nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any consideration
paid or rendered for the grant.
"Bouvier's Law Dictionary", 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the
due process amendments as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on
p.571.
The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent
domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal
euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given
sanction by the targets of this amendment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[20] - REFERENCES
Titles of Nobility - DEFINITIONS
From: Noah Webster 1828
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1848
Black's Law Dictionary 1891
Note: Because they are so similar, the definitions have been
consolidated.
"Emolument": - A gain of profit or advantage.
"Foreign Power": - "Power" - a sovereign state; a controlling
group; possession or control; authority or influence, political
or otherwise.
"Honour": - One having dominion, advantage or privilege over
another.
"Nobility": - Exalted rank - high social position.
"Title of Nobility": - An order of men, in several countries,
to whom special privileges are granted,
"privileges": - To grant some particular right or exemption.
From a court case, in Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 123, 142 (1872),
which gave the following description of "Titles of Nobility":
"to confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of
persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the
rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the
objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be
attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order. These
components are forbidden separately in the terms "privilege",
"honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term
"title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any
consideration paid or rendered for the grant."
-[ This is NOT the END ]-
More information is being found, and we will present it when
available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 08/01/91 - David Dodge, Researcher; Alfred Adask, Editor
Copied without any permission whatsoever (I couldn't find them, and
this is TOO important!) http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
These pages were developed by J.R. Beaman - Web Master at - The
WWWeb Factory On-Line: July 4th, 1996 - (c) - All Rights Reserved
URLs: http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
Thru: http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-20.html
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
