*No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
13th Amendment — Missing
Written by David M. Dodge, Researcher ~ Date: 08/01/91
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 (1991), 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 the U.S. 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Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law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.
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. The U.S. modern world of
Lady Di and Prince Charles, make 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, Sections 9 and 10 of the
Constitution of the United States (1787);
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.
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 principal source of radical
democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The
monarchies must have realized that if the principal 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 sought 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.
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 from them, or 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 the U.S. banking system caused the depression of
the 1930’s. Today’s abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank
scandals illustrate the ongoing 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, U.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 the U.S. Federal
government’s unbridled growth.)
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 the U.S. 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 U.S. country,
and went far to destroy the morality of U.S. people.”
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 (1715-1820, 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 uproar 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 U.S.
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 U.S. 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) won out 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, the U.S. 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 was 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.
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).
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 principal 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 to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public
office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
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 U.S. judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.
As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation the
U.S. government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for
“special privileges” (honors).
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), US judges and I.R.S. agents would
be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If
this 13th Amendment were restored, the entire U.S. 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, U.S. Government’s ability to
systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.
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 U.S. 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 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 the
US 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.
PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND
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 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.
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. Maine 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 U.S. 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.
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 it 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 noted 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 John Quincy 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,
signaling 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 the US 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”.
SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
To
create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now
endures, 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 they could 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 two-tiered 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 the current US government system.
At
the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two
centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and
nation. Some things never change.
THOSE
WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY …. Heed warnings of Founding Fathers … In his
farewell address, George Washington warned of “… change by usurpation;
for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is
the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” In 1788,
Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar
to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce
against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of
the
habeas corpus.”
No
doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as
redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed the U.S.
legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one
of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?
Yet,
the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in the U.S. courts, and
habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, is suspended. (By crimes
against the state, I refer to “political crimes” where there is no
injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)
The
authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court
Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800’s. Judges (and
lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the
People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was
grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the
bar associations. Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates
that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states (“… and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”),
the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon
the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in
the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in
“Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, 1784:
“Our
rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing
every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are
honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall
be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment
to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their
rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty
of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due
respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be
knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will
be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a
convulsion.”
We
await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we
fight to revive our rights? Or, Will we meekly submit as our last
remaining rights expire, surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a
“new world order”?
MORE EDITIONS FOUND
As
we go to press, I’ve received information from a researcher in Indiana,
and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes
that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment. These
editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that
voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the
Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.
These finds are important because:
They
offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and They extend the
known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge’s
most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.
The
most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which
includes both the “missing” 13th Amendment and the current 13th
Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th
Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.
This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started with
the questions about how the U.S. courts evolved from a temple of the
Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation
had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger’s warning that we
were “about to lose our Constitution”. My seven year investigation has
been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the missing 13th
Amendment is only a “drop in the bucket” of the information I have
discovered. Still, the research continues, and by definition, is never
truly complete.
ARGUMENTS
Imagine
a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in
government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting
“honors” (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to individuals,
groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only
write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally. It’s
never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the
Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the
Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and
political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge
and
Tom
Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained
the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on
the Constitution:
“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.”
This
Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in
government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special
interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not
even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality
in this nation that most people can’t even imagine. Since 1983,
researchers have uncovered evidence that:
The
13th Amendment prohibiting “titles of nobility” and “honors” appeared
in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which
were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867;
and This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the
end of the Civil War.
Either
this Amendment was: Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50
years; or Ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the
Constitution by 1867.
If
this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the story
has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so,
it’s at least a good story — an extraordinary historical anecdote.
On
the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified,
an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so, this
“missing” Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one
of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the answer,
it’s certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution
between 1819 and 1867.
PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)
Of
course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the principal
researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819 and
then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. U.S.
Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane Hartgrove (Acting
Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the National Archives) have
argued that the Amendment was never properly ratified and only published
in error. There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was
proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the proposed
Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be
ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states
voted to support ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia
ratified or rejected the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia
voted to support the Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly
ratified and should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not
ratify. Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia’s legislative
journals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War;
possibly during the 1930’s). Consequently, neither side has found
absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against)
ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge,
Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of
disagreement. After Dodge’s initial report of a “missing” Amendment in
the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was
a one-time publishing error: “The Maine Legislature mistakenly printed
the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted.
As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratified.”
Further,
“All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic]
exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this error.”
Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date) of state
and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and
thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a “one-time”
publishing error.
YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION
After
examining Dodge’s evidence of multiple publications of the “missing”
Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had
been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the
seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution
requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment.
Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was published
in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States.
Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time
the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had
rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether
one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.
After
several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a
crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the
1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the “missing” 13th Amendment.
Dodge notes that, curiously, “There is no public record that shows this
book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a
holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union
Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland
were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their
computer programs.”
Dodge
sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and
Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, “Under legislative construction, it
is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the
official acts of the legislature are the official acts.” By publishing
the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia
demonstrated that they:
Knew
they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th
Amendment; Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and Were publishing the
Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice
to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.
Dodge
concluded, “Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must
be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially
amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed
a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this
category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers.”
RATIONALES (for Ratification)
Undeterred,
Sen. Mitchell wrote that, “Article XIII did not receive the
three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be
ratified.” (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to
concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the “time
limit”, the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.)
Dodge replies: “Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit
for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by
Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments.”
In
fact, ratification time limits didn’t start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of
the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, “This Article shall be
inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from
the date of submission … to the States by Congress.” A similar time
limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no
specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810 or
ratified in 1819. Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some
rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge’s persistence. Although
Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his “published by error” and
“time limit” arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons
to dispute the ratification: “… regardless of whether the state of
Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment… on March 12,
1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the
Constitution.
In
1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any
amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the
Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only
been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment.” Dodge
replies: “Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent
on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of
the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states
for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some
future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in
the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment,
it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took
an
active part in the Amendment process.”
Dodge
demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, “President Monroe had
his Secretary of State… [ask the] governors of Virginia, South
Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the
amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana,
Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between
1810 and 1818 were not even considered.”
From
a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be
included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that this
perspective is based on life in a stable nation that’s added only five
new states in this century — about one every eighteen years. However,
between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama
unfolded), they added eight states — almost one new state every two
years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national
attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with
the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new
states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The
government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth
potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each
on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation’s growth.
For
example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment
was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether
the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the
territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government,
officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the
territory’s entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to
the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory’s
statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new
states into the nation, or restrict the nation’s ability to pass new
Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever
the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only
Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on
ratifying the 13th Amendment — they did not ask for the decisions of the
four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House
who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it’s apparent that even
the new states agreed that they should not be included in the
ratification process.
In
1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of
State, the four “new” states, and the seventeen “old” states, all
clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required
to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia’s vote to ratify
was legally sufficient to ratify the “missing’ Amendment in 1819 (and
would still be so today).
INSULT TO INJURY
Apparently
persuaded by Dodge’s various arguments and proofs that the “missing”
13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for
ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia
had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy’s procedural
requirements for ratification:
“Under
current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is
empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of
state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional
amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America
as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by
the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a
certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become
the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
This
is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that
the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the
Constitution’s ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then
insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the
Secretary of State was not properly notified with a “certificate of
ratification”. In other words, the government’s last, best argument that
the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this:
Though
the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it
is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single,
official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies
that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union
voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people
of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a
single “certificate of ratification”. This “certificate” may be missing
because either:
Virginia
failed to file a proper notice; or The notice was “lost in the mail”;
or The notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally
destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. This final excuse
insults every American’s political rights, but Mr.
Hartgrove
nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives
“received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility
amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress
and await further developments.” In other words, the issue of whether
this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity
— the ratification issue is still alive.
But
most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument
against the 13th Amendment’s ratification is a procedural error
involving the absence of a “certificate of ratification”.
Dodge
countered Hartgrove’s procedure argument by citing some of the
ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th
Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal
of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a
“letter” (not a “certificate of ratification”) from the Governor of
Ohio announcing Ohio’s ratification was submitted not to the Secretary
of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it “was read
and ordered to lie on the table.” Likewise, “The Kentucky ratification
was also returned to the House, while Maryland’s earlier ratification is
not listed as having been
returned to Congress.”
The
House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to
notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there
was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a “certificate of
ratification” with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to
the contrary, it appears that the “missing” Amendment was
Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some
possible procedural error.
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.
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.
This
raises a fantastic possibility. If there’s insufficient evidence that
Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not.
Therefore, 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.
Was it ratified? There is a lot of evidence that it was. Could all of the following publications have been in error?
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:
Colorado1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
[?] Dakota1862, 1863, 1867
Florida1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky1822
Louisiana1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine1825, 1831
Massachusetts1823
Michigan1827, 1833
Mississippi1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories1833
Ohio1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island1822
Virginia1819
Wyoming1869, 1876
Totals:24
States in 78 separate official government publications.Note:
“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.
ADDITIONAL 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]
“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 stops 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.
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 will, please check your state’s archives and libraries to review
any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any
books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate
anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so
we may properly fulfill this effort of research.
If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact:
David Dodge
POB 985
Taos, New Mexico, 87571
This
version of this research text by David Dodge was edited for clarity,
and hand-coded in HTML on July 4, A.D. 2002, by The Lawful Path,
http://www.lawfulpath.com/, and was adapted from a prior version placed
on the web by Barefoot Bob, May 5, 1996.
Source: http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/10/the-missing-13th-amendment-no-lawyers-allowed-in-public-office/#more-18986
