  Message-Id: <9311091736.AA19604@alfalfa.cs.utexas.edu> 
  From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) 
  Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 11:36:00 -0600 To: act@bolis.sf-bay.org
  Subject: ACT: Best of net dump...  Subject: Missing 13th Amendment
  Date: 6 Nov 1993 21:30:33 -0600 
  Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Lines: 1241 Sender:
  daemon@cs.utexas.edu 
  Message-ID: <9311070330.AA20385@nyx10.cs.du.edu> NNTP-
  Posting-Host:
  cs.utexas.edu 
  
  [Note: Please direct any comments to this post via email as I
  cannot read this newsgroup at this time... Address below]  
  
  Dear All:      
  
  Here is an interesting legal issue for you all to ponder. According to this 
  and many other sources, there was a 13thAmendment to the Constitution 
  *for* the (u)nited States of America that was removed during the time 
  before the Civil War. This Amendment had a *very* specific intention 
  which is explained in the below text.    
  
  Since the original writing/publishing of this report, several researchers, 
  including myself, have found more evidence that conclusively proves that 
  such an Amendment did in fact exist and was either ratified or was about 
  to be (this is still unclear, but evidence suggests that it *was* ratified).  
  
  I have *in my possession* proof of its existence. We examined the 
  "records" of many states and found several copies of this same 
  information. The copies of the Amendment that I have are from many 
  different places and many different government sources.  Astoundingly, 
  this information is *still* in the various records as the papers that I have 
  are mere photocopies of the documents containing the Amendment 
  obtained from various public libraries.
  
  More research is being conducted and I will be happy to snail-mail these 
  copies to anyone interested.      
  
  From Virginia:           
  
  The Revised Code of the LAWS OF VIRGINIA          
  A COLLECTION OF ALL SUCH ACTS of the GENERAL 
  ASSEMBLY ...
            
  March 18, 1819      Also, a similar document from Colorado, from the 
  Congressional Record, a copy of the Amendments to the Constitution, a 
  copy of "This volume of the Laws of Colorado Territory, and a similar 
  Amendment to the Virginia Constitution.
       
  Without further ado, here is "The Missing 13th Amendment". 
  +---------------------------------------------------------+ | With Explicit 
  Reservation of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207), | | Regards, -A.J. Teel-, Sui 
  Juris (ateel@nyx.cs.du.edu). | | Call (303) 687-4935 anytime! Finger for 
  PGP PUBLIC KEY. | | Please use "ateel@nyx.cs.du.edu" NOT 
  ".@nyx10." Thanks. |
  +---------------------------------------------------------+   
  
  The Missing 13th Amendment 
  
  David M. Dodge, Researcher Date 08/01/91          
  The Missing 13th Amendment, Part I           
  "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"       
  
  In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former 
  Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of 
  government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on 
  the coast of Maine. 
  
  By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the 
  Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were 
  stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer 
  appears on current copies of the Constitution.  Moreover, after studying 
  the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the 
  principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit 
  lawyers from serving in government.  
  
  So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the 
  most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful 
  removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United 
  States.  Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies 
  of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at 
  least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories 
  over four decades from 1822 to 1860.        
  
  In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th 
  Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia 
  and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American 
  Constitution.  If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been 
  made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government 
  was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the 
  tumult of the Civil War.        
  
  Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law 
  today.  The implications are enormous.        
  
  The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times 
  confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American 
  Revolution were different from our own.  However, there are essentially 
  two issues:  What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment 
  ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first 
  understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.  
  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." [Emphasis added.}        
          
  At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the 
  "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The 
  references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us 
  to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed 
  against the British monarchy.  But in our modern world of Lady Di and 
  Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that 
  the Amendment can be ignored.        
  
  Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:  First, 
  "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of 
  Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the 
  United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the 
  Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed 
  in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.   
  Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of 
  nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their 
  citizenship.  Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several 
  times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even 
  though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), 
  it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our 
  founding fathers than is readily apparent today.  
  
  
  HISTORICAL CONTEXT        
  To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must  
  understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American 
  Revolution.        
  
  We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and 
  politically unremarkable.  But at the time of the American Revolution, 
  King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as 
  an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical 
  as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations.  Just as 
  the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions 
  around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and 
  incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European 
  monarchies.        
  
  Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, 
  the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies.  The United 
  States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them 
  to also struggle against oppressive monarchies.  The French Revolution 
  (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part 
  encouraged by the American Revolution.  Though we stood like a beacon 
  of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States 
  as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy 
  that was destroying monarchies around the world.  The monarchies must 
  have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be 
  destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the 
  monarchies would be saved.        
  
  Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert the 
  American system of government.  Knowing they couldn't destroy us 
  militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, 
  employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -
  - it was, perhaps, the first "cold war".  Since governments run on money, 
  politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit 
  treason, much of the monarchy's counter-revolutionary efforts emanated 
  from English banks.  DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)        
  The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a 
  former president of the Bank of England: 
        
             "The modern banking system manufactures money out of
             nothing.  The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of
            sleight of hand that was ever invented.  Banking was conceived
            in inequity and born in sin...  Bankers own the earth.  Take
            it away from them but leave them the power to create money,
            and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to
            buy it back again...  Take this great power away form them and
            all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this
            would be a better and happier world to live in...  But, if you
            want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost
            of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money
            and control credit."  
  
  The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 
  1930's.  Today's abuses may cause another.  Current S&L and bank 
  scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, 
  politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank 
  scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the 
  Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA).  These scandals are the 
  direct result of years of law breaking by an alliance of bankers and 
  lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process 
  and rob the public.  (Think you're not being robbed?  Guess who's going 
  to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)        
  
  The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers 
  and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon.  This abuse is a human tradition 
  that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early 
  colonial prohibitions.       
  
   When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, 
  there were only three state banks in existence.  At one time, banks were 
  prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were 
  all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. 
  
  Goldsmith banks were safe houses used to store client's gold.  In 
  exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper 
  money) which were redeemable in gold.  The goldsmith bankers quickly 
  succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold).  
  Why?  Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them 
  to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did 
  not even exist.        
  
  Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper 
  money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank".  
  If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper 
  money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper 
  were ruined.  Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the 
  bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the 
  expense of the productive members of society.  (The practice continues 
  to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even 
  provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal 
  government's unbridled growth.)  
  
  
  PAPER MONEY        
  If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American 
  Revolution refreshed their memories.  To finance the war, Congress 
  authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to 
  exceed $200,000,000.  The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper 
  notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were 
  soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.      
  
  It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper 
  economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a 
  tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to 
  the disadvantage of all others.  But only in a "paper" economy can money 
  reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of 
  the productive.        
  
  "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, 
  turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our 
  public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had 
  confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our 
  country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."  
  
  
  CONSPIRACIES        
  A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost
  succeeded in destroying the United States:        
  
  According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the 
  1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling 
  to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution.  The 
  Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be 
  published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the 
  exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the Congress that it 
  passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could 
  prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the 
  government.        
  
  Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree 
  to pay reparations to the loser?  And why would they agree to pay 
  600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended?  It doesn't 
  make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury over 
  being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve 
  the British monarchy and betray the American people.  That's subversion.      
  The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the 
  beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) 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, our government owned no stock in the United States 
  Bank.)       
  
  The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative 
  government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed 
  in 1811, when the people discovered that european banking interests 
  owned 80% of the bank.  Congress therefore refused to renew the bank's 
  charter.  This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european 
  investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the 
  War of 1812.        
  
  That's destruction.   
  
  There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to 
  subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, 
  others remain to be disclosed to the public.   For example, David Dodge 
  discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law 
  Library.  According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare 
  book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional 
  government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers.  That is one 
  of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the 
  notification ~lost in the mail.'  There is no public record that this book 
  exists."        
  
  That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the 
  Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 
  million un-catalogued rare manuscripts."  There may be secrets buried in 
  that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing 
  Constitutional Amendment.                     
  
  
  
  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 principle purposes were political, not economic, and 
  regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for 
  members of the KGB or the CIA.        
  
  Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International 
  Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from 
  operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a 
  penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy 
  continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty 
  and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" 
  amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 
  1789, and again in 1810.  The meaning of the amendment is seen in its 
  intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign 
  governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using 
  their skills to subvert the government.  
  
  
  HONOR        
  The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" 
  Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may 
  be more significant.        
  
  According to David Dodge,  Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the 
  archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was 
  ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege 
  over another".  A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a 
  few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:  Lawyers can be judges 
  and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.        
  
  By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any 
  advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal 
  opportunity to achieve or exercise political power.  Therefore, the second 
  meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality 
  among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government 
  officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an 
  "honor") over other citizens.        
  
  If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 
  13th Amendment.  Why?  Because, while "titles of nobility" may no 
  longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains 
  relevant.        
  
  For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which 
  were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, 
  an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public 
  office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, 
  politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.  As another example, think 
  of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes:  "special 
  interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).  
  
  
  WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)        
  If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and 
  "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional.  The prohibition 
  against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to 
  operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation.  Without their 
  current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents 
  would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. 
  If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have 
  to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, 
  law, and liability as the rest of the nation.  If this Amendment and the 
  term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to 
  systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.       
  Imagine.        Imagine!        
  
  A government without special privileges or immunities.  How could we 
  describe it?  It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people 
  ... by the people ... for the people!        
  
  Imagine:  a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the 
  public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own 
  people!        
  
  It's unheard of ... it's never been done before.  Not ever in the entire 
  history of the world.   
  
  Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National 
  Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 
  1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when 
  Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification 
  required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states 
  supported the Amendment, it was not ratified.  The Government Printing 
  Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United
  States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but 
  un-ratified.        
  
  Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and 
  Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an 
  extraordinary story.        
  
  Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a 
  political paradise, right here on Earth?  Do you realize what an 
  extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us?  And how close we 
  came?        
  
  One vote. One state's vote.        
  
  The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this 
  Amendment between 1810 and 1812.  But they argue that ratification 
  require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, 
  unratified for lack of a just one more state's support.        
  
  One vote.        
  
  David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he 
  has the evidence to prove it.  
  
  
  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 ofthe United States shall Accept, claim, 
  	receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, 
  	without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any 
  	present, pension, office or emolument of any kind 
  	whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign 
  	power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the 
  	United States, and shall be incapable of holding any 
  	office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."       
  
  The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed 
  amendment before it may be added to the Constitution.  When Congress 
  proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were 
  seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the 
  Amendment to be adopted.  According to the National Archives, the 
  following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of 
  ratification:        
  
          Maryland,       Dec. 25, 1810       Vermont,          Oct. 24, 1811
          Kentucky,       Jan. 31, 1811        Tennessee,       Nov. 21, 1811
          Ohio,              Jan. 31, 1811        Georgia,            Dec. 13, 1
          Delaware,       Feb.  2, 1811        North Carolina,  Dec.23, 1811
          Pennsylvania,  Feb.  6, 1811        Massachusetts,  Feb. 27, 1812
          New Jersey,   Feb. 13, 1811       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.  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.  
  
  
  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".  
  
  
  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 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.  I
  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.        
  
  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 our 
  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 our courts, and 
  habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, 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:  1) they offer independent 
  confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) 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 our 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.  
  
  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.  Please send your comments or 
  discoveries to:  
  
  
  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. {Emphasis added]  
  
  As outlined in the August AntiShyster, 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:        
  1) 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 2) This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution 
  near the end of the Civil War.        
  
  Either this Amendment:        
  1) Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or 2) 
  Was 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 Main 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."
  
  *1*        
  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:  1) that they knew they were the last state whose vote was 
  necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; 2) that they had voted to ratify 
  the Amendment; and 3) that they 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 som
  future point in time.  Since only the existingstates 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 our 
  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 1) Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or 2) the 
  notice was "lost in the mail; or 3) 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 live.
  
  *2*        
  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 return 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.  
  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)    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.  
