Git-Mirrors/textfiles-politics
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git synced 2024-12-30 09:46:18 -05:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
9acc589f06
textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/13th.txt
HadleighJae 06c603c7c0 adding political text files folder
2023-02-20 12:59:23 -05:00

1203 lines
66 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

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.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink