Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution

A Special Thanks goes to Gus who has diligently researched this subject and his work is found at 

 

http://nhredress.wordpress.com/

 

Dec. 8, 2012 , Part 1 and 2

Dec. 7/8, 2012 , Part 1 and 2

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tc
usA call line audio Dec. 7, 2012 Pt. 1 http://download3.freeconferencepro.com/rec/1281993620-20121208023049-0_unnamed_20121208_023049.mp3
usA call line audio Dec. 7, 2012 Pt. 2

usA call line audio Dec. 7, 2012 Pt. 3. Open discussion http://download3.freeconferencepro.com/rec/1281993620-20121209010008-0_unnamed_20121209_010008.mp3

http://nhredress.wordpress.com/

 

 

Books in The Connecticut State Repository which contain the Missing 13th Amendment.

P1150186

Volume I of the “LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, “ARRANGED AND PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS”, “PUBLISHED BY JOHN BIOREN AND W. JOHN DUANE, PHILADELPHIA, AND R.C.WEIGHTMAN, WASHINGTON CITY. 1815

1815  NH Law 2  Bioren & Duane 13th Amendment

The_proposed_amendments_to_the_Constitut

1823 OHIO page 14 – Acts of a general nature enacted revised

13th amendment State of Missouri_ _ Certified

1823 OHIO page 14 – Acts of a general nature enacted revised

13th amendment State of Missouri_ _ Certified

Amendment 13th – Images

These pictures were taken at the Supreme Court Law Library in Concord New Hampshire.

Below is a close up of the SEAL found on the above title page.

NH Law - Bioren & Duane 4a_

1777 Articles of Confederation – Color-coded

Amendment 13th – Images

The following PDF’s are of the Certified Copies taken from books pictured above.

ConnecticutMassachusettsVirginiaOhioMissouriIowaKansas

http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html

Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Freedom of Speech, Religion and Press

Declaration of Independence – 1776
Articles of Confederation – 1777
The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Application
The Latest Findings of the TONA Research Committee
The Real Thirteenth Article of Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States –
Titles of Nobility and Honour


http://www.barefootsworld.net/sounds/saving_private_ryan.mid

Amendment Article XIII“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The Real Thirteenth Amendment, shown above, was ratified March 12, 1819 with the vote of the Virginia General Assembly to publish theRevised Code of the Laws of Virginia with this article of amendment included in the Constitution of the United States, and thus it became an integral part of the Constitution for the United States of America. This amendment added a heavy penalty, not included in the original exclusion of Titles of Nobility provided in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honour, or receiving any emolument, other than their legitimate earnings, under any guise from external sources, by making that person “cease to be a citizen of the United States” and “incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the them, or either of them.” This amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently “disappeared”, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted.

The original records of the real Thirteenth Amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum library in London and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until researchers accidentally discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine a copy of the 1825 Maine Constitution and that of the United States which included this amendment. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states, and subsequently admitted states and territories until 1876. The last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the “missing” Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition. Ref. colo68-1.jpgcolo68-2.jpgcolo68-3.jpgcolo68-4.jpg, and colo68-5.jpg.

The 1876 Laws of Wyoming similarly show the “missing” Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th and the current 15th Amendment is listed as the 15th, the current 14th amendment being omitted in the 1876 Wyoming edition. Graphics of these may be viewed by clicking on these links,wyo76-1.jpgwyo76-2.jpgwyo76-3.jpg

The Founders Fathers of Our Nation held an intense disdain and distrust of a privileged “Nobility” as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the privileged “Nobility”, and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against the use or recognition of “Titles of Nobility or Honor” and acceptance of any emoluments whatever from external sources, the first pertaining to the federal government, Article I, Section 9, and the second pertaining to the individual states, Article I, Section 10.

The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the “Nobility” from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men. As there was no penalty attached to accepting, claiming, receiving or retaining a title of nobility or honor or emoluments in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a “Title of Nobility or Honour” to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States. It also instituted the same penalty for accepting and retaining any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power. Anemolument is payment in any form for services rendered or to be rendered, or as understood today, graft or a bribe.

Thus it was, that on January 18th of 1810, Senators led by Philip Reed of Maryland issued their first version of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, (known now as the T.O.N. or TONA, or more properly — the original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America). Records show that the vote to send the final version of the amendment to the states for ratification was taken on Thursday, April 26th, first, a motion to delay voting on the proposed amendment was defeated 8-20, then the proposal was approved by the margin of 26 to 1, with seven Senators either absent or not voting. Biographical data of the Senators in office at the time of the vote on the amendment may be found at Appendix II. They were very able and worthy men, some of the most extraordinary and illustrious Americans of that day.

The House of Representatives voted to approve the amendment May 1st, 1810. With considerable support both from Federalists in New York and Massachusetts, and Democratic-Republicans in the south, the amendment was approved by a vote of 87-3. Eighteen of the 21 members from Virginia voted for it. Seventeen of the 18 members from Pennsylvania voted for it, while those from New York numbered 7 for, 1 against, with 6 absent or not voting. Rhode Island’s Robert Jackson, Jr. was absent, but the Revolutionary War veteran Elisha R. Potter voted for it.

In its final form, as sent to the Legislatures of the seventeen States for ratification, it 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.”

The first state to ratify the amendment was Maryland, which did so Christmas Day, December 25, 1810. A Table showing the dates on which the remaining states voted to ratify or reject the amendment is shown at this hyperlink. So also are shown the official publications which researchers have uncovered in the various archives. The researchers are now in physical possession of other extant volumes of the same after years of searching old bookstores and auctions. The researchers’ collection also includes many private printings and newspapers that contain the Thirteenth in its proper place.

The ratification by Maryland was followed closely by Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, all of which ratified the amendment in 1811. Massachusetts and New Hampshire ratified in 1812 by which time the War of 1812had commenced. New York and Connecticut rejected the amendment in 1813 and Rhode Island did so in 1814. South Carolina tabled the proposal Dec. 21, 1814. This left the proposed amendment one shy of final ratification, the vote of Virginia either lost or not taken in the chaos and confusion of the War of 1812.

Authorized by an act of the Virginia General Assembly (February 15, 1817), the complete revision of the State’s laws were entrusted to five of Virginia’s most prominent lawyers and legal scholars: William Brockenbrough, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, Robert White, and judges of the supreme court of appeals, Spencer Roane and John Coalter. When their work was concluded, the Virginia General Assembly voted on March 12, 1819 to publish the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia with both the Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the United States including the Thirteenth Amendment intact and in its proper place. Thus, the vote of Virginia was accomplished and the amendment was ratified.

The General Assembly of Virginia authorized the distribution of the Revised Code of 1819 with ten copies designated for the executive branch of Virginia, five copies for the Clerk of the General Assembly, and four copies for the Secretary of State of the United States; one copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; one copy each for the federal Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and one copy for every judge in the courts of the United States in Virginia. Thus was the Federal Government notified of the actions of the Virginia General Assembly ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment.

By February of 1820, sufficient copies of the Revised Code had been printed to make it available for public sale, and it was advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carried advertisements for the new Code.


Historical Background
What prompted the need for the Thirteenth Amendment?
In that day, just as there are today, there were unprincipled nations, corporations and men, both within and without our Nation, seeking every means of power and control, appealing to the egos, lusts and greeds of men. The Constitution had no means of enforcing a penalty on their attempts to suborn our citizens and to subvert the Constitution and our fledgling Republic. Thus the need for the Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution as the monarchies of Europe tried to extend their hegemony over the United States and the Western Hemisphere.

This Article of Amendment is intimately connected to questions of war and national defense. It is designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to foreign powers without stepping across the bold Consitutional line of treason. The authors of the TONA wrote it after some additional experience with how the British Empire, as well as other European nations, actually conduct their affairs. It is a corrective and supplemental measure to go along with Constitutional treason.

A short time after the Thirteen Amendment was ratified, President Monroe in his annual address to Congress, December 2, 1823 enunciated the Monroe Doctrine excluding European colonization or interference in the affairs of the Nations in the Western Hemisphere.


“The sovereignty, the honor, and the best interests of America have been assailed,” said George Poindexter, Delegate from the Mississippi Territory, “by Francis James Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty.” Speaking of the British ambassador on the floor of the House of Representatives on December 30th, 1809, the gentleman from Woodville used all the florid constructions of political speech making then common, and sharpened his attack, like any good westerner would do.

The British ambassador was, in his words, “a Minister sent among us to excite the demon of discord and division; a legalized spy, prowling from Hampton to New York and through every city, town, and village, to designate the victims of corruption, and to subvert, if possible, the allegiance of the citizens from their Government, and thereby promote the views of the King, his master.”

Thousands of Creek and Seminole warriors lived peaceably in the many towns and settlements which dotted the rivers west of the Georgia frontier. However, their kinsmen living in Florida, under Spanish rule, were undisciplined raiders by comparison, and their towns were havens for runaway slaves. Men of the western frontier were well aware that the great Creek leader, Alexander McGillivray, had served as a colonel in the British Army during the Revolution, and had grown wealthy as a civil servant of Spain. Shortly before his death in 1793, McGillivray, chief of the Creek and Seminole, had repudiated the treaty of peace negotiated in 1790 at New York.

Poindexter, a Virginia-born lawyer, was fully cognizant of what almost all the men of the western frontier knew at that time. British policy under the leadership of Sir James Craig, Governor-in-Chief of Canada, was to encourage the Indian tribes and clans from southern Ontario to western Florida to resist both American diplomacy and expansion. To accomplish his goals Craig recruited the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, who was the son of a Creek woman and thus respected in their Upper and Lower Towns.

“The British Ministry,” said Poindexter, who was openly disdainful of New England’s Federalists in the House, “on every occasion which required extraordinary duplicity, have availed themselves of this incendiary [Francis J. Jackson].” British hypocrisy in their own relations with the Indians was insignificant, compared to the threat that civilized, intelligent Creek leaders, like William Weatherford, the nephew of McGillivray, might quickly turn against their American neighbors.

When Poindexter’s comments are coupled with an equally critical, and lengthy, speech that had been given by Senator William Branch Giles of Virginia on December 8th, 1809, there can be no doubt that the growing antagonism against Britain, and her new ally, Spain, had reached a slow boil in the Congress of the new United States.

New England Federalists had their own set of antagonisms, focused on Napoleon Bonaparte’s family and his tendency to foment revolution, and then to replace weakly-drawn republican governors with aristocratic titles for his kinfolk, enforced by imperial French armies. In that way Joseph Bonaparte was made King of Naples in 1806 and Jerome (or Jarome) Bonaparte, well-known to Americans, having been married to an American named Elizabeth Patterson for three years became the King of Westphalia in 1807.

Both of the principal factions in the Senate had reasons to seek a constitutional solution to the threats that the powerful, rich, and quarrelsome European monarchies and the far-reaching banking establishments posed to their young Republic.

It is most important to note that the same conditions prevail today, only more so, and the need for the Thirteenth Amendment is even greater today as we enter a new millennium, with the United States interfering in the affairs of the nations of Europe and Asia. With China and other nations buying voting blocks with illegal donations, i.e. “emoluments”“grafts” and “bribes”, to the campaign funds and personal pockets of presidents, senators and congressmen, and others of our elected and appointed servants. With lobbying groups and multi-national corporations, which might properly be termed “foreign powers”, doing the same. With the duplicity evinced in the unprincipled, unethical and immoral conduct of a number of our elected representatives, who have subverted the Constitution at every step, who would destroy the Sovereignty of the United States of America. With the repudiation of the good sense of the policy of non-interference given by President Munroe in the Monroe Doctrine.

The real importance of the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment to our American Republic, soon to enter upon a new millennium, lies in its origins. Its original purposes were: a) to protect the State and Federal election processes from bribery, graft and political chicanery, and b) to shield the federal government itself from both espionage and the domestic intrigues of foreign agents-provocateur, by placing a severe penalty on citizens so engaged.

The Amendment was proposed in the midst of an ever-deepening diplomatic crisis in the early years of the 19th century, with the continued impressments of sailing men from American ships on the high seas, with Spain falling into the arms of the British lion after being conquered by France. Our Second War of Independence with Britain in 1812 had commenced during the ratification process. With the burning and destruction in 1814 of the Library of Congress and the loss of many of the secret journals of the House of Representatives, it is impossible to know exactly what was on the minds of the men led by Philip Reed of Maryland, who drafted and approved this measure in the Senate of the United States.

When a major war is in progress, with British ships raiding the coast and blocking the whole Chesapeake from commerce, and bloody fights with the Creek and other Indians progressing all through the southwestern frontier, and with an apparent plot to swing power to revolutionaries in Spanish New Mexico going on, the whole era has come into focus as being a time of incredible and convoluted intrigues.

Clearly the Thirteenth Amendment was written to stop the depredations of Ambassadorial level spies like Francis Jackson of Britain, and corrupted officials like General James Wilkinson and Aaron Burr. Wilkinson was definitely a Spanish royal agent. All the rest is incidental. The large number of lawyers and men who served as judges either before going to Congress or after voting for the Titles of Nobility and Honour amendment indicates that this was not about any monopoly power of lawyers at that time. The continuous fight over banking in that era was part of the background of this process, but not the motivation for the men who wrote or supported this measure.

Land speculation was an issue, maybe a key issue. “Pensions” in that day and age almost always meant land which paid a rent or which brought an annuity with it. Emoluments also meant any other form of payment, i.e., Spanish gold or silver, and the large amount of land in Spanish Florida, Spanish New Mexico (which included Texas), and Cuba which could have been used by British agents on behalf of their Spanish allies. The British bought the allegiance of Indian tribes from southern Ontario to northern Florida, to ensure that they either stayed neutral, or worked against and fought against the new United States. They did so with trade goods and guarantees of arms, and food, which indicates that the hunting grounds were going bare even as early as 1809. Although the British opposed slavery, they had no problems with the southern Indians keeping control of their own slaves.

The Thirteenth Amendment was a measure against British imperialism in the wake of their alliance with Spain, and it was supported by Federalists who were eminently suspicious of the “democratic clubs” fomented by the Bonapartes, who would always follow a republican revolution with their own seizures of power and creation of new titles.

This we do know, the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment was written and passed by a Congress which was reacting to the depredations of British aristocrats and Spanish grandees, to safeguard a government which was an infant among the nations of the world, but a strong one. It was clearly designed to defeat the plans and to retard the plots of skilled men of espionage, worldly-wise diplomats and to stifle homegrown Bonapartists. It was not the work of xenophobic men, but of hard-skulled and practical political leaders from both the Federalist and the Madisonian factions.

After it was ratified, a large number of subsequent publications of the original Thirteenth Amendment appeared throughout the nation. It appeared in books of State law, in volumes of history, collections of Presidential addresses, in newspapers and special publications of the Constitution, for example, in the Whig Party Almanac of 1845, as issued by the New York Tribune. Throughout the Jacksonian era, men of government read their law books and those books included the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment as the lawful Article XIII.

“The rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes…Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when they undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, merchants, and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.” – President Andrew Jackson, following his resounding veto of The Second Bank of the United States

The suppression of the T.O.N.A. now boils down to a fight, then and now, over the control of the currency and speculation in the land and resources of the United States, by foreign agents and multi-national corporations, willingly and willfully aided and abetted by the legal establishment and the judiciary of the United States.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws…” Mayer Amschel Rothschild(1744-1812)

“Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand.” — Benjamin Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer; Prime Minister of Britain (I am trying to source this quote)

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) inEconomic Sophisms

“It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.” – Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) inThe Law

“This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.” – U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes

“The balance of power has shifted in recent years from territorially bound governments to companies that can roam the world.” – Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order

When the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Article of Amendment was made to “disappear”, it did not vanish all at once but it was, rather, replaced by stages and by degrees. This gradualism was simply ignored by a legal establishment and judiciary loyal to the international banking establishment, and the privileged “nobility” of the rich, both of the United States and of Europe, and the common man knew nothing of it. The fact cannot be ignored that it is with the willingly purchased aid of both the judiciary and the legal establishment that the rich and powerful bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Jefferson warned of this.

Conclusion

America’s growing “aristocracy” depends on the growth and maintenance of a Servile State. Slave whips went out in 1865, but no matter – far more sophisticated ways of control have been, and will continue to be, developed as long as evil remains profitable and is contested by nothing more than the wishful thinking of the ballot. See Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

It has long been insisted that America’s fundamental problem is more legal than political and that unless the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are respected as America’s fundamental legal source, We, the People are doomed to continue suffering under the tyranny of the “aristocracy”, and the lawmakers and the judges.

We the People must stop seeking remedy by squandering our substance on elections. Wishful thinking will avail us nothing. Instead, we must unite in the demand that the uncorrupted Bill of Rights and the Real 13th Amendment be respected. To do this, we must take back our courts from those who have assumed a constitutional authority they do not rightfully possess. Government, its agents and the increasingly greedy establishment they serve, will never willingly respect the unalienable rights of each of the People unless the People force them to do so.

It is a misfortune born of human nature, that, when profit born of evil remains unchecked, evil will be nurtured by the profiteers with the substance of their victims.

We, the People, certainly have to build the immediate case ourselves, but as to the rhetoric – what could we possibly say that the Founding Fathers themselves haven’t already said as eloquently and profoundly as it could possibly be said?

According to James Madison:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they can be promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” – The Federalist No. 62

“Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising and the moneyed few, over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that the laws are made for the [benefit of] few and not for the many.” – Ibid

“The greatest calamity, to which the United States can be subject, is a vicissitude of laws, and continual shifting and changing from one object to another, which must expose the people to various inconveniences. This has a certain effect, of which sagacious men always have, and always will make an advantage. From whom is advantage made? From the industrious farmers and the tradesmen, who are ignorant of the means of making such advantages.” – Ibid, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 11 June 1788

It has been said that there are three types of people:

1. Those who make things happen.
2. Those who watch things happen, and
3. Those who wonder what happened.

The vast majority of mankind find themselves in the last two categories. Most have “eyes to see” but don’t “see” what is happening. Most have “ears that hear” but don’t “understand” what IS happening – LOCALLY, NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY

Which Category do you fit in? Are you willing to help educate yourself and your fellows to what has been and is happening?

Are you willing to insist that the Titles of Nobility and Honour Thirteenth Amendment be enforced??

Are you ready to STOP the Blackmail and Influence Peddling with EMOLUMENTS in the form of Money(Graft and Bribery) and other illegal favors, including drugs and sex, moving from hand to pocket of Politicians, Bureaucrats and Legislators, particularly as was witnessed by the Clinton administration??

If so, study all links given and post the link to this page to all persons you know. It is only to the extent that we educate ourselves and learn to lead that a difference can be made.

If We the People will Lead, the leaders will follow!!

Is it possible that if the Thirteenth TONA is enforced to stop the manipulation, meddling, influence peddling and the chicanery of politics, that Private Ryan, your children and grandchildren and mine, will not be sent to war and peace will prevail?

WE can STOP Rich Men from trading young men’s blood for money!!

APPENDIX I

Definitions from Webster’s New World Dictionary, College Edition

Bribe – 1. Anything, especially money, given or promised to induce a person to do something illegal or wrong; 2. Anything given or promised to induce a person to do something against his wishes. Also (vt) 2. To get or influence by bribing.

Emolument – gain from employment or position, payment received for services rendered or to be rendered.

Graft – 3. a) The act of taking advantage of one’s position to gain money, property, etc. dishonestly, as in politics; b) anything acquired by such illegal methods, as an illicit profit from government business.

Honour – high rank or distinction of superiority to be treated with deference or obeisance.

Nobility – [Artificial] high station of rank or privilege in society, especially when accompanied by a title.

“These had anciently duties annexed to their respective honors. They are created either by writ, i.e., by royal summons to attend the house of peers, or by letters patent, i.e., by royal grant of any dignity and degree of peerage; and they enjoy many privileges, exclusive of their senatorial capacity.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 396.

“Title of Nobility” is defined in relevant part as follows: “The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men. In Great Britain, nobility is extended to five ranks, those of duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron.” Webster’s American Dictionary of 1828

Title – an appellation given to a person as a sign of privilege. An [artificial] claim of right.


APPENDIX II

The following are brief biographical sketches of the Senators who voted on the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment , based on the vote of 26-1 as recorded by Gales and Seaton in their 1853 Debates and Proceedings

Delaware:

Outerbridge Horsey — born March 5, 1777 in Sussex County. Admitted to the bar in 1807 and practiced at Wilmington, Delaware. Elected as a Federalist to replace Samuel White (who died). Served January 12, 1810 through March 3, 1821, when he retired to “Needwood,” his wife’s estate in Frederick County, Maryland. Died June 9, 1842.

James Asheton Bayard, Sr. — born July 28, 1767 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Graduated from Princeton College in 1784 and was admitted to the bar in 1787, practiced in Wilmington, DE. Served in the House as a member of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Congresses, Federalist, appointed as a manager for the impeachement of William Blount, Senator from Tennessee, 1798. Elected upon the resignation of William Hill Wells and served in the Senate from November 13, 1804 to March 3rd, 1815. Joined John Quincy Adams in negotiating the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. Died on August 6, 1815. NO VOTE RECORDED

Pennsylvania:

Andrew Gregg — born June 10, 1755 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and was educated at the Latin School, moved to Newark, Delaware for further education and served in the militia of the Revolution. Merchant and farmer, elected to the Second Congress and re-elected continuously until he went to the Senate on March 4, 1807. Served until March 3, 1813 and was elected President pro tempore of the Senate on June 26, 1809. Secretary of the State of Pennsylvania for the years 1820-1823 but failed to win election as governor in that last year. Engaging in banking and retired to Bellefonte, PA where he died in 1835. NO VOTE RECORDED

Michael Leib — born January 8, 1760 in Philadelphia, PA, and educated in the common schools, and at the University of Pennsylvania. Practicing physician in Philadelphia, surgeon of Eyre’s Philadelphia Militia during the Revolutionary War. Elected to the Sixth Congress as a Democrat and served four terms, from March 4, 1799 to February 14, 1806, when he resigned. Elected to the Senate and served from January 9, 1809 through February 14, 1814 when he resigned to become Postmaster of Philadelphia. Served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1817 and 1818. {Note PA publications} Died on December 22, 1822 while serving as prothonotary of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

New Jersey:

John Condit — born in Orange, New Jersey on July 8, 1755 and attended the public schools there; studied medicine and served as a surgeon in the Revolutionary War, with Heardy’s brigade. Founding father of the Orange Academy and was one of its trustees, 1785, which was followed by service in the New Jersey legislature. Elected to the Sixth and Seventh Congresses as a Democrat. Appointed to the Senate and then subsequently elected, and served from September 1, 1803 to March 3, 1809. Again appointed and then elected to replace Aaron Kitchell, and served from March 21, 1809 to March 3, 1817. Served eleven years as the assistant collector of the Port of New York and retired in January of 1830, and died in Orange Township on May 4th, 1834.

John Lambert — born in Lambertville, New Jersey on February 24, 1746. Owned and managed a plantation, and engaged in agricultural pursuits, Acting Governor in 1802 and 1803, elected to the House of Representatives for the Ninth and Tenth Congresses, and elected to the Senate in 1808, serving from March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1815. Returned to his farming and died near his home town on February 4, 1823.

Georgia:

William Harris Crawford — born in Nelson County, Virginia on February 24, 1772 and moved with the family to Columbia County, Georgia in 1783. Educated privately and at Richmond Academy in Augusta, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1799. Member of the State House of Representatives in 1803-1807. Elected to the Senate on the death of Abraham Baldwin and served from November 7, 1807 to March 23, 1813. Minister to France for two years, ending in 1815. Secretary of War in 1815, and then Secretary of the Treasury for both James Madison and James Monroe, concluding March 3, 1825. Unsuccessful candidate for President in the election of 1824. Returned to Georgia and served as a judge. Died on September 15, 1834, at “Woodlawn,” his estate in Oglethorpe County, Georgia.

Charles Tait — born in Hanover County, Virginia on February 1, 1768, and moved to Wilkes County in Georgia where he attended Wilkes Academy. At Cokesburg College in Maryland in 1788, and a professor of French there for five years, 1789 through 1794. Studied law and admitted to the bar in Elbert County, Georgia. Elected to the Senate upon the resignation of John Milledge, and served from November 27, 1809 to March 3, 1819, whereupon he moved to Alabama, and then served as U.S. District Judge for Alabama for six years. Died on October 7, 1835, and was buried on his country estate in Wilcox County, Alabama.

James De Wolf — born in Bristol, Rhode Island on March 18, 1764, and shipped as a sailor boy on a private armed vessel during the Revolutionary War, was twice captured and imprisoned on Bermuda. Later before he was twenty years old became captain of a ship. Elected to the Rhode Island state legislature in 1797-1801 and served again from 1803 to 1812. He fitted out a privateer and sailed against the British in the War of 1812. One of the pioneers in cotton manufacturing, he built the Arkwright Mills in Coventry, R.I. in 1812. Elected again to the State House of Representatives 1817, and was Speaker of that body from 1819 to 1821 when the Rhode Island legislature voted to approve the printing of the State laws published in 1822 with the TON attached. Elected as a Republican to the U.S. Senate and served from March 4, 1821 to October 31, 1825, when he resigned. Returned to the State House in 1829, he served there until 1837, when he died in New York City, December 21, 1837. De Wolf was not in the Senate when the TONA vote was taken but is nonetheless a fascinating character from that era. (The Liberty Ship hull number 1460 built during World War 2 was christened James De Wolf after him)

Connecticut:

Chauncey Goodrich — born October 20, 1759 in Durham, Middlesex County, he prepared for collegiate studies. Entered Yale College and graduated in 1776 and was then employed at Hopkins Grammar School. Taught at Yale from 1778 to 1781, when he undertook the study of law. Admitted to the bar and practiced at Hartford. A Federalist, he was elected first to the State House and then to the Fourth Congress, where he served three terms. After returning to the law practice he was elected to the Senate upon the death of Uriah Tracy and served from October 25, 1807 to May of 1813. He was also both Mayor of Hartford and the Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut for two years. Participated in the “Hartford Convention” of 1814, and died on August 18, 1815.

James Hillhouse — born October 21, 1754 at Montville, and attended the Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven. Was graduated from Yale College in 1773 and admitted to the bar after studying law, in 1775. Served in the Revolutionary War and was a Captain of the Governor’s Foot Guards when the British invaded New Haven. After serving in the State House for several years he was elected to the Second Congress and served three terms. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1796 upon the death of Oliver Ellsworth and was re-elected three times, serving from December 6, 1796 to June 10, 1810, when he resigned. A strong Federalist, he was a member of the “Hartford Convention.” Treasurer of Yale College from 1782 to 1832, when he died, at New Haven, on December 20th.

Massachusetts:

James Lloyd — born in Boston in December of 1769, and prepared at the Boston Latin School. Graduated Harvard College in 1787 and engaged in mercantile pursuits. Served in the State Senate in 1804. Elected as a Federalist to the U.S. Senate upon the resignation of John Quincy Adams, and served from June 9, 1808 until May 1, 1813. Again elected to the Senate upon the resignation of Harrison Otis Gray and served from June 5, 1822 through May 23, 1826, when he retired from public life. Died in New York City in 1831.

Timothy Pickering — born in Salem on July 17, 1745 and attended grammar school there; entered Harvard College and was graduated in 1763. Worked as a clerk and studied law, commencing practice in Salem, 1768, and later elected to the Committee of Correspondence and Safety, 1774-1775. Registrar of deeds and a judge in 1775, he resigned to enter the Army in 1777. Appointed adjutant general in May of 1777 and became Quartermaster General of the Army in 1780. Later appointed Postmaster General and then Secretary of War under George Washington. Assumed duties of Secretary of State on December 10, 1795, where he remained until 1800. Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and then was elected as a Federalist to the Senate, serving from March 4, 1803 to March 3, 1811. Unsuccessful candidate for re-election, but was later elected to the House of Representatives and served two terms, from 1813 through 1817. Chairman of the Salem School Committee in 1821 and continued to reside there until his death in 1829, on January 20, at 83 years of age.

Maryland:

Philip Reed — born in Kent County in 1760 and completed preparatory studies, then served in the Revolutionary Army, attaining the rank of captain of infantry. He was Sheriff of Kent County from 1791 to 1794 and a member of the executive council in 1805-1806. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1806 upon the resignation of Robert Wright, he served from November 25th of that year until March 3, 1813. Considered to be the author of the original Thirteenth Amendment and was in charge of the Senate committee which wrote every known version of it. Upon completion of his term in the Senate, Reed returned to Maryland. Commanded the First Regiment, Maryland Militia, during the war as a Lieutenant Colonel, and led American forces to victory at the Battle of Caulk’s Field, was then elevated to Brigadier General of the Maryland Militia. Elected to the Fifteenth Congress and to the Seventeenth Congress, serving in the House of Representatives, and concluding his service on March 3rd, 1823. Died at Huntingtown, Maryland on November 2, 1829 and was laid to rest in Chestertown, at the cemetery of Christ Church.

Samuel Smith — born on July 27, 1752 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and moved with his family to Baltimore in 1759, where he attended the public schools. Graduated from Princeton College and engaged in mercantile pursuits, and served in the Revolutionary War as an officer — awarded a commemorative sword by act of Congress for the defense of Fort Mifflin — and later entered the shipping business. After serving in the State House of Delegates he was elected to the Third Congress and served from March 4, 1783 to March 3, 1803. Appointed and then elected to the Senate, he served from March 4, 1803 to March 3, 1815. Four times elected President pro tempore of the Senate. He was also appointed a Major General of the Maryland Militia and helped organize the defense of Baltimore in 1814. Elected to the House of Representatives after leaving the Senate he served from January 31, 1816 to December 17, 1822. He was then elected to fill the vacancy in the Senate caused by the death of William Pinkney and was re-elected, serving until March 3, 1833. Mayor of Baltimore in 1837, Smith then retired from public life. Died there on April 22, 1839 and was buried at the Old Westminster Burying Ground. He was apparently not related to Representative Samuel Smith of Erie, Pennsylvania, who served in the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Congresses and who also voted to approve the original Thirteenth Amendment in 1810.

South Carolina:

John Gaillard — born in St. Stephens, South Carolina on September 5, 1765, and educated for the law in England; served in the State House and the State Senate and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1804, to fill the vacancy of Pierce Butler. Continuously re-elected for the next 22 years and served as President pro temp of the Senate on eight different occasions, including the Second Session of the Eleventh Congress. A Democrat, he died while serving in the Senate on February 26, 1826 and is buried in the Congressional Cemetery.

Thomas Sumter — born in Hanover County, Virginia on August 14, 1734 and attended the common schools. Surveyor. Moved to South Carolina in 1760 and settled on a plantation near Stateburg: colonel of the Sixth Regiment of the Revolutionary Army, later made brigadier general of militia in 1780. Elected to the State Senate in 1781 and 1782. A Delegate to the State Convention for Ratification of the Constitution (and which he opposed), then elected as a Democrat to the First and Second Congresses. Served again in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Congresses and resigned on December 15, 1801, to enter the Senate. Sent to the U.S. Senate after the resignation of Charles Pinckney, and won re-election in 1805. Resigned on December 16, 1810 and retired to his plantation at South Mount, near Stateburg. His grandson, Thomas De Lage Sumter, was twice elected to the House of Representatives. Considered to be a States Rights Democrat and a hard-liner on Free Trade. Died June 1, 1832 and is buried in the family grounds of his estate.

New York:

Obadiah German — born on April 22, 1766, in Amenia, New York; attended the local schools and studied law; entered the bar in 1792 and practiced at Norwich, N.Y., and was elected four different times to the State Assembly. Elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate and served from March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1815. Again elected to the State Assembly in 1819, where he served as Speaker. Later became affiliated with the Whig Party upon its organization, and lived until September 24, 1842. Died in Norwich, New York and was interred at the Riverside Cemetery.

John Smith — born in Mastic, Long Island, February 12, 1752 and completed preparatory education; member of the New York State Assembly 1784-1789, and also a Delegate to the ratifying convention which approved the federal Constitution. Elected as a Democrat to the Sixth and three subsequent Congresses, and served from February 6, 1800 to February 23, 1804 when his resignation became effective. Elected to the Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of De Witt Clinton. Served from February 23 of that year until March 3, 1813. Later appointed Major General of the New York militia. Died on August 12, 1816 in his hometown of Mastic, New York. VOTED NO.

Ohio

Return Jonathan Meigs, Jr. — born on November 16, 1764 at Middletown, Connecticut, and was graduated from Yale College in 1785; studied law and was admitted to bar, and practiced in Marietta, Washington County of the Northwest Territory, 1788. Veteran of the Indian wars of that era, and a Territorial Judge in 1802-1803. Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Officer in the U.S. Army, in the St. Charles District of Louisiana, 1804-1806. Judge of the U.S. District Court of Michigan Territory, 1807-1808. Upon his return to Ohio he was elected to the United States Senate and served from December 12, 1808 to May 1, 1810, voting for the TONA. Returned to Ohio and then served as Governor from 1810 to 1814. Postmaster General for James Madison and James Monroe. Retired to Marietta, Ohio, where he died on March 29, 1825.

Alexander Campbell — born in Frederick County, Virginia, 1779 and later moved with his family to Kentucky, near Lexington. Educated at Pisgah Academy and then studied medicine at Transylvania University, and commenced practice in Cynthiana in 1801. Member of the State House in 1803. Moved to Ohio and settled in Brown County, where he engaged in mercantile pursuits and continued to practice medicine. Member of the Ohio State House in 1807, re-elected in 1808 and 1809, when he served as Speaker of that body; elected to the U.S. Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Edward Tiffin and served from December 11, 1809 to March 3, 1813. He did not vote on the TONA. Moved to Ripley, Ohio to set up practice as its first physician, 1815. Again elected to the State House in 1819. Presidential elector for James Monroe in 1820, and then served in the State Senate from 1822 to 1824. Helped establish the first general anti-slavery society in Ohio in 1835, and was its vice-president. Mayor of Ripley, Ohio, for five years and lived there until November 5, 1857.

Virginia

William Branch Giles, a Representative and a Senator from Virginia; born near Amelia Court House, Amelia County, Va., August 12, 1762; pursued classical studies and graduated from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1781; studied law; was admitted to the bar and practiced in Petersburg, Va., 1784-1789; elected to the First Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Theodorick Bland; reelected to the Second and to the three succeeding Congresses and served from December 7, 1790, to October 2, 1798, when he resigned; member, State house of delegates 1798-1800; elected as a Republican to the Seventh Congress (March 4, 1801-March 3, 1803); appointed to the United States Senate as a Republican to fill the vacancy in the term beginning March 4, 1803, caused by the resignation of Abraham B. Venable; while holding the office of Senator-designate was elected on December 4, 1804, to fill the vacancy in the term beginning March 4, 1799, caused by the resignation of Wilson C. Nicholas; was reelected in 1804 and 1811 and served from August 11, 1804, to March 3, 1815, when he resigned. Giles was on the committee with Phillip Reed which drafted the final version of the TONA, but was not recorded as voting. Member, State house of delegates 1816-1817, 1826-1827; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1825; Governor of Virginia 1827-1830; was a member of the State constitutional convention in 1829 and 1830; again elected Governor in 1830, but declined; died on his estate, ‘Wigwam,’ near Amelia Court House, Amelia County, Va., December 4, 1830; interment in a private cemetery on his estate.

Other Members of Congress or Government of importance in the history of the TONA —

Poindexter, George — a Delegate, a Representative, and a Senator from Mississippi; Party: Jacksonian; Anti-Jackson born in Louisa County, Va., in 1779; had a sporadic education; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1800 and commenced practice in Milton, Va.; moved to the Territory of Mississippi in 1802 and practiced law in Natchez; attorney general of the Territory; member, Territorial general assembly 1805; elected as a Delegate from Mississippi Territory to the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Congresses (March 4, 1807-March 3, 1813); United States district judge for the Territory 1813-1817; served in the War of 1812; upon the admission of Mississippi as a State into the Union was elected to the Fifteenth Congress and served from December 10, 1817, to March 3, 1819; chairman, Committee on Public Lands (Fifteenth Congress); Governor of Mississippi 1819-1821; unsuccessful candidate for election in 1820 to the Seventeenth Congress and in 1822 to the Eighteenth Congress; appointed in 1830 to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Robert H. Adams; subsequently elected, and served from October 15, 1830, to March 3, 1835; unsuccessful candidate for reelection; served as President pro tempore of the Senate during the Twenty-third Congress; chairman, Committee on Private Land Claims (Twenty-second Congress), Committee on Public Lands (Twenty-third Congress); moved to Kentucky and resumed the practice of his profession in Lexington; returned to Jackson, Miss., and continued the practice of law until his death on September 5, 1853; interment in Jackson Cemetery.

James Wilkinson -1757-1825, American general, b. Calvert Co., Md. Abandoning his medical studies in 1776 to join the army commanded by George Washington, he served as a captain in Benedict Arnold’s unsuccessful Quebec campaign. Later he was Gen. Horatio Gates’s deputy adjutant general in the Saratoga campaign and was given the honor of bringing to Congress the news of General Burgoyne’s defeat. Congress censured Wilkinson for delay in carrying the dispatch but rewarded him by promoting him to brigadier general (1777) and making him secretary to the board of war (1778), a position he was forced to leave because of his implication in the Conway Cabal. He was (1779-81) clothier general of the army but resigned when charged with irregularities in his accounts. Wilkinson moved to Kentucky in 1784. Shortly thereafter, he became a key figure in the plan to induce what was then the SW United States to form a separate nation allied to Spain. Wilkinson apparently took an oath of allegiance to Spain and received a Spanish pension of $2,000 (and later $4,000) a year. To the Spanish authorities in New Orleans he represented his agitation for the separation of Kentucky from Virginia as part of this scheme; there is no indication, however, that he revealed any such motivation to the Kentucky conventions, in which others had expressed sentiments in favor of a separate republic of Kentucky. In 1791, Wilkinson reentered the army as a lieutenant colonel, and in 1792 he again attained the rank of brigadier general, serving under Anthony Wayne. On Wayne’s death (1796) Wilkinson became ranking army officer. While governor (1805-1806) of the Louisiana Territory, he became involved in the schemes of Aaron Burr. Alarmed when he realized that his association with Burr was common knowledge, Wilkinson informed President Jefferson that Burr was plotting to disrupt the Union. Although he was chief prosecution witness at Burr’s trial, he narrowly escaped indictment. Subsequently (1811) he was cleared, but just barely, by an army board of inquiry. In the War of 1812 he failed signally in the campaign to take Montreal and was relieved of his command. Once again an official inquiry left him untouched. He wrote Memoirs of My Own Times (3 vol., 1816) in an attempt to answer his many critics. He died in Mexico, where he spent his last years. See biographies by J. R. Jacobs (1938) and T. R. Hay and M. R. Werner (1941); J. E. Weems, Men without Countries (1969).

This essay was placed on the web by Bob Hardison with the Historical Research
and editing assistance of Richard C. Green, Brian March, and Alan and Suzanne Nevling

Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.

Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, November, 1999

Mirroring is not Netiquette without the Express Permission of Barefoot.

Defending The US Constitution
Click for Barefoot's wish for you this day.

Visit Barefoot’s World and Educate Yo’Self
Email Barefoot

On the Web November 12, 1999

Three mighty important things, Pardn’r, LOVE And PEACE and FREEDOM

http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html

The Original 13th Article of Amendment

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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011112092428/http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/amend_13/amendment.html

judge.gif (634 bytes)

Subject: The Original 13th Article of Amendment — Press Release
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:37:31 -0700
From: Bob Hardison  bobhard@nidlink.com
Organization: Barefoot’s  World
To: APFN@apfn.org

For Your Info — We have just placed a new domain on the web —
We believe if it is brought before the public, significant changes can be made…

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To
The Constitution For The United States

The Original 13th Amendment
This Article of Amendment, ratified in 1819 and which just “disappeared” in 1876, added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobility and other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege, i.e. honors, for their special interests.

=============================================

13AMDMT.ZIP 24272 11-12-93 Original 13th Amendment would have outlawed
Bar membership (atty’s) and other Titles of
Nobility. May have actually been ratified.
http://www.state-citizen.org/files/generalresecisson/000contents.txt

The History and Ratification of the Original 13th amendment
http://www.original13thamendment.com/

========================================

SECTION II CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the “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 resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid
move for ratification.

No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of “The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut” as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period –
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings. It
was found to have been printed by the legislature of this State in
the following: 1821 – The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1821 pg. 19 1824 – The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1824 pg.18-19 1835 – The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, compiled in obedience to a resolve of the General
Assembly passed May, 1835, to which is prefixed the Declaration of
Independence & Constitution of the United States and the State of
Connecticut, published by the authority of the State of
Connecticut. The Marginal note in all three publications reads:
“Citizenship forfeited by the acceptance, from a foreign power, of
any title of nobility, office or emolument of any kind, &c.” The
prima facie evidence of ratification of this Amendment is
overwhelming. Since the creditors of this bankruptcy are foreign
powers and this “unacountable committee of lawyers'” spoken of by
Robert H. Bork have accepted and retained the “office of trustee”
for these creditors and foreign powers, their Citizenship has
been forfeited by this acceptance.
http://www.calneva.com/money/lawsuit3.htm

==============================================

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The TONA Research Committee seeks your assistance in placing this vital information
before the people…


Have a Good Day :=)

—– If the People will Lead, the leaders will follow.—–

“The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Application”,
A Reference Work with Index, Landmark Court Cases, and A Short History –
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

The Missing 13th Amendment
“TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html

The Original Thirteenth Amendment:
Titles of Nobility and Honour,
An Essay

The Original 13th Amendment Chapter 1

Below is proof of the de facto government’s actions. Below is the original thirteenth amendment as it appears in a manual printed in 1840 for American citizens- –

 

 

MEANING of the 13th AMENDMENT

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads
as follows:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen
of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office
of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the
“title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to
“nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss
this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles,
anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can
be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:

* First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of
the Constitution of the United States (1787);
* Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional
“title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.

Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of
nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their
citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several
times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though
“titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding
fathers than is readily apparent today.
http://www.tomdavisbooks.com/library/13thamend.html#mean13

==================================================

From the State of Maine
Constitution Printed in 1825

Constitution, 1825 Manuscript, Title Page

Missing 13th Amendment, 1825 Manuscript

http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/1825const.htm

The Missing 13th Amendment
Copy (yes, another one)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030812105145/http://loveforamerica.freeyellow.com/13th.html

Analysis of the Real 13th Amendment
This amendment was meant to keep citizens of the United States from accepting titles of nobility from foreign powers. The best example of this would be honorary “knighthoods” given by the rulers of England to people around the world who have performed a service for humanity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021120054855/http://www.vaix.net/~captainnemo/plan/

===========================================

Esquire 

A title applied by attorneys to themselves, to officers of the court, to members of the bar, and others of ill repute. No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and therefore, it confers, no distinction in law.

In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden records four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds:

1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession.

2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession.

3. Esquires created by the king’s letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons.

4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.

NOBILITY. An order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people.

The constitution of the United States provides that no state shall ” grant any title of nobility; and no person can become a citizen of the United States until he has renounced all titles of nobility.” The Federalist, No. 84; 2 Story, Laws U. S. 851.

There is not in the constitution today any general prohibition against any citizen whomsoever, whether in public or private life, accepting any foreign title of nobility. An amendment of the constitution in this respect has been recommended by congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. Rawle on the Const. 120; Story, Const. _1346.

The Court, in “Horst v. Moses”, 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:

To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.
The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

Here is the original 13th amendment to the United States Constitution that was ratified in 1819. Then attorneys caused it to disappear in order to establish their claim of superiority with Titles of Nobility over the people. The total ramifications of this earlier 13th Amendment being unlawfully removed are very serious.

Article 13, ratified in 1819, reads as follows:

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain and 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 following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:

Colorado ——- 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967, 1868
Connecticut — 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota ———- 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida ———- 1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia ——— 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois ———— 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana ———– 1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa ————— 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas ———– 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky ——– 1822
Louisiana ——– 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine ————- 1825, 1831
Massachusetts -1823
Michigan ——– 1827, 1833
Mississippi —— 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri ———- 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska ——— 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina – 1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories — 1833
Ohio ————— 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania — 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island —- 1822
Virginia ———- 1819 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming ——– 1869, 1876

Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications.
OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE

Secrets of the Federal Reserve and the London Connection
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

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). 
http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

================================================

THE CAMBRIAN PESHER
In the library basement, in the Special Documents Department of our local university, you will find the Statutes at Large for the State of Kansas for many of the years since its statehood, just prior to the Civil War. In the back of these volumes you will find the official text of the U.S. Constitution under which the State is governed. In that text you will find the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Here is how the text reads:
“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.”
Researchers have found the above “original” 13th Amendment in the old law books of all the States which were admitted prior to the Civil War. And a debate currently rages over the significance of this Amendment. (I obtained a notarized copy of the above, just in case said volumes “disappeared” from the library shelves, an anomaly known to occur when documents are found which embarrass the current government.)
The Concise Guide to Today’s … – Google Books

============================================= 
Knighthood
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm

THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm


The Lawyers Secret Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm


Judge gets orders from England
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/orders-from-england.htm


The 545 People Responsible For All of America’s Woes
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm


Was the 14th Amendment Ratified?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/14th.htm


Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm


War Powers Act 1933
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/1933.htm


The Oath of Office
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm

Barefoot’s World –
http://www.barefootsworld.net
Barefoot’s World Links-
http://www.barefootsworld.net  – 800+ Links
Barefoot’s Survival Page –
http://www.barefootsworld.net

“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will
be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
– T.S. Eliot

Love and Peace, Barefoot Windwalker
W. 6350 Holland Road, Post Falls, Id 83854, 208-773-9893
==============================================================================

Clinton Mentally Ill
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clintonmental.htm

ILLUMINATI LINKED TO WHY WACO,UT, LINKED TO CLINTON!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wacopg.htm

Who Waco! Probe Clinton’s Ties To Riady to Rapoport to Why Waco!
~~~CONNECTING THE DOTS! – IT AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER!~~~
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ties.htm

Clinton CFR Speech – Sept. 14, 1998 Sep 15 1789 The U.S. Foreign Affairs Dept.
becomes the U.S. State Department Clinton CFR Speech – Sept. 14, 1998 – Follow
the Money!!!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clintoncfr.htm

The Mena Coverup
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mena.htm

LONDON OBSERVER: CLINTON, Terrorist And Murderer…
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/london.htm

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee Sues Clinton
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/arkansas.htm

Dynamite Affidavit Exposes Vast Clinton Administration Cover-Up
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/exposes.htm

… conglomerate run by the Riadys, helped introduce since-disgraced
fund-raiser John Huang to the Clinton administration, which later endorsed
Rapoport’s $2 billion Chinese real-estate project. Rapoport …
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/updatenwo.htm

EENIE MENA MINIE MOE…
… the latest “Whitewash” of the Mena Arkansas drug scandal that is at
the heart of the Clinton scandals–provides a golden opportunity for all
of us to preserve our happy memories of this time …
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/eenie.htm

“The Law”!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/apfncont.htm

Did an organized conspiracy do away with the original 13th Amendment?
http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/

A Note from APFN Webmaster:[I personally, found a law book for the State of Missouri with the Orginal 13th Amendment dated 1825] Missouri became a state in 1821

Without Justice there is Just_Us!
statue_liberty.jpg (9342 bytes)

American Patriot Friends Network

“…a network of net workers…”

 

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

ThirdAmendment.com
Home
The Real Titles of Nobility Amendment FAQ
Jol A. Silversmith (September 1996)

Please note that this FAQ was never formally completed, as I instead devoted my efforts to writing a law review article that incorporates the information in the FAQ, as well as more fully expose the lies extremists tell about the “missing thirteenth amendment.”

v. 0.91 – 06/19/97

0) Table of Contents

1) What is this “Missing Thirteenth Amendment” I’ve heard about on the ‘net?
2) Was there actually a Thirteenth Amendment that did not become part of the Constitution?
3) Why was it proposed?
4) What became of the proposed amendment?
5) Why do a handful of extremists claim that it became part of the Constitution?

      a)

Confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution

      b)

Publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution by states is not ratification

      c)

Ratification by Virginia would not have made the amendment part of the Constitution6) Would the amendment, as part of the Constitution, effect the eligibility of lawyers to serve in government offices?

      a)

Domestic titles

      b)

Foreign titles7) Who put forward this ludicrous theory?
8) Bibliography

1) What is this “Missing Thirteenth Amendment” I’ve heard about on the ‘net?

Nothing you should be concerned about. It’s one of the most ludicrous ideas extremists have ever put forward, probably hoping that no one would actually research the subject and expose their lies. But to understand what follows, you should probably take a look for yourself at David Dodge’s essay The Missing Thirteenth Amendment. Another source for this document is via the so-called Rule of Law Committee. Other sites may be out there; check via a search engine such as Yahoo.

2) Was there actually a Thirteenth Amendment that did not become part of the Constitution?

Yes. In January 1810, Republican (the ancestors of the modern Democrats) Senator Philip Reed introduced an amendment that, after twice being considered by a committee, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 19 to 5 on April 26, 1810. The House then on May 1, 1810 approved the amendment by a vote of 87 to 3. (See Conklin at 123) As approved, the text was 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.

3) Why was it proposed?

No debates about the proposal survive, so it is a matter of some dispute. The conventions that approved the Constitution in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island had advocated strengthening the Constitutional requirement that any person holding office under the United States government obtain the consent of Congress before accepting any present or title from a foreign power. The First Congress considered similar proposals during the discussion of the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, but did not submit any of them to the states. (See Ames at 186)One theory is that the amendment was a reaction to the involvement of Napoleon’s nephew, Jerome Bonaparte, in American public life a few years earlier. Nathaniel Macon (a Republican from North Carolina) noted that “he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor in this country.” The Federalists thus may have introduced the proposal in an attempt to embarrass francophile Republicans, or alternatively supported the proposal in order to avoid embarrassment about their own associations with the British aristocracy. (See Ames at 187, Earle at 37) Another theory is that the amendment reflected the general animosity to foreigners evident before the War of 1812. (See Ames at 188, Conklin at 124)

There is not a shread of evidence to support the extremist theory that the amendment was part of an international banking/legal conspiracy, as claimed by extremists.

4) What became of the proposed amendment?

Twelve states ratified the amendment, not enough to make it part of the Constitution under Article V of the Constitution, which requires ratification of “the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

According to President James Monroe’s Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, in reports dated February 3, 1818 and February 27, 1818, the following actions transpired:

Ratifications:

Maryland December 25, 1810
Kentucky January 31, 1811
Ohio January 31, 1811
Delaware February 2, 1811
Pennsylvania February 6, 1811
New Jersey February 13, 1811
Vermont October 24, 1811
Tennessee November 21, 1811
Georgia December 31, 1811
North Carolina December 23, 1811
Massachusetts February 27, 1812
New Hampshire December 9, 1812

Rejections:

Connecticut May 13, 1813
New York March 12, 1812
Rhode Island September 15, 1814

No Action:

South Carolina

No Reply:

Virginia

(See CIS at 478, Conklin at 125) A secondary source further claims that the federal government recorded that no action was taken upon the amendment by Louisiana. (SeeVirginia Commission at 65)

Because the amendment was not submitted to the states with a time limitation, it could still could be made part of the Constitution, if it were to attract twenty-six additional ratifications. The prospects hardly seem likely, but much the same was once said about the now-27th amendment, which is generally credited to have been rescued from obscurity by Gregory Watson.

5) Why do a handful of extremists claim that it became part of the Constitution?

Because they think that, as part of the Constitution, the amendment would prohibit lawyers from holding public office. They’re wrong (see below).

Their argument is based upon the “discovery” that Virginia ratified the amendment because it was included as part of the Constitution in a book of state laws published as of March 12, 1819, as well as that various other state and federal publications over the following fifty or so years included the amendment as part of the Constitution. This claim is specious for several reasons.

a) Confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution

In the late 18th and 19th century there was frequent confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution. “At that time no legal procedure existed to control the communication of action by States to the Federal Government…. Uncertainty as to the status of this proposal continued for eight years.” The problems presented by this amendment led to a law enacted on April 20, 1818, specifying a process for ascertaining ratifications, today codified as 1 U.S.C. sec 106b. (See Virginia Commission at 65-66)

Indeed, this amendment was not the only one of its era about which there was ratification confusion. The Eleventh Amendment became effective on February 7, 1795, but was not officially acknowledged as being in effect until January 8, 1798. (See Virginia Commission) There are further examples of confusion, such as about the two amendments submitted with the Bill of Rights that were not ratified (at that time). (See Kammen)

In 1895 – less than thirty years after extremists claims that the amendment was suppressed – Herman V. Ames (a historian, not a lawyer, by the way) presented the history of The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History to the American Historical Association. The Association published the essay in 1896, and it was also published as a Congressional Document in 1897.

Ames notes that many editions of the Constitution and school histories erroneously included the amendment. Thus the misconception that the amendment had become part of the Constitution was perpetuated. The fact that publication does not serve as proof that the amendment was ratified is vividly demonstrated by its inclusion as the Fifteenth Amendment in Emma Willard’s History of the United States, published in New York in 1829; the twelve amendments sent out by the First Congress are all given as if ratified. (See Ames at 189)

Earle argues that the amendment’s appearance in “Laws of the United States of America, From the 4th of March, 1789, to the 4th of March, 1815,” prepared for the Congress, was already an anachronism. (See Earle at 37) The editor, John B. Colvin, noted in prefatory remarks contained in the first volume that he was unsure of the status of the amendment:

There has been some difficulty in ascertaining whether the amendment proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth … has, or has not, been adopted by a sufficient number of the state legislatures to authorize its insertion as part of the constitution? The secretary of state very readily lent every suitable aid to produce full information on the question; but the evidence to be found in the office of that department is still defective. It has been considered best, however, to publish the proposed amendment in its proper place, as if it had been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent misconception.

(See Conklin at 122)The inclusion of the amendment in copies of the Constitution prepared for the 15th Congress led Weldon Nathaniel Edwards of North Carolina to propose a resolution on December 31, 1817 to ask President Monroe to provide the House with information as to which states had ratified. The resolution was approved without opposition. (See Annals at 530)

This led Monroe’s Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to inquire of each of the states about the status of the amendment. Monroe’s final reply on February 27, 1818 included theabove list of state ratifications and rejections, indicating that the amendment had not been ratified. (See CIS)

Contemporary Constitutional scholars noted that the amendment had not been ratified. William Rawle wrote that it “has been adopted by some of the states; but not yet by a sufficient number.” (See Rawle at 120) Joseph Story wrote that “it has not received the ratification of the constitutional number of states to make it obligatory, probably from a growing sense, that it is wholly unnecessary.” (See Story at sec. 1346)

b) Publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution by states is not ratification

The publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution at best indicates that the publishers who compiled the book (not necessarily the state legislature) thought that it was part of the Constitution, and at worst that sloppy editors were at work. Many publishers, especially non-government publishers, were quite slipshod in confirming the text and passage of amendments. (See Kammen) Colvin’s erroneous inclusion of the amendment was often copied, because a comprehensive new edition of United States statutes was not issued until 1845. (See Conklin at 125)

For example, when territories were organized, Congress passed an Organic Act that established the government for the territory. The form of government was fairly uniform and based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. In most cases, Congress gave territories a full set of statutes based on those of a neighbor – thus likely repeating any errors in its text.

Errors frequently do occur in government publications; Ames’s work, for example, fails to note the one ratification the 27th Amendment received in the 19th century, and it incorrectly states that the Titles of Nobility Amendment came within one ratification of becoming part of the Constitution (see below at 188). Congress determined that the publication of the amendment in 1817 was based on an erroneous belief that South Carolina had ratified the amendment. (See CIS)

On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J. M. Patton, who were preparing a new edition of the code of Virginia for publication, wrote to William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy (for reasons that are not immediately clear, although Preston was from Virginia), and noted that although the Titles of Nobility Amendment was included in the Revised Code of 1819, “[w]e are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been adopted.” Preston relayed their letter to the State Department. John M. Clayton, Secretary of State, responded that no copy of the amendment, claiming to be part of the Constitution, had been deposited with the Department; the amendment did not appear in a copy of the Constitution printed under the direction of the Department of State in 1820. (See National Archives)

Not to mention, for every time that the amendment was published, there were many occasions on which it was notpublished (even according to the information put forward by extremists, 17 states that joined the Union prior to 1867, including half of the states that ratified the amendment, did not publish it even once). Extremists also concede that many states that published the amendment later acknowledged that it had been published in error; no evidence is offered, of course, as to how international bankers conspired to publish these false retractions.

Further, the publication of an amendment as part of the Constitution in a compilation of state law cannot serve as a ratification. The Supreme Court has ruled that “the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution has its source in the federal Constitution.”Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, 230 (1920). As a result, the states must follow the procedures set up by the federal government and the Constitution (amendments must be ratified by convention or the legislature, as Congress may specify, and by no other method). Hawke clearly establishes that the ratification of an amendment cannot be accomplished through an ordinary act of legislation (subject to addditional conditions such as veto by a governor) because the ratification power is derived from the Constitution and not the people of a state.

In addition, the extremists who claim that the amendment was ratified are often the same extremists who claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was not ratified, because of minor differences in spelling and punctuation in state ratifications. Conveniently, they ignore the fact that there at least seven slightly different versions of the amendment among the state ratifications on file at the National Archives. (See National Archives)

c) Ratification by Virginia would not have made the amendment part of the Constitution

Even if Virginia ratified the amendment at any time during the ratification process, the amendment did not become part of the Constitution, because the amendment was never just one state away from this threshold. If Virginia ratified in 1819, as extremists claim, the ratification came far too late to matter.

When the amendment was submitted to the states in 1810, 13 ratifications were required; Louisiana was admitted to the Union on April 30, 1812, raising the required number of ratifications to 14. Prior to that date the amendment had received only 11 ratifications

New Hampshire ratified on December 9, 1812, raising the total number of ratifications to 12 out of the needed 14. But Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, raising the required number of ratifications to 15. Mississippi’s admission on December 10, 1817, did not change the threshold, but Illinois’s admission on December 3, 1818 raised the threshold to 16.

The extremist claim that these later states are not relevant, because an amendment only needs the support of three-fourths of the states in existence when it was submitted to the states. History reveals this claim to be specious – and this fact was known at the time the amendment was under consideration.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating under the Constitution, so each amendment required 9 ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of states required to 10, and Vermont joined the Union on March 4, 1791, raising the number of states required to 11. (See Wagmanat 41) The official notice of ratification was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until after notices of ratification had been received from 11 states. (See Schwartz at 1202-03)

If the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed the amendment equation, the original First Amendment (dealing with the apportionment of the House of Representatives) would be part of the Constitution, because ten states ratified it. Similarly, the 27th Amendment would not have required 38 ratifications to become part of the Constitution, but have become part of the Constitution when, in 1983, it received its ninth ratification.

In fact, if the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed the amendment equation, the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, because only 8 of the 11 states that ratified it in the 19th century were operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states (to celebarte the 150th anniversary of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified the first ten amendments in 1939).

In addition, the extremist claim that Constitutional requirements were different in the early 19th century because new states were frequently admitted to the Union is based on incorrect factual premises, as well as being without any theoretical support. After the admission of Kentucky on June 1, 1792, only four news states were admitted in the following 25 years (Tennessee, 1796; Ohio, 1803; Louisiana, 1812; Indiana, 1816); the late 18th and early 19th century was actually, statewise, a slow period of growth for the Union.

6) Would the amendment, as part of the Constitution, effect the eligibility of lawyers to serve in government offices?

No. This in particular is one of the most ludicrous claims ever put forward by extremists.

a) Domestic titles

First, lawyers cannot be considered to hold titles of nobility by virtue of being lawyers because Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution contain provisions that clearly prohibit the states and the federal government from granting titles:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex postfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

For example, judges in the U.S. are typically addressed as “Your Honor,” but this is a matter of custom, not nobility.The following court cases provide just a sampling of the ridiculous claims put forward (oddly, mostly filed and lost by tax protesters):

U.S. v. Smith, 1991 WL 326647 (Civ. A. No. 91-A-292-S, M.D.Ala. 1991) – “Taxpayer” is not a title of nobility.U.S. v. Riley, 1991 WL 192115 (Civ. A. No. 89-1403-T, D.Kan. 1991) – “Magistrate” is not a title of nobility.

U.S. v. Singer, 1990 WL 161258 (No. 85-00283-01, E.D.Pa. 1990) – A “person” as defined in the tax code is not a title of nobility.

Woodson v. Davis, 887 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1989) – “Officer of the Court” is not a title of nobility.

Hilgeford v. People’s Bank, 113 F.R.D. 161 (N.D.Ind. 1986) – Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility.

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985) – Employment by the I.R.S. is not a title of nobility.

Frederick v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 789 (W.D.Wis. 1984) – Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility.

White v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1981 WL 11137 (No. 1183-80, U.S. Tax Ct. 1981) – Having a degree is not a title of nobility.

The only case cited by extremists to support their claim is the opinion of Judge Saffold in Horst v. Moses, an Alabama case from 1872 (48 Ala. 129). First, the opinions in this case were delivered seriatim (individually by each judge), so a single judge’s opinion is of no precedential value. Second, the opinion refers to the definition of “title of nobility” in the state, not federal constitution, so it hasdubious relevance and no precedential value. Third, the opinion has never been cited since, except in one law review article in 1984, so its propositions can be safely dismissed as aberrations. (See Delgado) Fourth, the subject matter of the case is whether a group of individuals might be authorized by the state to conduct a lottery even while a criminal statute prohibiting lotteries remained in place for all other individuals. It was in this context only that Saffold wrote that “[t]o confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order…. [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility in the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights.” (Id. at 142)Lawyers are licensed to practice law by state bar associations under the control of the state Supreme Court and legislature. This type of regulation falls under the police powers of the states; all professions such as lawyers, doctors, barbers, as well as cosmetologists can be regulated by state authorities. By extremist “logic,” doctors, barbers, etc. therefore would be subject to exclusion from office under the amendment.

b) Foreign titles

The next claim put forward by extremists is that because American lawyers are referred to as “esquire” by the British Bar, an irrevocable title of nobility has been conferred upon them. Another lie.

“Title of nobility” has a specific legal meaning that cannot be ignored; although Nolan’s Black’s Law Dictionary is not a perfect reference source, its definition is serviceable:

Nobility. In English law, a division of the people, comprehending dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. These had anciently duties annexed to their respective honors. They are created either by writ, i.e., by royal summons to attend the house of peers, or by letters patent, i.e., by royal grant of any dignity and degree of peerage; and they enjoy many privileges, exclusive of their senatorial capacity.

Similar is a “title of honor”:

Honor. In old English law, a seigniory of several manors held under one baron or lord paramount. Also those dignities or privileges, degrees of nobility, knighthood, and other titles, which flow from the crown as the fountain of honor.

“Esquire” has two definitions, one noble, one not:

Esquire. In English law, a title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others. In United States, title commonly appended after name of attorney; e.g. John J. Jones, Esquire.

(See Nolan)Therefore, in addition to noting that the American usage of “Esquire” does not depend on English sources, Black’s clearly states that as used for lawyers it is a “title of office” that does not flow from the Crown – it is not inheritable, confers no special privileges, etc.

Further, the Disclaimer of Peerages Act 1963 allows British titles to be disclaimed (although there is a limited time in which to do so), a notable example being Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home, who left the House of Lords to sit in the Commons. (See Whitaker’s at 141) So even if the British Bar was understood to confer titles of nobility on American lawyers, American lawyers could simply refuse to accept them.

Extremists also make claims about the International Bar Association. The IBA, a federation of national bar associations and individual members, was founded in 1947. It does not confer titles; membership is voluntary; etc.

7) So who came up with this ludicrous theory?

Dodge is no mere archival researcher. He is a full-fledged extremist. This piece was first published in August 1991 in Alfred Adask’s AntiShyster, a violently anti-lawyer publication – not exactly an impartial, respected source.

For more on Dodge, ponder these excerpts:

Mueller, Phil, “Southern Utah Traffic Stop Escalates Into Constitutional Battle,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 23, 1995:

David Castle is spending 30 days in jail rather than compromise his fundamentalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.The month in the San Juan County Jail was handed down to the Albuquerque precious-metals dealer last week by a 7th District judge, the result of Castle’s persistence in raising constitutional questions about Utah’s traffic laws during his jury trial on a weapons charge and various traffic charges.

Castle has been representing himself with the help of David Dodge, a fellow constitutionalist from Miami who says he offers “personal assistance” to people around the country who challenge the system on constitutional grounds.

Thursday, Dodge filed a motion that Anderson recuse himself from the case, claiming the judge’s order to have the pair singled out every time they enter the courtroom, “is evidence of prejudice” against the two.

He claims Castle has a valid argument and is prepared to carry it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Castle said in an earlier interview that he considers driving a private vehicle a “natural right.”

France, Mike, “Homegrown Scholars Treat Framers’ Work as a Bible to Gird Anti-Government View,” The National Law Journal, June 26, 1995:

[C]onstitutionalist writings almost never refer to mainstream legal thinkers, and the movement’s leaders [display] little familiarity with contemporary constitutional debate.”What they are doing is pulling together things that have some academic respectability and distorting them and then mixing them with some silly, ludicrous things,” says Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Southern California.

Building on the core principles of the pecking order, the Organic Constitution and natural man, constitutionalists have erected a wide variety of esoteric theories. For example, one popular belief is that there is a “missing” 13th Amendment which was validated by the states in the 1810s, but which was suppressed by a conspiracy of bankers and lawyers. The effect of this amendment-which was actually proposed by Congress in 1810 but never officially ratified- would have allegedly been to prevent lawyers from serving in government.

Extensive scholarship sometimes supports these theories. For example, a 137- page book on “The Missing 13th Amendment” has been published by Alfred Adask, the editor of AntiShyster, a Dallas, Texas, magazine critical of the legal profession. The volume includes photocopies of state legislative records and 19th century versions of the Constitution that reprint the “missing” amendment.

In spite of all of Mr. Adask’s evidence, academic support for the theory is slim. “I’ve never heard anyone reputable talking about that theory,” says Mr. Chemerinsky.

One of the nation’s most well-known conservative constitutional scholars, who requested anonymity out of fear of that his theories might be confused with the constitutionalists, derides their thinking as “constitutional astrology.”

“The level of real political alienation which drives them is scary,” says this scholar.

Then consider these excerpts about Alfred Adask’s AntiShyster:Steve Blow, “Primal scream now the voice of public’s rage,” The Dallas Morning News, April 19, 1996:

Mr. Adask was deeply embittered by a trip through divorce court. And he directed his rage toward reform of the legal system.[Some of the] ads are chilling in their paranoia. “Government Control thru Our Food Supply? Some say it’s coming,” warns an ad for a survivalist food dealer.

“Go ahead, demonize them. Ridicule them. Put them under surveillance. Drive them deeper into isolation and paranoia. And see what you have by the year 2000,” he said. “You’ll see missiles flying in your back yard.”

Thomas Edwards, “Texan dissenters create own courts,” San Antonio Express-News, March 3, 1996:

One reason why common law courts seem to be growing slowly in popularity may be linked to a belief that “the existing legal system doesn’t serve” the public – only attorneys, said Alfred Adask, the editor and publisher of the Dallas-based AntiShyster magazine.The magazine is a forum for constitutionalists who want to put the law back into the hands of the common man and is crammed with articles on obscure rulings and laws.

It also contains a standing $10,000 offer for any five attorneys to prove in a debate they are both honorable human beings and proud to be members of the state Bar Association.

France, Mike, “The Right-Wing Hates the Bar as well as the Federal Government,” The National Law Journal, May 8, 1995:

Packed with articles about the Uniform Commercial Code and the Constitution, AntiShyster magazine is a little like a law review-though certainly not one for lawyers. It features cartoons of robed barristers beating Lady Justice with hammers, and it’s laced with ads for survivalist stores and ammunition outlets. The Dallas-based bimonthly is dedicated to the proposition that “our legal system is a con-game, a hustle, a scam, a criminal activity that depends on the public’s confidence (ignorance and blind trust).”And who reads AntiShyster? Publisher Alfred Adask, who calls lawyers “punks, weaklings, con artists and losers,” says that more than half of his estimated 45,000 readers are members of the so-called patriot movement, the right-wing fringe that allegedly spawned suspected Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J. McVeigh. Many also belong to local citizen militias.

Late last March, says Mr. Keene, several members of the Texas Common Law Militia attended Preparedness Expo ’95, a three-day seminar in the Dallas Convention Center on topics such as self-defense, self- reliant living and food and water storage. One attraction: a lecture by Mark Koernke, a right-wing radio personality and one-time leader of the Michigan Militia who has been linked to Mr. McVeigh. Another featured speaker was Bo Gritz, who ran as the vice-presidential candidate on the Populist Party ticket headed by David Duke and who has been linked to the Ku Klux Klan.

Joining Mr. Koernke and Mr. Gritz was Mr. Adask, publisher of AntiShyster.

And the groups that have been active in the civil litigation reform movement are careful to distance themselves from the far right.

Americans For Legal Reform, a vocal Melville, N.Y., protest group that wants to put limits on the ability of lawyers to run for office, also takes pains to separate itself from AntiShyster. “Al [Adask] has gone off on a couple of tangents that we don’t particularly agree with,” says publicity director Harvey Kash.

But while Mr. Adask may seem extreme to HALT or Americans For Legal Reform, his views are mild compared with those of some of his readers, says Rick Schramm, of Right Way l.a.w., a Uniontown, Ohio, club that offers seminars on Bible-based pro se legal advocacy. Mr. Schramm, who says that his school condemns racism, says that several teachers in the self-help legal movement are white supremacists.

“Some of these guys say that the only people who have any rights in court are white, Christian men,” says Mr. Schramm.

These are the people that Mr. Adask says lawyers should really worry about. Although he is opposed to violence, Mr. Adask has revealed in his own pages that he “gave serious consideration to murdering the judge and the lawyer that represented my ex-wife in our divorce,” but rejected the idea. He warns that others may not be so reasonable.

Alfred Adask, “Daddy, Why Doesn’t the Vice President Like You?,” Anti-Shyster, January 1992, at 12-13:

Our entire judicial system has become an extortion racket designed to enrich lawyers at the expense of productive members of society. Almost every licensed, practicing lawyer is a beneficiary and co-conspirator in that extortion racket….Lawyers are ‘political racketeers,’ ‘economic cannibals,’ and ‘social parasites’ who ‘help… destroy America for a buck.’ Lawyers are: 98% bad people, lousy Americans, ethical cowards, professional sociopaths who are almost certainly the primary cause of the social and economic decline of this nation.

8) Bibliography

“Amendment proposed to the Constitution in relation to titles of nobility, &c.,” 15th Cong., CIS No: ASP038 Misc. 446Ames, Herman V., “The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History,” H. Doc. 353, 54th Cong, Sess. 2 (1897).

Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 530.

Conklin, Curt E., The Case of the Phantom Thirteenth Amendment: A Historical and Bibliographical Nightmare,” Law Library Journal, Winter 1996, p. 121-127.

Delgado, Richard, “Inequality ‘From the Top’: Applying an Ancient Prohibition to an Emerging Problem of Distributive Justice,” UCLA Law Rveiew, October 1984, p. 100-134. Earle, W. H., “The Phantom Amendment and the Duchess of Baltimore,” American History Illustrated, November 1987, p. 33-39.

Kammen, Michael. A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture, New York: Knopf, 1986.

National Archives, “Unratified Amendments, 1810 and 1924.” Series RG-11. Washington, DC.

Nolan, Joseph R., and Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1990.

Rawle, William, A View of the Constitution, Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1829, p. 120.

Schwartz, Roots of Bill of Rights

Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1833, sec. 1346.

Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The Constitution of the United States of America, With a Summary of the Actions by the States in Ratification of the Provisions Thereof, To Which is Appended, for its Historical Interest, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, 1961.

Wagman, Robert J., The First Amendment Book, New York: World Almanac, 1991, p. 41.

Whitaker’s Almanac, 128th ed., London: J. Whitaker, 1996, p. 141.

  

This page was last modified on December 26, 2007. Please email Jol A. Silversmith with comments, corrections, etc.

Any opinions on this site are my own. Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advertising, solicitation, or advice. Only an attorney who has been informed of your personal circumstances and is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction can provide you with effective counsel. Unless otherwise specified, the copyright of all documents on or linked to by this site is that of each document’s author(s).

GENERAL ARTICLE: The Other Amendments: Constitutional Amendments That Failed *

*(c) Michael J. Lynch, 2001.

Spring, 2001

93 Law Libr. J. 303

Author

Michael J. Lynch **

Excerpt

P1 My daughter recently asked me an interesting question about the United States Constitution. “According to my history class, the first Congress passed twelve amendments to the Constitution, ten of which were ratified by the states and became the Bill of Rights. What were the other two?”

P2 Occasionally it is convenient to have a law librarian for a father. I knew the answer was likely to be in the Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation,  1 updated from time to time by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The editors of the most recent edition are Johnny Killian and George Costello, but the work is still associated with Professor Edward S. Corwin, the noted constitutional scholar who extended the scope and authority of its commentary fifty years ago.  2 The most recent edition came out in 1992 and is supplemented to 1998–good enough for historical questions. Most of my details about pending amendments come from that source.

P3 The curious status of the unratified amendments my daughter asked about was in the news a few years ago, for reasons to be disclosed later, but if I saw it mentioned, I never focused on it. I’ve mentioned it to several lawyers and professors who were surprised, so, I suppose, even law librarians may find it fresh.  3

P4 The Library of Congress edition of the Constitution has a short section entitled “Proposed Amendments not Ratified by the States.”  4 It confirms that the …

The Other AmendmentsConstitutional Amendments That Failed

by MJ Lynch – 2001
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s