

The Missing 13th Amendment

"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor


      In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and
former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for
evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the
Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered
the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United
States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document
included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of
the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language
and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this
"missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in
government.

      So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surroun-
ding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history --
the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of
the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered ad-
ditional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment
printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different
states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

      In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this
missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state
of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American
Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have
been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in
government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution
during the tumult of the Civil War.

      Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the
Law today. The implications are enormous.

      The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times
confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American
Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essen-
tially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the
Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we
should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent
current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

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

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

      At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also
called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant.
The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and
"prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution
act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our
modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments
seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

      Not so.

      Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First,
"titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the
Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already
prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility"
amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to
Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw
such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that
anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the
government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four
decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles
of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our
founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

      To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we
must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the
American Revolution.

      We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless,
and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as
dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western
nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned
other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided
an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow
their European monarchies.

      Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in
1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies.
The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations,
that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies.
The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising
(1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we
stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies
regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle
source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the
world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle
source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world
might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

      Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or
subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't
destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of
political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in
bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war".
Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money
is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's
counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.

DON'T BANK ON IT
(Modern Banking System)

      The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a
former president of the Bank of England:

      "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.
The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born
in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave
them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will
create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power
away form them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for
then this would be a better and happier world to live in... But, if
you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of
your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
control credit." The last great abuse of our banking system caused
the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another.
Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships
between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at
the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford,
politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the
CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking
by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money
to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're
not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses
of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)

      The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic
bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a
human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to
America despite early colonial prohibitions.

      When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in
1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time,
banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early
settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European
goldsmith banks.

      Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold.
In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes
(paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers
quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked
by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by
allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not
own, gold that did not even exist.

      Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper
money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the
bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the
paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the
paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime
hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their
fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The
practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank
insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and
our federal government's unbridled growth.)

PAPER MONEY

      If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the
American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war,
Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an
amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another
$200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money
fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to
1000 paper bills for one coin.

      It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against
a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the
wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in
a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims
of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.

      "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of
our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the
justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of
thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry,
and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality
of our people."

CONSPIRACIES

      A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that
almost succeeded in destroying the United States:

      According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in
the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolu-
tion. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered
that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published
it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the
Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal
judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth
about the government.

      Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators
agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to
pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later
fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been
bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people.
That's subversion.

      The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians
from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won-
out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000
-- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank
was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capi-
tal), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the
bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000
that didn't exist.

      However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by
1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell
its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United
States Bank.)

      The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence
representative government by economic manipulation and outright
bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that european
banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused
to renew the bank's charter. This led to the withdrawal of
$7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in turn, precipi-
tated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

      That's destruction.

      There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts
to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David
Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress
Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in
the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitu-
tional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers.
That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Vir-
ginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.' There is no public
record that this book exists."

      That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette
(5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare
books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be
secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment.

                           TITLES OF NOBILITY

      In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States,
bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were
fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for
their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal
does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and
judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later
into the newly formed United States of America.

      Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated
wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of
organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as
"legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did
their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves
by granting them "titles of nobility".

      Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as
"Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires".
As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more
civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable)
than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and
lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was
"Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

                     INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

      In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held
no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted
to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The
only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar
Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in
London, and closely associated with the international banking system.
Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title
of nobility".

      "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th
Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because
the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers
with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy,
members of an organization whose principle purposes were political,
not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people
today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

      Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the
International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted
titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution
neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and
agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the
government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).
Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty
(loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The
meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons
having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and
bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to
subvert the government.

HONOR

      The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility"
Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may
be more significant.

      According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary,
the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment
was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or
privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor"
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:
Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and
powers; non-lawyers cannot.

      By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any
advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal
opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the
second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political
equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even
government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege
or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

      If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key
concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of
nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the
concept of "honor" remains relevant.

      For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits
which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate
privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote
or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that
our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.
As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation
our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for
"special privileges" (honors).

WHAT IF?
(Implications if Restored)

      If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests"
and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition
against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to
operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without
their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S.
agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal
liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire govern-
ment would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of
decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If
this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our govern-
ment's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be
all but eliminated.

      Imagine.

      Imagine!

      A government without special privileges or immunities. How
could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government
... of the people ... by the people ... for the people!

      Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable
to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its
own people!

      It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in
the entire history of the world.

      Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the
National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Con-
gress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states
when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that
ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only
twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The
Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the
Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobil-
ity" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

      Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge
and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would
still be an extraordinary story.

      Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having
a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an
extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close
we came?

      One vote. One state's vote.

      The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to
ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that
ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn
in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support.

      One vote.

      David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he
claims he has the evidence to prove it.

PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND

      In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of pos-
sible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately
become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate
reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tris-
train Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and
provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of Nobility"
(RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this
was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed.

      Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed
another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceed-
ings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted
to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved
in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the
States for ratification:

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

      The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify
a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution.
When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810,
there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify
for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives,
the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their
dates of ratification:

      Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
      Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
      Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
      Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
      Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
      New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
      Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
      Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
      Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
      North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
      Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
      New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812

      Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke
out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had
burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records
of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection
between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of
1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed
Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

      Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the
status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818,
President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been rati-
fied by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Is-
land), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's
position. (House Document No. 76)

      (This, and other letters written by the President and the
      Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note
      only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified.
      However, these letters would later become crucial because,
      in the absence of additional information they would be
      interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

      On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the
rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129].
There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th
Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is
neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the execu-
tive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any
correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a
journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the
House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a
time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.)
Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

      However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act
No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for
micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there
shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in
which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the
Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by
law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the
Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed
that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that
the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the
13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of
re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

      The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that
were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also
knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so
they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published
in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple
their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to
President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
(The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be
extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would
forfeit his bond.)

      In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by
publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the
Constitution.

      There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified
the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment.
Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or
at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally
ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence
of ratification.

      Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secre-
tary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the
ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three-
fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the
Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment
is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what
procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the
ratification of amendments.

      Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amend-
ment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the
nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special
edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

      Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the
States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment
in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Main ordered 10,000 copies
of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in
the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition.
Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20.
Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831
and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory
in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska
Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

      So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or
territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publica-
tions over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th
Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto someth-
ing.

      You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even
all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never
ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which
ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far) con-
sisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments from
their ... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the
public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants
who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to "look
the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an awful lot of
evidence to be explained.

THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS

      In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New
York Revised Statutes:

      "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to,
there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens
from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c.
from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the
United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution
of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had
been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted.
See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th
congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon
Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st
vol. p. 73 (or 74).

      It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in
Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in
anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to
discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States
had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying
the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact,
it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed --
the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its
existence.

      However, because the notes authors reported no further referen-
ces to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February,
1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in
failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on
the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed
the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming
that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on
the Amendment -- has persisted to this day.

      In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of
Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It
was at that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named
Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston,
asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake.
Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied
that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of
States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secre-
tary of State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in
1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the
Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th
Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite
thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton's opinion, the
Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories
for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in
the Nebraska territory in 1860).

      Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of
American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December
of 1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.

      Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thir-
teen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed
amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend
read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitu-
tion which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or
interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof,
including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of
said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve
that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only
one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the
Civil War broke out in 1861.

      In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally
removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment
(which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in
Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General
Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had
signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and
states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the "new" 13th
Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states
rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effec-
tively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited
"titles of nobility" and "honors".

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

      To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now
endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of nobility"
Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it
was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this
13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and
exercise political power.

      Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly
developing bar associations began working diligently to create a
system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as
"Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like
district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By
virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have
assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S.
citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a
two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but
only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-
tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political
interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's
egalitarian spirit.

      The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion
from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawful-
ly nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of
the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amend-
ment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and
court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutional-
ly elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even
mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

      At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that
two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people
and nation. Some things never change.

THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY ....
Heed warnings of Founding Fathers

      In his farewell address, George Washington warned of "... change
by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instru-
ment of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments
are destroyed."

      In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of
Rights similar to Virginia's. Three of his suggestions were "freedom
of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases" and "no
suspensions of the habeas corpus."

      No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dis-
missed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have
dreamed our legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when
that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King
George III?

      Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in our
courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, suspended.
(By crimes against the state, I refer to "political crimes" where
there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is
equally imaginary.)

      The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme
Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800's. Judges
(and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of
the People "un-Constitutional", waited until their decision was
grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the
bar associations.

      Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that
executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states ("... and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."),
the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding
upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas
Jefferson foresaw in "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query 17, p.
161, 1784:

      "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time
for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our
rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this
war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to
resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgot-
ten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget
themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never
think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The
shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion
of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavi-
er, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

      We await the inevitable convulsion.

      Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights?
Or will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, sur-
rendered to the courts, and perhaps to a "new world order"?

MORE EDITIONS FOUND

      As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher
in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions
of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment.

      These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of
the states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas,
1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

      These finds are important because: 1) they offer independent
confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) they extend the known dates of
publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge's most recent find), to Colora-
do in 1867.

      The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory
edition which includes both the "missing" 13th Amendment and the
current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The
current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867
Colorado edition.

      This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started
with the questions about how our courts evolved from a temple of the
Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation
had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger's warning that
we were "about to lose our constitution". My seven year inves-
tigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the
missing 13th Amendment is only a "drop in the bucket" of the infor-
mation I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and by
definition, is never truly complete.

      If you will, please check your state's archives and libraries to
review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War,
or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If
you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate
hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research.
Please send your comments or discoveries to:

ARGUMENTS


      Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from
serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing
laws granting "honors" (special privileges, immunities, or ad-
vantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a
government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even
themselves, equally.

      It's never been done before. Not once.

      But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United
States proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have
given us just that sort of equality and political paradise.

      The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn
discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained
the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on
the Constitution:

      If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, re-
ceive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office,
or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or
foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or
profit under them, or either of them. {Emphasis added]

      As outlined in the August AntiShyster, this Amendment would have
restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and
would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legis-
lation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even
themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality
in this nation that most people can't even imagine.

      Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:

      1) The 13th Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and
"honors" appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the
United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories
between 1819 and 1867; and 2) This amendment quietly disappeared from
the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

      Either this Amendment:

      1) Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years;
or 2) Was ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the
Constitution by 1867.

      If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published,
the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a
century. If so, it's at least a good story -- an extraordinary
historical anecdote.

      On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly
ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If
so, this "missing" Amendment would still be the Law, and this story
could be one of the most important stories in American History.

      Whatever the answer, it's certain that something extraordinary
happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.

PROS AND CONS
(for Ratification)

      Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the
principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in
1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the
Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane
Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the
National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly
ratified and only published in error.

      There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was
proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the propos-
ed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be
ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states
voted to support ratification.

      The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the
proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the
Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should
still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr.
Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify.

      Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia's legislative jour-
nals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War;
possibly during the 1930's). Consequently, neither side has found
absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against)
ratification.

      A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen.
Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disa-
greement.

      After Dodge's initial report of a "missing" Amendment in the
1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was
a one-time publishing error: "The Main Legislature mistakenly
printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having
been adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratifi-
ed." Further, "All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after
1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain
this error."

      Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date)
of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing
Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was
not a "one-time" publishing error.

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION

      After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the
"missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the
Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by
twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However,
because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states
vote to ratify an Amendment, Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the
13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only
twelve, not thirteen States.

      Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at
the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which
states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung
on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.

      After several years of searching the Virginia state archive,
Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a
misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the
"missing" 13th Amendment.

      Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that
shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not
catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the
National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law
school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists
in any of their computer programs."*1*

      Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen.
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative
construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is
published as the official acts of the legislature are the official
acts." By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official
publication, Virginia demonstrated: 1) that they knew they were the
last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; 2)
that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they were
publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as
an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been
ratified.

      Dodge concluded, "Unless there is competing evidence to the
contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States
was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who
accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special
favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and
lawyers."

RATIONALES
(for Ratification)

      Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, "Article XIII did not
receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the
time limit to be ratified." (Although his language is imprecise,
Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed
to satisfy the "time limit", the required three-quarters of the
states did vote to ratify.)

      Dodge replies: "Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time
limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now
established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments."

      In fact, ratification time limits didn't start until 1917, when
Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, "This Article shall
be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years
from the date of submission ... to the States by Congress." A
similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but
there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was propos-
ed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.

      Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale,
somewhere, that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen.
Mitchell implicitly conceded that his "published by error" and "time
limit" arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to
dispute the ratification:

      "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the
      proposed Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819, this ap-
      proval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution.
      In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and
      any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to
      amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Vir-
      ginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the
      proposed amendment."

      Dodge replies:

      "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent
      on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-
      fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is
      submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of
      the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only
      the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of
      Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable
      that ratification be limited to those States that took an active
      part in the Amendment process."

      Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "Presi-
dent Monroe had his Secretary of State... [ask the] governors of
Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to
the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new
states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were
added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered."

      From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states
would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that
our perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's added only
five new states in this century -- about one every eighteen years.
However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification
drama unfolded), they added eight states -- almost one new state
every two years.

      This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national at-
titudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with
the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new
states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama.
The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that
growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new
state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the
nation's growth.

      For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while
an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might
depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a
proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the
proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment
might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the Union. On the
other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even
deny a particular territory's statehood. These complications could
unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or
restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments. Neither
possibility could appeal to politicians.

      Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to
ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision
on ratifying the 13th Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions
of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in
the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's
apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be
included in the ratification process.

      In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the
Secretary of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old"
states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states
was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia's
vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing' Amend-
ment in 1819 (and would still be so today).

INSULT TO INJURY

      Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs
that the "missing" 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional
requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives)
wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the
bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:

      "Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United
States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct
number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed constitu-
tional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States
of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was
performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State
never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility
amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that
amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution."

      This is an extraordinary admission.

      Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was
ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification
requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification
was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not
properly notified with a "certificate of ratification". In other
words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th Amendment
was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied
Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless
missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet
of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that
despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted
to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of
this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a
single "certificate of ratification". This "certificate" may be
missing because either 1) Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or
2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3) the notice was lost,
unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat
in Washington D.C.

      This final excuse insults every American's political rights, but
Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National
Archives "received a certificate of ratification of the title of
nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform
Congress and await further developments." In other words, the issue
of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a
legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a
historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still live.*2*

      But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining
argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is a procedural
error involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification".

      Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of
the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th
Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the
Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session,
at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification") from the
Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to
the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives
where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table." Likewise, "The
Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Mary-
land's earlier ratification is not listed as having been return to
Congress."

      The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not
required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification
decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a
"certificate of ratification" with the Secretary of State. Again,
despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing"
Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied
because of some possible procedural error.

QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!

      Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against
ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of
the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the
conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such
an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amend-
ment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress
has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued
rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly
close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents,
waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to
uncover the final proof.

      We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck,
and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the
eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hart-
grove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a duck, and
therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it's a
duck.

      Maybe so.

      But if we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not.
If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence
against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the
government's refusal to acknowledge the proof.

      We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in
the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include
the "missing" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer
and taunt us with cries of "make us".

      Perhaps we shall.

      The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The
answer lies buried in the archives.

      If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in
the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed
between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the "missing"
13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico,
87571.

1) It's worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher,
      uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the
      Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment.
      Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state
      archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and
      unknown to the Colorado archivists.

2) If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in
      1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a
      fantastic possibility. Since there was no time limit specified
      when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government
      clearly believed only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in
      the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Vir-
      ginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the
      necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the
      Amendment to the Constitution.


Hello ACTers,

A few months back there was quite a lot of traffic concerning the
"lost" 13th amendment. It has recently been mentioned again, so this
may be a good time to bring this up. I was able to contact the
researchers, David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March and get a copy of
the latest report on this topic. Many of you are very familiar with
this story, but there is relatively new information concerning the
records that exist which substantiate the validity of the claim that
the "Titles of Nobility" was actually ratified. It is necessary to
go through the report carefully, but it seems certain from the
documents that have been found at the National Archives and elsewhere
that TON was legally ratified. For those who are new to this I will
re-hash the old news and weave in the new as I go along.

In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn, while
looking for evidence of political corruption in a library in Belfast
Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine Civil Code. In this
document, as I believe is customary, the Constitution of the U.S. was
printed. They noticed that Article Thirteen of the amendments was
not the same Article Thirteen which is now enumerated in the Consti-
tution. This Article Thirteen, which is known as the "Titles of
Nobility" amendment, (TON) reads as follows:

                                   Article XIII

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

The post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a written
communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as I recall,
someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in Washington DC.
It appears that the original position of Mitchell and Hargrave was
that this was simply a printing error and that it had been im-
mediately corrected upon discovery. This does not appear to be the
case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last count, 24 different
state legislatures which printed this amendment as Article Thirteen,
in 77 separate editions of their respective Civil Codes. This
occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876. It has also been found
in school text books and other publications from that period. At
first I was very skeptical, but now I have seen 2nd generation photo
copies of all of these documents. Almost every document carries a
stamp from the library where it was found. In some cases where the
document was hand written I have only seen a typed version, but after
speaking with the researchers at length, I am sure that these typed
reproductions are faithful. In total, they present compelling
evidence that the original Article Thirteen was wrongfully removed
from the Constitution.

Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the National
Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between Dodge and
Mitchell). One such position was that the article in question had
been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in 1810 and subse-
quently ratified by only 12 states before the close of 1812. As
there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment was proposed it
required that 13 states ratify, and this did not happen. Dodge and
Dunn continued their research. They found a circular letter, dated
7, Jan. 1818, commissioned bythe House of Representatives for
President James Monroe and written by then Secretary of State, John
Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3 states, of the original 17, that
had not yet responded, as to their disposition on the proposed
Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one of those states. Dodge and
Dunn now went to the Library of Congress and were allowed access to
the rare book room. There they found an un-cataloged book entitled
"The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia", 1819. The amendment was
there, listed as the Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution.
This, of course, indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the
amendment, constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at
the time the amendment was proposed... and now, the Senator's posi-
tion changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that
since there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818
or 1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law.
They contended that It would have then required 16 votes to ratify,
not 13.

This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and the
National Archives, although the Archives legal department has not yet
formally responded to the question. The Constitution is **silent**
on what is to be done concerning the addition of new states during
the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new states (Louisi-
ana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator Mitchell and the
archivists, claim should have been considered in this process, all,
**without exception**, carried the "Titles of Nobility" amendment on
their U.S. Constitutions for at least several years after 1818 or
1819. It would appear that those state's own legislatures considered
this to be the law of the land.

There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not
included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a
thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added
during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate
that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on the
amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said earlier, all
four states have been shown to have published the TON amendment. The
letters from those state archives are among the documents not inclu-
ded in the report. I have seen copies of all the documents. These
guys have done some tremendous research and documented everything
very well.

Another "report to the President" of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the
four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically the
states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN, THE NEW
STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not available
when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include some of the new
material I feel certain that he will.

To summarize:

      * The current position of those in the government is that
            there may have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the
            amendment. However, at the time that such ratification
            took place, new states had entered the union. The required
            3/4 majority was not met as determined by the addition of
            the new states.

      * Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation
            that supports the claim that at that time the new states
            were not considered in the process of ratification.

            - The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818

            - The report to the president of feb. 3 1818

            - Published civil codes of the four new states which
                  clearly show that those states considered the amend-
                  ment law even though they had not been asked to vote
                  on it.

      * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the
            matter of new states entering the Union during the ratif-
            ication process.

      * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the
            matter of time limits on the ratification process itself.
            Today, time limits on an amendments ratification must be
            stipulated at the time of the acceptance of the proposal.
            This was not done in the case of TON, so there was/is no
            time limit in effect.

      * I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from
            the Constitution other than congressional repeal, which
            requires the passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone
            know of another way with precedent?


Will Morris
William_Morris@ccm.jf.intel.com

P.S: If you would like to read the report for yourself you need to
      get one from Brian March. They do not want it posted electron-
      ically. In all fairness I completely understand this. They
      have been working on this since 83' and they sure don't get any
      coverage from the main stream press. They are on their own
      trying to inform people that !!! SOMEONE HAS BEEN SCREWING WITH
      OUR CONSTITUTION !!!

The book also includes several excellent essays on Banking that were
published anonymously in "The Spirit of 76'" newspaper. It is
suspected that Jefferson wrote these. It is curious that he would
feel compelled to do so anonymously.

Send $25.00 for 1st class delivery or $30.00 for 2 day express

To:
Brian March
c/o P.O. Box 26512
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125/TDC
--

 ********************************************************************
  "The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear
  of resistance."
            --Thomas Paine
 ********************************************************************
 timr@efn.org
 (503) 895-4681 (FAX)
 (503) 895-4417 (VOICE)

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
