The Lawful
Path
http://www.lawfulpath.com

Narrow is the
Path to the Truth

Welcome

Reading
Room

Catalog

Calendar

Springboard

Contact
Us

The Missing 13th Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former
Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of
government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on
the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the
Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned
to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on
current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the
Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle
intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from
serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the
truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American
history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the
Constitution of the United States.

Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the
Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least
eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories
over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge
uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been
lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic
Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no
logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from
serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S.
Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was
never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are
enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing
because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution
were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues:

What does the Amendment mean? and,

Was the Amendment ratified?

Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first
understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

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

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

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

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:

First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of
the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article
I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States
(1787);

Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an
additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in
1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the
founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and
"honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship.
Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over
four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles
of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious
that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding
fathers than is readily apparent today.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must
understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American
Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign,
harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as
dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western
nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other
revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example
and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European
monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783,
the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United
States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them
to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution
(1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part
encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of
hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a
political typhoid Mary, the 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 sought to destroy or subvert
the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us
militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion,
employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception
-- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money,
politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit
treason, much of the monarchy's counter- revolutionary efforts emanated
from English banks.

DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)

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

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of
hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born
in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them
the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create
enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away from
them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the
cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
control credit."

The last great abuse of the U.S. banking system caused the depression
of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank
scandals illustrate the 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, U.S.-taxpayer? You are.)

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

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

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

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

PAPER MONEY

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

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

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

CONSPIRACIES

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

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the
1794 Jay
Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to
King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate
ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be
published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the
exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it
passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could
prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the
government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would U.S.
Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree
to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury
over being exposed, unless we assume U.S. Senators had been bribed to
serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That's
subversion.

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

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

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

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to
subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others
remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered
a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law Library. According
to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that
reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret
agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this
Amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the
mail. There is no public record that this book exists." That may sound
surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the Library of
Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million
un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets buried in that mass
of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional
Amendment.

TITLES OF NOBILITY

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

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

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

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no
"title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a
lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or
judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer;
there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization
that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA),
chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely
associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the
IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was
the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to
prohibit from the United States.

Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and
lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy,
members of an organization whose 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 to foreign governments and
bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to
subvert the government.

HONOR

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

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

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

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in
the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer
apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains
relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits
which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate
privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or
hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that U.S.
judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another
example, think of all the "special interest" legislation the U.S.
government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special
privileges" (honors).

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)

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

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

Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the
public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people!
It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire
history of the world.

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

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and
Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an
extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close the US
came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize
what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how
close we came? One vote. One state's vote.

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

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

PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND

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

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

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

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

Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810

Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811

Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811

Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811

Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811

New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811

Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811

Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811

Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811

North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811

Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812

New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812

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

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of
this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe
reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the
governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that
the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by
two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of
their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other
letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the
month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet
been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because,
in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean
the amendment was never ratified).

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

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

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

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

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the
Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have
argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not
recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However,
printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification.
Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of
State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification
process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states
ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters
of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is
otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
communicate the ratification of amendments.

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

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

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

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

THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS

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

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

In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes
refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

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

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

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia
(which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time
that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the
Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had
been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the
Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a
sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the
information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the
House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819.
(Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about
this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
requisite thirteen, had ratified.)

However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be
published in various states and territories for at least another eleven
years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).

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

Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was
signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was
ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the
Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to
abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions
thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws
of said State."

In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have
permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois,
ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

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

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain:

Will we fight to revive our rights? Or,

Will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire,
surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a "new world order"?

MORE EDITIONS FOUND

As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher in
Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of
statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment.
These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states
that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the
Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because:

They offer independent confirmation of Dodge's claims; and

They extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860
(Dodge's most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.

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

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

ARGUMENTS

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

It's never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810
the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the
Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and
political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and
Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which
contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer
appears on the Constitution:

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

This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving
in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special
interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not
even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in
this nation that most people can't even imagine. Since 1983, researchers
have uncovered evidence that:

The 13th Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and "honors"
appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United
States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between
1819 and 1867; and

This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the
end of the Civil War.

Either this Amendment was:

Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or

Ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution
by 1867.

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

On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly
ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so,
this "missing" Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be
one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the
answer, it's certain that something extraordinary happened to our
Constitution between 1819 and 1867.

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

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

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was proposed by
Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the proposed Amendment
required the support of at least thirteen states to be ratified. Both
sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states voted to support
ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected
the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the
Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should
still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove
disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify. Unfortunately, several
decades of Virginia's legislative journals were misplaced or destroyed
(possibly during the Civil War; possibly during the 1930's).

Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia
legislature voted for (or against) ratification. A series of letters
exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove
illuminate the various points of disagreement. After Dodge's initial
report of a "missing" Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen.
Mitchell explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error:

"The Maine Legislature mistakenly printed the proposed
Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted. As you know,
this was a mistake, as it was not ratified."

Further,

"All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820
[sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this
error."

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

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION

After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the
"missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the
Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve
of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the
Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an
Amendment. Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was
published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen
States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the
time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states
had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether
one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made
a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the
1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the "missing" 13th Amendment.
Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that shows this
book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a
holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union
Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland
were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer
programs."

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen.
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative
construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published
as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts." By
publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia
demonstrated that they:

Knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify
this 13th Amendment;

Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and

Were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil
Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed
been ratified.

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

RATIONALES (for Ratification)

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

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

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

Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere,
that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly
conceded that his "published by error" and "time limit" arguments were
invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification:
"... regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed
Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have
been sufficient to amend the Constitution.

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any
amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the
Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only
been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment." Dodge
replies: "Article
V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question
of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the
time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification,
or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time.
Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of
Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that
ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the
Amendment process."

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

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would
be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that this
perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's added only five new
states in this century -- about one every eighteen years. However, between
1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they
added eight states -- almost one new state every two years. This rapid
national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our
own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing
Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the
Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not
willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural
obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could
inadvertently slow the nation's growth.

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

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

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

INSULT TO INJURY

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

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

This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes
that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the
Constitution's ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists
that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary
of State was not properly notified with a "certificate of ratification".
In other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th
Amendment was not ratified boils down to this:

Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for
ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply
because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington.

Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the
States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the
legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because
somebody screwed up and lost a single "certificate of ratification". This
"certificate" may be missing because either:

Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or

The notice was "lost in the mail"; or

The notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally
destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

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

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

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

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

QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!

Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against
ratificationbhave been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the
evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions
are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such an austere
sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amendment:

According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402
un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.
The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried
in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will
take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell
from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we
can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a duck, and therefore, the
government is under no obligation to concede it's a duck. Maybe so. But if
we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not. If the proof of
ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is
almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government's refusal to
acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing
bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again
include the "missing" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and
jeer and taunt us with cries of "make us". Perhaps we shall.

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

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

Was it ratified? There is a lot of evidence that it was. Could all of
the following publications have been in error?

The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of
Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment
to the Constitution of the United States:

Colorado

1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 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

Wyoming

1869, 1876

Totals:

24 States in 78 separate official government publications.

Note: "Pimsleur's", a checklist of legal publications,
does not list many of the above volumes.

* This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published
the "Titles of Nobility" amendment, the second was published right
after Congress set the requirements for Missouri's admission as a
State. The "Titles of Nobility" amendment was replaced with a
notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.

ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS:

"The History of the World"

Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished
by Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.

"The Rights of an American Citizen"

Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.

"Laws of the United States of America"

Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74.
[See: Note]

"The American Politician"

M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.

"Constitution of the United States"

C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.

Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence"

Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.

"Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the
use of Common Schools"

John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and
Professor of Moral Mental and Political Science), Butler and Co.,
Philadelphia, 1850, p.100.

"Potter's Justice"

H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1828,
p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does not have "Titles of
Nobility"].

Note: The "Laws of the United States" was published by John Duane.
Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia's plan to ratify this amendment
which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of banking and the
agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys. Currency manipulation
led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal
bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of
attorneys** has always been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar,
monarch or corporate monopoly.

** See: "Acts of Virginia", Feb. 20, 1812, p.143.

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

To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of
persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the
people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it rises
more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise
empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the
terms "privilege", "honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively
in the term "title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any
consideration paid or rendered for the grant.
"Bouvier's Law
Dictionary", 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments
as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571.

The prohibition of titles of nobility stops the claim of eminent domain
through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for
expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of
this amendment.

The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies
buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large
library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S.
Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870.

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

If you find more evidence of the "missing" 13th Amendment please
contact:

David Dodge
POB 985
Taos, New Mexico, 87571

This version of this research text by David Dodge was edited for
clarity, and hand-coded in HTML on July 4, A.D. 2002, by The Lawful Path,
http://www.lawfulpath.com/, and
was adapted from a prior version placed on the web by Barefoot Bob, May 5, 1996.

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our
lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

The Lawful Path     -
http://lawfulpath.com