Missing 13th Amendment Found: “No Lawyers

In Public Office”
Published on September 7, 2016

JEAN-MICHEL LETENNIERFollow
•
• 34
• 22
• 5
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been altered from its original
in order to fool the American public into accepting a government that is mostly illegally in office.
The information contained in the article below contains stunning revelations that the entire U.S.
congress should be deemed illegitimate, after evidence that a clandestine plot to alter the U.S.
Constitution has now emerged.
Themillenniumreport.com reports:
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Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today.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 FathersIn 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”?