The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment

Bank Index ^

[Kevin Curry]

The has been some debate in the past as to the usage of the term "Esquire", still used by many attorneys today.

You are free to call yourself a biscuit tin in this country if you'd like, but that doesn't make you one.

Titles of nobility are only efficacious if bestowed by someone having requisite authority--a monarch--as recognized within the context of a nation's laws and traditions. In this country, an attorney who adopts the title "esquire" is adopting an honorific that absolutely no one is bound by the law to recognize. Any US citizen might call himself an knight, an earl, a grand duke, or even a crown prince and it would mean absolutely nothing.

[Roscoe]

There is no reason to argue with psychos who believe this stuff, they are all going to the same part of hell that Matthews is in.

Let's hope.

[hoosierham]

It pretty much boils down to if people fail to challenge a new law or interpretation of an old one over time that law becomes accepted by general consensus .

Let me also say that I think Matthews' actions were the ultimate in stupidity ; he evidently never heard of choosing one's battles. I have strong reservations about the constitutionality of several areas of American gov't agencies regulation of our freedoms but fools who die in quixotic battles with the power of the State help only the oppressors.

Only when and if you can convince those who write and enforce the laws that a policy is beneficial to them will that policy be widespread.

[Sledge]

Forget the whole "Esquire" thing for a moment and think of it this way. Here is a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified between 1812 and 1819, and for forty years was not only accepted as ratified, but was documented in numerous lawbooks published by the States and Territories during this time period.

Then comes the Civil War and the 13th disappears and is replaced with the current one. The argument against the amendment is that the State of Virginia never notified the U.S. Secretary of State in writing, and that no record existed in Virginia of the ratification. The fact that no evidence exists because the records were destroyed by Federal troops is never mentioned.

Read it again and concentrate on the bolded section:

“…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.” ~ The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ~

The amendment was passed to eliminate foreign influence on our government, which was rampant with foreign payoffs in the early years. Would that we had this amendment now. What about Al Gore & the Buddist monks? Clinton and the Chinese? Cynthia McKinney and the Arabs? What about all the "citizens" presently working for the Islamists in this country?

What is really ironic is that all the State of Virginia would have to do is send a letter to Colin Powell that the amendment was ratified, and it would go into effect. There was no time limit on ratification when the this 13th amendment was passed and ratified.

Do a web search on the "Lost 13th amendment" or the "Real 13th amendment" for more information. People have been rooting around dusty old courthouses and libraries for years researching this issue.

[Roscoe]

Then comes the Civil War and the 13th disappears and is replaced with the current one.

Those damn saucer aliens and their memory erasing rectal probes!

[Sledge]

Those damn saucer aliens and their memory erasing rectal probes!

You mean Ape-raham Lincoln and his Yankees with their memory erasing torches and jail cells. Isn't it interesting that it disappeared about the same time as our Republic?

Do the seach and read. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance of the subject.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Here is a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified between 1812 and 1819, and for forty years was not only accepted as ratified, but was documented in numerous lawbooks published by the States and Territories during this time period.

It is my understanding that this is simply not the case. There was an important legal codification, which listed the proposed Constitutional Amendment, since it was being considered at the time of publication. In a later edition, bad editing led to including this 'amendment' as part of the constitution. Later editions eliminated it. There has never been a citation of any document, speech, or newspaper article, ever referring to the Amendment as having been ratified. The reason is simple. It was never ratified.

[dread78645]

Correct, the proposal passed congress in 1810.

12 states ratified, 3 rejected, 2 took no action: VA & SC.

Then the war broke out and other things demanded attention.

By 1817 some copies of the constitution showed the amendment and some didn't, and some had the BOR with the original 12 proposals, making the "Titles of Nobility the 15th !

Congress authorized Sec of State JQ Adams to inquire of each state which had passed the proposal. Thats were the above list came from. Congress held hearings to regularize the ratification process, the "Virginia Commission", including formal notice to the Sec of State of votes.

VA finally did ratify the proposal in 1819, but never gave the State department formal notice.
It wouldn't have mattered, 'cause by that time 4 new states had joined the Union and now 16 total states were required to ratify.

VA kept publishing this "amendment" as passed until 1849, when a editor preparing a new edition of the code of Virginia for publication, checked the validity of the amendment.

Wow. that got a little longer than i thought ...
Did I miss anything ?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Did I miss anything

It looks like you have pretty well gotten in complete, except that I am sure the tin-foil types will demand citations. I have bookmarked it, because we seem to have a real infestation of these types.

[Sledge]

From the article -

The Virginians, it appears, RATIFIED the 13th Amendment by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution. This was perfectly well within their right. The state of Virginia published a special edition of the Constitution in a re-printing of the Virginia Civil Code on March 12, 1819. This special edition contained all Amendments, including the 13th. So, the 13th Amendment has an official date of ratification, as published in the special edition of the Constitution and Virginia Civil Code by the state of Virginia. The date is, as stated, March 12, 1819.

Wouldn't the publication of the Virginia code with the ratified amendment in 1819 be Prima Facia evidence of ratification? And if it was a mistake, why would it have printed by the following states:

State	Publications
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

Source: http://www.freedomdomain.com/orig13th02.html

Thats a lot of mistakes.

dread78645 said:

VA finally did ratify the proposal in 1819, but never gave the State department formal notice. It wouldn't have mattered, 'cause by that time 4 new states had joined the Union and now 16 total states were required to ratify.

While it may be true that 4 new states had joined the Union by 1819, the new states were not admitted to the Union at the time of the amendments' passage. Their ratification, or lack thereof would be a moot point. Only the 17 states existant at the time of passage were presented the amendment for ratification, and only those 17 states counted in the ratification totals.

The real problem here, as I pointed out, and dread reiterated, is that Virginia never sent a letter of ratification to the Secretary of State. Since there was no time limit on ratification at that time, Virginia could send a letter of ratification now and cause the amendment to once again be accepted as ratified.

Check out the link supplied for an extensively documented essay on the subject. It covers the ratification issue, the nobility issue, and interestingly enough, the strange timing of the War of 1812, which occured during the ratification process.

Regards,

Sledge

[John Locke]

The five orders of nobility, from most to least exalted, are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Below them are the Baronets (hereditary knighthood) and Knights. An Esquire is properly an attendant on a knight; the title is vocational and in course of time an esquire could expect to become a knight. Any other use of the term is a modern abuse (dating from the 16th century or thereabouts).

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Only the 17 states existant at the time of passage were presented the amendment for ratification, and only those 17 states counted in the ratification totals.

I am afraid that this is pure Barbara Streisand, Sledge. The original 11th Amendment, proposed by the first Congress, was announced as ratified about 10 years ago, after the 38th state ratified it. According to your logic, it only would have required 9 states to ratify, since there were only 12 states at the time of the first Congress (Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution yet).

The simple fact is that three/fourths of all states which exist at the time of the ratification by the last state are necessary to ratify.

by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution.

Since you are so particular about the Constitution, I am sure that you will be happy to quote the line in the Amendment clause containing the words 'publication and distribution'. I won't hold my breath.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Wouldn't the publication of the Virginia code with the ratified amendment in 1819 be Prima Facia evidence of ratification? And if it was a mistake, why would it have printed by the following states

Prima Facie evidence is insufficient to prove ratification. The reason a large number of states reported it ratified is because they all used the same mistaken source, referred to above. Real evidence that the Amendment had been passed would be any legislation or legal decision citing the amendment. (It is true that the fact that no such references exist does not, by itself, disprove ratification.)

[Cato]

I read about lawyers being down with cockroaches but nothing about cop killers and such. I also read nothing about Tim McV fans in this article or in any of the comments.

Your comments are nothing but a slick attempt to CENSOR SPEECH using a canard.

You want to SHOW ME the offenses you speak of?? I may have missed them.

It is getting as though UNLESS you SPEAK only ABOUT how great Bush is and how all his policies are better than mom and apple pie you are a heretic or worse.

No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics.

CATO

[Who is John Galt?]

"No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics."

Bump...

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics.

Well, we just stifled your girl Cynthia McKinney (she hates Bush and the US almost as much as you do). I guess you and she will just have to go to DU and cry.

[Cato]

Well, we just stifled your girl Cynthia McKinney

Ain't my gal. Who writes your lines?

(she hates Bush and the US almost as much as you do).

My aren't we making all kinds of crazy ASSUMPTIONS anbd Crank Charges. Why not Accuse me of treason and really show all of US your real keen wit.

I guess you and she will just have to go to DU and cry.

Ain't crying about this exchange.

But I do worry that my country is being led astray by your kind.

CATO

[Cato]

What questions??

If the terrorists hate us for our freedoms…. The simple solution is to take our freedoms away -Suzie_Cue

Suzie_Q has listed one way that we can solve the hatred problem and it seem to be taking place. Flown lately, CJ??

Also, her facetious solution fits
with your plan for a "WELL ORDERED AMERIKA".

Very WELL ORDERED, right, CJ??

You think the rapture will happen before we see the total destruction of a third of the World. The events we are witnessing are the beginning of the Wyld Tymes before the Tribulation.

Will Jesus forgive you for your abominable conduct toward libertarians, even professed Christian libertarians?? I sure hope so CJ. I would Not want you to miss the wedding supper.

Take care,
CATO

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

But I do worry that my country is being led astray by your kind.

My kind is otherwise known as someone who adheres to my country in a time of war. Your kind is otherwise known as those who adhere to our enemies, because their is no neutrality in a time of war.

You are one of the whiners, who state that they have the right to say whatever they want, but are above being criticized. When someone else uses their free speech rights to oppose them, your kind writes: Your comments are nothing but a slick attempt to CENSOR SPEECH using a canard..

The enemies of the US have always claimed freedom of speech as a protection for their efforts to overthrow and enslave the American people, from German agents in WWI, anarchist bombers in the early years of this century, Nazi propagandists in the late 1930's, and Communists from the 1920's to the present day. This country has survived these enemies, and it will survive you.

[Who is John Galt?]

From your profile:

"I take my characterization of the character of LC Sulla somewhat from the recent series of Roman historical novels by Colleen McCollough...I see him as a man to be feared, hated, despised, admired and pitied..."

If you are hoping to be "feared, hated, despised, admired and pitied" here at FreeRepublic, you will have to improve the quality of your posts somewhat. As things stand, it would take a major effort on your part to rise above the level of 'pitifully amusing'...

;>)