The Original 13th Amendment

http://www.amendment-13.org/index.html ^

[keyd]

For approximately 50 some odd years the US had a different 13th amendment than what is currently listed today.

Someone would be hard pressed to say the original 13th was never ratified after reading through the historical documents, pictures, and records contained on this site.


It passed the Senate on April 27th 1810 by a vote of 26 to 1.

It passed the House on May 1st by a vote of 87-3.

The 13th’s official ratification date is March 12th, 1819. Virginia was the last state required to ratify it.


A good place to start is with the chronology link


Has this ever been discussed on FR?

[jrd]

some people say it was the reason for the war of 1812!

[mnehring]

Has this ever been discussed on FR?

Quite often actually.

[counterpunch]

Let me guess, this is some crackpot assault on Rudy Giuliani’s qualification for office?

[edcoil]

Should send it to Arnold and the LA Mayor - they globe trot every month signing “agreements” on trade and relations.

[mnehring]

This website does have some factual inaccuracies. The original 13th amendment was not completely ratified and was brought back up in the new form (as we know today) until 1863, it didn’t disappear, it just stayed in legislative limbo. When Senator John Henderson brought up the Constitutional Amendment to outlaw slavery, they used the incomplete 13th and started a re-ratification process with the Slavery Abolition amendment.

The challenge with the ‘original 13th’ is that when the final State to ratify it finally did the count was based on when the original 13th was proposed, but did not meet the 2/3rds States requirement when Virginia finally ratified it. This is why it stayed in limbo, the new States didn’t put the ratification into a vote.

[mnehring]

Let me guess, this is some crackpot assault on Rudy Giuliani’s qualification for office?

Some real radicals use this to try to fight against any existing government because they allow foreign business in the Country.

[amigatec]

bttt

[Turret Gunner A20]

ping

[ElkGroveDan]

Let me guess, this is some crackpot assault on Rudy Giuliani’s qualification for office?

Can't be. The crackpots on FreeRepublic are supporting Giuliani.

[Wuli]

What I find terribly disconcerting with the link you provided is that one would think that if someone saw it important enough to provide the chronology of the two versions of the 13th Amendment that THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT TOTALLY APPARENT AND EASY TO FIND AND SEE THE TWO VERSIONS.

After trying a score of the different links embedded in the first page, I gave up.

[mnehring]

The crackpots on FreeRepublic are supporting Giuliani.

Most of the Julie supporters are gone, we just have a few Paul worshipers left.

[kaehurowing]

Ahh, but the critical question is whether Ohio was validly a State of the Union. If not, then there weren’t sufficient ratifications in any event.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

Just to throw another historical oddity into the cooking pot. . . .

[ElkGroveDan]

we just have a few Paul worshipers left

Fewer and fewer, actually...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932618/posts?page=10#10

[Non-Sequitur]

Had Virginia ratified the amendment prior to December 1816 then they would have been the 13th state to do so and the necessary 2/3rds would have been reached. But in March 1819 there were 21 states. Virginia’s ratification meant nothing unless 2 more states ratified it as well. They didn’t.

[keyd]

This website does have some factual inaccuracies. The original 13th amendment was not completely ratified



I completely disagree, if you read through the 'chronological link' you will get a different story.


It passed the Senate on April 27th 1810 by a vote of 26 to 1.

It passed the House on May 1st by a vote of 87-3.

The 13th’s official ratification date is March 12th, 1819. Virginia was the last state required to ratify it.


In a habeas corpus petition concerning a man convicted under the National Prohibition Act. In Ex parte Dillon, 262 F. 563 (N.D. Cal. 1920), the court holds that the amendment became effective upon ratification, and not on the date of the Secretary's proclamation.

In United States ex rel Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 998 (1920), aff., 257 U.S. 619, 42 S.Ct. 169 (1921), In a case concerning the proclamation made by the U. S. Secretary of State that an amendment (the 18th) had been ratified, the court holds that the Secretary of State was merely performing a ministerial act in making such proclamation and that an amendment becomes a part of the U. S. Constitution when ratified by the requisite number of states, and not when the Secretary's proclamation is made.

In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510 (1921) the court again holds that amendments are effective upon the date of ratification, not the date of announcement of ratification.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Can't be. The crackpots on FreeRepublic are supporting Giuliani."

I thought they were supporting "Dr." (HAHAHAHAHA) Paul.

[mnehring]

See post #15

[highball]

Let me guess, this is some crackpot assault on Rudy Giuliani’s qualification for office?

If so, it's completely unnecessary - the man disqualifies himself.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oops. Make that 3/4ths, not 2/3rds.