The Missing 13th Amendment: “TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

The Missing 13th Amendment: “TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

       David Dodge, Researcher
       Alfred Adask, Editor

       Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786,
       Dallas, Texas 75354, annual subscription $25.00.

       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

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

       Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law

                                      Page 1

       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.” [Emphasis added.}

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

       Not so.

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


       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

                                      Page 2

       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

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

       (Modern Banking System)

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

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

                                      Page 3

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

                                      Page 4

       According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the
       1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
       sterling to King   George  III,  as  reparations  for  the  American
       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 up-roar so
       angered the Congress that it passed  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts
       (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and  publishers for
       reporting the truth about the government.

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

       The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians
       from the beginning,  but  the  Federalists (the pro-monarchy  party)
       won-out in its   establishment.    The  initial  capitalization  was
       $10,000,000 — 80%  of which would  be  owned  by  foreign  bankers.
       Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000  (double its
       paid in 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, our government  owned  no  stock  in  the  United
       States Bank.)

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

                                      Page 5


       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).


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

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

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

                                      Page 6


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

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

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

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

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

       WHAT IF?
       (Implications if Restored)

       If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and
       “immunities” might be  rendered unconstitutional.   The  prohibition
       against “honors” (privileges)  would compel the entire government to
       operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation.  Without
       their current personal immunities  (honors),  our  judges and I.R.S.
       agents would be  unable  to abuse common citizens  without  fear  of
       legal liability.  If  this  13th Amendment were restored, our entire
       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,
       our government’s ability  to  systematically  coerce  and  abuse the
       public would be all but eliminated.



       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!

                                      Page 7

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

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

       Bear in mind  that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National
       Archives concede this 13th Amendment  was  proposed  by  Congress in
       1810. However, they  explain that there were seventeen  states  when
       Congress proposed the    “title   of   nobility”   Amendment;   that
       ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only
       twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified.  The
       Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the
       Constitution of the  United  States  which  include  the  “title  of
       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 we came to having a
       political paradise, right here on  Earth?   Do  you  realize what an
       extraordinary gift our  forebears  tried to bequeath  us?   And  how
       close we came?

       One vote.  One state’s vote.

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

       One vote.

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


       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

                                      Page 8

       consent of Congress,  accept and retain any present, pension, office
       or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or
       foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
       States, and shall be incapable of  holding  any  office  of trust or
       profit under them, or either of them.”

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

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

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

       Then, four years  later,  on  December  31,  1817,   the   House  of
       Representatives resolved that  President  Monroe  inquire  into  the
       status of this  Amendment.  In a  letter  dated  February  6,  1818,
       President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
       Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
       Connecticut to tell  them  that  the  proposed  Amendment  had  been
       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.

                                      Page 9

       (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

        (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

       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.

                                      Page 10

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

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

       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  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.


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

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

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

       However, because the notes authors reported no further references to
       the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of  February, 1818,
       they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in

                                      Page 11

       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 J.Q. Adams  had provided the House of Representatives in 1818,
       before Virginia’s ratification    in   1819.    (Even   today,   the
       Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th
       Amendment this same  story:  that  only  twelve  states,   not   the
       requisite thirteen, had   ratified.)    However,  despite  Clayton’s
       opinion, the Amendment continued to  be  published in various states
       and territories for at least another eleven years  (the  last  known
       publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).

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

       Later in 1861,  another proposed amendment, also numbered  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 our  Constitution.    On   January   31,  another  13th
       Amendment (which prohibited  slavery in Sect. 1, and  ended  states’
       rights in Sect.  2)  was  proposed.  On April 9, the Civil War ended
       with General Lee’s surrender.  On  April 14, President Lincoln (who,
       in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would  have  allowed
       slavery and states  rights)  was  assassinated.   On December 6, the
       “new” 13th Amendment  loudly  prohibiting   slavery   (and   quietly
       surrendering states rights to the federal government)  was ratified,
       replacing and effectively  erasing  the original 13th Amendment that
       had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.


       To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now

                                      Page 12

       endure, the lawyers   first  had  to  remove  the  13th  “titles  of
       nobility” Amendment that might otherwise  have  kept  them in check.
       In fact, it  was  not  until  after  the  Civil War  and  after  the
       disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations
       began to appear and exercise political power.

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

       The significance of  this  missing 13th Amendment and  its  deletion
       from the Constitution  is  this:   Since  the  amendment  was  never
       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   our   current
       government system.

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

       Heed warnings of Founding Fathers

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

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

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

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

       The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme

                                      Page 13

       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

       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”?


       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

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

       These finds are  important  because:   1)  they  offer   independent
       confirmation of Dodge’s  claims;  and 2) they extend the known dates
       of publication from Nebraska 1860  (Dodge’s  most  recent  find), to
       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 our courts evolved from a temple of the
       Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this

                                      Page 14

       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.

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



       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. {Emphasis added]

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

       Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:

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

                                      Page 15

       Either this Amendment:

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

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

       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.

       (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)

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

       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

                                      Page 16

       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.


       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

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

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

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

           1)   that they knew they were  the  last  state  whose  vote was
                necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment;
           2)   that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and
           3)   that  they  were  publishing  the Amendment  in  a  special
                edition of  their  Civil  Code as an official notice to the
                world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.

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

                                      Page 17

       (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

                                      Page 18

       would be included  in  the  ratification  process.  But bear in mind
       that our perspective is based on  life  in  a  stable  nation that’s
       added only five  new  states  in  this century —  about  one  every
       eighteen years.  However,  between  1803  and  1821  (when  the 13th
       Amendment ratification drama unfolded),  they  added eight states —
       almost one new state every two years.

       This rapid national  growth undoubtedly fostered national  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).


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

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

                                      Page 19

       that amendment failed  to  become  the  Thirteenth  Amendment to the
       United States Constitution.”

       This is an extraordinary admission.

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

       Though the Amendment   satisfied  Constitutional   requirement   for
       ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply
       because a single,  official sheet of paper is missing in Washington.
       Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite  the  fact that three-quarters of
       the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment,  the  will  of
       the legislators and  the  people  of  this  nation  should be denied
       because somebody screwed  up  and  lost  a  single  “certificate  of
       ratification”.  This “certificate” may be missing because either

          1)  Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or
          2)  the notice was “lost in the mail; or
          3)  the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced,  or intentionally
              destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

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

       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
       return to Congress.”

       The House Journal  implies  that  since  Ohio  and Kentucky were not
       required to notify the Secretary  of  State  of  their  ratification
       decisions, there was likewise no requirement that  Virginia  file  a
       “certificate of ratification” with the Secretary of State.  Again,
       despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the “missing”

                                      Page 20

       Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied
       because of some possible procedural error.


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

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

       Maybe so.

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

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

       Perhaps we shall.

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

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

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

          2)  If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in
              1819 (there  is  no  evidence that Virginia  did  not),  this
              raises a  fantastic  possibility.   Since  there  was no time
              limit specified when the Amendment  was  proposed,  and since
              the government clearly believed only Virginia’s vote remained

                                      Page 21

              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.

         If you have comments or other information relating  to such topics
         as  this  paper covers,  please  upload to KeelyNet or send to the
           Vangard  Sciences  address  as  listed  on the  first  page.
              Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.

           Jerry W. Decker………Ron Barker………..Chuck Henderson
                             Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet

                     If we can be of service, you may contact
                 Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346