by David M. Dodge

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
Thirteenth Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution.
Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized that
the principal intent of this "missing" Thirteenth Amendment was to prohibit Attorneys of the
Bar Associations from serving in government as an "elite" class, i.e., lawyers holding
membership in a society with a charter that creates special privileges for the them. The
Founders experience was that such men always have divided loyalties and conflict of
interest.

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and like the other; or he will
honor one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (wealth). - Matt 6:24

One who reads the law or acquires a degree in law by competition and examination is not
banned.

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" Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth Amendment restricting Attorneys
at the Bar 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repealed, it is still the Law today.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 Thirteenth Amendment

The "missing" Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 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" Thirteenth 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, which 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 our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's
abuses may cause another. Past and Current S&L and bank scandals, illegal receipt of
campaign funds, illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians,
and government agencies (look at the BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford,
politician Jimmy Carter, the Watergate and Mena Airport scandals involving William Clinton
and others, all involving the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the FBI and the CIA,
scandals even too numerous to mention). 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. (Do you think you're not being robbed?
Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the banks, lawyers, politicians, and
government agencies? You are! -- in money, work, sweat, blood and tears!)

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 with the Federal Reserve System, and offers
"sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending
and the federal government's unbridled growth of the federal debt.)

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 1000 to 5000 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."

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 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 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 principal title of nobility which the Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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. See Titles of Nobility - DEFINITIONS

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the Thirteenth
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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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.

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 National Archives concede this
Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 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 Thirteenth 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 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth
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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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.

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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth
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
Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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. On March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.

Prior to Lincoln's inauguration, on March 2, 1861, the next to the last day of Buchanan's
administration, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by
President Buchanan. 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 Buchanan 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. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more
State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on
January 10, 1862.

In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our
Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, another 13th
Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was
proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of
Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the
immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was presented to the States on
February 1, 1865 for ratification. On April 9, 1865 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, dying on
April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery
(and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted
by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth
Amendment that had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors".

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had
to remove the Thirteenth "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
Thirteenth Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise
political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the Thirteenth 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 can 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, having placed the
lawyers of the bar in control of all three branches of government.

The significance of this missing Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago,
lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.

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

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

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

No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dismissed as redundant by
those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed 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
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.

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

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

We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our
rights? Or will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, surrendered to the
courts, and perhaps to a "new world order"?

MORE EDITIONS FOUND

As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in
Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the
missing Thirteenth Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio in 1819; Connecticut
in 1835; Kansas in 1861; and the Colorado Territory in 1865 and again in 1868.

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 1868.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1868 Colorado Territory edition which includes both
the "missing" Thirteenth 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
1868 Colorado edition. Graphics of these may be viewed by clicking on these links,
colo68-1.jpg, colo68-2.jpg, colo68-3.jpg, colo68-4.jpg, and colo68-5.jpg). At the top of
colo68-5.jpg is the FAX date that I received these images. Of necessity, I have presented
only the pertinent pages of these 1868 Colorado Statutes. -- (Barefoot Bob, 5/13/96)

On Nov.12, 1996 I received FAX images of the 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show
the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and
the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as
the 14th and the current 15th Amendment is listed as the 15th in the 1876 Wyoming edition.
It is interesting to note that the current 14th Amendment is not shown. Graphics of these
may be viewed by clicking on these links, wyo76-1.jpg, wyo76-2.jpg, wyo76-3.jpg --
(Barefoot Bob, 11/12/96)

Notice:
As of this day, December 20, 1996, I have been informed that a copy of the Bioren and
Duane publication, "The Laws of the United States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789
to the 4th of March, 1815" is available in the Law School Library of Yale University, part of the
Lillian Goldman collection. According to the catalogue, both an original 1815 edition and a
1989 re-publication that represents an exact duplicate (on high quality paper), are available
to the public. An additional copy of the five volume Bioren and Duane publication is held in
the Rare Book collection of the Beinecke library at Yale. It was the gift of F. von Mohl and is
in excellent condition.

In the text of the U.S. Constitution given by Bioren and Duane, on page 74 of the original, the
"Titles of Nobility" section is listed as Article XIII and the notation given indicates that it was
passed out of the Eleventh Congress in the Second Session, which agrees with an edition
of the proceedings of Congress published in 1861 and held in the federal repository library
also at Yale.

This publication, in five volumes, represents the first authorized edition of the Laws of the
United States and the U.S. Constitution issued following the destruction of the Library of
Congress and the other records of the government by the British army in 1814. The
lawmakers then seated as the Thirteenth Congress authorized the spending for this
special edition on February 16th, 1815. What this represents is documentary proof that for
at least that period of time in 1815 and until 1819, this was considered to be the newest
part of the Constitution. -- (Barefoot Bob, 12/20/96)

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 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 Thirteenth 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: David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico, 87571

ARGUMENTS

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

It's never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the
United States proposed a Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth Amendment which no longer appears in
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]

This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government,
and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or
special immunities for anyone, not even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of
political equality in this nation that most people can't even imagine. Since 1983,
researchers have uncovered evidence that: 1) The Thirteenth 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.

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

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

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

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

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

There is some agreement.

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

Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for
(or against) ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen.
Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disagreement. After Dodge's
initial report of a "missing" Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell
explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error: "The Maine Legislature
mistakenly printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been
adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratified." Further, "All editions of the
Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the
originals contain this error." Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date)
of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and thereby
demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a "one-time" publishing error.

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION

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

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery:
In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included
the "missing" Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth
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 lawyers."

RATIONALES (for Ratification)

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

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

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

Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat
Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his "published by
error" and "time limit" arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute
the ratification: "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed
Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to
amend the Constitution. In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any
amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution.
According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to
approve the proposed amendment."

Dodge replies: "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the
question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the
proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the
states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in
the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is
reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the
Amendment process."

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

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the
ratification process. But bear in mind that 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth Amendment. That being so, Virginia's vote to
ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing' Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so
today).

INSULT TO INJURY

Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that the "missing"
Thirteenth Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr.
Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the
bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:
"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify
that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a
proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of
America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary
of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of
nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment
failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the Thirteenth
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 Thirteenth
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: (1) 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
Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still alive.

(2) But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the
Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth Amendment was being
considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th
Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification") from the
Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State
but rather to the House of Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the
table." Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland's
earlier ratification is not listed as having been returned to Congress."

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

QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!

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

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.
But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen.
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a duck, and
therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it's a duck. Maybe so. But if we
can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not. If the proof of ratification is not quite
conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the
government's refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys
facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the
"missing" Thirteenth 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" Thirteenth 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) This raises a fantastic possibility. If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in
1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not. Therefore, since there was no time limit
specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed
only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state
legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary
certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution.

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

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

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

Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications. "Pimsleur's", a checklist
of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

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

ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS:

"The History of the World", Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462.
Republished by Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.

"The Rights of an American Citizen", Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.

"Laws of the United States of America", Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington,
1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See: Note below]

"The American Politician", M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.

"Constitution of the United States", C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.

"Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence", Edward Currier, Blake,
Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.

"Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the use of Common Schools",
John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and Professor of Moral Mental and
Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia, 1850, p.100.

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

Note: The "Laws of the United States" was published by John Duane. Without doubt, Duane
was aware of Virginia's plan to ratify this amendment which targeted, amongst other things,
the emolument of banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys.
Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal
bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always
been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate monopoly. [**
See: "Acts of Virginia", Feb. 20, 1812, p.143]

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

To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are
granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the
objection to it rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise
empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms "privilege",
"honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of nobility". The
prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.

"Bouvier's Law Dictionary", 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments as
5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571.

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

For a complete printed report of this research with additional data contact David Dodge,
Tom Dunn and Brian March at marchbh@ix.netcom.com

Titles of Nobility - DEFINITIONS

From: Noah Webster 1828
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1848
Black's Law Dictionary 1891
Note: Because they are so similar, the definitions have been consolidated.

"Emolument": - A gain of profit or advantage.

"Foreign Power": - "Power" - a sovereign state; a controlling group; possession or control;
authority or influence, political or otherwise.

"Honour": - One having dominion, advantage or privilege over another.

"Nobility": - Exalted rank - high social position.

"Title of Nobility": - An order of men, in several countries, to whom special privileges are
granted,

"privileges": - To grant some particular right or exemption.

From a court case, in Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 123, 142 (1872), which gave the following
description of "Titles of Nobility":

"to confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are
granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the
objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the
otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms
"privilege", "honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of nobility".
The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant."
The Original 13th Amendment--Titles of Nobility and Honor
Government Conspiracy
" We're from the Government--
        We're here to help..."
AmeroCurrency and AmeroCurrency.com are Trademarks and Services Marks
All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2006-2008
"If the impulse
and opportunity
be suffered to
coincide, we well
know that neither
moral nor
religious motives
can be relied on
as an adequate
control."--James
Madison, The
Federalist Papers