Time: Sat Mar 15 15:54:28 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03304; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 12:45:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:40:32 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: essay on original 13th amendment (fwd) >From: Patriotlad@aol.com >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:32:31 -0500 (EST) >To: pmitch@primenet.com >cc: ricbdan@worldnet.att.net >Subject: Fwd: The New Essay, part one. > >Mr. Mitchell -- your comments or corrections would be valuable. > >Richard <snip> >The Original Thirteenth Amendment: Titles of Nobility and Honor > > >"In a Republic, Luxury and Corruption of Morals are said to be the >invariable precursors of national dissolution," said Samuel F. Jarvis, >in an address to the members of Phi Beta Kappa in 1806. "It is no less >true that the perversion of national taste, and the disrelish for the >solid attainments of science evince a degeneracy in Learning, Morals and Religion." > >Published by Oliver Steele & Company, of New Haven, Jarvis' oration is rather >typical of the "federalist" thinking of the men of New England in this era, >including both scholars and sailors who were prospering under the new >Constitution. Jarvis was speaking on the thirtieth anniversary of the >founding of Phi Beta Kappa, so his remarks must be viewed as having real >weight among the intellectual leaders of the fast-growing United States. > Seventeen states were now represented in Congress, and the frontier was at >the border of Indiana Territory and Ohio, which had been admitted to the >union in 1803. Both areas were settled by the veterans of the Revolutionary >War (and their pioneering children), especially from Connecticut. > >So, too, the town green and the New England town meeting were being >replicated widely in Ohio, as was the principle of "republicanism." Plain >and simple manners, Bible-based education, and state governments drastically >limited by local control and a profound concern for property rights, are the >hallmarks of these frontier republicans. > >"The cause of learning is intimately connected to the cause of virtue," said >Jarvis to the members of Phi Beta Kappa. That philosophy was carried forward >into Ohio and Indiana by land-hungry pioneers and by itinerant preachers >schooled at Yale, and Brown and Princeton -- and intent on setting up public >education based on the common principles of Christian morality. At the end >of 1806 all of the frontier was aflame with the reports >of Aaron Burr's treachery. Burr, eloquent and dapper and extremely popular, >was quite probably a sociopath. President Thomas Jefferson's proclamation of >November 27th, elucidating the Burr conspiracy in general terms and calling >upon the people at large to suppress any insurrection, was the beginning of a >titanic political struggle. > >In March and April of 1807, judicial proceedings against Aaron Burr and >several of his confederates, conducted by Chief Justice John Marshall, >resulted in two of these conspirators being freed for a lack of evidence, and >Burr freed on bail. This hardened the animosity between Marshall and >Jefferson, which had been a-building for many years. >When Marshall displayed a public sympathy with Burr and his lawyer it >revealed, as Fawn Brodie writes, that "the trial took on for Jefferson a >wholly new dimension, the judiciary had once more become, as in Adams' time, >a tool of politics." > >As Fawn Brodie notes, in her biography of the third President, Jefferson >"would see to it that an amendment to the Constitution was introduced in >Congress in 1807 and 1808 making it possible for judges to be removed by a >joint action of the president and both houses of Congress. In both instances >it failed ...." The history of this era includes years of difficult >conflicts over smuggling and the cross-border trade into Canada. > >What both the federalists of the northern states and the >Democratic-Republicans of the south agreed upon -- as a result of their >experiences in shaping the new government of the United States -- was a >renewed concern over the meddling of wealthy European business agents, called >"factors," and of the various adventurers, royalist agents and spies >operating on behalf of Spain, and Bonapartist France. The new states were >positively overwhelmed with schemers and financial hucksters, but wages were >rising and growth was everywhere in evidence. The period 1800 to 1818 was >one of rising expectations and massive immigration into the Americas, and of >"republicanism" on the march with Simon Bolivar in the former Spanish >colonies. It was a good time for the federalist opponents of the >Jeffersonians, including James Madison and James Monroe. > >Louisiana, with its prized port of New Orleans, was being prepared for >statehood and all parties were concerned with the political ambitions of >Jerome Bonaparte. The new Territory of Mississippi was also generating great >wealth and men of vision were building plantation empires in these two >regions, while Alabama was following its own course of development. So much >growth and change was worrisome to the established powers in New England, >where a secessionist movement had swept the region in 1809, and who generally >detested both Thomas Jefferson and all things French. Behind it all, British >agents and smugglers were all too happy to roil the waters of these >remarkably stable, productive new states of the American Republic. > >By 1810 James Madison was the new President, and the combined concerns of >both New England federalists and southern Democrat-Republicans led to the >formulation of the so-called Title of Nobility Amendment, otherwise known as >the original or missing Thirteenth Amendment. Passed by a two-thirds vote of >the Senate, and a vote of 87 to 3 in the House, the Eleventh Congress issued >this proposed section or Amendment to the Constitution at the end of the >Second Session, and it reads: > > "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." > >No one can say with complete authority, who wrote this Amendment proposed in >1810, but it is consistent with the language employed by James Madison during >the Constitutional Convention, and the arguments for ratification published >with Alexander Hamilton, as the Federalist Papers. John Gaillard was the >President Pro Tempore of the Senate when this section was voted out. So >urgent was the concern of the several states regarding this Title of Nobility >Amendment, that the legislature of Maryland met on Christmas Day of 1810 and >ratified it! > >By the end of 1812 a total of twelve of the seventeen states had approved >this section, but then war with Great Britain intervened and the whole >process ground to a halt. Here is the beginning of theories for the >conspiracy-minded, as the War of 1812 never did settle the issues that seemed >to be at the root of the conflict; the war revealed the weakness of the >permanent military officer corps, and the courage of the armed citizenry or >militia, especially the Washington Guards. It produced bitterness and >division. > >After the war was over the factions produced by this conflict were even more >divided >than they had been in 1806 and '07. Connecticut's legislators put the >Amendment on the agenda, but as of April 22, 1813 they failed to take >definitive action. South Carolina moved the question of ratification in the >Senate of its legislature but nothing definitive remains in evidence from >that era, although research continues on this matter. > >Rhode Island -- which was itself in a state of agitation over its original >English Charter and over precise definitions of who could vote -- took up the >matter of the Title of Nobility and rejected the proposed Amendment on >September 15, 1814. > >The whole history of this Amendment is fraught with these problems: missing >letters, and contradictory documents; misleading statements made by public >officials, both during the ratification process and in the forty years >following; and confusion in the >new Republic over just how the States were supposed to give notification when >an Amendment was ratified. Covering the Amending process, Article V of the >Constitution does not stipulate any method for doing that. That means the >several States have total discretion, and the power to select whatever means >of announcing a ratification vote that their sovereign legislatures see fit >to enact by law. An important measure passed April 20th, 1818, establishes a >duty belonging to the Secretary of State, who "shall publish and make known" >the results of votes taken by the several States, and issue certificates of >ratification. But this law, amended in 1820, cannot and does not impair the >rights of the States to communicate their decisions by the means that they >decide to be proper. > >A most crucial juncture was reached in 1815, when early in the year Congress >voted to authorize a new edition of the Laws of the United States, from the >first day of the first session through the 4th of March of that year. The >money was appropriated and the firm of Bioren and Duane was retained to >assemble and print these Laws, in five volumes, including the Constitution of >the United States and all of its Amendments. > >With a caveat included in its introductory pages, that the status of the >Thirteenth Article of Amendment was in doubt, the Bioren and Duane edition of >the "Laws of the United States ...." was duly published and contained the >Title of Nobility Amendment as issued in 1810, correct and proper to the last >comma, and listed as Article 13. Its front page contains the words, >"authorized by an Act of Congress." > >But, as many critics of this Amendment have noted, Article V of the >Constitution does not require -- or, therefore, allow -- an authorized >publication to establish the facts of ratification. Three-fourths of the >states are required to approve any given Amendment -- three-fourths of the >states who participate in the Article V drafting and approval process, as >members of Congress. Nothing in Article V allows a state which enters the >union after an Amendment is passed along and sent to the states -- to vote >for or against such a proposed section! That state may make a pro forma >ratification but such a vote cannot count toward the total of three-fourths >required under Article V, three-fourths of the several States which issued >the Amendment being needed for the approval. > >No one knows if this was done in anticipation of a favorable vote to come out >of South Carolina, or whether the authorities of that day did not consider >Rhode Island's state government by English Charter as qualified to ratify (as >noted, they turned it down). >All of the documents relating to those arguments and others made in that era >were destroyed when the British Army sacked Washington in 1814, and burned >the Library >of Congress and other federal buildings. > >The Bioren and Duane was duly published, and issued to members of Congress >and others in Washington City, and copies of it survive to this day, in the >Law School at Yale and in that University's Beinecke Rare Book Library. The >craftsmanship of those printers and the paper employed in 1815 were >extraordinary, and of the highest quality. President James Monroe and his >Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, conducted themselves in 1817 and '18 >as if the Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified. Questions arose over >the process, though, and at the request of the House the seventeen states in >the union in 1810 were polled by Adams on the issue of ratification of this >Amendment. This is a key and crucial matter! > >To understand the faulty arguments which have been made against the validity >of this Amendment, the Titles of Nobility section (with its Draconian >penalties for accepting foreign pensions or emoluments), it is necessary to >understand which States were polled by John Quincy Adams. Careful and >meticulous research conducted by Brian March, among others, has positively >established that the three States entering the union after 1810 -- Louisiana, >Indiana and Mississippi -- were not polled by Secretary Adams. Since they >did not participate in voting on the Amendment as required under Article V, >when it was issued to the States, these three new members of the union were >not considered qualified to ratify or reject it. > >That is the most crucial factor in understanding what happened next, and to >why the Amendment was properly ratified and announced as such in 1819. The >planters' economy of Virginia was a mature one, by 1818, and many state banks >had issued large loans. Men of property enjoyed high values for their land, >massive numbers of English workingmen had begun migrating to the new states >in 1816, seeking to escape from stagnating wages and to find opportunity, and >speculation was rampant. > >But there were men of letters who warned against the corrupting influence of >British and Dutch money, and the power of the bankers behind the East India >Company: > >"Paper against Gold, the History and Mystery of the Bank of England," was >published by William Cobbett in 1817. > >The seriousness of this issue became transparently clear in 1819, when a >financial panic closed banks all over Virginia. W. Cary Nicholas, who was >governor of Virginia in 1818 and the director of a Richmond bank "was dragged >into ruin," as Fawn Brodie puts it. He died leaving Thomas Jefferson holding >a co-signer's note for $20,000, which would end up costing him some $1200 per >year in interest alone. In this environment of speculation and mass >bankruptcy, the leaders of Virginia met to authorize a new and comprehensive >version of their state's laws, including the United States Constitution. > >When it was published (authorized in 1819, and issued in 1820), it included >the Title of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13, and a special >printing of four thousand copies was produced. This was the manner chosen by >the Virginia legislature to announce and publish their ratification of this >Amendment. Recent research in the archives of Virginia has revealed that >multiple copies of this edition, also known as VA2, were forwarded to the two >houses of Congress in Washington, to the President and to the Secretary of >State. Also one copy of Virginia's organic laws, including the Thirteenth >Amendment as valid, was placed with the Library of Congress, where it remains >to this day. For many years those who oppose recognition of this >controversial and important section of our Constitution, have argued that >because Virginia did not, apparently, send a "Letter" to then Secretary of >State John Quincy Adams, the ratification vote was somehow nullified. > >Because Article V does not stipulate that any such "Letter" be sent, the >authorized publication by the Virginia legislature, and the now-docmented >transmission of VA2 to the House and Senate and Secretary of State, must >stand as pure and undisputable evidence of ratification. Seventy-two times >in the years between 1819 and 1868, state or territorial editions of their >organic laws have included this Title of Nobility Amendment as the valid >Article 13 -- and that is entirely too many independent publications to be >blamed on the mistakes made in Bioren and Duane, 1815. Almost immediately, >state editions of the organic laws (and including the current Constitution of >the United States with Article 13 in place), and acts of the legislature were >published. North Carolina and Georgia have editions from 1819, Rhode Island >has one in 1822, and Massachusetts published the Amendment as being ratified >in 1823; and -- Connecticut had four publications by 1839. > >Virginia had every right to issue its ratification notice in such a manner, >it paid for >the printing and thus the original Thirteenth Amendment, barring foreign >princes and powers from meddling in our domestic political and business >affairs was ratified by thirteen of the seventeen states in the union in 1810 >-- and is now and has been a lawful part of the United States Constitution, >for 178 years. > >It has also been suppressed and nearly forgotten since 1876. > >Work to sabotage this Amendment began almost at once, upon its publication by >Virginia, and gained speed and allies after 1828. Most predictably, whenever >an independent researcher begins to dig into just who wanted this valid >section of our Constitution squashed, the influence of British bankers and >their hirelings in these United States -- mostly attorneys-at-law -- comes >clearly into focus. > >A pattern develops, over time, and from the vantage point of the 1990s the >careful observer can identify just how this great and vibrant Constitutional >Republic has been sapped by its many allegiances with Britain; and certainly >with that socialist dinosaur now controlled from behind and above by the >family 'Windsor, the German princes who own the most land in England, and who >dominate the Court of St. James. Most educated Americans know little of the >true wealth of the crowned heads of Britain and the Netherlands, just as they >know little of the competing business interests, trusts and triads -- >criminal organizations -- who masquerade as public institutions, non-profits, >corporations and foundations. > >There is another history behind the "accepted" or given history taught in our >public schools and academies, a history of influence-peddling, spies and >assassinations and the attempted destruction of our precious Constitution. > The great Buckminster Fuller, poet, architect and inventor of the geodesic >dome, elaborated on these truths in his opus magnus, Critical Path in 1981. > His reward for a life spent laboring for the good of all humanity -- after >his death his works are ignored by almost every great college and university, >his principles are not taught, and only a handful of his fans and the global >access of the Internet keeps his teachings alive. He taught that the royal >families of Europe were simply fronts for, and parties to, the superbly >organized commercial houses founding in the days of the great sailing ships. > They are now so thoroughly intertwined with banking and electronic commerce >and the intelligence services of their "home nations," as to be >indistinguishable. What you see on the surface is not what you get down >below, and always, said Bucky Fuller, always the true powers are those who >control sailing, shipping and navigation on the oceans. > >In the era 1800 to 1818, the greatest challenge to the hegemony of Great >Britain and her seapower was coming not from France, which was invested >mostly in land-based armies and in securing farmland and mines -- but from >the new, upstart, democratic-republicans of the United States. Everything >that happened here was of concern to those who controlled British commerce, >its fleets, and the crown itself. > >Thus, as of March 12, 1819, thirteen of the seventeen states in the union >when the Eleventh Congress issued this Amendment for consideration, had >ratified it. The rejection by New York state one year earlier, in March of >1818, of this section was thus made moot. Connecticut may still take up the >matter and issue a ratification that would be a valid one, as may South >Carolina (if ever its records from that era can be retrieved). Nothing done >by stealth or artifice can remove the Title of Nobility Amendment from our >Constitution, lawfully, even though no published edition now extant shows it >to be valid. > >As James Madison said, in arguing for ratification before the New York State >legislature when he and Hamilton presented the new Constitution to a >skeptical bunch of Yankees: > >"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so >adopted by the other States. Adoption for a limited time would be as >defective as an adoption of some of the Articles only." That is why the >States are bound by new Amendents even when they have rejected them, and it >is certainly the basis for aruging that once a State has approved an >Amendment, it surrenders jurisdiction over it and cannot subsequently >repudiate it or over-turn the ratification vote. The questions which >surround the validity of the so-called Fourteenth Amendment principally >revolve around the imposition of military-occupation governments on States >which had returned to the union after the rebellion and Civil War of 1861-65, >and the refusal of Congress to seat any of their Representatives or Senators >unless that independent state had approved the section. > >The original Thirteenth Amendment was "put to death" during the Civil War, >and for reasons which remain obscure, our most beloved President, Abraham >Lincoln, issued two different "new" Amendments entitled Article 13, one in >1861 and the currently designated "Thirteenth" or anti-slavery amendment, in >1865. Yet it lived on in Colorado after the war, appearing in the 1868 >organic laws of the Territory, and apparently was considered valid when this >State came into the union in 1876. That year was also the year that Wyoming >Territory published its organic laws and the U.S. Constitution, including the >original Thirteenth as Article 13, the anti-slavery amendment as Article 14, >and the civil rights amendment known as the Fifteenth Amendment, as Article >15. For reasons that are also obscure, here, Wyoming's Territorial leaders >refused to recognize the so-called Fourteenth Amendment in 1876. After 1890, >when Wyoming became a State, the original Thirteenth was not heard from >again. > > > > @@@@@@@@@@@ end of part one @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail