Sunday, January 27, 2008

The Missing Original 13th Amendment

Dear All:

Here is an interesting legal issue for you all to ponder. According
to this and many other sources, there was a 13th Amendment to the
Constitution *for* the (u)nited States of America that was removed
during the time before the Civil War. This Amendment had a *very*
specific intention which is explained in the below text.

Since the original writing/publishing of this report, several
researchers, including myself, have found more evidence that
conclusively proves that such an Amendment did in fact exist and was
either ratified or was about to be (this is still unclear, but
evidence suggests that it *was* ratified).

I have *in my possession* proof of its existence. We examined the
"records" of many states and found several copies of this same
information. The copies of the Amendment that I have are from many
different places and many different government sources.
Astoundingly, this information is *still* in the various records as
the papers that I have are mere photocopies of the documents
containing the Amendment obtained from various public libraries.

More research is being conducted and I will be happy to snail-mail
these copies to anyone interested.

From Virginia:

The Revised Code of the LAWS OF VIRGINIA

March 18, 1819 Also, a similar document from Colorado, from the
Congressional Record, a copy of the Amendments to the Constitution,
a copy of "This volume of the Laws of Colorado Territory, and a
similar Amendment to the Virginia Constitution.

Without further ado, here is "The Missing 13th Amendment".
The Missing 13th Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher Date 08/01/91
The Missing 13th Amendment, Part I

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and
former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for
evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the
Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of
the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men
were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no
longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover,
after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they
realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was
to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding
the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the
unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of
the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered
additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th
Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten
different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to

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

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law
today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times
confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the
American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are
essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the
Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we
should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent
current relevance. MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim,
receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall
without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any
present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever,
from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such
person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and
shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit
under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}

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

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:
First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of
the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of
the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although
already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of
nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding
fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and
"honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship.
Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times
over four decades, and went through the amending process (even
though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the
Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more
significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent

To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must
understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the
American Revolution.

We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and
politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as
dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western
nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned
other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided
an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow
their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783,
the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The
United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that
inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The
French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising
(1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though
we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies
regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the
principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies
around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the
principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of
the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be

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

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding
piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking
was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own
the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the
power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they
will create enough money to buy it back again... Take
this great power away form them and all great fortunes
like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better
and happier world to live in... But, if you want to
continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost
of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create
money and control credit."

The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of
the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank
scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks,
lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current
BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy
Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These
scandals are the direct result of years of law breaking by an
alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to
corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not
being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of
the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the
1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American
revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and
ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson
published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so
angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts
(1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for
reporting the truth about the government.

Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree
to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay
600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and
later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had
been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American
people. That's subversion. The United States Bank had been opposed
by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the
pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial
capitalization was $10,000,000 --80% of which would be owned by
foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to
$20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal
for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and
collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796,
the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its
shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United
States Bank.)

The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence
representative government by economic manipulation and outright
bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that
european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress
therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the
withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in
turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

That's destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to
subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David
Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress
Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in
the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the
constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the
lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified
by Virginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.' There is no
public record that this book exists."

That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91),
"the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and
13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets
buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment.

In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers
committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud,
conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their
crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does.
They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges
money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later
into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth,
and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized
crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as
"legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did
their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves
by granting them "titles of nobility".

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as
"Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires".
As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more
civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more
profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens
(bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most
common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no
"title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not
restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar
associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the
International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of
England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the
international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received
the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the
principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to
prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of
"Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an
"Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of
an organization whose principle purposes were political, not
economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today
reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)
If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and
"immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition
against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to
operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without
their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S.
agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of
legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire
government would have to conduct itself according to the same
standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the
nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today,
our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the
public would be all but eliminated. Imagine. 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 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in
1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when
Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that
ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only
twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The
Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the
Constitution of the United States which include the "title of
nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and
Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still
be an extraordinary story.

Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a
political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an
extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how
close we came?

One vote. One state's vote.

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

One vote.

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

In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible
Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become
our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate
reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator
Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit
and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of
Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't
passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another
"Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of
the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to
pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the
States for ratification:

"If any citizen ofthe 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 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 North Carolina,Dec. 23, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 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
beween the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of
1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed
Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the
status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818,
President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been
ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode
Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their
legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other
letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during
the month of February,1818, note only that the proposed Amendment
had not yet been ratified.

However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the
absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean
the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the
rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129].
There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th
Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is
neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the
executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any
correspondence from Secretaryof 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-

"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

This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by
law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the
Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed
that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that
the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the
13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of
re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were
necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also
knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so
they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published
in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple
their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to
President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas
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
13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was
not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was
therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature
is prima facie evidence of ratification.

Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary
of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the
ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three-
fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the
Constitution. If three- quarters of the states ratify, the
Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent
on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment,
the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's
ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition
of the Constitution, and so they did.

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

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

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all
of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never
ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which
ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far)
consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments
from their ... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince
the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public
servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors
to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an
awful lot of evidence to be explained.

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

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

In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes
refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

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

However, because the notes authors reported no further references to
the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818,
they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in
failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on
the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore
missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion --
assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the
last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day.

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia
(which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at
that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton)
wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if
this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston
wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that
this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States.
This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of
State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818,
before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the
Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th
Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton's
opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states
and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known
publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).

Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American
politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of
1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. Later in 1861,
another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by
President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was
ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made
to the Constitution which will authorize or give to
Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within
any State, with the domestic institutions thereof,
including that of persons held to labor or service by the
laws of said State."

(In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would
have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State,
Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War
broke out in 1861.

In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally
removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th
Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states'
rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended
with General Lee's surrender.

On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the
proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states
rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the "new" 13th Amendment
loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights
to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively
erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited "titles of
nobility" and "honors".

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now
endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of
nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check.
In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the
disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations
began to appear and exercise political power.

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

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion
from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never
lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the
Law of the land. I public support could be awakened, this missing
Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing
laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were
unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power;
it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current
government system.

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

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

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.

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

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

As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher in
Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of
statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th

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

These finds are important because: 1) they offer independent
confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) they extend the known dates
of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge's most recent find), to
Colorado in 1867.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory
edition which includes both the "missing" 13th Amendment and the
current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The
current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867
Colorado edition.

This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started
with the questions about how our courts evolved from a temple of the
Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this
situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger's
warning that we were "about to lose our constitution". My seven
year investigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information
on the missing 13th Amendment is only a "drop in the bucket" of the
information I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and
by definition, is never truly complete.

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

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

It's never been done before. Not once.

But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States
proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given
us just that sort of equality and political paradise.

The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn
discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained
the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears
on the Constitution:

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim,
receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or
shall without the consent of Congress, accept and
retain any present, pension, office, or emolument
of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince,
or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a
citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable
of holding any office of trust or profit under them,
or either of them. {Emphasis added]

As outlined in the August AntiShyster, this Amendment would have
restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and
would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest
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 13th Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and "honors"
appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United
States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories
between 1819 and 1867; and 2) This amendment quietly disappeared
from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

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 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the
story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century.
If so, it's at least a good story -- an extraordinary historical
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 13th Amendment was ratified
in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the
Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane
Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the
National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly
ratified and only published in error.

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was
proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the
proposed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states
to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve
states voted to support ratification.

The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the
proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the
Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and
should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and
Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify.

Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia's legislative journals
were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly
during the 1930's). Consequently, neither side has found absolute
proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against)

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

After Dodge's initial report of a "missing" Amendment in the 1825
Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a
one-time publishing error:

"The Main 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.

After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the
"missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the
Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by
twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However,
because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states
vote to ratify an Amendment, Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that
the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by
only twelve, not thirteen States.

Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the
time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which
states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue
hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to
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" 13th Amendment.

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

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen.
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative
construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is
published as the official acts of the legislature are the official
acts." By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official
publication, Virginia demonstrated: 1) that they knew they were the
last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment;
2) that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they
were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil
Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had
indeed been ratified.

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

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 13th Amendment was
proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.

Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere,
that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell
implicitly conceded that his "published by error" and "time limit"
arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute
the ratification: "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia
did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819,
this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the

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

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 som future point in time.
Since only the existingstates 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 13th
Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states --
almost one new state every two years.

This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes
different from our own. The government had to be filled with the
euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new
states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama.
The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that
growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new
state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the
nation's growth. For example, if a territory petitioned to join the
Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to
statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify
or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to
ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the
Amendment might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the
Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try
to slow or even deny a particular territory's statehood. These
complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into
the nation, or restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments.
Neither possibility could appeal to politicians.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask
only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on
ratifying the 13th Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions
of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in
the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's
apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be
included in the ratification process.

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary
of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old" states, all
clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was
required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia's
vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing'
Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).

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

"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the
United States is empowered to certify that he has in
his custody the correct number of state certificates
of ratification of a proposed 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 13th Amendment was
ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification
requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification
was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was
not properly notified with a "certificate of ratification". In
other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th
Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment
satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is
nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single,
official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove
implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in
the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators
and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody
screwed up and lost a single "certificate of ratification". This
"certificate" may be missing because either 1) Virginia failed to
file a proper notice; or 2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3)
the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally
destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

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

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining
argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is a procedural
error involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification".

Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of the
ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th
Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the
Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd
Session, at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification")
from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was
submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of
Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table."
Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House,
while Maryland's earlier ratification is not listed as having been
return to Congress."

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

Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against
ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of
the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the
conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such
an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th
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" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer
and taunt us with cries of "make us".

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

If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the
USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed
between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the "missing"
13th Amendment please contact

David Dodge,
POB 985,
Taos,New Mexico, 87571.

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

2) 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