Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 21st, 2011 #1
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default The Original 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (must read)

It has been several years since I put together a thread on the original 13th Amendment that was illegally removed from our US Constitution during the Civil War years. I hope that everyone will take the time to look at the history, evidence, and understand why the traitors in Washington D.C. do not want you to know that there was, in fact, an original 13th Amendment, that would not only remove the majority of politicians today from their elective office, but also strip them of their US citizenship.

Since then, several more law books from the early to mid-19th century have been located(images will be posted below) to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the original 13th Amendment was indeed ratified by the 13th and final state (Virginia) and became part of the US Constitution in 1819.

First, here is the 13th Amendment:


The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States


"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." [Journal of the Senate]

Here is the page from the Journal of the Senate where the vote was 26 to 1 in favor of adopting the new amendment:

 
Old November 21st, 2011 #2
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

The following is an article from Newsweek, dated July 26, 2010, which reports that the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted in June of that year at the state convention in Des Moines, calls for the “the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment."


Why Some Republicans Want to ‘Restore’ the 13th Amendment


Jul 26, 2010 8:00 PM EDT

Quote:
If there is an aspect of the human condition that is unaddressed by the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted last month at the state convention in Des Moines, you’d have to look awfully hard to find it. Its 387 enumerated planks and principles range widely over politics, culture, and economics, from sweeping statements of belief (“America is good”) to the fine nuances of agricultural policy (“We support the definition of manure as natural fertilizer”) and touching on the mythical “North American Union” (against) and the gold standard (for). Even so, it’s a little startling to come upon section 7.19, which calls for “the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th amendment in today’s Constitution.” Since the existing 13th Amendment bans slavery, while the “original” one was about something else entirely, the wording might give the impression that Iowa Republicans wish to reverse emancipation, which is not at all the case, according to state GOP Communications Director Danielle Plogmann
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #3
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

From the same Newsweek article, is an excellent summary of the history and controversy surrounding the original 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, known as the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA). From here on in this thread, when referring to the original 13th Amendment, I will use the acronym TONA.


Quote:
Return with us now to the tumultuous years leading up to the War of 1812, when fear of “foreign influence”—by England or France, depending on whether you were a Republican or Federalist—was a dominating issue in American politics. Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, had recently spent several years in the United States, where he married Elizabeth Patterson, the beautiful, ambitious daughter of a wealthy Baltimore merchant. In 1810, Jerome was on the throne of Westphalia, while Elizabeth was in America with their son, Jerome Napoleon. (The couple would never see each other again.) According to historian Michael Vorenberg of Brown University, having a nephew of the emperor of France growing up on American soil might have made the pro-British Federalists uneasy, or, just as likely, suggested to them a way to tie the Republicans to the French Legion of Honor, the Trilateral Commission of its day. Desiring to get out in front of the issue—or possibly seeking to score points against the Federalists, who had their own embarrassing ties to the British aristocracy—Republican Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland introduced an amendment meant to strengthen the existing “emoluments clause” in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution.

This clause reads:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Reed’s proposed amendment extended the ban from office-holders to “any citizen of the United States” and made the penalty loss of citizenship:

“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.”

Reed’s bill passed both houses easily, and as of Dec. 9, 1812, had been ratified by 12 states and seemed headed for adoption, at which point war intervened. Here, histories diverge. The mainstream view is that the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (TONA) never achieved the necessary 13 ratifications—three quarters of the 17 states as of 1810—and fell further behind as more states joined the union. That ought to have been the end of it, says Jol A. Silversmith, a lawyer in private practice who has written the definitive account of the “missing amendment.” And so it was until the 1980s, when a conspiracy-minded researcher named David Dodge came across an 1825 copy of the Constitution including this provision. Further research led Dodge to conclude that TONA had been ratified by Virginia no later than 1819 and was an accepted, if largely unnoted, part of the Constitution from then until its mysterious disappearance around the time of the Civil War.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #4
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND RATIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL 13th AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
March 12, 1819

http://www.amendment-13.org/leghistory.html#fn3
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #5
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Rhode Island

Ratification Date: Rejected September 15, 1814


Frontis Page


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #6
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Pennsylvania

Ratification Date: February 6, 1811

Frontis Page (1818)


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #7
Kennewickman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,128
Default

One more extraordinary piece of document showing the dramatic changes in American society.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #8
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

North Carolina

Ratification Date: December 23, 1811

Frontis Page (1819)


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #9
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Ohio

Ratification Date: January 31, 1811

Note: It is interesting to note that the Ohio 1833 volume was edited by Salmon P. Chase, subsequently Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War, and Supreme Court Chief Justice 1864-1873

Frontis Page (1833)


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #10
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Indiana

Ratification Date: Recognized

The 1824 volume was Abe Lincoln's first law book, which he studied diligently from the time he was 18. He was very conversant of all the laws and statutes, including the U.S. Constitution and Amendments. Lincoln was very well aware of the 13th Titles of Nobility and Honors amendment. See these images Title Page, Page 32, Page 33, Page 34, Page 35

Frontis Page (1824)


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #11
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Kansas

Recognized

Notice on the Amendment Page that the "Slavery Amendment" is the 14th, not the 13th!


Frontis Page (1868)


Amendment Page
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #12
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kennewickman View Post
One more extraordinary piece of document showing the dramatic changes in American society.
Four years ago when I first created a thread on this topic on Stormdrain (now gone, I bet) there were only a handful of images from old statute books. We now have dozens.

They all can be found here: http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html


Take a look at Kansas' statutes for the year 1868 which shows what we call the 13th Amendment as the 14th. What more proof does the brain dead Americans need?
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1338162&postcount=11
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #13
Kennewickman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokyMtn View Post
Four years ago when I first created a thread on this topic on Stormdrain (now gone, I bet) there were only a handful of images from old statute books. We now have dozens.

They all can be found here: http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html


Take a look at Kansas' statutes for the year 1868 which shows what we call the 13th Amendment as the 14th. What more proof does the brain dead Americans need?
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1338162&postcount=11
I am looking for somebody who can explain to me why the Black Hole swallowed that item…

My guess is that JJT and the Black Master were marking threads and posts for deletion systematically during the years, went back a few months or a year later and performed their dirty act under the cover of the night.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #14
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Wyoming

Recognized

Notice that the 13th is the 14th, and the 14th is the 15th. The original 13th is right where it is supposed to be among the Amendments.


Frontis Page (1876 Territorial Statutes)


Amendment Page

Last edited by SmokyMtn; November 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #15
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kennewickman View Post
I am looking for somebody who can explain to me why the Black Hole swallowed that item…
Many of my threads were swallowed on Stormdrain, especially those that delt with Christianity, of which there were dozens.

I am surprised that I found my last thread on this subject. Some good links there that I will re-post here. I also noticed that NO ONE made any comments or paid attention to that thread.

Here is the last time that I brought up the issue of the lost 13th Amendment on Stormdrain (11/15/2008):

Thread Title: Smoky's Memory Hole
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t542113-2/

Smoky's Memory Hole was intended to be a catch all thread on various topics that I was hoping other White Nationalists would pay attention to. Maybe I should have added some photos of naked women.

Last edited by SmokyMtn; November 21st, 2011 at 11:18 AM.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #16
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL


To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now endures, 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 they could 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: [U]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 the current US 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.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #17
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

(No link for my post from 11/15/2008 on SF)

Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:

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
This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

Either this Amendment was:

Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or

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.
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #18
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml

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) 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 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 that they:

Knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment;

Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and

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 liis now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendmentsmit ."


In fact, ratification time limits didn't start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, "This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from the date of submission ... to the States by Congress." A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.

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

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment." Dodge replies: Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the qu"estion 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 this 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).

INSULT TO INJURY

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:

Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or

The notice was "lost in the mail"; or

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 alive.

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 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 ratificationbhave 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.

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.

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?
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #19
Kennewickman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,128
Default

Wake up guys and smell the coffee; this is a brilliant issue!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokyMtn View Post
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?
 
Old November 21st, 2011 #20
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to SmokeyMtn again."
Great stuff, Smoke! Keep it coming!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.
Page generated in 1.50252 seconds.