Time: Sun Apr 20 17:04:53 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00034; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:36:56 -0700 (MST) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15113; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:36:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:56:16 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: L&J: original 13th Amendment (fwd) <snip> > >from http://ddmall.com/law/orig13th.html > >below is from a web site which contains the details of David Dodge's and Tom >Dunn's research. About half way down the web page is this..... > >PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND >In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible >Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our >Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list >to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) >proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any >American accepting a "title of Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. >Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this was the first time a "title of >nobility" amendment was proposed. > >Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another >"Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the >Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th >Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 >to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification: > >"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain >any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, >accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind >whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person >shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of >holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." > >The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed >amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress >proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were >seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the >Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the >following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of >ratification: > >Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; >Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, >1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. >13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812; >New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812; > >Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the >War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, >the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of >the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a >connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the >War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed >Amendment was lost in the tumult of war. > >Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of >Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of >this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe >reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to >the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that >the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected >by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify >him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and >other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the >month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not >yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial >because, in the absence of additional information they would be >interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified). > >On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of >the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no >further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the >Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor >denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor >Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of >State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that >the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents >from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of >Adams' letter.) > >Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial. > >However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 >(Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it >enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition >of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the >following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and >the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated >instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a >special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had >already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the >day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the >13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of >re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819. The Delegates >knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the >ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful >forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures >to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were >ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send >a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and >Thomas 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 > >.....The web site goes on with more important details of the amendment with a >"scholarly" discussion on the impacts ratification of this amendment would >mean . > >Steve > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail