- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

The Missing Thirteenth Amendment (Updated/Re-post)

David M. Dodge, Researcher

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

The Missing Thirteenth Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher

Date 08/01/91


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

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a Thirteenth Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized that the principal intent of this "missing" Thirteenth Amendment was to prohibit Attorneys of the Bar Associations from serving in government as an "elite" class, i.e., lawyers holding membership in a society with a charter that creates special privileges for the them. The Founders experience was that such men always have divided loyalties and conflict of interest.

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

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

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing Thirteenth Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a Thirteenth Amendment restricting Attorneys at the Bar from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

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

MEANING of the Thirteenth Amendment

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

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

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

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


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

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, 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 saved.

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

DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:

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

The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Past and Current S&L and bank scandals, illegal receipt of campaign funds, illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Watergate and Mena Airport scandals involving William Clinton and others, all involving the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the FBI and the CIA, scandals even too numerous to mention). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Do you think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies? You are! -- in money, work, sweat, blood and tears!)

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

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

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

Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society.

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


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

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

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


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

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That's subversion.

The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 - -- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist.

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

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

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail.' There is no public record that this book exists." That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.


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 Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

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


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

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

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

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the Thirteenth Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)

If the missing Thirteenth Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this Thirteenth Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.

Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people!

Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this Thirteenth Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state's vote.

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

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


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

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

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

The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:

Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812; New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812; Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.)

Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the Thirteenth Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this Thirteenth Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

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

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

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

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


In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73(or 74).

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

However, because the notes authors reported no further references to the Thirteenth Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day. In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the Thirteenth Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this Thirteenth Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.)

However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860)

Once again the Thirteenth Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.

Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. 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 Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was presented to the States on February 1, 1865 for ratification. On April 9, 1865 the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated, dying on April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors".


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed our legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in our courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to "political crimes" where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800's. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "un-Constitutional", waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations.

"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 Thirteenth Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio in 1819; Connecticut in 1835; Kansas in 1861; and the Colorado Territory in 1865 and again in 1868.

These finds are important because: 1) they offer independent confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) they extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge's most recent find), to Colorado in 1868.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1868 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1868 Colorado edition. Graphics of these may be viewed by clicking on these links, colo68-1.jpg, colo68-2.jpg, colo68-3.jpg, colo68-4.jpg, and colo68-5.jpg). At the top of colo68-5.jpg is the FAX date that I received these images. Of necessity, I have presented only the pertinent pages of these 1868 Colorado Statutes. -- (Barefoot Bob, 5/13/96)

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


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

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

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

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

If you will, please check your state's archives and libraries to review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research. Please send your comments or discoveries to: David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico, 87571


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 ad- vantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally.

It's never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a Thirteenth Amendment which no longer appears 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 ceaseto be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. [Emphasis added]

This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this nation that most people can't even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that: 1) The Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and "honors" appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867; and 2) This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

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

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

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

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

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

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.


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

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs."

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

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

RATIONALES (for Ratification)

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

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

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

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

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment." Dodge replies: "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process."

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

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that our perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's added only five new states in this century -- about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the Thirteenth Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states -- almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation's growth.

For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory's statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process.

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


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

"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

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

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

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

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

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


Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this Thirteenth Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it's a duck. Maybe so. But if we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government's refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of "make us". Perhaps we shall. The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment please contact :

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

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

2) This raises a fantastic possibility. If there's insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not. Therefore, since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution.

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

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

State Publications

Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868

Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839

Dakota 1862, 1863, 1867

Florida 1823, 1825, 1838

Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846

Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845

Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838

Iowa 1839, 1842, 1843

Kansas 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868

Kentucky 1822

Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]

Maine 1825, 1831

Massachusetts 1823

Michigan 1827, 1833

Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839

Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*

Nebraska 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873

North Carolina 1819, 1828

Northwestern Territories 1833

Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848

Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831

Rhode Island 1822

Virginia 1819

Wyoming 1869, 1876

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a complete printed report of this research with additional data contact David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March at

Titles of Nobility - DEFINITIONS

From: Noah Webster 1828

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1848

Black's Law Dictionary 1891

Note: Because they are so similar, the definitions have been consolidated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing Addenda of further efforts to clarify and correct this issue.

Original Thirteenth Phase 1 Addenda Dated November 6, 1996

Original Thirteenth Amendment Ratification and Publication Table

Images of pages from Bioren and Duane 1815 publication, Title Page and Page 74

These images are scanned from poor FAX copies received Dec 26. 1996.

Better images have been requested from the Yale Archives

Phase 1 Addenda added Dec 7, 1996, The 55th Anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,

which precipitated the entry of the United States into World War 2.


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay


"In a Republic, Luxury and Corruption of Morals are said to be the invariable precursors of national dissolution," said Samuel F. Jarvis, in an address to the members of Phi Beta Kappa in 1806. "It is no less true that the perversion of national taste, and the disrelish for the solid attainments of science evince a degeneracy in Learning, Morals and Religion."

Four years after Mr. Jarvis made that speech, on the Thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Phi Beta Kappa, the State Legislature of Maryland was preparing to take an extraordinary step. Meeting on Christmas Day in 1810, this body ratified the original Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting Titles of Nobility and Honour and describing a Draconian penalty for its violation:

"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 cause of learning is intimately connected to the cause of virtue," said Jarvis to the members of Phi Beta Kappa. Published by Oliver Steele & Company of New Haven, Jarvis' Oration is rather typical of the "federalist" thinking of the men of New Haven in this era, including both scholars and sailors who were prospering under the new Constitution. Seventeen states were now represented in Congress, and the frontier was at the border of the Indiana Territory and Ohio, which had been admitted to the union in 1803.

So, too, the town green and the New England town meeting were being replicated widely in Ohio, as was the principle of `republicanism'. Plain and simple manners, Bible-based education, and state governments drastically limited by local control and a profound concern for property rights, are the hallmarks of these frontier republicans."

That philosophy was carried forward into Ohio and Indiana by land-hungry pioneers and by itinerant preachers schooled at Yale, and Brown and Princeton -- and intent on setting up public education based on the common principles of Christian morality.

"Yet it is in America now that the clearest hope for a beginning of the [comprehensive] World Brain resides. A country habituated to the rapid development of vast commercial and industrial enterprises must surely be capable of attempting an intellectual and educational enterprise beyond the imagination of men bred in smaller and more tradition-ridden communities. So far it has been impossible to awaken any influential and resourceful people" wrote H.G. Wells, in 1939, about what he considered an "unprecedented necessity."

Wells is remembered now as the great science-fiction novelist, and his role as a proponent of world socialism -- and a tireless critic of the British ruling class and its Imperial ambitions -- is only revealed in little-known books like "The Fate of Man," as quoted above. In a bit of sublime irony, the establishment of the World Wide Web comes as close to Wells' vision of a World Brain as could ever possibly be, as a part of the neural network between colleges and universities known as the Internet, .

Fifty years after his call for construction of something like a World Brain, for the purpose of implementing socialism through pure democracy, the Internet and the Web are accelerating the decline of socialism and a concomitant rise in libertarian republicanism. That is, the whole network of advanced telecommunications -- programmable fax machines, cellular radio telephones, high speed computers with modems, and their long-line and satellite links that make it all work -- have combined to enable the common man or woman to have access to any great library and to send high-speed telegraph messages (e-mail) almost anywhere for just pennies! And, it is making state and local government both transparent and more accessible, to the citizen who is computer literate.

Furthermore, just as these United States in Congress assembled are entering the most crucial and dangerous period in our long history, this network and its resources have made it possible for the average citizen, who is willing to study the issues, to be part of representative self-government, in a way that Thomas Jefferson or George Mason would have approved. And, the surfacing of this missing Amendment, passed out of Congress in 1810 and properly ratified in 1819, is part of what the New England Federalists (referring to their political faction, now, and not just the philosophy), would have easily recognized as Divine Providence. How this Amendment was ratified, what it meant to the men of that era, and how it came to be suppressed and forgotten are the subjects of this essay.

And, what the loss of this Amendment has caused, and what its lawful restoration and placement in the proper order of Amendments means for the society of the United States, in the 1990s, in also addressed.

The reader may begin with Chapter 1 -The Prohibition of Titles of Nobility and Honour. Chapter 2 is Ratification: 1812-1820. Chapter 3 is Philadelphia Lawyers and a Mock Nobility, while Chapter 4 is Panic, War & Opium. Chapter 5 is entitled One Hundred Years of Pain, and the essay concludes with Chapter 6 - The Secret Armies and a Table of Ratification and Publications. In Addition is the Addenda on the Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett vs. Turner on the flawed nature of the ratification of the Thirteenth Anti-Slavery and the Fourteenth Citizenship Amendments. .

Among those great thinkers consulted for the steel framework of this essay are: H.G. Wells on the Left, Albert Jay Nock on the Right, and Buckminster Fuller as the centrist.

Whenever possible, quotations are used, taken directly from people who were living the history discussed here. Key comments will often be set off in a separate block of text or highlighted in color. Special links to other sources of information on the World Wide Web will be noted.

End of Introduction


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 1

The Prohibition of Titles of Nobility and Honour

At the end of 1806 all of the western frontier was aflame with the reports of Aaron Burr's plots and treacheries: Burr, eloquent and devious and extremely popular, was quite possibly a sociopath. He had proved to be one of the most effective political organizers of the new Republic. But his betrayal of Jefferson in the 1800 election, by contesting the electoral college votes and forcing the decision into the House of Representatives was a severe crisis for the new federal system. Thirty-six ballots were required for Thomas Jefferson to turn back the challenge of his own Vice-President. And, as Fawn Brodie notes in her landmark biography of the Third President, Jefferson used the threat of a Constitutional Convention against the Federalists, who hoped to appoint an interim president to displace both him and Burr!

In 1805 Napoleon Bonaparte had himself crowned the King of Italy, and in 1806 Joseph Bonaparte was set up as King of Naples. His brother Louis was then named King of Holland, a residual Spanish title. Soon enough, Aaron Burr was adventuring in the western territories, looking to create a new confederacy with himself as dictator or Emperor.

Although he never had the level of support he imagined, President Jefferson considered Burr a serious threat. After getting a clear view of his conspiracy, he issued a proclamation on November 27th, elucidating the Burr conspiracy in general terms and calling on the people at large to suppress any insurrection. Far from being the end of the matter, it was the beginning of a titanic political struggle.

The history of this era includes on-going conflicts over smuggling, and the cross-border trade with British Canada. Britain was keenly aware of all that was happening in the new States, and with nearly 184,000 handloom weavers and 90,000 cotton workers in their factories, they had every incentive to exploit the divisions in American politics.

In March and April of 1807, judicial proceedings against Aaron Burr and several of his confederates, conducted by Chief Justice John Marshall, resulted in two of these conspirators being freed for a lack of evidence, and Burr freed on bail. This hardened the animosity between Marshall and Jefferson, which had been a-building for many years. When Marshall displayed a public sympathy with Burr and his lawyer it revealed, as Fawn Brodie writes, that "the trial took on for Jefferson a wholly new dimension, the judiciary had once more become, as in Adams' time, a tool of politics." As Fawn Brodie notes, in her biography of the third President, Jefferson "would see to it that an amendment to the Constitution was introduced in Congress in 1807 and 1808 making it possible for judges to be removed by a joint action of the president and both houses of Congress. In both instances it failed ...."

What both the federalists of the northern states and the Democratic-Republicans of the south agreed upon -- as a result of their experiences in shaping the new government of the United States -- was a renewed concern over the meddling of wealthy European business agents, called "factors," and of the various adventurers, royalist agents and spies operating on behalf of Spain, and Bonapartist France. The new states were positively overwhelmed with schemers and financial hucksters, but wages were rising and growth was everywhere in evidence. The period 1800 to 1818 was one of rising expectations and massive immigration into the Americas, and of "republicanism" on the march with Simon Bolivar in the former Spanish colonies. It was a good time for the federalist opponents of the Jeffersonians, including James Madison and James Monroe.

Louisiana, with its prized port of New Orleans, was being prepared for statehood and all parties were concerned with the political ambitions of Jerome Bonaparte. The new Territory of Mississippi was also generating great wealth and men of vision were building plantation empires in these two regions, while Alabama was following its own course of development. So much growth and change was worrisome to the established powers in New England, where a secessionist movement had swept the region in 1809, and who generally detested both Thomas Jefferson and all things French. Behind it all, British agents and smugglers were all too happy to roil the waters of these remarkably stable, productive new states of the American Republic.

By 1810 James Madison was the new President, and the combined concerns of both New England federalists and southern Democrat-Republicans led to the formulation of the so-called Titles of Nobility Amendment, otherwise known as the original or missing Thirteenth Amendment.

No one can say with complete authority, who wrote this Amendment, but it is consistent with the language employed by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention, and the arguments for ratification authored by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. On November 27, 1809, the original 13th Amendment was proposed in Congress. By May of 1810 with John Gaillard as the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, this section was voted out of Congress, having passed both houses of Congress, and was sent to the 17 states of the Union.

War with Great Britain intervened in 1812, and then James Madison won re-election, with Elbridge Gerry as his Vice President. Despite the tumult that war brings, by the end of the year, twelve of the seventeen states in the union during the 1810 congressional approval process had ratified this Amendment. Louisiana joined the union in 1812 but neither the Congress nor President Madison considered it fitting and proper to send the Titles of Nobility Amendment to their Legislature for consideration.

On June 17, 1812, the U.S. Senate voted 19 to 13 for war with Great Britain, based on information supplied by James Madison and a previously favorable vote in the House. One of the leading War Hawks was William Branch Giles of Virginia, who had been a member of the House and a strong supporter of Thomas Jefferson. But he considered Madison to be a weakling and opposed him on almost every measure.

However, as Senator Robert Byrd has noted, in his writings and speeches on the subject of the War of 1812, Giles "finally concluded that Britain posed a greater threat [than France], since she was based in Canada and controlled the Atlantic. His final vote for war, therefore, was cast out of fear of dominance by Great Britain."

Here is the beginning of theories for the conspiracy-minded. As Senator Byrd writes, the War did not settle the issues that led directly to the fighting:

"The War of 1812 ended with great irony. The Treaty of Ghent, concluding the war, was signed on Christmas Eve of 1814. The peace treaty made no reference to the issues of impressment of American seamen, naval blockades, or the disputed boundary with Canada, which had caused the war in the first place. It merely restored conditions to the way they had been before the war broke out."

"Within a few years, the Federalist party would be but a memory, and all members of Congress would identify themselves as Republicans. But these Republicans had been sobered by the difficult war .... They now turned to passing nationalist legislation dealing with a national bank, protective tariffs, direct taxation, and internal improvements. All of these measures were far more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian in nature."

"To take one of these as a case study: That the Republican majority would charter the Second Bank of the United States during the administration of James Madison is quite amazing when one considers that the Jeffersonian Republicans had bitterly fought against Hamilton's original bank in the 1790's, and that Madison himself had led the fight against the bank while a member of the House. The charter for the first bank had expired in 1811. At that time, Senator William H. Crawford had led the administration forces in an effort to renew the charter, while William Branch Giles led the 'Old Republicans' determined to defeat the bank. Giles and others saw in the bank the last vestiges of federalism, as well as an unconstitutional institution."

"Again in his message to the Fourteenth Congress in December 1815, Madison revived the issue of a national bank. In the House, the measure was supported by three remarkable young men, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster, who ... would shape American political life over the next thirty years".

Senator Byrd continues: "In the Senate, the Committee on Finance reported the bill on March 25, 1816. Chairman George Washington Campbell admitted that he considered the bill defective, but that the members had been in too much disagreement to decide upon appropriate amendments. Senator William Hill Wells of Delaware spoke out forcefully against the bill, arguing that 'the disease, it is said, under which the people labor, is the banking fever of the States; and this is to be cured by giving them the banking fever of the United States.'"

"The Bank of the United States was approved on April 3, 1816 and capitalized at $35 million. The central office was in Philadelphia and there were as many as twenty-five branches around the country".

"Although the Republicans had abandoned much of their [Jeffersonian] heritage to support the bank in a burst of postwar nationalism and realism," writes Byrd, "the controversies surrounding it were far from over and would surface again within the coming decades ...."

It is of the utmost importance to note the convergence of the City of Philadelphia -- the former capital -- with the establishment of that new Bank, there. Beginning in 1828, and perhaps before that, the organized efforts to disable and defeat this Amendment have their principal base in Philadelphia, with the members of the Bar of that City.

After the war was over, the factions produced by this conflict were even more divided than they had been in 1806 and '07. Connecticut put this Amendment on its agenda in 1813, laid it aside on April 22, and then defeated it on the 2nd Thursday in May, 1813 , May 11th. New York rejected this section on May 1st, 1813, and Rhode Island rejected the Titles of Nobility as a proposed Amendment on September 15, 1814. The war was not going well for the United States at this juncture, and late in 1814 the Federalists gathered at Hartford in a convention which could have led to the secession of New England, but did not. Instead it eroded the power of their party faction.

So, it is evident that this Amendment was born during a period of great controversy: Thomas Jefferson was continually frustrated with John Marshall and the Supreme Court. Then, his loyalist Senator Giles was agitating for war with Britain, and confounding Madison. Despite the turmoil of these times, the measure was only short by one State at the end of 1812, and by mid-1814 the count was 12 for and 3 against. That is a fairly rapid course of ratification votes, considering the slower communications of the era.

It is extremely important to note that the British Army took great pains, after defeating the American forces at Bladensburg, to burn the key federal buildings. The Library of Congress was torched -- having no military value -- and the incomplete buildings of the House were burnt, resulting in the loss of all its records. The British regulars paid special attention the Supreme Court, which proved difficult to fire and required additional stacks of wood and papers. The records of the Senate, however, were mostly saved.

The men and women of the generations now current can only lament that former President Jefferson decided against writing about this era, or there might be more source material on this much-abused Amendment:

"While in public life, I had not time, and now that I am retired, I am past the time. To write history requires a whole life of observation, of inquiry," he wrote in 1817, "of labor and correction. Its materials are not to be found among the ruins of a decayed memory."

Neither, it seems, are missing pieces of the Titles of Nobility puzzle to be found in the ancient ruins of the Library of Congress.

As David Dodge, one of the principal researchers working on this issue has written:

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

And what has seldom been discussed, in the Twentieth Century, is the long association of profitability in banking, with the Asiatic opium trade. That is not the specific subject of this essay, but it can never be far from the gist of the matter: Britain, India and opium means profits, and conflicts with China. In this era, the new markets opening to the shipping interests of the United States were in China and Asia.

The whole history of this Amendment is fraught with these problems: missing letters, and contradictory documents; misleading statements made by public officials, both during the ratification process and in the forty years following; and confusion in the new Republic over just how the States were supposed to give notification when an Amendment was ratified.

End of Chapter 1


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 2

Ratification 1810-1820

"The world emerging from the next great war, then, will be a tougher world, more disunited than ever, abounding still more in concealed aims and secret preparations and the fears and suspicions they engender. What else can it be?"

"Many [people], under the stress of their conscious helplessness, will lapse into mystical religiosity, will refuse to bear children, will resort to suicide or the quasi-suicide of non-resistance. Many will take refuge in opiates." -- H.G. Wells, 1939

The original Thirteenth Amendment was designed to be, and is now a guarantee against the creation of rump parliaments, and Bonapartist military societies. It was designed to provide the citizens of these United States with a hard, armored shell to protect them against the depredations of foreign business combinations, their lobbyists, their spies, their hirelings, their double agents and Secret Armies.

It was and is a kind of political "vitreous humor," a clear and flexible fluid that is organic in origin, designed to give shape to the "immunities and privileges" -- as guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution to both the citizens and the residents present here. It is intended to pass the light of the Lord's creation, the natural world, from outside of the Union to inside, presenting a view of the world at large to each and every citizen, ennobling their ambitions, protecting their property rights and the sovereignty of their status as the people of Montana, or Delaware, and so forth. It is and was designed to block the ambitions of nasty, short and brutish warlords.

All the petty tyrannies to which the democratic process is prone, whether it is judicial tyranny, or the Peerage of Robes and Gowns as established in the academies or on the campuses of the several States -- most are actionable under this section. It does not prohibit fraternal organizations from associating and giving out awards or rewards.

It does not matter whether the Title of Nobility is purchased or acquired by birth or awarded in a lottery: it is forbidden and all of the deeded rights and privileges it might carry, even if acquired by barter, are proscribed. Nor shall any government agent, whether by charter or by the lack of a charter, be allowed special privileges or immunities, even if they seem logical in the pursuit of their assigned functions.

The Titles of Nobility Amendment can, and should, and will act to conjoin the disharmonious music of State and federal government into a two-octave harmony that floats free in the world at large, and binds the government at home with thick constitutional chains which only the people may unlock or discard. It gives the common citizen a two-octave blessing of protection in a cruel and unusual world: State sovereign within the United States, federal citizen without.

The men who wrote this Amendment knew what Albert Jay Nock articulated in 1935, when he despaired of those individuals who make themselves the tools of the state:

"Instead of looking upon the State's progressive absorption of social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel toward the activities of a professional criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the belief that he is somehow identified with the State, and ... he therefore consents to something in which he has a share."

The whole history of this Amendment has been fraught with problems, though, including mistakes, duplicity and fabrications. The worst are the bureaucratic swindles of the Members of the Bar, who have published the Constitution privately, omitting the Thirteenth, and who have ignored or disdained seventy-two State or Territorial editions of organic laws, which show Article 13 to be valid.

To have a graphic display of the approvals on a State by State basis, see the Table of Ratifications.

Covering the Amending process, Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate any method for doing that. That means the several States have total discretion, and the power to select whatever means of announcing a ratification vote that their sovereign legislatures see fit to enact by law. An important measure passed April 20th, 1818, establishes a duty belonging to the Secretary of State, who "shall publish and make known" the results of votes taken by the several States, and issue certificates of ratification. But this law, amended in 1820, cannot and does not impair the rights of the States to communicate their decisions by the means that they decide to be proper.

A most crucial juncture was reached in 1815, when early in the year Congress voted to authorize a new edition of the Laws of the United States, from the first day of the first session through the 4th of March of that year. The money was appropriated and the firm of Bioren and Duane was retained to assemble and print these Laws, in five volumes, including the Constitution of the United States and all of its Amendments.

With a caveat included in its introductory pages, that the status of the Thirteenth Article of Amendment was in doubt, the Bioren and Duane edition of the "Laws of the United States ...." was duly published and contained the Title of Nobility Amendment as issued in 1810, correct and proper to the last comma, and listed as Article 13. Its front page contains the words, "authorized by an Act of Congress."

But, as many critics of this Amendment have noted, Article V of the Constitution does not require -- or, therefore, allow -- an authorized publication to establish the facts of ratification. Three-fourths of the states are required to approve any given Amendment -- three-fourths of the states who participate in the Article V drafting and approval process, as members of Congress. Nothing in Article V allows a state which enters the union after an Amendment is passed along and sent to the states -- to vote for or against such a proposed section! That state may make a pro forma ratification but such a vote cannot count toward the total of three-fourths required under Article V, three-fourths of the several States which issued the Amendment being needed for the approval.

No one knows exactly why the new, comprehensive edition of the Laws of the United States was set up to include the Titles of Nobility as Article 13: the loss of all House records in 1814, as well as having the Library of Congress burned by the British army, makes any further research impossible. Also, the Journal of the Special Session of the Senate of Virginia, held in 1814 is missing -- and this is very curious! -- so are all their manuscript journals from approximately 1810 to 1820.

The Bioren and Duane was duly published, and issued to members of Congress and others in Washington City, and copies of it survive to this day, in the Law School at Yale and in that University's Beinecke Rare Book Library. The craftsmanship of those printers and the paper employed in 1815 were extraordinary, and of the highest quality. President James Monroe and his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, conducted themselves in 1817 and '18 as if the Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified. Questions arose over the status of this section, though, and at the request of the House, John Quincy Adams queried the three states that they were unsure of (as of the end of 1817): these were Connecticut, South Carolina and Virginia.

To understand the faulty arguments which have been made against the validity of this Amendment, the Titles of Nobility section (with its Draconian penalties for accepting foreign pensions or emoluments), it is necessary to understand which States were polled by John Quincy Adams. Careful and meticulous research conducted by Brian March, among others, has positively established that the three States entering the union after 1810 -- Louisiana, Indiana and Mississippi -- were not polled by Secretary Adams.

Since they did not participate in voting on the Amendment as required under Article V, when it was issued to the States, these new members of the union were not considered qualified to ratify or reject it. Nor, when they were admitted to the union, were these States invited by Congress to participate in the Article V ratification process for the Titles of Nobility. "In the Journals of John Quincy Adams," says March, "it is clear that neither Louisiana, Indiana nor Mississippi were contacted."

That is the most crucial factor in understanding what happened next, and to why the Amendment was properly ratified and announced as such in 1819. The planters' economy of Virginia was a mature one, by 1818, and many state banks had issued large loans. Men of property enjoyed high values for their land, massive numbers of English workingmen had begun migrating to the new states in 1816, seeking to escape from stagnating wages and to find opportunity, and speculation was rampant.

"At no phase in history have the common people played a dominant part in the government of Great Britain," wrote H.G. Wells, "and in every phase the baronial oligarchy has prevailed. It is the tradition and education of this oligarchy which determines the behavior of the ...Government and its role in contemporary world affairs."

The working classes in Britain were manipulated by the banking interests, and the money factors, in the years after the Napoleonic wars. "The British masses neither rule nor want to rule. They are politically apathetic. They do not produce outstanding individuals to express their distinctive thoughts or feelings," writes Wells in 1939, "because they have no distinctive thoughts or feelings to express."

The British people, even the merchant classes, have never controlled the banking houses resident on their islands because the aristocracy has always shielded them from scrutiny. Their struggle for social freedom has always been limited -- until the era of Margaret Thatcher -- because, as Albert Jay Nock declared, "without economic freedom no other freedom is significant or lasting, and that if economic freedom can be attained, no other freedom can be withheld."

Social critics like H.G. Wells will never agree, precisely, on Nock's proposition: but they have always opposed the consolidations that the money factors use to make money off of money, because it eats up credit which would otherwise be available for development. The State of Virginia should have been immune to money-changing swindles in 1818 and 1819, as first Illinois and then Alabama joined the union and markets were expanding. Nevertheless, a crisis in banking ensued.

The seriousness of this banking issue became transparently clear in 1819, when a financial panic closed banks all over Virginia. W. Cary Nicholas, who was governor of Virginia in 1818 and the director of a Richmond bank "was dragged into ruin," as Fawn Brodie puts it. He died leaving Thomas Jefferson holding a co-signer's note for $20,000, which would end up costing him some $1200 per year in interest alone. In this environment of speculation and mass bankruptcy, the leaders of Virginia met to authorize a new and comprehensive version of their state's laws, including the United States Constitution.

When it was published, agreed to on March 12, 1819 --and issued for circulation at the end of the year and into 1820 -- it included the Titles of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13, and a special printing of four thousand copies was ordered. This was the manner chosen by the Virginia legislature to announce and publish their ratification of this Amendment. Recent research in the archives of Virginia has revealed that multiple copies of this edition, also known as VA2, were forwarded to the two houses of Congress in Washington, to the President and to the Secretary of State. Also one copy of Virginia's organic laws, including the Thirteenth Amendment as valid, was placed with the Library of Congress, where it remains to this day. For many years those who oppose recognition of this controversial and important section of our Constitution, have argued that because Virginia did not, apparently, send a "Letter" to then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the ratification vote was somehow nullified.

Because Article V does not stipulate that any such "Letter" be sent, the authorized publication by the Virginia legislature, and the now-documented transmission of VA2 to the House and Senate and Secretary of State, must stand as pure and indisputable evidence of ratification. Seventy-two times in the years between 1819 and 1876, state or territorial editions of their organic laws have included this Title of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13 -- and that is entirely too many independent publications to be blamed on the mistakes made in Bioren and Duane, 1815.

Almost immediately (after 1819), state editions of the organic laws (and including the current Constitution of the United States with Article 13 in place), and acts of the legislature were published. North Carolina and Georgia have editions from 1819, Rhode Island has one in 1822, and Massachusetts published the Amendment as being ratified in 1823. The federalist bastion of Connecticut had four different publications by 1839.

Virginia had every right to issue its ratification notice in such a manner, it paid for the printing and thus the original Thirteenth Amendment, barring foreign princes and powers from meddling in our domestic political and business affairs, was ratified by thirteen of the seventeen states in the union in 1810 -- and is now and has been a lawful part of the United States Constitution, for 178 years.

It has also been suppressed and nearly forgotten since 1876.

Work to sabotage this Amendment began almost at once, upon its publication by Virginia, and gained speed and allies after 1828. Most predictably, whenever an independent researcher begins to dig into just who wanted this valid section of our Constitution squashed, the influence of British bankers and their hirelings in these United States -- mostly attorneys-at-law -- comes clearly into focus.

A pattern develops, over time, and from the vantage point of the 1990s the careful observer can identify just how this great and vibrant American Republic has been sapped by its many allegiances with Britain. Most educated Americans know little of the true wealth of the crowned heads of Britain, and the Netherlands, just as they know little of the business interests who developed global trade over the last five hundred years. Royal families, banking trusts and Chinese triads -- clan-based criminal organizations -- have long since mastered the art of the masquerade; they pose as public institutions, non-profit agencies, private corporations and even as charitable foundations. The less often a principality like Liechtenstein is mentioned in the world press, the more probable it is that these world-spanning commercial powers do their banking there! In the digital world of the 1990s, it is getting harder for them to hide their machinations, in part because their accumulated wealth and power is so obvious.

There would not seem to be any connection between the Gulf War conducted by the United States and its loosely-knit Arab alliance, against Iraq, and the original Thirteenth Amendment. Yet the authors of this section clearly wanted Congress, as a political body responsible both to the people and the States, to have complete control over all dealings with foreign princes.

Knowing that London banks handle a vast amount of the wealth of Kuwait and their royal family, the al-Sabahs, and that their Emirate was a creation of British foreign policy in the 1920s, should alter every American's perception of that part of our mutual, shared history with Great Britain. Again and again, American blood has been spilled for the benefit of British bankers, money factors, and the royal families who are now completely intertwined with them.

All through that long period when Labor was triumphant in the British islands, that socialist economic dinosaur constructed on the wreckage of Victoria's Empire was controlled from behind and above by the family 'Windsor'. As H.G. Wells, the leading advocate of world socialism in the 1930s, put it, Britain was never likely to be fully "democratic," i.e., socialist:

"On the whole the totalitarians make the more exciting and attractive promises and give the brooding young [men] the most immediate prospect of authorized activities. Official Great Britain pays the dole and encourages no presumptuous hopes." But what Wells was saying, in "The Fate of Man," was that "an excess of bored and unemployed young men ... must in some manner find relief, [or they] will shatter human life altogether under new conditions."

The royal family, descendants of German princes, own the most land in England, and their Tory allies have long dominated the Court of St. James. Besides Buckminster Fuller, and the one great industrialist he truly admired -- Henry Ford -- few American leaders of this century have ever understood that the money factors and their royal allies are equipped with one-hundred year plans. Joseph P. Kennedy was one such American who understood, and he was ruthless in his pursuit of the same kind of wealth, power, and family longevity possessed by those royals. Any thinking person, in these 1990s, can gauge the success of his one-hundred year planning.

There is another history behind the "accepted" or given history taught in our public schools and academies, a history of influence-peddling, spies and assassinations and the attempted destruction of our precious Constitution.

The great Buckminster Fuller, poet, architect and inventor of the geodesic dome, elaborated on these truths in his opus magnus, Critical Path in 1981. His reward for a life spent laboring for the good of all humanity? After his death Fuller's works are ignored by almost every great college and university, his principles are not widely taught, even though they are based on both good science and the desire to make all mankind successful. Only a handful of his fans, his grandson, and the global access provided by the Internet keeps the teachings of synergy -- Synergetics -- alive.

He also taught that the royal families of Europe were simply fronts for, and parties to, the superbly organized commercial houses founded in the days of the great sailing ships.

They are now so thoroughly intertwined with banking and electronic commerce and the intelligence services of their "home nations," as to be indistinguishable. What you see on the surface is not what you get down below, and always, said Bucky Fuller, always the true powers are those who control sailing, shipping and navigation on the oceans.

In the era 1800 to 1818, the greatest challenge to the hegemony of Great Britain and her seapower was coming not from France, which was invested mostly in land-based armies and in securing farmland and mines -- but from the new, upstart, democratic-republicans of the United States. Everything that happened here was of concern to those who controlled British commerce, its fleets, and the crown itself.

Illinois was admitted to the union, while John Quincy Adams was still polling Connecticut, South Carolina and Virgina: This section was not offered to their Legislature for immediate consideration, thus making the argument for "subsequent" or "equal footing" ratifications, a moot argument. What the British could not foil by war in 1812, they apparently tried to stymie by, possibly, creating a financial panic in 1819, in the wealthiest and most influential new American republican state -- Virginia.

South Carolina is the only member of the group of seventeen with no recorded position on the original Thirteenth Amendment: and, because the section was issued without a time limit, the Palmetto State could pick up the measure and approve it at any time! But the gist of the research done over more than ten years by David Dodge, Brian March, Tom Dunn and others is simple -- the Titles of Nobility section was ratified and properly so.

Nothing done by stealth or artifice can remove the Titles of Nobility Amendment from our Constitution, lawfully, even though no published edition of the U.S. Constitution now extant shows it to be valid. Its protections against foreign powers seeking to corrupt our political process, against princes seeking to insinuate themselves with our leaders, against secret agents and their plans of empire, acquiring influence with our many State governments -- still remain! -- they have but to be reclaimed, like lost luggage in a musty old train station. The full fare for this item has been paid, pre-paid, in fact, with the blood of patriots and American soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is part of the American "patrimony," it is an inheritance descending from the era that follows, immediately, the formation of this Republic. Restoring it to its rightful place, between Article 12 and the anti-slavery section put forward by Abraham Lincoln, is a debt of honor owed to James Monroe, and certainly to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

As James Madison said, in arguing for ratification before the New York State legislature when he and Hamilton presented the new Constitution to a skeptical bunch of Yankees:

"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. Adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the Articles only."

That is why the States are bound by new Amendments even when they have rejected them, and it is certainly the basis for arguing that once a State has approved an Amendment, it surrenders jurisdiction over it and cannot subsequently deny, repudiate it or over-turn the ratification vote.

The original Thirteenth Amendment was "put to death" during the Civil War, and for reasons which remain obscure, our most beloved President, Abraham Lincoln, issued two different "new" Amendments entitled Article 13, one in 1861 and the currently designated "Thirteenth" or anti-slavery amendment, in 1865. Yet it lived on in Colorado after the war, appearing in the 1868 organic laws of the Territory, and apparently was considered valid when this State came into the union in 1876. That year was also the year that Wyoming Territory published its organic laws and the U.S. Constitution, including the original Thirteenth as Article 13, the anti-slavery amendment as Article 14, and the civil rights amendment known as the Fifteenth Amendment, as Article 15. For reasons that are also obscure, here, Wyoming's Territorial leaders refused to recognize the so-called Fourteenth Amendment in 1876. After 1890, when Wyoming became a State, the original Thirteenth was not heard from again.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment, 1815-1820

"Since the last anniversary of our Independence, we have again been delivered from the danger of foreign control; -- our liberty has been established a second time. I speak not of an escape from the terror of British arms --", said Nathaniel Chauncey, Esquire, in an Oration given to the Washington Benevolent Society of Philadelphia on July 4th, 1815.

"Our gallant countrymen have gloriously shown their ability to repel invasion -- I speak of the termination of a war, which associated us with a band of robbers -- a war, which involved us in the guilt, and threatened us with subjection to the control, of a conspiracy against the order, liberty and happiness of the civilized world -- a war which made us abettors in a plot, for the destruction of all that is valuable in the possessions, or the hopes of man."

Strong language coming from a man of about thirty years of age, a graduate of Yale College in the storied class of 1806, and schooled at law in New Haven! Speaking on the national holiday, to a federalist gathering in Philadelphia, in the name of paying homage to George Washington, he accuses the Madisonian government of plotting "the destruction of all that is valuable in the possessions, or the hopes" of men. No speaker worth his salt, in those tempestuous days, could fail to affirm property rights as being the foundation of all republican sentiments. It is the rhetoric of the former president John Adams, pure and undistilled.

For a modern man or woman to understand the situation in these United States in 1815, requires a long stretch of the imagination. For example, some imagination is necessary to enjoy a good historical drama -- like "The Journey of August King," a movie made in 1995 -- because the high-speed, digital world of the Internet is as far removed from the mainly agricultural society of that time, as those people were distant from the Neanderthals. Yet here is a wholly American story:

That movie was set in 1815, in the prosperous hills of North Carolina, and it stars Jason Patric as a widower who encounters a runaway slave girl (played by Thandie Newton). The story of "The Journey" concerns August King's moral crisis of conscience. He is a young man of property, still grief-stricken over the previous death of his young wife and baby. When he encounters the runaway slave girl, who is quite obviously the daughter of a white slaveowner and his "dusky" housekeeper, he is both repelled and fascinated. She is scared and beautiful and forbidden, and he wants nothing to do with her. The power of the story in this movie rests in their ability to reach past their social conditions -- house slave-girl and the freeholding farmer -- to see each other's essential humanity. And always, this world of 1815 is one dominated by nature -- where reality is one of rushing rivers and rock-strewn mountain wagon paths -- of mud, geese and stubborn cows, and glorious sunsets.

The republican government of 1815 North Carolina is a patchwork of local communities exercising "home rule" or self-government. Slaves are not allowed in some jurisdictions, but the law on runaways is statewide. Justice is immediate, it is personal and terrible to behold. But it is also very close to the people. Farmer August King is comfortable and even prosperous, in that agrarian world.

The local sheriff is a man well-known to any citizen, not a stranger behind a badge and a gun. His daughter may have designs on a handsome young widower, and an equally strong feeling of jealousy towards a pretty seventeen-year old slave girl. This is the excellent role developed by Thandie Newton, who animates her character with charm and a certain crankiness that makes this movie a gem of historical drama.

The runaway is the property of the man who is also her father, who keeps her mother well-dressed but in bondage. This is the reality of life for millions of American people in the southern states, which are extended to Louisiana in 1812 and which encompass vast territories in Alabama and Mississippi, as well. But slaves are property -- not citizens -- and can be disposed of in almost any manner, including a most gruesome death on the gibbet.

The edge of the industrial age to come is just visible in this world, and manufactured tools are highly prized in the life of August King. That makes his losses, imposed as punishments for helping the runaway slave girl escape, all the more emotional and compelling.

The swift and severe justice rendered by his neighbors, including the sheriff, leaves him destitute. His wagon is broken down, his geese disappear, his cow dies and his supplies are all stolen. The slavemaster and his men burn King's house to the ground, as is the law -- but it is a house he had built with his own hands. He is left with the deed to his farm, his furniture and his tools stacked up together under the stars. The slave girl is not recaptured, and she follows the underground railroad to freedom, wearing a dress King had purchased for his late wife, but one that she had never had a chance to wear. "The Journey of August King" was not a great success by the current standards of Hollywood but it is of immense value in understanding the day-to-day world -- and the nature of the Americans then living -- who had elected the Eleventh Congress, which passed the original Thirteenth Amendment in 1810. Even more so, this film illustrates the world governed by the State legislators, who had given this proposed section twelve ratifications (and three rejections), by 1815.

"Life throughout that period resolved itself into a scramble for wealth. The whole nation thought dollars," wrote H.G. Wells in 1939, and "talked dollars. For several generations it was a distinctly exhilarating scramble. There was so much unexploited land, such reserves of natural wealth available, that it was possible to accumulate vast fortunes and still find fresh employment for everyone who chose to work."

Of course, the contradictions of employing forced labor -- otherwise known as slavery -- in building those fortunes in the south, or in making profits from the wealth thus produced, as was done in the northern states under the guise of finance and commerce, would require fifty years of agitation and a bloody Civil War to resolve.

Or was there an international conspiracy, led by the money factors of British and Dutch royalty, to erode and collapse the new Republic, the loosely-bound united States in Congress assembled? Were the actions of men of the law free from all foreign entanglements, or was there a distinctly pro-British bias, and favoritism? Consider part of the message of Virginia's Governor Tyler, to the House of Delegates in December of 1810:

"Shall we forever administer our free republican government on the principles of a rigid and high ton'd monarchy? I almost blush for my country when I think of these things. Let a stranger go into our Courts, and he would almost believe himself in the Court of King's Bench. Can the Judicial department be free from their chains, but by a revisal of Common Law under Legislative authority?"

"Why cannot those maxims and principles which follow the Common Law, be selected for our purpose, and made the rules of decision in cases where they apply? As to the written or statute Law, no Judge can be fairly [said] to be independent or free who goes to a British Judge to see how his Lordship has been pleased to decide in a like case."

"This course of legal procedure is too servile and humiliating for an American citizen."

So, too, industry and the legal complications of foreign commerce were constantly on the minds of men like Nathaniel Chauncey, Connecticut born and Yale-bred. The Connecticut Yankees enjoyed superior representation in the government, as Oliver Wolcott had been Secretary of the Treasury, and it was virtually impossible to elect anyone except a Yale man to either State government or to the Congress!

The northern federalist cause included maritime commerce and strong naval forces:

1815 was the year, for example, that the first steam-powered warship was deployed. The U.S.S. Fulton, an innovation of the upstart Navy of the new Republic. From many sources like Mr. Chauncey's July 4th Oration, we have no doubt whatsoever about the opinions of the New England federalists concerning the military policies of James Madison (and as always, an attack on him was also an attack on Thomas Jefferson):

"For three campaigns they prosecuted the invasion of Canada," complained Nathaniel Chauncey, "without gaining an inch of territory."

"But England in her turn became the invader, and our capital was disgracefully surrendered to a handful of men. It was now seen, that the people must defend themselves -- That our rulers could declare war, but were unable to carry it on -- That though they were bound by the Constitution to protect the country, its deliverance was not to proceed from them."

"Here was a cause in which our countrymen might lawfully display their courage. Numbers came forward, prepared to repel the enemy," said Chauncey, referring to the armed citizen's militias of Washington City and the Washington Guards, "[to] redeem the honor of the American name. When the [fighting] spirit of the people was thus aroused, their real character appeared."

What follows, in this Oration by Chauncey, the full text of which was published by the U.S. Gazette in Philadelphia, is an extraordinary admission of culpability for the ruinous political bickering which had characterized the previous ten or twelve years. Chauncey, a young man of the law representing the ruling clique of Connecticut, sets forth the usual homilies and praise of George Washington, commending the study of his life to every young man in the audience. Then he evokes the idea of compromise between the federalist northern states and the Democratic-Republicans:

"The bitterness of party spirit, which has so long prevailed, is a most lamentable evil, and the present seems ... auspicious [for a change]." Chauncey's words have hardly had time to float off to the back of the audience. He then returns to his original theme of bitterness and anger towards France: and to a critical suspicion of James Madison and "a set of men, whose policy, hitherto, has been insincere and ruinous."

This important oration, given before the Washington Benevolent Society in Philadelphia, captures the spirit of the opposition facing Madison and his fellow Virginians during this era. Yet it also provides a key to the contradictions which were present in the New England States, between the republican ideals of the ruling class and the crass, brutal and successful commercialism of their ship-building and trans-oceanic trade (especially with China and the eastern spice islands).

After 1815, though, the obviously pro-British character of the federalists in New York and southern New England proved to be their undoing. The rhetoric they had employed against the democrats of France proved to be identical in character to the anti-British furor which animated the Jeffersonian radicals in Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas during those same years, 1790 to 1810.

As Albert Jay Nock adduced, in his landmark work on Jefferson, from 1926:

"The French had the measure of matters in America. They knew that no issue of academic political theory had set the country by the ears. States rights, anti-Federalism, anti-monarchism and all that kind of thing, were but the American equivalent of their own liberté, egalité, fraternité.

"What really had divided the country, in their view, was a mode of constitutional development inaugurated by a bold seizure of power, and designed to subordinate the economic interests of the producing class to those of the monopolist and exploiting class. The French agents in America were able men, hard-baked realists, no better and no worse than the average run of men who hold such positions.

"Their reports to the French Foreign Office showed that they knew their game. Fauchet, in so many words, ascribes to Hamilton's policy the solid intrenchment of a class which 'shows a threatening prospect of becoming the aristocratic order,' non-titular, indeed, but in solid substance of economic control, precisely like that which the French proletarians had just ousted; and Fauchet puts his finger firmly upon the consequent formal opposition between the producing interest, l'interet foncier ou agricole, and the monopolist exploiting interest, l'interet fiscal."

A building social movement, which would flower in the early 1830s, was being nurtured in the academies and colleges of Harvard, Yale and Brown during these tempest-tossed years, after 1806. As material wealth increased, the intellectual leaders and the moral philosophers of these Colleges sought to link public virtue with public education based on Christian principles, in the name of safe-guarding republican government! Their fear of Bonapartism and the military dictatorships installed by cavalry generals made Kings was real, authentic, and grounded in the events current to that day and age.

Jerome Bonaparte had been made King of Westphalia in 1807, while Joachim Murat had been set up by the Emperor as King of Naples in 1808. Everywhere they looked, New England federalists saw the Little Corporal bestowing Honours and Titles and overthrowing the republics he had previously fought to establish. It was a sobering lesson in revolution, republicanism, and the persistence of royalism. No wonder the House of Representatives passed the Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment by a vote of 87-3, in 1810!

It is clear, from reviewing the published works and speeches of this era, that the coming social reform movement was Christian and fundamentalist in character; and greatly stimulated by the published writings of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill (the great social reformers in England). Very young men from the elite academies were able to rise quickly as this movement flowered, and in some ways it drained the passion out of the federalist cause and left it to crumble away. The federalist philosophy included a serious and deeply-held animosity towards the greatest excesses of Napoleonic France, and the pure democracy which had brought that royalist tyranny to the forefront.

"Antipathy, therefore, can never be a right ground of action. No more, therefore, can resentment, which ... is but a modification of antipathy." That wise counsel is derived from Jeremy Bentham's "Principles of Morals and Legislation," first published in 1789 and well-known in America by the time that the Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment was sent out to the States for ratification. However, the bitter feelings of the federalist elite in New York and New Haven and Providence caused them to 'disconnect' from the very people who were giving them their support.

Again, there was a spirit of anti-royalism alive in the land in those years, as the address of Governor Tyler in 1810 so clearly demonstrates:

"[There is a] factious spirit ... unfortunately prevailing among many of our country-men; a spirit which has led to indiscriminate opposition to every wise and energetic measure, and has gone a great way towards involving the United States in civil discord. This unfortunately clearly [proves] a too great love of money, the prevailing passion of the times, which would sacrifice the very independence of our country for a price -- for a mean and degraded America -- a Commerce which never increases the wealth of the nation, without bringing into it a due proportion of the vices of other countries. It produces also, what is called in polite circles, citizens of the world, the worst citizens in the world -- who having no attachment to any country, make themselves wings to fly away with from impending danger. Commerce is certainly beneficial to society in a secondary degree, but never should it have the ascendancy over the agricultural and manufacturing interests -- these are our primary objects."

"Commerce also begets a predilection for every thing foreign, and is too apt to engender contempt for things of our own. It permits an interference of foreigners with our Government and its measures, which no country but ours ever will suffer to that degree which we have experienced."

This is the bedrock philosophy of American nationalism, founded in the proper concern for the success and prosperity of the States, protected by the hard armor of the federal government, without, and left free to experiment and try or fail, within the borders of the United States, with their own domestic institutions and business.

It is an America First philosophy, which does not seek to oppress or control the actions of other sovereign nations, but rather to protect and empower the several States, and to eliminate foreign influence-peddling from the halls of our Congress, our House and our Senate. It is the bedrock of republicanism as it was known then, and as it can be restored and revived in the Internet-driven, computerized world of the 1990s.

End of Chapter 2


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 3

Philadelphia Lawyers and a Mock Nobility

"Nothing can be more unfortunate for the United States, than for those citizens who hold the power of leading fashion to grow by degrees into a mock nobility, employing their wealth and influence to try to refine laziness and make vice attractive, instead of feeling an interest in the welfare of their country."

Such prophetic words! And written by William S. Cardell, Esquire, of New York City in 1821.

"Learning has been made unnecessarily aristocratic," wrote Cardell, in a Circular to the American Academy of Languages & Belles-Lettres (of which he was the Corresponding Secretary). Dated July 12th, 1821, this important pamphlet was later collected and published in a special bound edition. Printed in the City of New York, Cardell was writing to the officers and the principal members of this academic society, including Henry Clay, Daniel and Noah Webster, with John Quincy Adams as the President of the Academy.

"In associating true liberty with moral virtue, and both with intellectual excellence," noted Cardell, "it is [an] obligation to give the impulse and light the way. After forty years of trial, our civil institutions are ... an incomplete experiment." But the heart of the matter discussed in this pamphlet, which was circulated among the leading lawyers in Virginia -- including Dabney Carr, Henry St. George Tucker, and Chapman Johnson, Esquire -- was education and its proper role in the new Republic.

"The means of instruction is the common right of every free citizen," wrote Cardell, which puts this New York attorney somewhere in the stream of the democratic radicalism of his day, "and it is the excellence of our political system ...."

To an Academy membership which included Washington Irving, Josiah Meigs, and William Wirt, the Attorney General of the United States, Cardell wrote: "The humblest American should be taught to look on useful knowledge with respect, and not with jealousy."

Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821, six years after he was finished off at Waterloo, and the federalist intellectuals represented in this society of Belles-Lettres seemed greatly cheered by a new spirit of democratic, and popular, participation in their rapidly growing society. The United States was approaching ten millions in population, or about half of that of Great Britain, at 20.6 million. Two new states had been established: Maine was in the union and Missouri was about to be admitted, establishing the bona fides of the Missouri Compromise.

By contrast, the British had gone into a state of economic crisis, after both the American war and the Napoleonic campaigns were concluded. By 1816 a wave of immigration to Canada and the new States was underway, and by 1817 there were riots over declining wages in the British Isles, while the U.S. was beginning work on the Erie Canal. However, overseas, the East India Company was establishing a settlement at Singapore, while British political control of the Rajput States in India was being consolidated in 1818.

Cardell and the other educated men who made up this Academy were products of the new political environment -- established by the hesitant union of the States who ratified the Constitution -- and they were dramatically affected by the addition of so many new States in the wake of the War of 1812. The Circular of July, 1821 covers twenty pages or more. William S. Cardell writes as one who is mostly concerned with fostering public virtue through education:

"The admiration of virtue is the stimulus to great actions."

James Monroe had been re-elected in 1820 and Virginia's dominance of the political powers of the executive branch must have seemed unshakable, to these leading men of the law and of letters. For those who were reading Cardell's Circular, there could be no doubt of Virginia's legislative actions in the previous eighteen months: The New Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia had been approved on March 12, 1819. Four thousand copies of the new edition were being produced by printer Thomas Ritchie, for distribution to every Justice of the Peace, every Prosecuting Attorney and most of Virginia's executive branch (commencing late in 1819). They were made available for public purchase at about the same time.

The Assembly's resolution of February 24, 1820 dictated that copies of this new edition, containing the U.S. Constitution with Article 13 listed as valid and ratified, be delivered to the presiding Secretary of State, both houses of Congress, and the Library of Congress. Nothing in Cardell's essay indicates any "public discomfort" with the specifics of that new section, and the bitter rhetoric of 1815 towards the Madisonians is gone, or completely muted.

Given that John Quincy Adams was involved in all the controversies surrounding this Titles of Nobility Amendment, and that former Speaker Henry Clay was among the Academy's members; it beggars the imagination to suggest that the Academy of Languages and Belles-Lettres was not perfectly aware of Virginia's action. In fact, there is every indication in this essay, that these leaders were accepting of the basic conditions imposed on their government by this new anti-royalist Amendment.

"By the fundamental principles of our government, we can have no royal splendor nor hereditary nobility to support:", Cardell adds, "no stars nor ribbons to bestow. We can confer no durable possession of power."

In this one statement, the clarity of the protective clauses of Article 13 are clearly illuminated: "we can have no royal splendor," writes Cardell, "no stars nor ribbons to bestow." The prohibitions on Titles of Nobility in the body of Constitution are not as specific as these words indicate. Only the restrictions listed in that Amendment could evoke his words -- "no stars nor ribbons to bestow." All of the bribery and chicanery of European military orders, and the trappings of royalist offices were to be banned, and a penalty so Draconian -- loss of citizenship -- was written into the Constitution to enforce that ban. There is no indication that these men who held the appellation "Esquire," considered themselves to be under the jurisdiction of that Amendment. For them, adding an Esq. to their names was akin to a medical doctor having the right to add an M.D. to his name. One would suppose that this would be foremost among the concerns of these men, including Joseph Story of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, who was a Vice-President of the Academy. Nothing in Cardell's essay indicates any concern that these august men of law were in peril of their citizenship, for having claimed the use of "Esquire."

"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" asked George Washington, in his Farewell Address of September 19, 1796. "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?"

There can be no doubt that this nativist philosophy was dominant in the minds of the leaders of the Eleventh Congress: the language of the so-called original Thirteenth Amendment echoes this sentiment, and attempts to insulate our republican state governments from the many and varied corruptions of foreign intrigue.

The Madisonians suspected the hand of Great Britain in the secessionist impulses of New England, while the plain and simple Yankees disdained the riotous democratic clubs inspired by the likes of Edmond Genet in 1790s; and they disdained the slave-driven plantation aristocrats of Louisiana and Mississippi, even as they hired out to transport their cargo. Both sides discovered in this proposed section something to benefit their causes, and their political alliances, and its rapid march toward ratification in just over two years, appears to have seriously disconcerted the British money factors and their allies and agents operating in Philadelphia and New York.

All of the scholarship and all of the research done on this matter of the "original" Thirteenth Amendment, providing a Draconian penalty for violating the ban on Titles of Nobility and Honour and establishing Congressional jurisdiction over "any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever," leads inevitably to one of two conclusions:

Either this Amendment was lawfully ratified by thirteen of the seventeen states of the union as of 1810, concluding with Virginia's actions of 1819 and the publication of its Revised Code; and therefore, suppressed completely after 1876, or --

This Amendment was incomplete in its lawful ratification, which means that either any one of the four States which did not agree to it (or which did not decide on it), could now take it up, and ratify it and make it part of the Constitution; or former Senator George Mitchell was right when he suggested that this section will require twenty-six additional ratifications, by the states which joined the union since 1810, even though they were not present in the Article V proposing process. Since that is not stipulated in Article V, nor anywhere else in the Constitution for these United States, it is a difficult proposition to entertain for long.

To accept that Virginia's actions of 1819 and 1820 were incomplete or unlawful is also a difficult proposition to entertain. The economy of the Commonwealth was rocked, in 1819, by bankruptcies and the failure of numerous banks. The men of wealth and means who made up the General Assembly would certainly not have approved this Amendment had they been persuaded it would further damage their vital interests, or as it would be said in the vernacular of the day -- "their personal economies." Virginia was not a land of rough-hewn pioneers and log cabin lawyers. It was settled, prosperous, and with a well-defined class structure -- one that was seriously rocked by the hardships of the 1819 financial panic.

In that environment, in that social class, financial ruin was tantamount to a death sentence, and bankruptcy often had just that effect. For example, W. Cary Nicholas was Governor of Virginia in 1818 and the director of a Richmond bank. After the panic of 1819 ruined his "personal economy," his $300,000 fortune evaporated and soon afterwards, he died. Upon his death, his good friend Thomas Jefferson was required to assume the payments of a loan he had co-signed with Nicholas for the princely sum of $20,000. The annual interest of $1200 contributed mightily to all of the financial hardships that plagued Jefferson in the last years of his life.

The Creation of Financial and Judicial Nobility

A conspiracy theorist might find some rich material in this chain of events: as the Titles of Nobility Amendment speeds its way through the State legislatures, acquiring twelve of the thirteen needed ratifications by the end of 1812, war clouds gather and conflict with Great Britain appears inevitable. Yet for what reason would the British want to engage their former colonies in another expensive war? Their naval victory at Trafalgar in 1805 guaranteed them near-absolute control of the world's shipping and oceanic commerce, something they had dominated for the previous forty years.

In 1809 the British had secured a treaty with the Sikhs in northern India, and in 1811 they occupied the spice island of Java. Their commercial power was growing well, resting on the strength of their naval forces. That power was apparent in the wealth added to the royal family of the King. However, for an accurate understanding of the value of their technological advances, it is crucial to read what R. Buckminster Fuller said about Great Britain, in his 1981 book, "Critical Path."

"In our tracing of the now completely invisible world power structures", said Fuller, "it is important to note that, while the British Empire as a world government lost the American Revolution, the power structure behind it did not lose the war. The most visible of the power-structure identities was the East India Company, an entirely private enterprise, whose flag as adopted by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 happened to have thirteen red and white horizontal stripes with a blue rectangle in its upper left-hand corner. The blue rectangle bore ... the superimposed crosses of St. Andrew and St. George."

As Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome and the Dymaxion car, viewed history, those Virginia landholders were crucial to Britain: "international trading became the most profitable of all enterprises, and great land-"owners" with clear-cut king's "deeds" to their land went often to international gold moneylenders. The great land barons underwrote the building of enterprisers' ships with their cattle or other real wealth, the regenerative products of their lands, turned over to the lender as collateral.

"If the ship did come back, both the enterpriser and the bankers realized a great gain. The successful ship venturer paid the banker back, and the banker who had been holding the cattle as collateral returned them to their original proprietor. [However] the cattle that were born while the collateral was held by the banker were to belong to the banker."

"It was the financing of such international voyaging, trading, and individual travel as well as of vaster games of governmental takeovers that built the enormous wealth-controlling fortunes of early European private banking families."

Here then, from the pen of a world-renowned inventor, architect and professor -- not some rightward-leaning Populist lunatic or a radio preacher -- is the identification of the true powers behind the British and Dutch royal families. Many of the older British claims in our new Republic were not settled until 1825. The state of Rhode Island was unable to shed its English Charter until 1842, requiring numerous constitutional conventions and ending in a full-fledged insurrection, led by the supporters of "The People's Constitution" and the Suffrage Association.

So, while the banking families and the money factors of Europe looked increasingly to international trade, and spent their money on improving their ships, boats and naval weaponry (as fronted for them by the nation-states and their royal families), the new Republic in northern America was growing rich in landholdings. Alexander Hamiliton and his allies in New York society identified themselves with those powers, although Hamilton himself disdained titles of nobility. The several States were developed from the Colonies, with deeds and royal land grants remaining intact.

Buckminster Fuller analyzed this situation, and wrote of it in the following way:

"deed-processing produced a vast number of court decisions and legal precedent based on centuries and centuries of deed inheritances. Thus, landlord's deeds evolved from deeds originally dispensed from deeds of war. Then the great landlords loaned parcels of their lands to sharecropping farmers, who had to pay the landlord a tithe, or rent, and 'interest' out of the wealth produced by nature within the confines of the deeded land."

In a second bold and masterful stroke, Fuller identifies the principal allies employed by the international bankers, their money factors and their royalist front operations:" a vast number of court decisions" required a vast number of lawyers, judges, and attorneys at the Bar. There is no indication that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison considered the appellation of "Esquire" to be a functioning title of nobility -- nor did the members of the Academy of Languages and Belles-Lettres, as noted previously.

There is, however, every indication that both the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans feared the rise of a great military leader, whose prowess might corrupt the American citizenry with a mighty array of gold medals, silver arrows, ribbons and privileges, including grants of land. The excesses of democracy in revolutionary France, and the destruction of those republican states created during Napoleon's rise to power were foremost in the concerns of the men of the new United States. Only the Madisonian faction also had the measure of the secret British policies of this era, which were seemingly designed to cause New England to secede en masse.

"Since the plan of an organized opposition to the project of Mr. Jefferson was put into operation, the whole of the New England States have transferred their political power to his political enemies; It should therefore be the peculiar care of G. Britain to foster divisions between the north and south" -- From a collection of letters sold by a British Spy, John Henry, to James Madison and transmitted to Congress.

Three years after that purchase (1809), the Committee on Foreign Relations attached a Report to James Madison's Message to Congress of June 1, 1812, seeking a Declaration of War:

"The attempt to dismember our Union and overthrow our excellent constitution, by a secret mission, the object of which was to foment discontents and excite insurrection against the constituted authorities and laws of the nation, as lately disclosed by the agent employed in it, affords full proof that there is no bound to the hostility of the British government towards the United States -- no act, however unjustifiable, which it would not commit to accomplish their ruin."

Not much of a leap of faith is required to see this conduct -- the insertion of spies and agents of influence into the new States -- as being related to the banking crisis of 1819, which was so ruinous to Virginia. The money factors in Europe were still the biggest players in the world's markets. It can be argued that Great Britain provoked a war with the United States in order to break up the Union before this Amendment could be ratified, and that when it seemed evident Virginia would put the measure over by approving it in early 1819, the same interests tried to instigate an economic collapse in the new nation's wealthiest State. Perhaps the time has come to stop looking at the British government, which represents the interests of the Windsors, their royal family -- and largest landholder -- as being a true friend. Whatever good will the American people might keep towards the establishment of Britain, must be counter-balanced by the treachery and double-dealing of that government.

Consider that James Buchanan, who was elected President in 1856, came straight to the White House from the Court of St. James, where he was the American ambassador. During those four crucial years, leading up to the four-way race of 1860 and the triumph of Lincoln, Buchanan was singularly ineffective as "the Chief Magistrate" of the Republic. He did nothing while the clouds of war gathered and the leaders of secessionism plotted their treasons.

During the Civil War, the southern States had every hope that the cotton industry of Great Britain would be so damaged by the blockade against Confederate shipping, that their mighty naval forces might intervene on behalf of the rebellion. So, too, the federal government had an immediate and long-standing need for money and credit. What compromises were wrought, on the back stairs, by Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Republicans, in the name of the Union? What was the price demanded by the British and Dutch money factors, and their royalist allies, for this credit?

Early in the political turmoil of Lincoln's first term as President, his allies in Congress produced this proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

"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."

Only Illinois ratified this Amendment proposal, but it remains active and "in play," as it was issued by Congress without a time limit.

Even a cursory reading of this measure, however, reveals that Abraham Lincoln was apparently desperate to offer the southern states something concrete to prevent them from seceding (or continuing in their rebellion). In drafting this proposed article of amendment, though, Lincoln decided to ignore the six different editions of Illinois' organic laws, which contained the Titles of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13 -- the most recent edition having been issued in 1845. As a leading Republican politician and lawyer, how could Lincoln not know what was in the law books of his own State?

Then there was the 1855 edition of the organic laws of the Territory of Kansas; or, the three subsequent editions of the same for Nebraska, by 1858. All four of those printings contain the Titles of Nobility Amendment as being the valid Article 13. Where that section is not to be found, though, is in the law books printed privately by the mainline publishers of Philadelphia and Boston.

"An Analytical Digest of the Laws of the United States from the Adoption of the Constitution to the end of the 34th Congress, 1789-1857" was prepared by Frederick C. Brightly, Esquire, of the Philadelphia Bar. Published by Kay & Brother publishers and importers, in 1858, it contains the following dedication: "Respectfully Dedicated to James Buchanan, President. A Jurist and a Statesman."

There is no mention of the Titles of Nobility as either Article 13 or as a proposed Amendment. Rather startling, since no new Amendments were issued by any Congress, between the Eleventh in 1810 and the newly-seated members in 1861!

So, too, "The General Laws of the United States, with references," was edited by James Dunlop of the Bar of Pennsylvania. It was published in 1856 in Philadelphia by J. B. Lippincott and Company. There is no Thirteenth Amendment included. In fact, the first time a privately prepared edition omits this crucial and lawful section of the Constitution, is in 1828. And the culprit is none other than Joseph Story, Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (and formerly Vice President of the Academy of Languages and Belles-Lettres). It is a most curious development:

"The Public and General Statutes passed by Congress, 1789-1827," was prepared by Justice Story. It was published by Wells & Lilly of Boston in 1828. In Volume Two there is no mention of any Article 13 belonging in the Constitution, while in the proceedings of the Eleventh Congress there is no mention of the Resolution which issued the proposed Amendment to the States. So, too, there is no indication that Massachusetts approved the Titles of Nobility on February 27, 1812.

Just seven years had passed since William S. Cardell had heaped scorn upon the idea of "a mock nobility" developing here, in his Circular of 1821; what could possibly motivate a State Supreme Court Justice to betray his oath to the Constitution, his responsibilities to his State, and the confidence of his friends and colleagues in a gathering like the Academy? However, there it is, and thus begins the conflict between State and Territorial editions of organic laws which show this Amendment as the valid Article 13, and the privately printed editions of U.S. law which do not include any Amendment after Article 12. The contradictions continue into the 1860s, including the first edition of the State laws of Nebraska, the 1867 organic laws of the Territory of the Dakotas, and Colorado in 1868.

The Territory of Colorado's organic laws are most interesting for the scholar of this controversy: the 1868 edition shows the Titles of Nobility Amendment as correct and properly ratified, Article 13 -- with the anti-slavery Amendment pushed by Lincoln and issued by the Congress in 1865 as the valid Article 14. So, too the Territory of Wyoming piques the imagination of the researcher with its organic laws of 1876:

Article 13 is intact, the anti-slavery Amendment is Article 14, and the additional Amendment now listed as Article 15 is also intact, and shown as valid. There was then a great controversy abroad in the States over the true status of what is now called "the Fourteenth Amendment." New Jersey and Ohio had tried to rescind their ratifications of this section, California rejected it and Oregon protested that its vote had been tainted by improperly elected State Representatives voting on the section.

No matter. The authorities in charge of Reconstruction were determined to have it, and to have revenge against the former officers of the Confederacy through it. This Amendment was ratified under duress, by several rump State governments installed by military force. By comparison the Titles of Nobility Amendment was adopted almost by popular acclamation -- by Maryland, which met on Christmas Day of 1810 to approve this section -- and eleven other States in just two years. The decisions of the leaders of Virginia in 1819 have previously been recounted.

See Also Utah Supreme Court Opinion, Dyett vs Turner, a March 22, 1968 opinion of the Utah Supreme Court. It is the official view of the Court on the flawed nature of the so-called Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

End of Chapter 3


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 4

Panic, War and Opium, The British Way

"In our comprehensive reviewing of published, academically accepted history", wrote Buckminster Fuller, "we continually explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kinds, prime ministers, czars, emperors, presidents, and other officials ... as well as for the underlying, hidden causes of individual wars and their long, drawn-out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of those wars."

Following the establishment of a British settlement at Singapore in 1819, the world's greatest seafaring power endured numerous social, military and financial upsets en route to complete domination of both India and China, over the next forty years. A conspiracy to murder various members of the British cabinet -- known by the nickname "Cato Street" -- is broken up in 1820, and its leaders are executed.

In 1822 British Foreign Secretary Lord Castlereagh commits suicide, at the mature age of 52: in southern Europe, the Greek people adopt a "republican constitution" and proclaim their independence from Islamic Turkey. Years of diplomatic wrangling, bitter fighting, massacres and reprisals ensue.

Asia continued to be the source of Britain's major revenues. British forces conquer Rangoon, in Burma, in 1824, while at home the Trade Union movement flourishes after the repeal of The Combinations Law of 1800. And all the while, opium is moving from India into China via British and French vessels.

Non-communist Chinese historical sources report that the British East India Company moved 154,000 pounds of opium into China, in 1773. Despite the fact that opium smoking had been prohibited by the Emperor Yung Cheng in 1729, the traffic continued to grow throughout the century. In 1796 the Edict of Peking banned the importation of opium completely: nevertheless, by 1838 smuggling had increased to about eight million pounds and addiction had become a major social problem. On behalf of the Imperial family, Commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu wrote to the new Queen, Victoria:

"The wealth of China is used to profit the barbarians .... By what right do they in return use the poisonous drug to injure the Chinese people? Let me ask, where is their conscience? I have heard that the smoking of Opium is very strictly forbidden by your country .... Why do you let it be passed on to the harm of other countries? Suppose there were people from another country who carried Opium for sale to England and seduced your people into buying and smoking it; certainly your honorable ruler would deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused. Naturally you would not wish to give unto others what you yourself do not want ...."

During the 1770s, the Chinese were trading silk and spices for European gold, nearly bankrupting the East India Company and the Rothschilds banking establishment. The British conquest of India in 1772 was to ensure a monopoly of the opium production India. The cargo manifests of the three ships involved in the Boston Tea Party in Boston Harbor in Deember, 1773 included opium. By the 1820s the opium trade was taking gold and silver out of China, and by 1839 it was serious enough to provoke a full-scale war. In that same period, the second Bank of the United States was put under intense scrutiny.

Federalist control of the U.S. government disappears in 1828, as Congress passes new laws curtailing imports, the so-called "Tariff of Abominations;" and Andrew Jackson defeats John Quincy Adams in the Presidential election. This is also the year when Joseph Story's "Public and General Statutes ..." is published, the first major, privately printed compilation of U.S. law which completely omits the 13th Article of Amendment, and omits the Resolution of the Eleventh Congress in issuing that section to the States for ratification in 1810.

President Andrew Jackson attacks the power and privileges accorded to the second Bank of the United States, controlled by Nicholas Biddle, in 1829. Thus begins an eight year struggle over finance which culminates in the Panic of 1837. The crisis is characterized by inflated land values, speculation in paper and unscrupulous banking practices.

Again, turning to Buckminster Fuller:

"The British Empire was commanded from the British Isles by great business venturers -- the world men who ruled the world's oceans. The British Isles were ... conveniently positioned to rule the whole waterfront of all the European customers of the venturer's Oriental booty."

For a variety of reasons too complex to include in this essay, the British government and the East India Company were very busy with affairs in India and China during the years 1845-1857, when the United States concluded its second largest phase of expansion, bringing the Territory of Florida into the union as well as the Republic of Texas -- 1845. That was the year that the Anglo-Sikh war began, which turned out badly for the Sikhs and ended in 1846.

By the beginning of the second Sikh war, in 1848, the United States had added Iowa and Wisconsin to the union, and increased their territory governed by the addition of New Mexico, Utah, California, Nevada, Arizona and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo relieved Mexico of the burden of governance and provided the defeated neighbor "a large indemnity." Those areas mentioned now comprise seven states and included 75 votes in the electoral college: but more importantly, everything that is authentic about the American west in philsophy, culture, legend and true fortunes made, comes out of that territory (and Texas).

The British military power controlling India also continued to grow during this era, as the Sikhs were defeated again and Punjab was annexed by treaty. Isolated on their islands, with their great fleet and the commercial power of the East India merchants and the related banking families behind them, the government in London was not rocked by the "system-wide" revolt of 1848, in central Europe. Three different revolutions shatter the aristocracy of Vienna, the Hungarian Diet proclaims its independence in 1849 and then capitulates, while the rest of Europe is aflame.

By 1850 the population of the United States exceeds that of Great Britain by more than three million people. While the old regimes of Europe groan under the weight of their ancient traditions, noblesse oblige, military orders and honors, the United States has land and more of it. The west has moved past Illinois to Minnesota.

In the land where Lincoln was making his name, their rough-hewn pioneer constitution was being replaced by new charters -- which are more skillfully written, more lawerly in their prose -- but less akin to the libertarian style of 1818. In the present day and time, the centralizing force of the federal government is being diminished by the power of technology: The Internet is driving political power back to the States and to communities within those sovereign political units! Political-business leaders like Steve Forbes more closely resemble the second wave of federalists, than those who foisted the so-called Fourteenth Amendment on this country after the Civil War. However, the influence of thoughtful leaders like Noah Webster, and his brother, was wide-reaching in the 1820s and '30s:

"The national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred upon it," avows Daniel Webster, speaking on January 26th, 1830, in the Senate, "and no more. All the rest belongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves."

The decision by Illinois to adopt Prohibition of Alcohol in 1851 marked the triumph of the federalist plans elucidated by those writers and philosophers active in the years 1806-1822: those men, like the two Websters and William S. Cardell, were simply carrying on the great political plan adopted by Alexander Hamilton during the Adams-Jefferson election. And they were doing so in the States.

Borrowing from Albert Jay Nock, again:

"The campaign of 1800 had many diverting features. The moral and religious forces of the country had already largely enlisted themselves in the service of partisan politics, with an immense preponderance on the Federalist side, since, to paraphrase Jay's dictum, those who owned the churches governed the church. 'The rich and well-born' in New York and New England gave special attention to this mode of propaganda, getting such good results out of it that Hamilton presently proposed to organize it formally on a permanent basis by establishing a Christian Constitutional Society. This was to be, in principle, a cheap popular edition of the Order of the Cincinnati, to offset the 'Jacobin clubs' and the democratic societies. Hamilton's prospectus for this interesting project set forth its objects as, first, 'the support of the Christian religion,' and, second, 'the support of the Constitution of the United States.' Rather oddly, not a word more is said about the first object, but a great deal about the second.

"'The Society was to attend to the cultivation of popular favor by fair and justifiable expedients,' such as, first and foremost, 'the diffusion of information.' For this purpose not only the newspapers but pamphlets must be largely employed .... It is essential to be able to disseminate gratis useful publications. "

"Next, 'the use of all lawful means in concert to promote the election of fit men.' Finally – most interesting anticipation of all – 'the promoting of institutions of a charitable and useful nature [under] the management of Federalists. The populous cities ought particularly to be attended to; perhaps it would be well to institute in such places – 1st, societies for the relief of emigrants; 2nd, academies, each with one professor, for instructing the different classes of mechanics in the principles of mechanics and the element of chemistry.'"

This last goal of Hamilton's plan was explicitly dealt with at some length -- in Cardell's Circular Essay of 1821 -- by the men who were Alexander Hamilton's inheritors. Perhaps it is coincidence, but the first "normal" schools for teaching teachers and other trades were founded in 1825 (or at about the time most English claims were being resolved).

Having lost direct control of some of the wealth-producing land in the new Republic, the money factors of Great Britain and the Netherlands continued to enjoy superlative profits from their trade with India. The social tumult affecting central Europe was of greater concern to the French, with their concern for the power and influence of the Papacy in Rome, than it ever could be for the British. The various powerful interests in the German states were busy with the revolts in their own towns and cities, and with the perceived threat of cultural unity among the Slavic peoples of central Europe. German nationalism, led by the Prussian military and aristocracy, begins its rise.

But Britain keeps its focus on the Far East. In 1856 the Anglo-Chinese, or Second Opium war began. In 1857 the British wrecked the Chinese navy and, side-by-side with France, began to enforce significant concessions on trade, including possession of Canton. Defeated, the Chinese still refused to concede to the importation of opium, even though they had previously ceded Hong Kong. The result was another humiliating defeat in 1860, the destruction of the Summer Palace and the loss of Kowloon and of Stonecutters Island. The opium traffic and opium addiction were continued -- in China -- until 1943, and many other European powers sought trade advantages from "the sick man of Asia."

The Treaty of Tientsin ends the Anglo-Chinese war in 1858. Soon thereafter, all the powers of the East India Company are transferred to the British Crown, and there is a general period of peace in India (after the bloodiest fighting ever known to the British Army, during the Indian Mutiny and the seige of Delhi). In the U.S., these are the years of "Bloody Kansas," as the Jayhawks and the Redlegs fight over slavery.

Irish immigration into the States nears the one million mark, and "The Catholic Times" is first published. Queen Victoria establishes "the Order of the Star of India," in 1861 while the U.S. moves to adopt British-style passports.

French military adventurism extends into the New World in 1863, while the United States is embroiled in Civil War. Mexico City is captured and the Archduke Maximilian of Austria is then proclaimed Emperor. The State of Kansas, admitted to the Union in 1861, publishes its organic laws -- including the Title of Nobility Amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution -- in separate editions of 1861 and 1862, as does the Territory of Colorado. Yet the federal government under Abraham Lincoln continues to prosecute its foreign policy without reference to this important, Constitutional protection. Thus continues the effort to "disappear" this valid and properly ratified Amendment.

During the Civil War, smugglers and Confederate blockade runners, deserters and international criminals swell the population of Matamoros, in Mexico. By 1864 it has the finest Opera House in the western world, while cross-border shipments of gold and weapons make instantaneous fortunes in both Mexico and Texas. The last battle of the Civil War occurs near the border, at Palmitto Ranch, and the federal troops are defeated. The collapse of the Confederacy sends large numbers of Confederate soldiers into northern Mexico and Arizona, resulting in many years of lawlessness and conflict with the Apache: pro-Union forces in Colorado maintain complete control, there, during the war. The years from 1866 to 1876 are filled with rapid growth and social turmoil for Colorado, which again publishes its organic laws in 1868, showing the Title of Nobility Amendment as being valid, with the anti-slavery Amendment drafted by Lincoln and the Congress in 1865, as Article 14.

So, from the mid-1820s until after the conclusion of the Civil War, the "peculiar institution" of slavery consumed the political energies of the Congress -- if not of the society at large -- while providing nearly free labor for the cultivation of cotton, rice, indigo and the cutting of timber. These and other agricultural commodities exported by the southern States were of maximum value to the British in the 1850s, as they prosecuted their new wars against China. Yet it is important to note that the movement to ignore, suppress and "disappear" the Title of Nobility Amendment did not begin until three years after the death of Thomas Jefferson, on July 4th, 1825.

As Buckminster Fuller's analysis shows, in all those years and decades of British supremacy the principal benefactors of international trade -- based on the collateral wealth of agricultural land holdings -- were the private bankers seated behind the thrones of Europe, and the royal families which had absorbed the trading companies and licensed the privately chartered shipping that served those firms. British military forces were deployed to southern and eastern Africa, following the Anglo-Chinese wars and expeditions (and just in time to secure the newly discovered diamond fields and gold mines). And 1868 becomes the watershed year in all of this painful conflict and growth, as Ulysses S. Grant is elected President, while William E. Gladstone moves up to become Prime Minister of Great Britain at the same time.

The American Civil War proved to be an incredible engine of technological change and development. The advances in weapons technology circulated rapidly amongst all of the European powers, and the world of science entered its longest phase of expansion with new discoveries in metallurgy, circa 1863. The founding of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in 1865, is just one indicator of the surge in scientific knowledge, and its organization by the world's colleges and academies.

The last few editions of the organic laws, issued by States or Territories, occur at this time -- the Dakota Territory's 1867, and the previously mentioned editions of Colorado and Wyoming mark the final appearances of the original Thirteenth Amendment as a valid part of the U.S. Constitution -- and after Colorado is admitted to the Union in 1876, it is never heard from again.

End of Chapter 4


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 5

One Hundred Years of Pain, 1868-1968

Totalitarianism ... does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. -- George Orwell

Thus begins the one hundred years of Constitutional amnesia which the disappearance of this section begets, first suppressed or ignored by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and finished off after the most-disputed Presidential election in our history, in 1876.

Thus begins the pain and turmoil of Reconstruction, followed by the formation and implementation of Jim Crow laws -- done mostly by State legislative action and led by Attorneys at the Bar, throughout the south -- and after 1876, there is the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. What was a minor organization with a few local supporters becomes a major force in the nation, complete with Titles of Honour and all the accoutrements known to such awards in the royal courts of Europe.

Thus begins the growing pains of the great Republic, with the imposition of the income tax (the 16th Amendment), and the changes in the selection process of the Senate (the 17th Amendment). Then, in the 1920s, there is the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, following the War to End All Wars and Wilsonian diplomacy ending in tatters. Here is where the true and painful reality of modern Americans society begins -- in the theories of white supremacy and "whites only" laws, that would have been constitutionally disqualified, had the original Thirteenth Amendment not been suppressed and forgotten, by that time. Thus begins the age of the lawyer, the days and nights of judicial tyranny, and the long twilight struggle against that greatest of all enemies of humanity -- Socialism. In concluding this section, remember what George Orwell said, in defining the true nature of socialism.

"The remedy for our social evils," said Representative Charles A. Lindbergh, Senior, "does not so much consist in changing the system of government as it does in increasing the general intelligence of the people so that they may know how to govern." Lindbergh represented the Sixth District of Minnesota, being first elected in 1906, and was both an ally of Teddy Roosevelt and a staunch opponent of the Aldrich Monetary Commission. "If they do not learn how to govern themselves intelligently, Socialism will be the result."

Seventy years before R. Buckminster Fuller accused the money factors of Wall Street of wrecking the technological supremacy of American automobile makers, in favor of "advertising," Charles A. Lindbergh had tangled with the Rockefellers and their Standard Oil Company. The Congressman said of their power, that it was like "an iron grip on the people's earning, and we now require protection against it rather than for it." For many years Standard Oil sold petroleum in the United States at a higher price than was offered to the British, French or German markets.

"Because the American public was in love with the annual automobile shows," wrote Fuller in 1981, "the Wall Street financiers who had thrown out all the colorful [car designers] started a new game by setting up the Madison Avenue advertising industry, which hired artists who knew how to use the new airbrush to make beautiful drawings of ... superficially -- not mechanically -- new dream cars."

"This was the beginning of the downfall of the world-esteemed integrity of Yankee ingenuity, which was frequently, forthrightly, and often naively manifest in American business. Big business in the U.S.A. set out to make money deceitfully -- by fake "new models" -- and engineering design advance was replaced by 'style' design change." Buckminster Fuller was a young man, building houses, in the 1920s, and like Lindbergh he developed a life-long distrust of bankers and the money factors.

"What the bankers did like to support in the new mass productivity was tractor-driven farm machinery. Farm machinery was easy to sell." So, where the banking business was previously opposed to the concept of time-financing, the success of Ford Motors' and General Motors' finance corporations made them take notice. "So the bankers approved the financing of the production and marketing of the farm machinery. They held a chattel mortgage on the machinery and a mortgage on the farmland itself and all of its buildings. The bankers loved that. There was enthusiastic bank acceptance of the selling of such equipment 'one time' to the farmers. The bankers did not consider this 'immoral.' [Unlike] the automobilist who was 'just joy riding.'

"Then there came a very bad hog market in 1926. Many farmers were unable to make the payments on their power-driven equipment. The local country banks foreclosed on the delinquent farmers' mortgages and took away their farms and machinery. The bankers had assumed that the farms were going to be readily saleable. It turned out, however, that there were not so many non-farmers waiting to become farmers, and most of the real farmers had been put out of business by the bank foreclosures ...." In essence, the productivity engendered by this new equipment and new farming methods produced so much grain and livestock that it pushed down the prices, and made profits difficult to come by. After the foreclosures, and with the tough credit policies of the 1920s in effect, the farmers were driven off their land.

In this environment of boom and bust, the Roaring '20s, with so much illegal liquor money corrupting the big cities, it is little wonder that both the Socialist Party and the Ku Klux Klan entered a period of rapid growth. By 1924, the socialist factions were deeply entrenched in the urban and industrial areas, whereas the Klan was resurgent in the smaller cities and in rural America. From New Jersey to Indiana, from Florida to Colorado and Missouri, the Klan vote was the swing vote in the national elections. The Ku Klux Klan endorsed the winning candidates in Oklahoma, who were all Democrats at the Congressional level, while backing the Republican winners in Colorado (including bitterly contested Senate races). The Klan also took control of the Indiana state government from within.

Here is where the disappearance of the original Thirteenth Amendment pays dividends for the racists, hatemongers and anti-Semites who have always been a factor in American society. The Ku Klux Klan evolved over time, into a semi-secret society, based on a corrupt and jaundiced view of Christian chivalry and the traditions of knighthood. The KKK awards Titles of Honour, the equivalent of the military orders and societies which made European generals into ribbon-festooned peacocks in the years before the first World War.

To be a Klan member in the southern States was to acquire legal immunities, privileges and property rights which were denied to all other citizens, creating second-class citizenship for other whites, and denying the much-heralded "equal protection" of the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to native-born blacks, most Catholics and all Jews. Much of this nativist feeling was the result of dramatic social changes -- including Catholic immigration -- sweeping the U.S. in the years 1900 to 1916. Reformers battled entrenched political machines in almost every major city, but the southern States were "one-Party" territory -- Democrats only.

The victories of the Progressives and the Prohibition Party dissipated their energies after 1920. The country had been opposed to the great European war, and Woodrow Wilson had been re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out Of War." Then he promptly betrayed the coalition which elected him, led the U.S. into the slaughterhouse that was "the Western Front," and by 1920 the Wilsonians had been routed. As with the "war on drugs" begun in the 1970s, the prohibition against alcoholic beverages and the Constitutional Amendment needed to sustain it as a federal statute created a massive black market. In the twilight economy of bootleg liquor, brutality, ruthlessness and cunning supplanted all other forms of good business judgment.

Coupled with the economic boom produced by the new technologies of radio, low-cost telephone service, and amazing advances in metal-working, real wages rose in the 1920s. Profits accompanied prosperity and the huge amounts of illegal money circulating in the bootleg economy served to corrupt the city and State governments in many parts of the country. The Ku Klux Klan gained in popularity as a reaction against "foreigners," and the big-city corruption of Catholic-dominated Democratic machines. The Klan was extraordinarily effective in its recruiting during the '20s.

Like the Cambridge Dons of the 1930s, who suborned so many bright young Englishmen and brought them into the Communist Party, the most-savvy politicians of the 1920s either used the Klan or used its rhetoric to build their local party organizations. Radio was still developing -- and the big newspapers controlled most of what was known as mass media -- so the thirty per cent of the white population that was illiterate (as of 1930), was ripe for Bible-based anti-Semitism and racism. The Democratic Party of Missouri was controlled from within by Klan elements, and the career of Harry S. Truman was tainted by allegations that he willingly joined it.

As William P. Hoar puts it, in his 1984 book "Architects of Conspiracy," Harry Truman could not lay such accusations to rest:

"But now and again embarrassing rumors crept out about Truman's onetime membership in the Ku Klux Klan. A witness reported that he and Harry had joined the Klan on the same day, and boasted that he had been the man who introduced his fellow Klansman to Tom Pendergast. It was not an uncorroborated report."

There is absolutely no doubt that the Klan was powerful in New Jersey in the 1920s. The New York Times, throughout 1924, reports on clashes between Klansmen and anti-Klan demonstrators, both in the streets and in the court rooms. Interfaith services brought together Jews and Catholics and fundamentalist protestant Christians who opposed the militancy of the New Jersey Klan.

During the first week-end of November, 1924, as the national and Presidential elections were approaching, Klan agitators in the State of Ohio broke down the social fabric; outright warfare erupted between armed Klansmen and a citizens' militia in the Youngstown area. Those who favor gun control and a disarmed populace should study, carefully, the four days of fighting between the Ku Klux Klan and the armed citizens' militia known as "The Knights of the Flaming Circle."

Forming up outside of the town of Niles, Ohio, a large group of Klansmen assembled an encampment and paraded in their regalia. With only five days to go until the election, where three major candidates opposed President Calvin Coolidge, many State and local races were undecided. As mentioned before, the Klan vote was considered the crucial, swing vote in many regions and States, including Ohio.

The insulting behavior and virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric of the local Klan proved to be too much for the immigrant steelworkers and their progressive allies in the Youngstown and Niles area. These were the days of Big Steel, and the towns of Warren, Boardman and Columbiana held thousands of men and women who followed the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. The provocations of the Klan gathering proved to be more than mortal men could endure, and what began as a traffic accident escalated into a fatal fight. The Klansmen retreated to their encampment, prepared to march every day until the election, hoping to intimidate the immigrants and to sway the undecided voters in their favor.

The plan backfired badly. Enraged, hundreds of armed men formed a citizens' militia and called themselves "The Knights of the Flaming Circle," and surrounded the Klan encampment. Thus began three days of skirmishing and gunfire which killed three men outright and injured many others. The Klan could not break out and the Flaming Circle could not over-run the racists, by now well dug in. Armed men from other parts of northern Ohio sought to join the Knights of the Flaming Circle -- and some brought their whole families! -- but they were turned away by Sheriff's roadblocks.

Finally, by the Monday preceding the election, the Governor of Ohio called out the State Militia, now known as the federal National Guard, and a combination of threats and wheedling negotiations settled the issue. The Knights of the Flaming Circle went home, with their rifles and their pistols, and the Klan was scattered and in disgrace.

Here is the lesson of the 1924 battle of Niles: the Second Amendment guarantee of the individual's right to keep and bear arms helped progressives and Catholics defend themselves against the racist agitators of the Ku Klux Klan. Whereas unarmed blacks in the southern States were subject to beatings, lynchings and other mob actions, throughout the period of the Klan's dominance (1888 to 1928), the armed citizenry of Ohio was able to defend itself -- and did.

Nothing could be more clear, than that the rapid rise of the Ku Klux Klan after 1876 was enabled by the suppression of the Titles of Nobility Amendment. Without the fundamental guarantee of protection against the creation of semi-secret military orders, bearing Titles of Honour and all the ribbons, robes and blood-red regalia of such racism -- the freedmen of the southern States were left defenseless. So, too, the sorry history of the so-called Fourteenth Amendment is no longer taught, or taught truthfully, in either the public high schools or the elite academies which feed students into the Ivy League. In their zeal to punish the rebellious southern gentry, the radical Republicans forced the measures known as Reconstruction through a rump Congress, one where every Senator and every Representative from the southern States was denied their duly-elected place in Washington.

"Lindbergh found secret collusion between Southern and English bankers at the time of the Civil War," writes William P. Hoar, citing "his 1913 book 'Banking and Currency And The Money Trust.' He published there the text of the 1862 'Hazard Circular' which revealed how labor would henceforth be controlled by the amount of currency the bankers permitted in the market, since chattel slavery would be abolished by the war." Once Jim Crow laws were firmly established in the southern States, both the black freedmen and poor white farmers were subject to the petty tyrannies of sharecropping.

There was always credit, but never enough money to get out of debt completely, for most tenant farmers. The merchants, too, were bound by the policies of the banks, as they had to buy their manufactured goods from either the northern states or from Great Britain, either of which required credit for shipping and handling costs. British manufacturing did not go into decline until after 1900.

"Lindbergh accused Members of Congress of meeting in secret to determine which currency bill would pass and what type of Federal Reserve System should be established," says Hoar. "Time and again the plans of the money manipulators had to be revised because of exposure by Congressman Lindbergh and his associates."

"It was not that the problems could not be seen by others," wrote Buckminster Fuller of his own personal self-transformation, in 1927, "but society was preoccupied with individual, national, state, and local business-survival problems, which forced its leaders into short-term, limited-scope considerations -- with no time for total world problems. The presidents of great corporations had to make good profits within a very few years or lose their jobs. The politicians, too, were preoccupied with short-range national, state or municipal survival matters."

For those who are conspiracy-minded, it is interesting to note that Charles A. Lindbergh, Senior, battled the Rockefeller family and its control of petroleum with Standard Oil. He opposed "the bill that created the Federal Reserve System [which] was nothing more than the Aldrich plan in disguise."

It was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller who was responsible for "reforming" the drug possession laws of New York State, resulting in a huge increase in the prison population over the last twenty years (many States imitated the Rockefeller plan of the mid-1970s). And it was the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party which drafted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has pauperized the working families of Mexico while converting our southern neighbor into a narco-dictatorship. The principal Democratic allies of William Jefferson Clinton are John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, of West Virginia, and the various foundations, think-tanks and social policy advocates the Rockefeller family has sponsored over the years.

Linked to the invisible, behind-the-thrones government that Fuller described in his many lectures and writings, the Rockefellers simply outlasted Charles A. Lindbergh, Senior. As Hoar, writing in "Architects of Conspiracy", put it: "shortly before the end of his congressional career, C.A. Lindbergh formally moved to impeach the members of the Federal Reserve Board and offered a fifteen-count indictment of their conspiracy. The motion was buried in the Judiciary Committee."

Lindbergh himself said "the plain truth is that neither of these great parties, as at present led and manipulated by an 'invisible government,' is fit to manage the destinies of a great people, and this fact is well understood by all who have had the time and have used it to investigate."

Charles A. Lindbergh stepped down from Congress and later ran for Governor of Minnesota, in 1918. One analyst called that election the dirtiest ever seen, and the Non-Partisan League "with which he was then associated, was frequently denied the right to assembly;" and, as Hoar discovered, "mobs raged against Lindbergh, who was stoned and hung in effigy." Plates of his books were destroyed and the New York Times called him 'a sort of Gopher Bolshevik.' Lindbergh's contributions to the Red Cross, and his long-term support of military preparedness and the Liberty Loan were all forgotten in the national campaign against him.

"Lindbergh supporters were often arrested without warrants." As Hoar notes, even those indignities could not silence the senior man. He ran for the Senate in 1923, losing on the Farmer-Labor ticket, with his son flying him around in an airplane. Charles A. Lindbergh, Senior, died in 1924.

Who, then, was more wise, more correct, and more savvy in the ways of the world, as the United States emerged from a mostly agricultural economy in the 1880s, Charles A. Lindbergh -- lawyer, farmer and Congressman -- or Woodrow Wilson, college professor, Governor and President? It was Lindbergh who opposed our entry into the bloodbath that was the Great War, and Wilson who betrayed the whole country by allowing us to be dragged in -- for the benefit of British bankers and their royal family. The Great War would have burned itself out in another few months, as both the Germans and the French were too exhausted to carry it forward.

And how many historians have identified the punitive policies of the Versailles Treaty (so similar in character to Reconstruction), as the source of the social collapse which created the conditions for fascism to rise in Germany? Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. was a leading speaker against the involvement of the United States in the second European war, and was pilloried as an anti-Semite when he was not.

"The socialist origins of modern anti-Semitism illustrate the link between statism and the persecution of minorities. Anti-Semitism as a formal, intellectual movement arose in the middle of the nineteenth century," writes Dr. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, "when Jewish conspiracy theories grew in popularity."

The great aviator, who secretly helped the U.S. intelligence services during his tour of Germany, was smeared relentlessly by the pro-intervention political factions loyal to Franklin D. Roosevelt, as his father was smeared by the Wilsonians. His America First philosophy was not based on anti-Semitism. After the war, he was restored to prominence by many of those same media organs -- especially for his patronage of American rocketry during the Cold War. The liberal establishment, who profited from the New Deal, was suprisingly ineffective when it came to assisting the Jewish refugees coming out of Germany before the war, and out of France after it began.

"French Jewry was highly commercial, financial," writes Cowen, "and capitalistic." These social values were not sufficient to save them in any large numbers, and this adds irony to the smear campaigns conducted against Lindbergh. His father feared that the "invisible government" he had battled for years, as a Congressman, would produce an entrenched socialistic dictator.

"Heavily regulated or socialist economies," says Dr. Cowen, "tend to breed intolerance and ethnic persecution." There are reasons for disputing Cowen, with regard to the racism and anti-immigrant feelings that arose in the United States during the time of the Know-Nothings. Business had almost complete freedom of operation, then, and hostility still bubbled over, against the Mormons and the Irish, and against a supposed Masonic conspiracy.

"Most socialists supported [the] World War" notes Cowen, speaking of European politics, "which provided a tremendous boost to anti-Semitism, without hesitation." Neither of the two Lindberghs proposed anti-Semitism as an American value, or as a Christian virtue, but the money factors backing Woodrow Wilson and his protégé, F.D.R., were unrepentant in their attacks on them. Yet neither President provided any succor to the Jews of Europe.

The U.S. mobilized its whole industrial economy for the second War, again coming to the rescue of Great Britain in its never-ending disputes with its kissing cousins, the German people. Nothing that the U.S. did during the second War was of any use against the NAZI terror, and it now seems certain that high government officials among the Allies ignored intelligence reports that confirmed the slaughter of the Jews, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities in central Europe.

The paternity of the Viet Nam war is now indisputable:

Its great-grandfather was Woodrow Wilson, its grandfather was the man who made Lyndon B. Johnson -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our wartime leader -- and it was LBJ with his Great Society experiment in utopian social engineering, which sent so many young Americans to their deaths. He was booted by popular opinion, in 1968, the victim of his own success. He retired to Texas as a multi-millionaire, having used the Senate the way the Lords of England once used their own House, as an avenue for legitimizing graft and corrupt business practices. He was always the "good ol' country boy," but he was never, ever "simple."

One Hundred Years of Pain -- beginning with the Radical Congress that crushed the southern States with Reconstruction -- and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, which augmented the power of all the great corporations yet tolerated the outrages of Jim Crow for seventy-five years or more! Three Democratic regimes which were elected to attend to the business of the people, and then moved to betray them by involving the country in foreign wars and adventures! The final disgrace, being Viet Nam -- a massive war built up, piece by piece, without ever having a Declaration of War! Young Americans conscripted for a war machine which was supposed to battle international communism, but which benefited only the money factors and their Wall Street brokers, and the business cronies of LBJ. in Texas, California and Washington State. All of the brutalities and failures of British Toryism, seemingly transplanted to these United States, and flowering two hundred years later: and none of the cultural successes that graced that era -- no Christopher Wren, no soaring music, no genius in landscape painting or architecture.

President Andrew Johnson escaped with his political life, facing impeachment and surviving. But Dr. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy, both murdered in that awful year of 1968 (and their deaths still the subject of controversy), paid for their visions with their lives, actual and political.

Thus ends the One Hundred Years of Pain, in bloody turmoil and impending social disintegration. But America remains resilient.

End of Chapter 5


The Original Thirteenth Amendment:

Titles of Nobility and Honour,

An Essay

Chapter 6

The Secret Armies

"Before Donald D. Maclean could cast off his secret life and emerge as a member of the new ruling elite in a Soviet-controlled Europe, however, there was the problem of America. In the immediate post-war period, it seemed an even bet that the United States would wash its hands of Europe's intractable problems and revert to isolationism. But ... " writes Verne W. Newton, in his landmark study of espionage, "The Cambridge Spies," the new President "[Harry S.] Truman's resolve stiffened."

When, in 1848, the pirate Jean Lafitte met Frederich Engels and Karl Marx in Paris, to give them $50,000 in gold for the support of revolutionary politics and communism, he could little imagine that their descendants would be the privileged young men of Britain, in the 1930s. Newton's book is subtitled "Philby, Burgess and Maclean in America," and was published by Madison Books in 1991. It tells, in clear and lively prose, the story of the pro-Soviet spy ring organized by Kim Philby and fronted by Maclean, the very picture of a British diplomat -- urbane, witty, and a rising star when he was sent to Washington. In ten years as a spy he did immense damage to the Allied cause, and it was later revealed that the aristocratic art expert, Anthony Blount, was the "fourth man" in this conspiracy. The revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, as Marx envisioned it, was to be something other than highly educated and well-fed gentlemen, upper-middle class heathens suborned by communist sympathizers in the academic community of Cambridge.

What was evident, and obvious, to the "nomenklatura" of the Party and their allies in the secret police bureaucracy of the Soviet bloc, was the necessity of fighting the Cold War with agents, in small unit actions, and secret armies. The reality of this mode of warfare also became obvious to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who supervised the growth of the national security establishment while promoting nuclear stalemate by investing so heavily in bombers and missiles.

As has almost always been the case with great generals, Eisenhower looked at the most effective, and terrible, weapons of the previous war and expected them to be the implements of combat in the next war. By contrast, for the last twenty years of his life, Buckminster Fuller concentrated on the invisible nature of combat in the Cold War. He recognized that the warring parties used their spies, their spy technology and their secret armies to fight each other in what John F. Kennedy called "the long twilight struggle." He understood that the Cold War was firstly a propaganda war and that international public opinion was the battlefield terrain to be mastered.

The Dons of Cambridge who recruited the likes of Burgess, Philby and Maclean and other young English gentlemen, into the cause of Soviet-style communism, viewed capitalism as the problem and capitalists as the enemy. They seldom, if ever, made the connection between the front organizations which shielded the royal families and the profits they shared with their money factors.

They considered that line to have been terminated with the deaths of the family Romanov -- and the expulsion of the kings of Romania and Yugoslavia, and the partial destruction of their State churches.

The alliance of convenience between Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union -- against the NAZI tyranny of Adolph Hitler and the nationalist warlords of Japan -- paid handsome dividends for the Communist Party of the U.S.A. and for the communist fellow travelers recruited and inspired at Cambridge. To this day, no one really knows how many communist agents were recruited into the State Department during the tenure of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or how wide the web of fellow travelers created by the CPUSA, and its front organizations, really was.

After the disaster of McCarthyism in the mid-1950s, though, came the rise of the Secret Armies, which began, as Buckminster Fuller notes, with an arms build-up: "the Russians assumed after the Khrushchev-Eisenhower Geneva Meeting of 1955 that atomic bomb warfare would never occur -- that is the way the U.S.S.R. played their poker hand. They assumed only enough atomic bomb-making to camouflage their strategy, while they counted on conventional arms".

For much of the 1960s and '70s, the Red Army was, in fact, an employment program organized by the communist bureaucracy to stave off social collapse, and to provide a rationale for the failure of socialism to provide a higher standard of living, even while steel and oil and chemical production soared. Except for stomping down dissidents in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Red Army was of no particular value in any of the great power conflicts of the modern era. The success of Soviet arms in the Viet Nam conflict was attributable to the fanatic dedication, endurance, and nationalism of the communist regime, the Viet Minh.

When a great power did adopt Soviet combat doctrine, and arms, in a conflict with the western allies, it led to shameful and utter defeat: it is only the perfidy of George Bush and his advisors that allowed "the tyrant" Saddam Hussein to escape complete destruction in the Gulf War. The spectacle of having Iraqi soldiers surrender, en masse to helicopter-borne forces (and to journalists!), should forever change the doctrine of combined arms. Air-Land battle tactics have been proven, at least as it applies to the terrain of desert and semi-arid environments. So, too, the greatest success in the Gulf War was carried out by small units who engaged the Iraqi air defense network with computer viruses and electronic jamming devices, in advance of the aerial assault. They crippled, and then disabled, a sophisticated and very expensive air defense network in just a matter of hours, in actions taken over a few days. Two important developments followed the suspension of the Gulf War, which made the 1990s so different from the 1940s: first, the truncated period of the war prolonged the recession in the American economy, instead of relieving it; second, the invisible government of bankers and global free traders decided to disengage the United States from the one-hundred year plan of industrial supremacy which had produced the greatest steel-making and metals-working skills ever known.

Jobs and factories and whole industries were shut down or moved or shed intact, at the direction of the money factors who stand behind the royal families and Wall Street. It was accomplished with stunning rapidity with the help of a Congress so supine and corrupt -- the 103rd -- that the poets and dramatists of the future will work it like a Colorado Motherlode. The oil supply was intact, the family Bush was rated at 90% approval, and the American people received -- not a big pay-off! -- but rather, "the Big Kiss-Off."

The purpose of the fighting in the Gulf was well-understood, and explained by Fuller in 1981:

"Whoever owned the mines had incredible power, but never as great as those who controlled the line of supply." As the great inventor understood then, the multi-national corporations were now "out of reach of the laws of any one country," and that "the absolute need of the large financing and credit at magnitudes rarely affordable by any one individual, we find finance capitalism integrating the world operation." So two hundred and twenty years after kicking the British out of these American lands, the people of the United States were "impressed" by the merchant bankers of the British royal family, to go and rescue the royal family of Kuwait, itself a creation of their Arab policy of the 1920s. The irony of this will begin to penetrate the American national mind, as Gulf War Syndrome and Illness continue to kill our veterans and to poison their families. There is an account which has gone unpaid!

There, too, is the key to understanding the nature of the real combat which was carried on between the Soviet Union, and its successor, Russia -- against the United States and Great Britain, over the sixty-plus years since the Cambridge Dons plied their trade and recruited the Philbys of this world. Look at the success of gaining an agent like Aldrich 'Rick' Ames: for less money than it costs to train a company of infantry, his handlers gained massive amounts of information, and captured or killed at least ten spies created by the American handlers in charge of the opposing Secret Armies.

Since the collapse of Soviet-style communism, the arena of conflict is now economic espionage (and trade policy), and the arsenal of the Secret Armies has expanded to include nerve gas, biotech weapons thought to be based on Anthrax, and variations of self-replicating "mailer" or computer macro-viruses. There exists the possibility of an electronic "Pearl Harbor," resulting in the destruction of various computer networks, or so the experts have been fond of saying since 1994.

Again, the spy -- like John Henry in 1809-10, or Donald Maclean in 1945-48 -- is the critical element enabling the operation of these Secret Armies. Understanding human nature as well as any men since the Renaissance, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and their allies in the creation of the original Thirteenth Amendment sought to provide the new Republic with a durable and resilient form of protection against such men as John Henry and the mad visionary and genius, Aaron Burr.

The wording of the original Thirteenth Amendment seems to establish, that U.S. citizenship has a higher or federal octave, and a lower or State-centered octave, which the Constitution for the United States places under the control of Congress in all matters except the Titles of Nobility and Honour. There is no flexibility there.

The core of citizenship is thus derived from the state where a person has his legal residence, and as a classification internal to the United States, whatever privileges and immunities a person enjoys in say, New Jersey, must be honored in Utah, and every other state. The Ninth Amendment would seem, therefore, to guarantee that a citizen not be debarred any additional benefits -- privileges and immunities -- erected by a given State, regardless of where a person is resident!

So, a person would get all the protections of their home State and any that might also apply under the laws of a State where they would be visiting, working or even traveling. Then, the Tenth Amendment guarantee of non-interference would be augmented by the original Thirteenth not consolidated and compromised, as it has been, under the "contested" or so-called Fourteenth Amendment.

Secondly, the prior establishment of the original Thirteenth Amendment also prevents the so-called Fourteenth from impacting the guarantees of the Ninth, Tenth and the anti-slavery Amendment now called "Thirteenth." In fact, the Bill of Rights and all subsequent sections are listed as "declaratory and restrictive" amendments which both contain and define federal powers, except as they might explicitly change the relationship of the States to each other and to the federal government which is their creation -- their agent -- as they are the principals or managing partners.

The anti-slavery Amendment is augmented by the provisions of the original Thirteenth Amendment, and with the two-octave concept of U.S. citizenship that is established, it provides -- or would have provided, had it not been suppressed -- greater and more comprehensive guarantees for the freedmen than were ever obtained under the contested or "rump" Fourteenth Amendment. Adding the Amendment which is now properly called the Fifteenth, the whole sorry superstructure of white supremacy and Jim Crow would have been overturned in twenty years, or thirty at the most, instead of being carried forward into the middle of the 1960s.

Being the creation of radicals intent on punishing the former officers and landed gentry of the rebellious southern States, the so-called Fourteenth has in actual fact been used by the giant business combinations, which were and are still financed by the money factors loyal to the royal families of Europe (and now, Brunei and Saudi Arabia), to complete the dominance of the American Republic by what Lindbergh called "the invisible government." Or, we can find it described by Fuller in 1981:

"The U.S.A. is not run by its would-be 'democratic' government. All the latter can do is try to adjust to the initiatives already taken by [the] great corporations. Nothing can be more pathetic than the role that has been played by the President of the United States, whose power is approximately zero. Nevertheless, the news media and most over-thirty-years-of-age U.S.A. citizens carry on as if the president had supreme power."

The truth of this analysis given by Buckminster Fuller was established by the way NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- was ram-rodded in Congress and the way both big business and the oligarchy of Mexico employed every known form of propaganda and distortion to achieve victory. The destruction of America's manufacturing base, by this well-planned subterfuge, is exceeded only by the destructive effects of massive increases in cocaine smuggling and money-laundering.

So, too, the approval of the GATT in a lame-duck session of the very same Congress -- the 103rd -- further demonstrates that the new World Trade Organization is one of the concluding acts of the great Wilsonian plan. The true patriot can make an argument for establishing a world forum for trade: as so many wars have started over trading rights and access to raw materials, an America First policy, here in the digital 1990s, could be a real benefit, a godsend.

By contrast, the high-speed world of global competition has made obsolete almost the whole of the program enacted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and fully realized by Lyndon B. Johnson as The Great Society. Micro-electronics, the fax, the personal computer and a libertarian frame of mind are making the Democrat's social welfare of the 1930s and its bastard child, social engineering, politically bankrupt.

The principal achievement of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton will be seen, eventually, as his recognition of these facts; and his ability to 'massage' the old FDR coalition, keeping its support, even as the Democratic party is disintegrating into factions. And, more to the point, he has used this following to implement an unconstitutional "consolidation" of the federal government into a single -- or unitary -- "general" government, embracing the courts, and the police.

By using Executive Orders, and by having his allies in the House craft legislation which is in violation of every principle ever embraced by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Clinton seeks to fully re-establish the power of the President. Remember that the massacre at Waco was not an accident, not a failure of the FBI bureaucracy -- it was policy! It was, in fact, the same kind of policy that Princes and Petty Tyrants have always used.

The year is now 1997: the long-suppressed original Thirteenth Amendment has become known to millions of citizens, even if the arguments for and against it are not yet fully understood. The fact that it stipulates loss of citizenship for retaining Titles of Nobility and Honour, and for those violations of laws that Congress might pass regarding any "pension, prize, office or emolument" from any "Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power", directly contradicts the strategy being employed by the Clinton administration, to establish a Presidential Democracy on the shoulders of a Judicial Tyranny which has been a-building since the rights and sovereignty of Oregon was suborned by the so-called Fourteenth Amendment (improperly elected State legislators cannot validate any proposed Constitutional Amendment).

That Tyranny of the Courts, augmented by the manipulations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his debasement of U.S. monetary values as contained in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, now rests on American society at large. That social order, or the lack of it, must now be identified, in a general way, as an Anarchy of Lawyers. Never in human history has there been such a glut of lawyers and Attorneys at the Bar, and so little actual justice -- social, commercial, or civic -- as there exists in the United States of the 1990s.

Only under this Presidential Democracy could Congress pass a "gun control" law which bars the common citizen from owning a specific type of rifle -- the Kalashnikov AK-47 -- while the Chief Magistrate subsequently breaks bread and pours coffee with a Chinese government agent who was plotting to smuggle that same weapon by thousands into these United States. Who was paid handsomely by the communist government of China to exert his influences and to plot further smuggling adventures, which might include rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-launched missiles! Only in an Anarchy of Lawyers could the self-governing instincts of the average or common citizen be so defeated and debased!

As Vladimir I. Lenin once asked, in another context: "What Is To Be Done?"

The goal of this extended analysis and essay is three-fold:

A) It is clear the external or higher octave of U.S. citizenship encompasses and activates that lower octave of State citizenship. The penalty written into the Constitution by James Madison and his allies in the world of 1810, and finally established in the actions of the Virginia legislature in 1819, prescribe a loss of citizenship. It also prohibits those persons convicted by due process, of serving in any federal or state "office of Profit and Trust". Thus, a person is reduced to resident alien, protected under the law and Constitution as such, and empowered to work but barred from all the basics of responsible citizenship. It is an awesome penalty but one that has no political dimension with regard to Honours or Noble Titles, and a very broad political dimension with regard to the "pensions and prizes" that Congress might approve and allow!

B) It seems very flexible on the down-stream side and rock-solid on the upstream, or "purity of origin" side of the creek. One cannot poison the well of American republicanism with Titles or Honours, but the changing relationships of our citizens with foreign kings, princes and powers are subject to the law-making power of Congress, and to its corrective measures over time and by the changing nature of the population!

C) This is far superior to the creation of "a rump citizenry" based on a Fourteenth Amendment established by deceit and military force, a purely "federal" citizenship founded on a system of law which pounds the life out of State sovereignty. Which leads to a consolidation of power, without establishing that the external nature of U.S. citizenship is an armor against the vicissitudes of the world at large.

D) The original Thirteenth Amendment appears to uphold the genius of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments while clearly defining the two-octave harmony of U.S. citizenship; and with the anti-slavery Amendments (excepting the bogus, so-called Fourteenth), it does well in establishing more grounds for the individual citizen to enjoy every immunity and privilege -- against any and all downstream, or subsequent, encroachments of various federal and State laws.

The sole freedom lost by the ratification of the original Thirteenth revolves around artificial rewards that have their origin in the musings and mythologies of ancient Kings and Princes, or the fulminations of modern war lords. That is a small purchase price for obtaining the harmony of dual octave citizenship, hard armored against a cruel world, soft and adaptive within the union; and all the while ennobling the individual in his every contact with local or State governments.

The world of the 1990s was produced over hundreds of years by the planned interactions and the "chance" encounters of millions of creative and dynamic men and women, many of whom migrated to these United States to escape the agonies of life under royalist tyranny, or the economic collapses engineered from time to time by the money factors who control "the invisible government." The next battleground for these powers is and will be the new electronic web known as "the Internet." That concept actually encompasses all parts of the giant new telecommunications network, including fax trees, phone networks, and the "kitchen militia" -- millions of newly computer-literate mothers, and well-informed grandmothers.

On one side, the NAFTA cats and the GATT-heads seek to disable, dissolve and finally destroy the Republic of the founding fathers. It is old-fashioned, cumbersome and expensive to maintain (requiring, as it does, a billion dollars of bribe moneys which have to be secretly routed and cleansed every two and four years). The international banking elite has no loyalty to these United States, nor to any Kingdom or principality they do not presently control or own cooperatively. The money factors of Wall Street care little for the guarantees and protections that the Bill of Rights provides, while spending lavishly over the years since isolationism and Charles Lindbergh, Jr., were defeated, to establish a new gentry -- the idol-worshipping Hollywood Aristocracy. One is not elected into that aristocracy, one is selected or appointed or falls into it by accident of birth. What was once the domain of free-wheeling and libertarian-minded entrepreneurs has become sheerly and utterly political. The morally-debased trash that passes for entertainment, as produced by these Hollywood barons and Moguls (a powerful and important person, with autocratic power), has had the effect of creating despair, mental fatigue and a kind of defeatism in the American people at large.

The same effects were created in the French population prior to the onset of World War II, by fascist-minded collaborators and conspirators financed from Germany and Italy -- propagandists operating as part of the Secret Army of NAZI tyranny. So, too, the Viet Minh suborned the Buddhist elite of the south and turned them against the Catholic oligarchy left in place when the French colonial military power was kicked out. So, too, the agents of Political Correctness on college campuses hew to the philosophy of Deconstructionism as created by Paul de Man, who was at Yale in the period 1970 to 1983. Like Donald D. Maclean, he was often described as "urbane, witty and charming." After his death it was discovered that he was a NAZI apologist during the second War, writing in both Flemish and French as a correspondent for Le Soir in occupied Belgium. Although he was a correspondent and not an editor, most of his 170 articles showed a marked preference for fascist order over romantic individualism. He viewed the war of Adolph Hitler as "a revolution that aims at organizing European society in a more equitable manner."

In the United States of the 1990s, the academic leftists cling to the substance of his philosophy, Deconstructionism, which is actually a weapon of mass destruction, a view of art and literature devoid of moral foundations, designed to produce despair and confusion in a whole generation of college-educated youths. In its effects, it is remarkably similar to the propaganda directed at France in the years before Hitler attacked Poland, and it came to fruition during the Phony War (1940).

The academic elite which still holds this philosophy is Marxist in their views and orientation. But, they are gullible and willing to be the tools of Bill Clinton's Presidential Democracy, and the mass education-based form of National Socialism, that his allies are crafting. They are, not surprisingly, using an old British model to advance their agenda. They create a small Tory class at the top of most organizations, while Marxist labor activists control the broad mass of workers -- often without their knowledge or will -- using grass-roots social policy groups or unions. Both are well-funded by the giant Foundations who connect these parasites with the Aristocracy of Hollywood.

More than one hundred years ago, the royalist front organizations of Great Britain tried to shape and mold the great mass of humanity in the states of India, first by entangling alliances, then by military conquest, and then with propaganda and cultural warfare. Their Secret Armies were then less effective than they are now, as H.G. Wells (a proponent of world socialist government), observed in his 1939 book, The Fate of Man:

"The British ruling class has been unable to impose modern ideas upon India for the simple reason that it does not possess them itself. The indebtedness is the other way around. The British picked up the idea of caste from the Brahmins," said Wells. "In India there are numerous rich men, great industrialists, wealthy maharajas and the like, but it has still to dawn on any of them that a great, growing, liberating mass of knowledge exists in the world beyond [their] present reach...."

The original Thirteenth Amendment was designed to protect what Wells called the "hundreds of thousands of fine brains, which need only educational emancipation and opportunity, laboratories, colleges, publications ... [and] discussion with the rest of the world" to achieve liberation and success. Jefferson and Madison had the American people in mind, as Wells had the Indian people in mind. Now both peoples can be linked by a common language -- English -- with the satellite-borne communications that enable the Internet to be what it is, today. The peoples of India know very well, by a long and painful association with their neighbor, China, just what real tyranny and ambition lies in "the Middle Kingdom."

The opportunity now exists for the people of the United States, working through their State legislatures, to reclaim their patrimony, to reject the false friendship of the regime of British royalty and its invisible backers in the world of international finance. The original Thirteenth Amendment is not a club to be used in crushing the skulls of lawyers or even of Attorneys at the Bar, provided they eschew the estaté noblessé, a status of nobility they have acquired since FDR "reformed" American courts and made them into "administrative" or admiralty-based courts-martial (in or around 1938).

"A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is," writes George Orwell, "when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands.

"But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison ..." said Orwell, in "The Prevention of Literature." Here was not arguing for "speech codes" or the creation of "hate crimes," but rather against such a noxious abuse of the academy, the college, or the press corps.

As William S. Cardell was prophetic in his warnings against the creation of a Mock Nobility in New York -- where the annointments are made by gossip columnists and the "social X-rays" of the foundation and charities crowd -- so too, George Orwell warned against the consolidation of literary power in the media, no matter if it might be all conservative or all liberal.

"To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force. You can say or print almost anything so long as you are willing to do it in a hole-and-corner way.

"But what is sinister, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public [Well's common man] do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him.

"They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."

Let no one mistake what Orwell is driving at here: the academy which teaches Deconstructionism is using a propaganda weapon against the very people, the boys and girls who will be men and women, that it will solicit for funding in later years. It is suicidal, but it is wholly consistent with the anarchist wing of Marxist, campus-based politics. The use of a weapon of mass destruction, such as Paul de Man's Deconstructionism, violates all the rules of warfare as laid down by the Wilsonians after the first World War. No matter: the ruination of the language protects the political interests of a dictator, especially one who knowingly orders the use of tanks and lethal tear gas against men, women and children holed up in a religious compound (Waco).

"So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty.

"His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established. Meanwhile, if he wants to safeguard the integrity of science," writes Orwell, "it is his job to develop some kind of solidarity with his literary colleagues and not disregard it as a matter of indifference when writers are silenced or driven to suicide, and newspapers systematically falsified."

Add to those categories the honest lawyer, the true patriot, Admirals like Jeremy "Mike" Boorda and common soldiers like Michael New. The original Thirteenth Amendment was intended to give these persons -- amongst all of our people, the American citizenry -- the protective mantle or cloak that the early federalists would have called "civic virtue."

It is not visible but it is luminous just the same. It is not a heavy garment, but it is -- without any doubt -- the strongest material ever known. It may not save a life in every instance but it allows a man, or a woman, to give their life for their country, and to die with their honor intact.

It is -- finally -- a clear indicator that this struggle, between the Secret Armies loyal to various factions who now seek hegemony on the Global Plantation, and the forces of Liberty loyal to the people, is a fight to the death, a Cultural War, as one witty fellow once put it, on a podium in Houston. Those who love Liberty also love republicanism, and will see new merit in the old words of Madison, Hamilton and their crew; and they will find old wisdom in the design of Article V, and write new words that will restore what was stolen, and will overturn the many usurpations of the so-called Fourteenth Amendment. The digital age is an age of corrections of the old, as well as of discovery of the new. Information widely compared will generate truth!

And if this is not true, then the many destructions of war, as is being carried on by the Secret Armies, is all that is left of the American patrimony. The message in that fact is so grim:

What the American people have lost was taken from them by stealth and in a time of national turmoil: It is and was robbery, felonious conspiracy, and treason. The Secret Armies of the royal families -- including by not limited to the oligarchy of Mexico, the Sultan of Brunei and the Hollywood Aristocracy -- will continue to operate against the people of these States united, will continue to manipulate the money and disguise their ambitions in high-falutin' language, will continue to wreck, suborn, or otherwise disable what remains of this great Republic. And when their work is finally done, they will turn upon their creation -- the Anarchy of Lawyers and the tyranny of administrative judges that they support -- and bitter indeed will be the grief and the howling of that day of settlements, when the price of treason is paid in full.

End of Chapter 6


Table of Ratification and Publications

State Publications

Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868

Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839

Dakota 1862, 1863, 1867

Florida 1823, 1825, 1838

Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846

Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845

Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838

Iowa 1839, 1842, 1843

Kansas 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868

Kentucky 1822

Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]

Maine 1825, 1831

Massachusetts 1823

Michigan 1827, 1833

Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839

Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*

Nebraska 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873

North Carolina 1819, 1828

Northwestern Territories 1833

Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848

Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831

Rhode Island 1822

Virginia 1819

Wyoming 1869, 1876

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a complete printed report of this research with additional data contact David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March at


The Anti-Slavery Amendment and The Flawed Fourteenth Citizenship Amendment

Addenda to the "The Original Thirteenth Amendment, An Essay"

Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.-- David Dodge, 1991

These excerpts come from Dyett v. Turner, a March 22, 1968 opinion of the Utah Supreme Court. It is the official view of the Court on the flawed nature of the so-called Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments:

Treating on the Thirteenth Anti-Slavery Amendment

General Robert E. Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and General Joseph Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. [General Stand Watie surrendered on June 23, 1865.] Within a period of less than six weeks thereafter, not one [regular] Confederate soldier was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper positions as states in an indissoluble union, and practically all citizens thereof had been granted amnesty. Immediately thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full operation.

President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to ratify the [anti-slavery] Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of the slaves.

The 11 southern states having taken their rightful and necessary place in the indestructible Union proceeded to determine whether to ratify or reject the proposed [anti-slavery] Thirteenth Amendment. In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36 states. Among those 27 states ratifying the [so-called] Thirteenth Amendment were 10 from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.

When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats.

Treating on the Fourteenth Citizenship Amendment

Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated senators.

While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two-thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.

Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two-thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.

In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it was declared to have been passed by a two-thirds vote of the House.

Whether it requires two-thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two-thirds of those seated or two-thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution.

Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union.

A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.

By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.

One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment. However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.

Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.

Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.

By spurious, non-representative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published, and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.

Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:

And whereas neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution; And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];

And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;

And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;

And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];

And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next thereafter named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;

Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.

Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.

End of Excerpt - Dyett vs Turner


This HTML version of this research essay by Richard C. Green,

with the editing and research assistance of David Dodge, Brian March and Bob Hardison

was placed on the web April 12,1997 by Barefoot Bob

Last Revised April 12, 1997





1. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) prohibited any "titles of nobility."

In the original organic Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9 (1788) prohibited any "title of nobility."

Therefore, in 1789 an additional "title of nobility" amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was proposed, and, again, in 1810. It was finally ratified in 1819. This was the true and positive Thirteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Clearly the Founding Fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honours" that anyone receiving them would lose their citizenship, as was clearly stated in the ratified 13th Amendment, to wit:

"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 whatsoever, 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)

Since this was written in the original Articles of Confederation, the original Constitution, and again in an Amendment to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers must have meant more than just a petty post-revolution stab at the British monarchy.

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 more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier than the sword (and far more profitable), and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold the titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used even today by 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 bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" - a "title of nobility."

"Esquire" was the principal title of nobility which the 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 principal purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB, CIA, FBI, BATF, and IRS.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution for the United States of America sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so 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). Therefore, a "title of nobility" Amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789 and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor) may be more significant. The archaic definition of "honor" (as used in the 13th Amendment) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another." A contemporary examination of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans (who have become ex-patriots) is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honours" the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment is 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.

While "titles of nobility" are no longer readily recognized 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 or "honor" and would, therefore, forfeit his right to vote or hold public office (such as the doctrine of "judicial immunity.") Without their current "honor" of immunity, judges would be unable to abuse constitutionally guaranteed rights with impunity.

Government would be forced to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law and liability as the rest of the Nation. Can you imagine? A government truly "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. A government accountable to the people, a government which could not systematically exploit it's own people, and steal their livelihood through "breach of contract" quasi-crimes for which the right to trial by one's peers has been unlawfully and arbitrarily removed.

There were seventeen states when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810. This would require 13 states to support the Amendment for it to be ratified. The states that ratified the Amendment are:

Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810

Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811

Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811

Delaware, Feb. 2, 1911

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

Virginia, March 10, 1819

This Amendment was published in many of the States official publications of the Constitution for the United States of America, up through and including the year 1867, when it mysteriously disappeared from almost every state's publications of the Constitution for the United States of America. It appeared, in 1867 Colorado Territory edition, on the same page as the currently listed 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, and the current 13th Amendment was listed as the 14th Amendment in that edition.

Since it was ratified, and is POSITIVE LAW, then it must stand that all lawyers are foreigners, having expatriated themselves by taking a position of honor or title of nobility, in violation of their oath of office, and in contradistinction to the intent and meaning of the 13th Amendment.

The original Constitutions of several states thunderingly forbid lawyers from holding any office in any branch of government, and some went as far as to demand that any lawyer representing a person accused of a crime must swear before the court that they did so for free, as to charge for the defense of a person was reprehensible beyond words. How far we have come. Now, it seems, you are innocent until you run out of funds, and your attorney drops you like a hot potato.

There is ample evidence which proves that lawyers had a great deal to do with the removal and loss of the true 13th Amendment, so that they could remain in the positions of "Nobility" and "Honor" which they hold, to our detriment.

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which all people 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 the 13th Amendment that the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquire" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney and judge) that ONLY lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. Where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully nullified, IT IS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

In George Washington's farewell address, he 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, including freedom of commerce against monopolies. The "legal profession" has become the singly largest monopoly in the United States, written into legislation by lawyers, lobbied by lawyers, passed by lawyers in the Congress and Senate, enforced by lawyers who have become chiefs of police and sheriffs, and litigated and upheld by lawyers, and judges who are lawyers. Since all lawyers are officers of the judicial branch of government, then it is a blatant conflict of interest for any lawyer to become a legislator or be in the executive branch of government. However, the vast majority of our legislature, both state and United States is now lawyers.

A classic example of the power of lawyers was witnessed in Waco, Texas in 1993, when the top lawyer of the United States, the Attorney General, ordered the slaughter of 86 innocent people, mostly women and children, "for the good of the children."

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al, in the early 1800's; Judges and lawyers granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "Un-Constitutional," waited until their decisions were grandfathered, then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the Bar Associations. What happened to the "This Constitution... is the Supreme Law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding?" Thomas Jefferson foresaw this very thing when he stated:

"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."

Since all members of the American Bar Association, which was formed in Washington, D.C., become citizens of Washington, D.C., which is neither a state nor a territory within the meaning of the laws, and therefore must register in any state they choose to do business in as a resident alien, foreign agent or agency.

It is interesting to note that most states contain laws which require all professions and businesses to obtain a business license to do business in the state, EXCEPT LAWYERS. Doctors, Dentists, Car Dealers, etc., all must get a license from the state. NO lawyer ever gets a business license. They get a certificate to practice law, issued from their private fraternal organization known as the bar association, and it is signed by the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State (probably a lawyer). When did the judicial branch of government obtain power to issue licenses?

THEREFORE, based upon the above, POSITIVE LAW, the prosecuting attorney is a foreign, resident alien, having expatriated himself from the United States, and has no lawful standing before a court.

FURTHERMORE, the judge, a lawyer, having expatriated himself by becoming a lawyer, has further expatriated himself by sitting in a position of honour (Note we are expected to address the judge as "your honor,") and has no authority to sit in judgment of this or any other case, being a resident alien and having proved his loyalty is not "for the people." He has claimed the judicial (lawyer made) doctrine of immunity from lawsuits, he has accepted the position of honor and the title of honor and of nobility voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, with intent to set himself above the laws and the Constitution for the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, there is no person who may act as prosecution in ANY case, and no judge to try ANY case.