Friday, March 26, 2010

The Missing 13th Amendment

“Titles of Nobility” and “Honor”
The Missing 13th Amendment

William G Burmer

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

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

They began to research this discovery over a period of seven years. The following are the results of their search. When we consider the struggle our founders had in constructing our Constitution, taking into account all their varying personalities, it is a miracle of the largest proportions that any final consensus was ever achieved. Thankfully they were able to put aside many of their personal wishes so that we can have, what they finally regarded was the best Republican form of government that could be constructed.

The Constitution would not, however, erase human natures disposition for disagreement and selfish desires for power over principle. The “two party” system of government was in the works from the beginning. After the election of John Adams in 1800 the two party systems would be firmly in place embodied in the Federalist and the Republicans, each with a unique ideology and purpose.

There were many conservative Federalist who desired a centralized government. On the other hand the Anti-Federalist Republicans were skeptical of the Constitutional powers ability to protect citizen’s rights. They desired additional amendments to insure citizen sovereignty.

They were equally unsure that powers of honor and titles of nobility might not become a part of the new system, and give rise to a new Monarchy.

From the beginning of President Washington s’ first administration these concerns were evident. His vice president John Adams counseled with senators on how to receive the President into the congressional chambers. Should they stand or sit? (They stood). How should the President be addressed? Adams suggested, “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of Their Liberties.” This was definitely too English; in the end the House agreed that “The President of the United States” would do just fine.

It was not long before Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were convinced that Alexander Hamilton, as Treasury Secretary, was leading the way towards creating a moneyed oligarchy and that titles of nobility would come next. Madison, for one, was fearful of the destruction of the new “Republic.” The idea of turning bankers, investors, and lawyers into baron s’, earls and esquires reeked of monarchical controls for which the revolution spilled its blood to prevent only a few years previous.

Amongst the original 145 to 200 amendments proposed in 1789 as a Bill of Rights for the people was an amendment introduced by Senator Tristram Dalton of Massachusetts, which sought to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “Title of Nobility.” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). It was not passed but it was the first time such an amendment was proposed.

Senator Dalton was born at Newbury Mass 28 May1738. He graduated from Harvard Law in 1755, he was admitted to the bar but never practiced law. Instead he went into the mercantile business. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1782 to 1788, and speaker in 1784-85. He was elected to the Senate 1789 to 1791.

It was at this time when the original Bill of Rights was being formed when he introduced his Title of Nobility legislation. Dalton died at Boston Mass May 30, 1817. On January 21, 1793 as a roaring crowd of Parisians looked on, the head of Louis Capet formerly His Majesty Louis XVI toppled into the Basket as the blade of the guillotine severed it from his body. This created, at least for a short time, a second Republic. The hopes of a number of nations, inspired by our revolutionary triumph over Britain were testing the old Monarchical controls in Europe and elsewhere.

The eyes of the peoples of the world were seeing the hopes of disengaging themselves from Monarchies and their titles of nobility. Our new Constitution prohibited “titles of nobility,” see Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of 1787.

The year was 1810; the month was January when the original 13th Amendment, entitled “Titles of Nobility,” was again proposed. (See History of Congress proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; The House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following 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 honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a Citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” This amendment was to be ratified by 17 states, 13 of which would be required to adopt.

If you compare the wording of the Amendment with Article I, Sections 9, and 10 you will quickly see there are similarities; however, there was no penalty attached in the Constitutional version.

The Amendment, on the other hand, provided that one would lose their citizenship, and would be disqualified from activity within any government office. This would mean that all lawyers, judges, or any person associated with the International Bar Association (which is chartered by the King of England, head quartered in London) along with those associated with the Banking system. Why Bankers? Because they formed alliances with the IBA in order to legitimize

their crimes of fraud, conversion of the lawful money of the United States, and for bribery.

“Contained in the National archives is the following list of states that ratified the 13th Amendment along with the dates: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810, Kentucky, Jan 31, 1811, Ohio, Jan, 31, 1811, Delaware, Feb, 2, 1811, Pennsylvania, Feb, 6, 1811, New Jersey, Feb. 2, 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. It was consummated by Virginia’s ratification on Mar. 12, 1819. Word of Virginias 1819 ratification spread throughout the States along with Rhode Island and Kentucky publishing the new Amendment in 1822. Additionally evidence was found that Ohio first published the Constitution containing the Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools, in 1825.”

One might be inclined to conclude this would be the end of the matter, however, in 1829, the following quote 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).

Historical records show that on Feb 6, 1818 President Monroe reported in a letter to the House that the Secretary of State John Adams had written a letter to the Governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut telling them that the 13th Amendment had been ratified by 12 States and rejected by New York, and Rhode Island. He asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (See House Document No. 76).

On February 28, 1818 Secretary of State John Adams reported in House Document No. 129 that South Carolina rejected the Amendment. No other responses were forthcoming. Virginia did not confirm nor did they deny. The Virginia House Journal showed an official letter and other documents from Washington dated March 10, 1819 that the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 p 299 the following Action: “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 to be included in the re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code of March 12, 1819 where-in the 13th Amendment would be included.’

The Amendment, on the other hand, provided that one would lose their citizenship, and would be disqualified from activity within any government office. This would mean that all lawyers, judges, or any person associated with the International Bar Association (which is chartered by the King of England, head quartered in London) along with those associated with the Banking system. Why Bankers? Because they formed alliances with the IBA in order to legitimize their crimes of fraud, conversion of the lawful money of the United States, and for bribery.

With an understanding that those same forces who were allied against ratification of the 13th Amendment were afoot, the delegates in the Virginia legislature took extraordinary measures to be sure that it was published in sufficient quantities (4,000 copies) and they also instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.’

‘The printer was a Mr. Thomas Ritchie. He was bonded and required to be accurate in his work. The printing of this act of the legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. No other requirement for ratification is contained in the Constitution at this time in the history of our Republic. President Monroe s’ letter and response above have been used as evidence that the 13th Amendment was never adopted; however, abundant evidence disclaims this assertion. The real truth was destroyed doubtless as a consequence of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, during the War of 1812 and, other evidences later, during the Civil War in 1860”. (a)

(a) All quotations with regards to the “Missing 13th Amendment” are used by permission and are contained within the pages of the Anti Shyster a Critical examination of the American Legal System. Amendment Subverted from U.S. Constitution. “Titles of Nobility” and “Honors” Editor & Publisher /Alfred Adask with David Dodge, Researcher. Authorities at the National Archives when confronted with the evidence of ratification by 26 States and Territories who published the amendments say it was done in error. No one, not any President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court have challenged the evidence by the states. The Amendment was not repealed or corrected or publicly denied. “It simply----disappeared.”

Thanks to Mr. Alfred Adask for his assistance in obtaining this information for use in this text.

Next: The War of 1812


And The American Constitution


Available at,

And your local book store.


Lance M Hillier Sr said...

Gives rise to why Shakespeare's famous line from one of his plays, was "First, kill all the lawyers." Then there is the 1630's Compact in Massachusetts that initially outlawed lawyers, and classified them as lower than rats in colonial society... so, 200 years ago, they got us in much the same troubles we are seeing now, parsing and perverting the meaning of language... alas, as the Good Book says, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Kevin said...

If this was ever put on a ballot, only lawyers and/or their family members would vote against it.

cary said...

At least our forefathers had some brains, if they didn't allow lawyers to be elected we wouldn't be in this mess right now!

barb p said...

You amaze should teach political science...

Anonymous said...

You got great points there, so I always visit your blog, it looks like you are an expert in this field. keep up the fantastic work, My friend recommends your site.

My blog:
meilleur rachat credit aussi rachat de credit cliquez ici