41 votes

Wow! New Hampshire Bill Would Recognize Original 13th Amendment

A bill in the New Hampshire legislature to officially recognize the Original 13th Amendment.

The bill also cites the Organic Act of 1871 as a fraud on the Constitution.

This could wake up a few people.

Interesting stuff.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It was a penalty for violation

The Constitution prohibited tiles of nobility but did not include a penalty (other than, presumably, an elected official could be impeached).

In the 1790's, Britain was giving titles of nobility to Americans, with the hope of getting those Americans to *really* support Britain, even if they were in the American government.

The 13th Amendment provide for a VERY tough penalty (loss of citizenship and inability to hold public office) for violating the constitutional clause AND it added "titles of honor."

Titles of nobility (i.e. duke, duchess, lord) and titles of honor (esquire) have one thing in common: they grant a special privilege to this class of citizen at the expense of all other citizens. It creates a class that is "above the law" or at least above the law of the peasants.

That's the idea, and that's why it was prohibited, and that's why they decided to institute a very serious penalty for violating this. Also, these sorts of titles, along with accepting presents from foreign heads of state, are a form of bribe to influence American politicians.

So, that's why it was passed.

However, during the War of 1812, records were lost. For a few decades, the various states published their laws and included this amendment. But around the time of the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War), the states one-by-one started publishing their law books without this amendment. Once the 13th Amendment that we know (anti-slavery) passed, all law books completely omitted the original 13th.

But all amendments can be passed if enough states pass them. There is no time limit. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed along with the Bill of Rights, but was not passed then. It was revived 200 years later, and in 1992 it was passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures and was officially part of the Constitution.

New Hampshire is taking a step in this direction, though their position is even stronger: the original 13th is and always has been (for 200+ years) part of the Constitution, but the attorneys have conspired to omit it as if it did not exist.

However, during the War of 1812, records were lost?

Burning of Washington, 1814 Give me the Deed you your Colony, or I'll burn your Capitol down. Senate Chamber too!

"However?" It was an act of war! "During the War of 1812, records were lost." - TommyPaine

'During' the pillage & plunder of the US White House, 'War of 1812, "records' incinerated. - Editor's note. Why do you suppose this important historical archive was burnt to the ground? Why would the British Army wish to burn books & records?
Capitol in Flames. On August 24, 1814, as the War of 1812 raged on, invading British troops marched into Washington and set fire to the U.S. Capitol, the President's Mansion, and other local landmarks. The ensuring fire reduced all but one of the capital city's major public buildings to smoking rubble, and only a torrential rainstorm saved the Capitol from complete destruction. The blaze particularly devastated the Capitol's Senate wing, the oldest part of the building, which was honeycombed with vulnerable wooden floors and housed the valuable but combustible collection of books and manuscripts of the Library of Congress, then located in the Capitol building. Heat from the intense fire reduced the Senate chamber's marble columns to lime, leaving the room, in one description, "a most magnificent ruin." Quickly, President James Madison arranged for Congress to meet temporarily at Blodgett's Hotel when it returned to session in September, and the business of Congress continued uninterrupted. The following year, the Senate moved to the Brick Capitol, a large red-brick structure built to accommodate Congress temporarily. Not until 1819, after a major reconstruction project, did the Senate again meet in the historic Old Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol.
1801-1850 October 10, 1814 The Senate Buys a Library

When the invading British army burned the Capitol in August 1814, they fueled the fire with 3,000 books from a small room that served as the congressional library. Among the Senate's first orders of business, as it convened in temporary quarters 10 blocks from the gutted Capitol, was to obtain a new library. In September, former Vice President and President Thomas Jefferson had written to offer his own library—the largest personal collection of books in the nation. "I have been fifty years in making it, and have spared no pains, opportunity or expense, to make it what it now is. While residing in Paris I devoted every afternoon . . . in examining all the principal bookstores, turning over every book with my own hands, and putting by everything which related to America . . . ." Recognizing that the nation lacked spare funds during the war emergency, Jefferson explained that he would accept whatever price Congress wished to pay and would take his payments in installments. Appraisers valued the nearly 6,500 volumes at $23,950.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thank you both. And I do see the difference,

that is, the Thirteenth Amendment WITH the penalty...

"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."

vs. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8...

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

I think there's every reason to acknowledge the Thirteenth Amendment. It's an issue of national security and keeping government officials honest. Some further points & questions.

1. Still, even without a stated - and rather harsh - penalty, at the very least (according to Article I), TITLES ARE PROHIBITED. And yet that seems to have been ignored, e.g., re the title "Esquire." (It was pointed out in the you-tube clip that the B.A.R. in BAR Association actually stands for British Accreditation Registry, which is acknowledged elsewhere.)

2. Actually, I now see that there is another salient difference between the two: the AMENDMENT clarifies that the prohibitions (and penalty) apply to ALL CITIZENS re accepting a "present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power." An "emolument" is any profit whatsoever.

3. So then wouldn't the Thirteenth Amendment PRECLUDE dual citizenship unless with the consent of Congress - including (you'd think!) those serving IN government positions, no less in the area of foreign affairs and appropriations, with obvious conflicts of interest. Indeed, "just" Article I prohibits emoluments for any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them" [the United States]. The whole POINT had to do with the potential INFLUENCE of foreign powers.

4. Also what about cases like General Motors, whose (American citizen) executives DO profit from a foreign power, being in business ventures WITH the Chinese government? See the first 3 min. of GM CEO's address in China. It explains who GM is doing business with, and you can hear the CEO himself say that GM is committed to working "in China, with China, and FOR China." If an American citizen is committed to working for a foreign nation, it's admitting the foreign power's "influence." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

5. Some "light weekend reading" I have to look forward to re the Emolument Clause!

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Interesting :

Could be anyway, depending on who speaks against the "Original" 13ths authenticity.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info


Cool! I've never heard about the original 13th amendment!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


I didn't even know this existed.


Sustainability: http://www.compostforsale.net

But wasn't this already prohibited?

In the original constitution?

Sustainability: http://www.compostforsale.net

Article I, section 9 has

Article I, section 9 has this:

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

So it is very much like the original 13th Amendment but with one important exception -- it doesn't specify the penalty if it is violated. In particular, it doesn't revoke the citizenship of those who violate it.

It's also doesn't specify "or

It's also doesn't specify "or honor" as "esquire" is.

"Give me Liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry

Good Catch :

On the wording changes.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

deacon's picture


i like,i like

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence