The Missing Thirteenth Amendment?

Posted by Anita in Everything Else on July 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm


Thirteenth Amendment

In 1810, U.S. Senator Philip Reed of Maryland proposed the above amendment to the U.S. Constitution, essentially stating that anyone accepting a title of nobility would be stripped of their citizenship. Under such an amendment, individuals like Sir Rudy Giuliani, or possibly even lawyers adopting the title ‘esquire’, could lose their status as U.S. citizens.

At the time, 13 states were needed to ratify the amendment, but only 12 are known to have done so prior to the war of 1812. Controversy arises because most government records were lost when the British burned down Washington DC in 1814. Some people now believe that the amendment was actually ratified, as did many states and government agencies throughout the 1800’s. Even the U.S. President, James Madison, was apparently unsure of the amendment’s status and sent delegates to undecided states in 1817 to determine if they had voted to have it ratified.

Officially, the amendment was never ratified, but remains open for ratification if enough states vote to do so. However, many state and federal printings of the Constitution included the amendment until around the Civil War, lending credibility to the theory that it was ratified and later swept under the table once the new 13th amendment abolishing slavery was added.

Was it a conspiracy? Or just a case of misunderstood constitutional law and bad record keeping? Read the whole story at Daily Kos or on Wikipedia and decide for yourself.


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

4 comments to "The Missing Thirteenth Amendment?"

  1. Tom
    July 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    This is a common "conspiracy" pointed to by many in the American Militia movement. They are convinced that the Amendment was ratified and the ratification is being "hidden" by the government in order to protect all of the "esquires" (lawyers) currently serving in government. Of course, if you try to convince them otherwise, they claim that they are unable to hear you because of the noise created by the black helicopters hovering over their compounds.

  2. Johnny Cat
    July 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Sir Rudy? That's honorary, Anita. Neat, but hardly worth bringing up in this context. Good luck with Hillary.

  3. Billy Bob
    July 12th, 2007 at 6:42 am

    Johnny Cat - I think her point was that Rudy Giuliani ACCEPTED the honor. Had this amendment been ratified, his citizenship would have been stripped because of accepting it, not because of the honor itself.

    Just because Giuliani is the scariest candidate we've ever seen (and the most likely to turn the presidency into a dictatorship) doesn't mean any anti-Giuliani comment is an endorsement of Hillary.

  4. Gellner
    July 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    So much about the war of 1812 was "lost" when Canadians (British) burned the white house down. They're still teaching falsehoods in American schools and omitting anything that doesn't reinforce the idea that "The U.S. has never lost a war"


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS