Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment

Originally posted by shiman
Aahhh... could you enlighten me as to this mysterious "thirteenth amendment" and the difference between that one and the thirteenth amendment in practice now? The abolition of slavery?

Yes, I share your bafflement. My understanding is that the US 13th Amendment to their Constitution relates to “involuntary servitude” et al and this is a direct reference to slavery and coercion.

Working from memory... There were two earlier proposed 13th Amendments. One looked at the revocation of citizenship and accepting foreign honours and this failed to be accepted by the Southern States. The other related to accepting slavery in order to appease the Southern States but was clearly not adopted.

Is this conspiratorial. What’s the issue?

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
Working from memory... There were two earlier proposed 13th Amendments. One looked at the revocation of citizenship and accepting foreign honours and this failed to be accepted by the Southern States. The other related to accepting slavery in order to appease the Southern States but was clearly not adopted.

Is this conspiratorial. What’s the issue?

Regards

The original 13th amendment was not a proposal. It was ratified in congress and acquired the proper amount of votes.

Whereas the 13th amendment pertaining to involuntary servitude did not receive the proper amount of votes necessary for ratification, hence it is not actually law.

It was forced by the federalists.

Originally posted by mryanbrown


The original 13th amendment was not a proposal. It was ratified in congress and acquired the proper amount of votes.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but the original thirteenth amendment (pertaining to titles of nobility) was only ratified by 12 states, meaning it was never ratified by the proper majority to be incorporated into the Constitution.

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Whereas the 13th amendment pertaining to involuntary servitude did not receive the proper amount of votes necessary for ratification, hence it is not actually law.

It was forced by the federalists.

Actually this is also incorrect.

The current thirteenth amendment was indeed ratified by the proper amount of states:

In a proclamation of Secretary of State William Henry Seward, dated December 18, 1865, it was declared to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the then thirty-six states.

Wiki

reply to post by drwizardphd


In 1865 half of the United States was under brutal military occupation by the other half of the United States.

Any legislation passed post 1862-1978 during the war and occupation is suspect as a result.

reply to post by drwizardphd

Shortly thereafter, The TONA Research Committee received images from a high school principal who had located an 1818 Digest of the Territorial Laws of Missouri in the Missouri Supreme Court Library, Jefferson City, MO ... The Organic act for Missouri Territory, of June 4,1812, separating Missouri Territory from Louisiana, became effective December 7, 1812. These images with those of 1816 Massachusetts and 1818 Pennsylvania indicate that the 13th Amendment was ratified prior to 1819

Source: www.amendment-13.org...

"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).

Source: www.w3f.com...

However if you continue to read the second source, you will see it was assumed Virginia didn't approve the Amendment and as such was not ratified. However later evidence shows Virginia did indeed agree to it. Hence it received the proper amount of votes and was ratified.

I do suppose the v2 received the proper amount of votes. I concede this. However, if it is indeed true that the original was ratified then as it was not repealed, the second version could not lawfully be ratified.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by mryanbrown]