|
4845 Los Serranos Court, N. W. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87120
Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Representative Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Senator Paul Simon (D-IL)
Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) Re: Putting the record straight -- the "Titles of Nobility" Amendment vs. The Representatives of the National Archives, Library of Congress and others.
Gentlemen,
Permit me to begin by thanking each of you for expressing your desire to help David M. Dodge,
Thomas S. Dunn and me with the above referenced subject.
As you know from our meeting(s), the "Titles of Nobility" Amendment (Article XIII of the
Constitution) was introduced in the latter part of 1809. After a few revisions, it was approved by
both Houses of Congress and sent to the seventeen "several States" for ratification. The requisite
number of States, at that time, would have been thirteen.
Article XIII reads:
You may also recall that this matter is very extensive in its scope. So much so that it has been
very difficult to reason with certain officials in Washington, whose opinions on this subject,
apparently, are morc important and more significant than the historical documents; these same
documents that they try to use to support their respective opinions. This historical record needs
to be studied carefully to establish what truly is, and to separate opinions from fact.
Even though the existence of Article XIII involves many issues, there is one that is of paramount
importance -- that should be addressed, and resolved, before we continue with the other issues.
Article V of the Constitution for the United States of America provided a means to make change,
as conditions necessitated. Article V reads, in part, "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... which... shall be valid, to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States... " The confusion comes over exactly what "when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States... " means.
As you can plainly see, there are two distinct requirements for the amendment portion of Article V.", First is the requirement that two-thirds of Both houses of Congress 'propose' the amendment to the states for ratification (three-fourths needed). Presumably, there is s degree of familiarity with the issue of the proposed amendment, and it has been deemed worthy of submission to be considered as an amendment to the Constitution. This action being successfully completed, those states who are a party to this action are then requested to ratify, or not, the amendment. This process is singular in nature, and requires the two steps to be completed. Example: When a territory became a State (or states), it would have been impossible for the new state(s) to complete both criteria of the ratification process. As a result, the new state(s) would not have participated in the entire Article V process. Clearly, as you will see from the historical evidence below, this complete participation was absolutely necessary for inclusion in consideration of ratification. Let us suppose that three-fourths of the "several States" are needed to ratify, but only three- fourths of those states who were members at the time of obtaining the two-thirds vote to submit to the states. If this were true, we could conclude that there would be no consideration of input from any states which were not members of the Union at that point in time in which the first action were completed. If this is true, then only those seventeen states which were members would be considered with regard to ratification. Suppose that Article XIII was left open for question today. How many states would be required to ratify the Amendment? If Monroe, Adams and those other government and political experts of the day were to revisit the ratification today, would they have requested of all fifty states a report on the status of the ratification process? Would they seek to determine if thirty-three states had ratified the amendment? The answer, as you will clearly see, is, NO. Those thirty-three states that have entered the Union since 1810 would be ignored with regard to the ratification process. The historical record demonstrates that only thirteen of the then 17 "several States," when it was proposed, would be required for ratification. Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, South Carolina and Virginia were the only States in the Union at the time of the discussing, and the only States that participated in the "deem it necessary" phase of Article V, at the Second Session of the Eleventh Congress. Keep this in mind, and we will revisit this aspect later on. It is the opinion of Milton Gustafson, and Christopher Runkel, of the National Archives and Jack Maskell of the Library of Congress, along with a few others, that it requires a total of three- fourths of the states, when ratified. This is clear by their continued assertion that by 1819, when Virginia shows Article XIII as ratified, there were twenty-one states and that sixteen would be required for ratification. They extend this concept to today by claiming that, if this Amendment were still left open to question, 38 states would be required for ratification. Their conclusions, however, stand without historic proof or merit. In the Government Publication, "Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1896 -- in Two Volumes, Vol. II.", is an essay titled "The Proposed Amendments To The Constitution Of The United States Of America During The First Century Of Its History", by Herman V. Ames, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, [entered into the record of the House of Representatives for the 54th Congress, 2d Session., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES., Doc. No. 353, Part 2]. One of the amendments discussed by Ames was Article XIII. On page 329, Ames reports on the status of the ratification (1818) by twelve states, rejection by four, and that there is no record from Virginia. Ames, like Monroe, Adams and all the other political people of the time, concludes that only the original participants in the debates (seventeen States) were accountable to determine if there was a proper ratification or not. No mention is made of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or any other state that joined the Union after 1810. Different government officials today use Ames for their various arguments against this amendment. These same officials refuse to acknowledge that Ames is in agreement with our position that this Amendment only needed thirteen of the original seventeen states to ratify (ie. three-fourths, when proposed).
Our research of the historical records paints a different picture. It is the very documents that the National Archives has provided us that bring light to this subject, and provide overwhelming evidence that three-fourths means when proposed. Let's look at the records we found at the National Archives. Exhibit 1 is a Resolve from the House of Representatives. dated December 31st, 1817, to President Monroe, making an inquiry into the number of States who had ratified Article XIII. As of this date, there were 20 States in the Union. Exhibit 2 is a Circular from the journal of John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, dated January 7, [1818] to the Governors of the three States they had not received information from. There is no other circular to be found that mentions the recently added States of Louisiana, Indiana and Mississippi, requesting information regarding any consideration of Article XIII. Exhibit 3 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 6, 1818, to the House of Representatives. Exhibit 4 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 4, 1818, to the House of Representatives, stating, in part, "I transmit to the house a detailed report from the secretary of state, which contains all the information that has been received upon that subject." Surely, President Monroe knew more than the current staff of the National Archives and the Library of Congress as to whether Louisiana, Indiana or Mississippi should be considered with regard to the ratification of this Amendment. Apparently, he felt that there was no need to contact these three States with regard to any action they may have taken. Additionally, any action they may have taken would not be worthy of consideration by himself or the House of Representatives. Exhibit 5 (a & b) is a two page report from the Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, dated February 3rd, [1818], to the House of Representatives. In this report, Adams stated that 12 States had ratified Article XIII, three States had rejected it, and he had no information from South Carolina and Virginia. Adams was only concerned with the seventeen "several States" who had participated in the initial process under Article V of the Constitution. He does not report with regard to Louisiana, Indiana or Mississippi, and, obviously, does not consider them a part of the process. Equally, he would surely be aware that they were, by the date of his report, members of the Union. From 1818 through 1820, our research of the legislative records, Governor's correspondence, and the Secretary of United States journals, has not been able to turn up any evidence of a complaint being lodged by the legislators/governors of the 17 States who had participated, nor by any of the three states representatives who were not included in the ratification process. No Representatives or Senators from any of the twenty States, then members, complained or made issue with the report of John Quincy Adams, nor the President's position in the matter. Nor have we been able to turn up any evidence of complaints in any of the States (all twenty) archives. The only objections seem to come from those on staff at the Archives and the Library, today. Exhibit 6 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 27, 1818, to the House of Representatives concerning the action that South Carolina took upon this Amendment. It appears that South Carolina failed to ratify. Exhibit 7 is a letter from .John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, dated March 21 [1818], to Charles Buck, states, in part, "Upon a return from the Executive of Virginia, for which application has been made by this Dept. it will be known with precision what is the fate of the proposed amendment, and no time will be lost in communicating it to you."
By this letter, it is clear that if Virginia had/has done nothing up to the present day, this amendment's fate would still rest, solely, with Virginia. This letter, makes it clear that only the seventeen States were considered participants in the ratification process. This left only Virginia to determine the fate of the Amendment. Clearly, the above is unequivocal proof that those Founders still alive during consideration of the Titles of Nobility Amendment recognized what had been intended by the wording in Article V of the Constitution, with regard to the method of submission and ratification of amendments to the Constitution. Unless proof to the contrary can be produced, or unless you are willing to circumvent one of the greatest documents in modern history, which you have sworn to uphold and defend, you must conclude that the ratification process excludes all States who became members of the Union AFTER the submission of this Amendment to the states for ratification. Those who have come to a conclusion contrary to what has been stated above, should be held to account, and provide proof to the contrary. This proof must be from the historic record, as are ours. If there is no documented proof to the contrary, it is imperative that the National Archives and the Library of Congress be informed of their error, and the record set straight. Acknowledgment of the proper process must be provided, in writing, and officially, so as to preclude subsequent diminishment of that sacred document, and all consideration of the ratification of any amendment to the Constitution held to the standards established by our forefathers. A few men desiring, for whatever purpose, to revise the Constitution by actions, rather than fact, should not be tolerated. To allow this practice in this subject, or any other, is to convert a government of law to a government of men. If, for any reason, the conclusion expressed above seems vague or ambiguous, David, Thomas and I, would be more than happy to present these matters to an open Congressional hearing.. Further, I would appreciate being provided a copy of any correspondence in this matter. Finally, I have attached a copy of a letter of introduction received from Senator Pete Domenici. If the other recipients of this letter would be so kind as to provide similar letters of introduction, it may facilitate our continued research. I await, anxiously, your response to this letter, Thank You, I am, &c., &c., [signature] Brian H. March
attachments: Exhibits 1 though 7
cc: "... It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds." . . . . . Samuel Adams
Exhibits: Exhibit 1 - Resolve from House of Representatives, Dec. 31, 1817 to President Monroe   Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, by James D. Richardson, Volume II, page 26. Report Book, Volume 3, page 15. Report Book, Volume 3, pages 14, 15. Report Book, Volume 3, pages 14, 15. [continued] Messages and Papers of the presidents, 1789-1897, by James D. Richardson, Volume II, page 29.  
  Declaration of Independence - 1776 Articles of Confederation - 1777 The Constitution of the United States, Its Sources and Its Application Our Enemy, The State by A. J. Nock The Classic Critique Distinguishing 'Government' from 'STATE' Undermining The Constitution by Thom. J. Norton A History of Lawless Government
Site Navigation To Research Articles
|
