Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] To-do list for this article

Can anyone verify this section on the "Titles of Nobility Amendment?" It doesn't seem like it belongs...:

The 13th amendment did not abolish slavery as we have been told. It simply redefined the premise under which slavery continues even today. If the goal were to abolish slavery there would not have been an "exemption". "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 'EXCEPT' as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..." The plantation was being transformed into the Prison Industrial Complex, under the auspices of liberation.

—The preceding unsigned comment (i.e., the question quoting the "prison slave complex" section and questioning whether it was appropriate) was added by Pshopboy (talk • contribs) 14:58, April 5, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The draft

I think that maybe this page should mention the interpretation of the amendment that reads that it basically says you can’t have drafts, since it says there will be no involuntary servitude, and if someone is forced to serve the army and did not volunteer to, then that sounds like it is involuntary servitude. -Aerothorn (talk • contribs) 22:48, March 14, 2004 (UTC).

Perhaps, however, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled before that the amendment, as drafted, was meant only to abolish slavery as it existed then, and that the draft doesn’t count based on the legislative intent. Congress has the power to raise an army and navy, and by extension, have a draft. -Ngchen (talk • contribs) 22:20, July 22, 2004 (UTC).

I don't buy it. Slavery existed then, and the draft (Lincoln's infamous draft) existed then. The plain language of the amendment prohibited all forms of involuntary servitude. The people who wrote such as this amendment were careful with their language: if they meant to exclude a military draft or any sort of governmental power, they would have explicitly done so.

Now, this raises the question of service in the militia in defense of the nation. That is an obligation of the citizen that extends far back to the shadowed beginnings of the Common Law, and probably beyond. It is embodied in the peculiar language of the 2nd Amendment. I see this not as involuntary servitude, but simple group self-preservation. Including periodic training (the 'well-regulated' part), which no state currently does. Indeed, only a few states even have a rudimentary militia command structure in place (though it's commendable that those few do). No states have anything approximating a 'well-regulated militia'.

Very loosely paraphrasing one of Jefferson's letters, "If we can't raise enough volunteers to save this nation, then it's not worth saving."

So, in the end, Amendment XIII stands, prohibiting involuntary servitude, and making no exception for the federal government. Four-corners Rule. Black-letter Law Rule. Weasel-words aside, there it stands.

You want a draft? Get a constitutional amendment. We don't do slave armies here. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.233.58.77 (talk • contribs) 08:03, September 30, 2006 (UTC).

Well you'd have to hope a more 'enlightened' supreme court agrees with you. Nil Einne 10:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
But of course, if it's in the interests of the State, then constitutional law doesn't apply. Lincoln did start up a draft (shortly followed by Davis since the Confederacy couldn't otherwise compete with the Lincoln administration's brand spankin' new highly centralized federal power), as well as instate many of the statist economic policies that blew open the door for the bureaucratization of the federal government in the 20th century. Lincoln also did to his civilian opponents in the North what the Bush administration could only dream of getting away with today; in short Lincoln was clearly no fan of the Constitution (and an inspiration for socialists everywhere). But as the 13th Amendment is clearly phrased to forbid all involuntary servitude that is not punishment for a crime, compelled military service seems to fit this quite clearly. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the draft out of the amendment to keep the government's time-honored tradition of violating individual rights in a way that no private citizen would be able to get away with.
As for the 2nd Amendment, a militia (especially a well-regulated one) is only effective in the preservation of a Free State if it's a nongovernmental citizens' militia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.104.206 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] List of ratifications

I think the list of ratifications would work much better as a table. If someone has the time to do that, it would be a great help. – Mateo SA | talk 06:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

How did Virginia ratify in Feb. '65, when it was still under CSA control? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.129.58 (talk • contribs) 02:34, October 12, 2006 (UTC).

Regarding the comments of 71.52.129.58, there is an interesting story here. Why, after fighting a war explicitly to keep slavery ( in their own words [1]) did Georgia and other slave states ratify this amendment? 70.17.92.51 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted quote

I deleted the following section from this article:

==Quote==
"I guess it was overdue, but I don't think it's a big deal."

--Jeff Smith (R), Mississippi State Representative, on Mississippi's 1995 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Harvard Crimson, March 17, 1995. [2]

The link cited above (as [1]) was the only source I could find for this quote. The link does not link to the Harvard Crimson, but to the web site for another magazine, Perspective ("Harvard-Radcliffe's Liberal Monthly"), which lists the quote almost exactly as it is here; i.e., Persepective says the quote appeared in the March 17, 1995, issue of the Crimson. However, I searched the Crimson's database (at http://www.thecrimson.com/) and could not find the article containing the quote. Furthermore, according to the Mississippi Legislature's web site, there is a Mississippi State Representative named Jeff Smith (full name Jeffery C. Smith; his web page is here) who has served since 1992, but he is a Democrat, not a Republican as indicated in the quote. I consequently doubt the authenticity of the quote; I don't think it should be included unless another authoritative source is found. — Mateo SA | talk 03:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mississipi

I don't want to appear too obtuse, but is it really the case that slavery was legal in Mississipi until 1995? Adambisset 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amendments only require two-thirds three-fourths of the states to ratify them in order to go into effect. Slavery was already banned by the 13th amendment in Mississippi, so ratifiying it was more of a political gesture than anything meaningful. --HunterX 04:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Expansion on the above response: The 13th Amend. was proposed by Congress on January 31, 1865. At that point it was only a proposal and had no legal effect. The states then started ratifying it. When the number of ratifications equaled 3/4 of the states (on December 6, 1865, when the amend. was ratified by Georgia), the amendment took effect and abolished slavery throughout the U.S., including in those states that hadn't ratified it yet. The ratifications after December 6, 1865 were technically unnecessary, and didn't affect the amendment's validity one way or the other. — Mateo SA | talk 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks folks Adambisset 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship

I edited the sentence crediting Abraham Lincoln with authoring the Thirteenth Amendment. While a strong supporter, he was not the author. Lincoln's secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, credit U.S. Senator from Illinois Lyman Trumbull (then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) as the author in a Century Magazine article from October, 1889, which may be viewed here. Trumbull himself credited the Committee as a whole, and supported the draft of the Amendment that was eventually adopted against two competing drafts, as may be seen here. — Edeans 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

While citing a reference for U.S. v. Ingalls the security measures here and at the server had some software conflict so there are several saves that inadvertantly deleted the bottom of ther article. It has been repaired. Malangthon 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions and Enforcment sections

Have added addtional information explaining both the provisions and the legal rationale for the various sections of the U.S.C. addressing the 13th Amendment. Malangthon 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that this article is to explain the Congress of the US, it is probably the case that how their legislation is justified and enforced will eventually need to be set off in a separate linked article. For now, this looks like it is small enough to be contained here. Malangthon 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


71.127.210.254 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) From various sources, I have read that the 1860 census showed there were between 14 and 18 slaves in New Jersey (basically those too old to be freed by the 1845 general emancipation). It isn't known how many were still alive in Dec, 1865, but any that were were also freed by the 13th amendment.


[edit] Deleted but some merit

This was deleted from the article--it should have been placed here: "This particular amendment implies the continuation of a system of slavery. The only difference is that it is characterized by governmental consent. If one reads closely, it says except as a punishment for a crime, meaning that slavery is abolished unlessit serves as condign restitution for the criminal's infraction. The sole means of restitution for a criminal is jail and/or prison, meaning that the prison system is integrally a slave system, and the United States harboring almost 2 million of these so-called slaves. Such an important implication should be noted and deserves greater salience."

It can be developed but in a different voice with references. Malangthon 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleted but some merit

Funny. That's how I've been interpreting this amendment since the day I first read it in junior high school. That was what... almost two decades ago? The way I understand this, Lincoln's amendment intimates that a prisoner's sentance can be bought from/sold to interested private citizens to/from the state/U.S. government. It'd certainly cut down on the prison overcrowding issue we have today, wouldn't it? Personally, I'm all for it. There are just some cases where putting a criminal in prison serves no purpose, and possibly does a disservice all the way around. As far as I'm concerned, losing your freedoms is a fair punishment for abusing freedoms. Locking some people away for the rest of their lives is a waste of space and human life.

[edit] Revert

This was deleted

"Prior to 1988, inflicting involuntary servitude through psychologically coercive means was included in the interpretation of the 13th Amendment. In 1988 the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion is not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. [4][5] Psychological coercion had been the primary means of forcing involuntary servitude in the case of Elizabeth Ingalls upon Dora Jones.[6] In U.S. v. Kozminski this was circumscribed to mean only physical coercion.[7] However, the 6th District Court of Appeal held that there are exceptions.[8] The court decision circumscribed involuntary servitude to be limited to those situations when the master subjects the servant to . . ."

The rewrite: In 1988 the Supreme Court held that compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion, as distinguished from the use or threat of use of force, is not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. [1][2] The Court limited involuntary servitude to those situations when the master subjects the servant to . . .

1. Was factually incorrect--it was not the Supreme Court by the 6th District Court 2. Negates crucial aspects of the 13th Amendment--this is a major change in interpretation, a negation, and not a additional perspective which the rewite implies.. 3. It provides a better basis in understanding

If the rewriter, Amcfreely, disagrees, let's discuss it here. Malangthon 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


I think you mean the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as there is no Sixth District Court of Appeals. In any case, why include a Sixth Circuit opinion, when the Supreme Court has spoken on this point? Esorlem 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I found the following item to be unusual

The Amendment's archival copy had a Presidential signature, something not found on other Constitutional amendments' copies. (see here) Usually, the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate sign an amendment's archival copy, and sometimes the clerks or secretaries of the Congressional houses as well, but the "Abraham Lincoln" on the 13th was pretty unusual. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Missing 13th Amendment

Apparently there was another 13th amendment before the present one, though there is debate as to whether is was ever fully ratified. Read about it here:

Tvh2k 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is already referred to under the See also section: read the article Titles of Nobility Amendment. (And, no, there is no serious debate: thethat "Missing 13th Amendment" was never fully ratified.) — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you are saying that it was fully ratified. Is that correct? Here's the text of the amendment Tvh2k is speaking of:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, 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."

—Slipgrid 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) was never ratified by the required number of states. It is not, and never has been, part of the U.S. Constitution. In the 19th Century, some people mistakenly thought the amendment had been fully ratified—and it was even included in some states' official compilations of statutes—but it is well settled now that it never was. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jury Duty is a violation of the 13th Amendment

13th Amendment states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Jury Duty violates this. First it is involuntary servitude. Second, they pay less than minimum wage and often less than the cost of transportation so it is also slavery.

Jury duty is generally interpreted as a civic responsibility, not involuntary servitude. The only people I have ever seen arguing that jury duty is involuntary servitude are libertarians. (Many of the same people argue that compulsory school attendance is also involuntary servitude.) Jhobson1 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable here????? Juanita Hodges 03:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and please find me a federal court decision that states that? Sounds like Original Research to me, considering the right to trial by jury is also constitutionally guaranteed. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff on the Internet. This one http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6546 claims "This article appeared in the Baltimore Examiner on July 24, 2006." --Juanita Hodges 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this case it noteworthy for the article. I don't want to add it in myself as the article looks written very tightly and I fear I may mess up the article somehow. Juanita Hodges 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been much talk, I figure I'd mention in the case Swatjester mentioned that the government forced a person to do roadwork as a tax, but it gave him the option to pay money to get out of it, and to my knowledge you can't pay any amount of money to get out of jury duty or hire someone to take your place (or am I wrong?). Also the court case mentioned military service and when drafted, they at least pay you a living wage whereas jury duty pays less than minimum wage and sometimes so little that transportation costs more than what they pay. I'm not going to add it in there, but if it convinces someone here then I have a point, else I don't. Juanita Hodges 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about the 13th is that it apparently goes against the 5th amendment. I'm no fan of slavery, but the final section of the 5th amendment states that the government can't interfere with private property without providing "just compensation." The Southern slave owners certainly weren't offered "just compensation." The most common argument would, of course, be that slavery itself was un-Constitutional, but it is also un-Constitutional (against Article 1, Sections 9 and 10) to put a law in places ex post facto and use it as a case against someone. At the time they were owning slaves, it was legal, therefore slave owners could have demanded their Constitutional right to just compensation be upheld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascheff (talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that may be because the Thirteenth Amendment is an amendment - that is, it supersedes whatever existed before it. See Thomas E. Baker, Towards a "More Perfect Union": Some Thoughts on Amending the Constitution, Widener Journal of Public Law (2000), Vol. 10, No. 1, explaining that there can be no such thing as an "unconstitutional" amendment, because the amendment constitutes the agreement of a constitutionally mandated number of states to change what is constitutional and unconstitutional. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't clear whether the Thirteenth Amendment superseded the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or was a gigantic and unique form of eminent domain. The dispute was resolved by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment (no compensation). --SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)