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. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles. |
== 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.
- Titles of Nobility Amendment — Alleged by some to be the "the missing thirteenth amendment"
—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).
Contents |
[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)
[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-thirdsthree-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] 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)
