Most Americans don’t know there was a different 13th Amendment. It was proposed just four years before the 13th Amendment, ending Involuntary Slavery in 1865. It would have secured slavery as a State Right (12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012%2Fllsl012.db&recNum=282  .This proposed 13th Amendment was called the Corwin Amendment.
On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the Resolution by a vote of 133-65. On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted the Corwin Amendment with a vote of 24-12.
Since proposed Constitutional Amendment require a 2/3 majority vote, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven Southern States had already decided to succeed from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment. Thus, showing a lot of the Northern support for this Pro-Slavery Amendment just before the start of the Civil War.
This Corwin Amendment is an Amendment to the United States Constitution proposed by Congress on March 2, 1861, as House Resolution No. 80. This was originally suggested by President James Buchanan (Mr. President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it.). It was then drafted by a committee chaired by Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio. Its purpose was to persuade states that permitted Slavery that the Federal Government would not interfere with Slavery in places where it already existed. So, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the State Legislatures.
On May 13, 1861, the Ohio General Assembly became the first to ratify the Amendment. In January 1862, Maryland General Assembly was next to ratifying the Amendment. Later that year, Illinois approved the Amendment while they were sitting in session as a State Constitutional Convention rather than as a Legislature. Thus, causing some to see this particular ratification as possibly invalid. Note Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois were states that we are taught in history that fought to free the slaves. Plus look at the dates. All three states ratified this evil Amendment after the civil war had started on April 15, 1861. Moreover not one southern state has ever ratified it.
So, if the South had left the Union just because Slavery, then why would the Southern Political Forces that is then not plan to stay within the Union to support proposed Corwin 13th Amendment?
In Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, he supported the Corwin Amendment: “Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Then, just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln even pinned a letter to each Governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.
Check out http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html  .Quoted from the site “The discovery of the newly inaugurated President Abraham Lincoln to the governor of Florida has generated renewed interest in Lincoln’s views toward slavery. The letter, found at the Le-high County Historical Society in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is a form letter from Lincoln to Governor Madison S. Perry transmitting “an authenticated copy” of a Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States On March 16, 1861, Lincoln sent the letter to all of the Governors of the States, supporting the Corwin Amendment including states that had already succeeded from the Union and formed their own Confederate Government.
Technically, the Corwin Amendment is still pending. It would need additional 35 or 36 ratifications, depending on Illinois ratification, in order to become part of the Constitution.
In 1963, a resolution to ratify the Corwin Amendment was introduced in Texas State Legislature. Remember this was proposed a month before Fort Sumter was fired upon. The war could have been avoided if slavery was in fact the only issue. In all reality, here in America no matter what race or religion you might practice, we all have one thing in common: As far as liberty is concerned we’re all in the same boat and its sinking. If We the People don’t learn to become One People in the very near future we may not even have the illusion of being a Constitutionally Free People much longer. Let’s all as one People fix the leak in the ship of Liberty!
In addition to, when did Abraham Lincoln first address freeing the Slaves? It was only when Lincoln was losing the war with the South that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862, in the mid of war. Over a year after the Civil War started in April 15, 1861. This is where he established a purpose for the war and proclaimed that Slaves in the Nations of the Confederate States were free.
Mr. Lincoln’s statements of his first Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1861, around 41 days before the start of the Civil War: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”.
Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, stated in part: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”.
From the 4th Lincoln and Douglas debate, August 21, 1858, Lincoln stated: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
So the 14th amendment didn’t make no one equal. Example After the said ratification of the 14th Amendment it took women another 50 years to gain a right to vote. It took Black folks 96 years till the civil rights act of 1964 to be said to be equal and end segregation. it took the black folks to stand up for themselves and protest and make the courts interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to mean equal rights. Now since the 14th Amendment all laws courts and government operate under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That means for the first 96 years the 14th amendment was said ratified. It’s jurisdiction enforced racist laws. And now to teach in school this 14th Amendment made us equal? What a LIE.The November 14, 1866 Florida House Journals 2d. Sess, 14th, Gen, Ass. makes clear BEFORE Reconstruction Blacks were equal with whites in every area. It’s a shame after Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment it took Black folks 96 years to once again achieve this level of equality.  http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/floridaHouse_Journal.pdfThe 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution that abolished slavery was proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress, (13 Statutes at Large, p. 567) and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. The President’s signature is affixed to the Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of the then thirty-six (36) states of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State December 18, 1865. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774.) Without the votes of these seven (7) Southern State Legislatures the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery would have failed.  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=013%2Fllsl013.db&recNum=804  .There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven (7) Southern States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their States Constitutions a year and half before Reconstruction.

The original citizen the US Constitution created is found at Article 4 Section 2 (state citizen). Exhibit (A )  http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/constitution.pdf

Next, in 1862, Congress redefined the meaning of the word PERSON to include the definition CORPORATION, AMONG OTHER THINGS. Exhibit (B)  http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/Person-act.pdf

Then, in 1868, the 14th Amendment created a different citizen making all “PERSONS”, corporations, citizens of the “UNITED STATES” and “SUBJECT TO” the “JURISDICTION” “THEREOF”.

 “SUBJECT TO” (Blacks Law dictionary, 5th edition, Page 1278) – “Liable, subordinate, inferior, obedient to, governed or affected by; provided; answerable for
“JURISDICTION – authority
UNITED STATES = Washington D.C. doing business as the United Stated incorporated Feb. 01, 1871.   http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/United_States.pdf
Note the Constitution created a government in 1787. This Organic Act of 1871 created a government for the District of Columbia and incorporated it as The United States Corporation. In This corporation was given all the powers not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States, which means consistent or double talk.  Washington D.C. was already our nations capital since the Organic Act of 1801. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140
Note that many misinformed folks seem to be under the impression that the
Organic act created a local or CITY government for Washington but that is not the case because as you can see 10 months prior to the organic act of Feb. 21, 1871  there already was a local or city government incorporated and in place http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=117 

ORGANIC ACT Blacks law dictionary 5th Ed. Page   ” An act of Congress conferring powers of government upon a territory”
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 591 (in part) . It became part of the Organic law July 28,1868. It created or at least recognized for the first time a citizen of the United States as distinct of that of the State(ARTICLE 4 SEC.2 US CONSTITUTION ORIGINAL STATE CITIZEN)

NOTE: If you’re a citizen of the United States, you’re a corporation, says the US Supreme Court. “A corporation is a person within the meaning of the equal protection due process provision of the US Constitution.” Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Ward Ala. 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676 at 1683, 84 L.Ed. 2d. 751. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=470&invol=869 
” The United States is a federal Corporation”, says US Code title 28 USC 3002 15 (a). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
“All crimes state or federal are commercial crimes”, says Code of Federal Regulation title 27, 72.11    http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/72.11

Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 306, Corporate Citizenship – Corporate status in the state of incorporation, through a foreign corporation is not a citizen for purposes of the privilege and Immunities Clause.
U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 2 “ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZEN is not a corporation” Bank of Augusta v. Earle 38 U.S. (13 Pet ) 510, 10 L. Ed. 274   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=38&invol=519  

Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 104, Artificial Persons – Persons created and devised by human laws for the purpose of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons.


The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. Congress knows this. Every member of
Congress received a copy November 26, 2008. Congressional research service report . Order
Code 98-611 GOV prepared for members and committees of Congress, Exhibit (D) http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/98-611.pdf

Page 5 of this report which is crs-2, top paragraph, makes clear that Executive Order 6 (Presidential proclamation #11) ordered the 14th Amendment ratified. Exhibit (E)  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=739

Executive order #7 (Presidential Proclamation #13) Ordered the 14th Amendment lawful and published. Exhibit (F) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741

Both E.O. 6 and 7 never had the signature of the President. Only the Secretary of State. So, these
two fake executive orders are booked and paged as Presidential proclamations. As the CRS report makes clear. Proclamation #12 admitting the states under a newly established legislative bodies replaced the Constitutionally elected one. The states were blackmailed into ratifying the said 14th Amendment or be denied representation in Congress and remain under marshal law. Exhibit (G) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741Keep in mind the seated president at that time Andrew Johnson was against the 14th
Amendment claiming it created a Unconstitutional de facto government as he pointed out in
his veto address, Exhibit (H)  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=064/llhj064.db&recNum=562&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28hj0641%29%29%3ADe facto government Blacks Law dictionary 5th Ed. Page 375. “one that displays itself by a force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful at least temporarily in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government and setting up it’s own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138,1145.

1) The joint resolution proposing said 14th Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article 1 section 3 and Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution
2) The joint resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article 1 section 7.
3) The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union. Article 5.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
Article 1 Section 3. “The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each state”.
Article 5 provides: “No State without it’s consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal suffrage in the Senate”.
The fact that 23 Senators from northern and southern states had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption the 14th Amendment.
THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE URGING CONGRESS TO DECLARE THE 14th AMENDMENT ILLEGAL. On June 13,1967, A WELL ANNOTATED LAW DRIVEN BRIEF ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT and how its an act of treason against our Constitution and how it over threw our Constitution, prepared by Judge Leander H. Perez, of Louisiana, was memorialized on the House floor. Memorization page number 15641- 15646 of this LAW DRIVEN Congressional Record, thus, showing how several Unconstitutional acts were done in-order to claim the said 2/3 votes needed for ratification, including 23 senators from northern and southern states were also unlawfully excluded from the US Senate in order to secure this 2/3 vote. All this also included replacing 10 lawful state governments for rejecting the 14th Amendment as Unconstitutional, for the loss of state rights, and how the federal courts will not hear an argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment  http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/Non_Ratification_14th_Amendment.pdf

The state of New Jersey House Journals claiming the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional and their state was denied Constitutional representation
due to there representative was ejected without cause in order to secure a said 2/3 vote for said
ratification of 14th Amendmenthttp://www.dirtyunclesam.com/House_Journal.pdf

NOTE: The US Supreme court in COLEMAN v- MILLER 307 US433 (1939) makes clear not only were state governments replaced with new ones for rejecting and not ratifying the 14th Amendment the supreme court never decided on the Constitutionally of the 14th Amendment saying it was political question and never addressed the merits of the 14th Amendment being Constitutional or not  http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/colemanmiller.pdf  . But Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267 STATE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH STRUCK DOWN THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS NOT A REAL AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/14thexplained.pdf    Also see 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484;
The Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner STATED THE LAWFUL SOLUTION is public awareness followed by a Constitutional Convention Per Article 5 to do a investigation on the 14th Amendment being Constitutional or not. .
QUESTION, Is it not Unconstitutional to replace state governments the voters elected with new one’s for not voting a certain way? Is it not Unconstitutional for 23 senators from northern and southern states to be unlawfully excluded from the US Senate in order to secure this 2/3 vote? Don’t it violate the SUPREMACY CLAUSE of The U.S. Constitution which holds the Constitution to be SUPREME LAW of the land, to create a different citizen, “subject to” a different jurisdiction and a different form of government that the Constitution originally created??

(Click the document to visit the original source)



  1. Hi.
    First of all, I would like to address the CORWIN Amendment part of this page.
    Someone is looking at it in a strange way.
    It is about LIMITING Federal Government Powers within States and not at all Pro-Slavery.
    All one needs to do is read the Proposed amendment to see that IT’S PRIMARY function is to LIMIT, not to allow. It also states NOTHING at all about SLAVERY.

    Next, the Number of States needed to Ratify it is NOT “36 or so”, it is ONLY according to the number of States that then existed. All others coming after it’s original proposal, not withstanding.

    • Sir,
      I am very sorry to inform you that your apparent veiw of the Corwin Amendment is absolutely incorrect. The Amendment specifically was an attempt to retain all so called soon to be Rebel or Southern States….the right to maintain the domestic institution of slavery which in the day, this is the way it was referred to when politicians were being somewhat discreet as many Northerners felt that while African slaves should as every man be free, they also did not in any way shape or form see them equal and while many since the inception of this Union from the start deplored bondage for all reasons Biblical and more, this Amendment was offered to the South to contain it to where it was….NORTH and SOUTH. Slavery was a dying institution …….that is a matter of fact. The cotton gin, and manufacturing was making strides that made kept slaves far too expensive and laborious than was worth once the tools made for manufacturing began making many plowshares that made a machine to the work of 20 men. This is an often un-discussed factoid. Surely there were rich plantation owners ….the elite and the exception as the majority of southern folks could not afford slaves and had no inclination to own slaves as they were in fact mostly Christian people who deplored the domestic institution itself. Read this – http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert I deplore slavery as well…….but as to the matter of history. Chuck your feelings and everything you know when you take to research because both liberal or Conservative, you will find things that do shock you. Like Representatives whom were kidnapped so that they would be forcefully made to be seated for the quorum for ratification voting of the 14th Amendment. That is as unlawful as placing a pistol to someones head and making them sign a contract. And it is as lawful. NOT……may Yeshua bless you and your journey. Tom Lacovara-Stewart

  2. Hi.
    First of all, I would like to address the CORWIN Amendment part of this page.
    Someone is looking at it in a strange way.
    It is about LIMITING Federal Government Powers within States and not at all Pro-Slavery.
    All one needs to do is read the Proposed amendment to see that IT’S PRIMARY function is to LIMIT, not to allow. It also states NOTHING at all about SLAVERY.

    Next, the Number of States needed to Ratify it is NOT “36 or so”, it is ONLY according to the number of States that then existed. All others coming after it’s original proposal, not withstanding.

    • it doesnt say SLAVERY but it does say


      Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, of America in Congress assembled, that the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:


      No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof,( including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. <——– read that)

      Speaker of the Hous of Representatives.

      Vice President of the United States, and
      President of the Senate.

      Approved March 2, 1861.


  3. Jose you are incorrect. Did you read and research all of the article? No. I say this because the article proves itself. First see the Amendmet speaks of “dosmestic institutions” “and persons held to labor or service of the state”. Lincoln supported this Amendment in his first Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1861 right after he said this “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so . Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” Lincoln said this March 4 1861 two days after the March 2 1861 13th Amendment passed house and Senate. If you dare think I’m incorrect then please point out what other Amendment that passed at that time that Mr. Lincoln was talking about?? I bet you can’t. The numbers is a senario.

  4. Having read your post I am both better informed on how the modern slave came to be and without doubt enlightened on the original 13th Amendment. This piece is well written and appears well researched.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *