BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//InvisionCommunity Events 4.7.23//EN METHOD:PUBLISH CALSCALE:GREGORIAN REFRESH-INTERVAL:PT15M X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT15M X-WR-CALNAME:RMCommunityCalendar NAME:RMCommunityCalendar BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/London X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20250330T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20251026T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:13th Amendment Certified JUNETEENTH DTSTAMP:20250205T140006Z SEQUENCE:0 UID:184-7-c3fe8195a3dde498d013e477e2142422@aalbc.com ORGANIZER;CN="richardmurray":troy@aalbc.com DESCRIPTION:\n 13th amendment timeline. First the amendment was presente d.\n\n\n\n Two days later\, spurred partly in reaction to Sumner’s more radical proposal\, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported to the full Sen ate an abolition amendment combining the drafts by Ashley\, Wilson\, and H enderson. \n\n\n\n TEXT FROM [ https://web.archive.org/web/2006110716451 4/http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/asp/ViewArticleText.asp?url=content%3A %2F%2Fharpweek%2Ftitle[HW]%2Fvolume[1864]%2Fissue[0227]%23%2FTEI.2[1]%2Fte xt[1]%2Fbody[1]%2Fdiv1[10]%2Fdiv2[1]&\;pageIDs=|HW-1864-02-27-0130|& \;title=&\;returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2F13thamendment.harpweek.com%2FHubPages %2FCommentaryPage.asp%3FCommentary%3D05ProposalPassage&\;returnTitle=Co ngressional+Proposals+and+Senate+Passage ] \n\n\n\n Referral\n\n\n\n [ ht tps://13thamendment.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05 ProposalPassage  \; archived { https://web.archive.org/web/20061107164011 /http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary= 05ProposalPassage }]\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Harper's Weekly 02/27/1864\n\n \n\ n CONGRESS.\n\n \n\n Senate.—February 10. Mr. Trumbull\, from the Judi- \n\n ciary Committee\, reported adversely to the joint resolu-\n\n tion fo r amending the Constitution just proposed by Mr.\n\n Sumner\, which reads\ , “Every where within the limits of\n\n the United States and each State and Territory thereof all\n\n persons are equal before the law\, so that no person can\n\n hold another as a slave.” Some time before Mr. Hender- \n\n son\, of Missouri\, had offered a joint resolution to a similar\n\n p urport. In lieu of this the Committee presented the fol-\n\n lowing joint resolution for amending the Constitution:\n\n “Article 13\, Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary\n\n servitude\, except as a punishment for crime\, whereof the\n\n party shall have been duly convicted\, shall exis t within\n\n the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. \n\n Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this arti-\n\n cle by appropriate legislation.” This article\, if two-thirds\n\n of both Hous es of Congress concur\, is to be proposed to the\n\n Legislatures of the s everal States\, and when ratified by\n\n three-fourths of these\, to be va lid as a part of the Constitu-\n\n tion.—Mr. Clark offered a resolution ratifying the Presi-\n\n dent's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1\, 1 863\, and\n\n giving it the force of a statute: referred.—Mr. Brown of-\ n\n fered amendments to the Enlistment bill\, confirming the\n\n Emancipat ion Proclamation\, abolishing slavery\, and sub-\n\n jecting colored perso ns to enrollment under the same ap-\n\n portionment as other citizens.—T he Military Committee\n\n reported adversely to Mr. Grimes's bill reducing the sal-\n\n aries of military officers not in the field or without com-\ n\n mand.—Mr. Sumner brought up the case of a colored sur-\n\n geon of t he army who had been ejected from a railroad car\n\n in the District\, and offered a resolution directing the Com-\n\n mittee on the District to inq uire into the expediency of a\n\n law securing to colored persons equal pr ivileges with whites\n\n in the cars within the District. He said that thi s officer\,\n\n who held a rank equal to that of Major\, had been ejected\ n\n from a street car because he was black. We had better\n\n break up all these railroads if we could not have them\n\n without such outrages\, whi ch did more to injure our cause\n\n abroad and at home than the loss of a battle. Mr. Hen-\n\n dricks thought the outrage was on the other side\; th ere\n\n were cars for colored people\, and this person declined to\n\n rid e with people of his own color\, and wished to force him-\n\n self upon wh ite people\; referring to remarks of Senators\n\n that it was no disgrace to ride with colored men\, and\n\n that the outrage was as great as though a Senator of the\n\n United States had been ejected\, he said that there seemed\n\n to be a determination to force social as well as political\n\n equality with the blacks upon the white race. The peo-\n\n ple of his Stat e would never adopt that sentiment. Mr.\n\n Wilson rejoined that he had no wish to force negro equal-\n\n ity upon the Senator from Indiana\; he wis hed only to let\n\n every man assume the station which God intended him to \n\n attain: resolution passed\, 30 to 10.—The bill prohibiting\n\n Memb ers of Congress and Heads of Departments from re-\n\n ceiving any compensa tion for acting as counsel\, etc.\, in\n\n any case in which the United St ates are concerned\, under\n\n penalty of fine\, imprisonment\, and disqua lification for of-\n\n fice\, came up and was debated: the clause relating to\n\n Members of Congress was stricken out\, 26 to 14: laid over.\n\n —The bill equalizing the pay of all soldiers was brought\n\n up\; debate arising upon the section giving colored soldiers\n\n equal pay with white s prior to the passage of the bill\, its\n\n consideration was postponed .—February 11. Some busi-\n\n ness of minor importance was transacted .—The Post-office\n\n Committee reported a bill removing disqualificatio ns on\n\n account of color in carrying the mail\, and also declaring\n\n t hat no witness shall\, in the United States Courts\, be dis-\n\n qualified on account of color.—The Lieutenant-General bill\n\n from the House was brought up and discussed\, the point\n\n being the amendment against maki ng that officer Com-\n\n mander-in-chief\, and striking out the name of Ge neral\n\n Grant. Senators opposed to this amendment said that to\n\n besto w the title without the command would be but an\n\n empty honor conferred upon one who now had the homage\n\n of the people: postponed.—February  12. The Senate\n\n was occupied with various business of no very general i m-\n\n portance\, except that the House bill making appropria-\n\n tion to meet deficiencies is amended by authorizing the\n\n appointment for a lim ited period of one thousand addition-\n\n al clerks\, who may be females\, at a salary not exceeding\n\n $600 a year.—February 13. The Secretary of War sent\n\n in a communication relative to military officers' commu-\n \n tations for quarters and fuel\; there were 387 officers draw-\n\n ing s uch commutations\, of whom 27 were generals\, 52 col-\n\n onels and lieute nant-colonels\, the remainder being of low-\n\n er ranks\, 79 being paymas ters.—A memorial from the Mil-\n\n waukee Chamber of Commerce was presen ted and referred\,\n\n asking for a wagon-road through Central Minnesota t o\n\n Idaho\; it stated that within a few months $25\,000\,000\n\n had bee n mined\, which was now waiting egress through\n\n such a road with proper military protection.—The bill for\n\n regulating the pay of colored sol diers was brought up and\n\n discussed\, the principal objection to it bei ng its retrospect-\n\n ive feature\; upon motion of Mr. Wilson it was amen ded\n\n so as to give them the same pay as others from January\n\n 1\, 186 4\, instead of for the whole time they have been in\n\n service\; Mr. Cowa n then moved\, as a substitute for the\n\n bill\, that from the date of th e passage of this Act all sol-\n\n diers of the United States of the same arm of the service\n\n should receive like compensation\; he said that the negro\n\n had a legal status under the Constitution which protected\n\n h im\, and that\, as he received the protection of the laws\,\n\n he must be regarded as a citizen under the Constitution.\n\n Mr. Saulsbury said that if this was the basis of Mr. Cow-\n\n an's substitute he should oppose it \; the old-fashioned term\n\n was “negro\,” now these people were “c olored citizens.”\n\n Pending action on Mr. Cowan's substitute the Senat e ad-\n\n journed to Monday\, February 15.—February 15. Mr.\n\n Foster introduced a bill defining the position and duties\n\n of chaplains in the army\; it gives them the rank of major\n\n of infantry\, allows them to h old pastoral charges\, requires\n\n them to preach twice a week\, hold rel igious meetings twice\n\n a week\, and keep the libraries for the use of t he soldiers.—\n\n The Enrollment bill\, as amended by the House\, was ta ken\n\n up and considered\; the Senate refused to recede from its\n\n prov isions.—The Deficiency bill from the House was pass-\n\n ed\, with an am endment increasing the salaries of the As-\n\n sistant Secretaries of the Departments and Post-office to\n\n $3500 after the present fiscal year.— February 16. Bills\n\n granting lands for certain military roads in Orego n were\n\n passed.—Bill extending the statute of limitations in cases\n\ n where the execution of the laws has been interrupted in\n\n consequence of the rebellion was introduced.—Mr. Doolit-\n\n tle introduced a bill r egulating trade with Indian tribes\;\n\n it prohibits\, under penalty of f ine\, imprisonment\, and for-\n\n feiture\, the sale of spirits to Indians .—Mr. Lane\, of Kan-\n\n sas\, spoke at length in favor of the bill sett ing apart a por-\n\n tion of Texas for the use of persons of African desce nt.—\n\n Mr. Cowan's amendment to the Enlistment bill came up\,\n\n givi ng equal pay\, etc.\, to all soldiers. Mr. Davis pro-\n\n posed an amendme nt to the effect that colored troops\n\n should be disbanded\, and colored men be employed in the\n\n army only as laborers and teamsters\; that for slaves so\n\n employed loyal masters should be compensated\; and if he\n\ n died in service the master should receive the full value\n\n for him. Mr . Davis spoke at length in support of his\n\n amendment.—A message was r eceived from the House\n\n announcing its adherence to its amendments of t he En-\n\n rollment bill\, and asking a Committee of Conference.\n\n The S enate resolved to adhere to its amendments\, and\n\n authorized the Chair to appoint a Committee of Confer-\n\n ence.\n\n \n\n House.—February 10 . Mr. Eliot\, from the Select Com-\n\n mittee\, reported a bill to establi sh a Bureau of Freedman's\n\n Affairs\, to determine all questions relatin g to persons of\n\n African descent\, and make regulations for their emplo y-\n\n ment and proper treatment on abandoned plantations.\n\n Mr. Clay\, of Kentucky\, wished to know whether his State\n\n was to be included in t he operations of the bill\, and\n\n whether plantations there were to be c onsidered as aban-\n\n doned: he himself owned a plantation which had been aban-\n\n doned because Government did not protect it. Mr. Eliot\n\n repl ied that the bill did not propose to establish colonies\n\n in Kentucky\; that in the case of plantations there\, wheth-\n\n er they were to be cons idered as abandoned would depend\n\n upon whether the owners were loyal or disloyal\; that in\n\n the case of Mr. Clay\, a well-known loyal man\, hi s planta-\n\n tion certainly would not be considered abandoned.—The\n\n Senate amendments to the Internal Revenue bill were re-\n\n ferred to the Committee on Ways and Means.—The En-\n\n rollment bill was taken up\, an d sundry amendments were\n\n proposed and rejected. Mr. Stevens offered an amend-\n\n ment enrolling all persons of African descent of military\n\n age\; and when a slave is drafted $300 shall be paid to his\n\n owner\, an d the slave be freed. Debate ensued\, mainly\n\n between members from the Border States: the main points\n\n being\, on the one side\, that slaves w ere property\, and\n\n could not be taken for public purposes without comp ensa-\n\n tion\; and\, upon the other\, that they were persons\, and so\n\ n owed military service: postponed.—February 11. After\n\n some routine business a Select Committee was voted\, to in-\n\n quire into the expedie ncy of increasing the facilities for the\n\n transportation of troops betw een New York and Washing-\n\n ton.—The Enrollment bill then came up. Mr. Stevens\, at\n\n the request of Mr. Davis\, withdrew the $300 feature fro m\n\n his amendment offered yesterday\, and Mr. Davis offered\n\n another amendment\, appointing a commission to pay to\n\n loyal masters a sum not exceeding $300 for slaves volun-\n\n teering in the army. Mr. Webster offe red an amendment\n\n providing that the bounty of $100 now paid to drafted men\n\n shall be paid to any person to whom the person drafted\n\n may ow e service or labor at the time of his muster into\n\n service\, upon his f reeing the person. These amendments\n\n were agreed to\, after a long and somewhat desultory de-\n\n bate. In the course of this Mr. Davis said that he moved\n\n his amendment\, not because he believed that compensa-\n\n t ion was due to the master\, but on account of the measures\n\n which Gover nment had already taken. He believed that\n\n Government ought to take sla ves for military purposes\,\n\n because they owed military service. Mr. An derson\, of\n\n Kentucky\, thought the amendment did not go far enough.\n\ n In his own district a large majority of the young men had\n\n entered th e rebel service\, and at the next draft the district\n\n would owe 7000 me n\; unless the slaves of disloyal men\n\n were taken\, those who had induc ed enlistments in the reb-\n\n el service would enjoy their property in pe ace\, and the\n\n loyal white population must make up the deficiency\; he\ n\n would put the slaves of disloyal men in the army\, but\n\n would not a ppropriate the slaves of loyal men. Mr. Web-\n\n ster\, of Maryland\, said that slaves were both persons and\n\n property. We needed colored men to aid in putting down\n\n the rebellion\; any black man\, having been a sold ier\, must\n\n be free\; he would give freedom to the slave\, and com-\n\n pensation to the master. Mr. Harris\, of Maryland\, denied\n\n the right of Government to enlist or enroll a slave\; if\n\n taken\, it could only b e as property\, and compensation must\n\n be made\; he was opposed to empl oying negro troops\; it\n\n would be a degradation to intrust our flag to negro hands.\n\n Mr. Kasson rejoined that the employment of negro soldiers \n\n was no new thing\; the pension-rolls showed the names of\n\n black me n by the side of whites\; the statutes of the State\n\n of Virginia provid ed for the emancipation of slaves who\n\n fought in the War of the Revolut ion. Mr. Kelley said\n\n that we did not give compensation to the Northern father\n\n for his son\, the wife for her husband\, the children for the\ n\n father taken from them by the conscription\; the relation\n\n between slaveholder and slave was not more sacred than\n\n these. Slaves were pers ons\, and as such owed military\n\n service to the country\; they were nev er referred to as\n\n property in the Constitution\; he was\, however\, re ady to\n\n appropriate money to pay for slaves of loyal masters\, who\n\n should consent to their volunteering. Other members\n\n spoke\, on both si des\, in the same general strain. Toward\n\n the close of the debate Mr. F ernando Wood said that while\n\n we were here proposing measures oppressiv e and destruc-\n\n tive\, and clearly in violation of the Constitution\, t he Con-\n\n federates were proposing to discuss measures of peace\, re-\n\ n union\, and reconciliation. Quoting from the Richmond\n\n Examiner\, he said that resolutions were before the Con-\n\n federate Congress proposing that the Confederate States\n\n ask the United States to appoint delegate s\, to consider (1.)\n\n Whether they can not agree to the recognition of the Con-\n\n federacy\; (2.) Whether\, in this event\, they can not agree\ n\n upon a new Government\; (3.) If this can not be done\,\n\n whether the y can not agree upon treaties offensive\, defens-\n\n ive\, and commercial \; if these resolutions passed\, the\n\n President of the Confederacy was to be requested to com-\n\n municate them to the Government at Washington\ , and\,\n\n if the proposition was accepted\, to issue a proclamation for\ n\n the election of delegates to meet those appointed by the\n\n United St ates. Mr. Cox said that the proposition before\n\n the Congress at Richmon d looked to peace on the basis of\n\n the old Union. He proposed that comm issioners should\n\n be sent to Richmond\; if Mr. Wood was sent\, and if h e did\n\n not come back within sixty days with a negotiation of\n\n peace\ , based on the old Union\, with equality and sover-\n\n eignty of the Stat es\, he would pledge that gentleman and\n\n his friends as earnest support ers of the prosecution of the\n\n war. After various other propositions ha d been disposed\n\n of\, Mr. Schenck offered a substitute for the bill\, e mbracing\n\n the whole as it had been finally agreed upon.—Febru-\n\n a ry 12. The Enrollment bill came up\, and debate having\n\n been shut off by calling the previous question\, and sundry\n\n propositions for adjourn ment and delay having been re-\n\n jected\, it was pressed to a vote. The main amendment\,\n\n providing for the enrollment of all persons of Africa n de-\n\n scent of military age\, paying the $100 bounty to the loy-\n\n a l person to whom any drafted person may owe service or\n\n labor\, upon hi s freeing the drafted person\, and appointing\n\n a commission to award a compensation not exceeding $300\n\n to any loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe\n\n service\, was agreed to by 84 to 67. Mr. Schenck's s ubsti-\n\n tute\, embracing the entire bill as finally amended\, was\n\n t hen taken up and voted upon: it passed by 93 to 60.\n\n The bill which thu s passed the House embraces a great\n\n number of provisions\, of which th e following are the most\n\n essential: (§ 1.) The President may call out such number\n\n of men as the public exigencies may require: (§ 2.) The\ n\n quota of each district to be as nearly as possible in propor-\n\n tion to the number of persons in it subject to draft\, taking\n\n into account the number already furnished to the naval\n\n and military service\; (§ 3.) If the quota of any State is not\n\n duly filled\, drafts for any defi cient district shall be order-\n\n ed until the deficiency shall be suppli ed\; (§ 4.) Any en-\n\n rolled person may furnish a substitute\; and if t his substi-\n\n tute is not liable to draft or in the service\, the princi pal\n\n will be exempt during the time for which the substitute\n\n would be exempt\, but no one in military or naval service\n\n shall be accepted as a substitute\; (§ 5.) All persons liable\n\n to draft shall be enrolle d\; this comprises in effect all able-\n\n bodied males below the age of 4 5\, including aliens who\n\n have declared their intentions of becoming ci tizens\, and\n\n all who\, without having been in service two years during \n\n the present war\, shall have been discharged\; (§ 6.) Any\n\n person drafted may furnish a substitute at any time before\n\n the time fixed fo r his appearance at rendezvous\; if the\n\n substitute is not liable to dr aft\, the principal is exempt\n\n during the time of such non-liability\, not exceeding the\n\n time for which the draft was made\; if the substitut e is li-\n\n able to draft\, the principal is liable to future drafts\; an y\n\n person paying money for commutation is exempted only\n\n from the sp ecial quota\; and in no case shall such exemp-\n\n tion extend beyond one year\, at the end of which his name\n\n must be placed in enrollment\; (§ 7.) Members of religious\n\n denominations whose rules prohibit the beari ng of arms\n\n shall\, when drafted\, be considered non-combatants\, and\n \n be assigned to duty in hospitals\, or to the care of freed-\n\n men\, o r shall pay $300\, the money to be applied to the\n\n benefit of sick or w ounded soldiers\; but no person shall be\n\n entitled to the benefit of th is provision unless he shows\n\n that his conduct has been uniformly consi stent with his\n\n professed principles\; (§ 8.) No person of foreign bir th who\n\n has voted or held office is exempt from draft on the ground\n\n of alienage\; (§ 9.) Mariners or able seamen who may be\n\n drafted may\ , upon enlisting in the navy\, be exempt from\n\n draft\, under conditions which are prescribed\; but the\n\n number of these transfer enlistments s hall not exceed ten\n\n thousand\; (§ 10\, 11\, 12.) Make provisions for carrying out\n\n the preceding section\, the principal of which is that su ch\n\n transfer drafts shall be credited to the quota of the district\,\n\ n as though the person had been actually placed in the army\;\n\n and that no pilot\, engineer\, master-at-arms\, master\, en-\n\n sign\, or master' s mate\, having an appointment and duly\n\n acting as such in the naval se rvice\, shall be liable to draft\n\n while holding such appointment\; (§ 13.) Declares the only\n\n exemptions to be those who are physically\, men tally\, or\n\n morally unfit for service\; those who at the time of draft\ n\n shall actually be in military or naval service\; and those\n\n who\, h aving been for two years in service\, shall have been\n\n honorably discha rged\; (§ 14.) Repeals the clause in the\n\n existing Enrollment bill mak ing two classes\, the first con-\n\n sisting of unmarried persons and thos e married below the\n\n age of 35\, the second class embracing all others\ ; all per-\n\n sons liable to draft are thus consolidated into one class\, \n\n and are equally liable to military duty\; (§ 15-25.) Provide\n\n for the execution of the law\, and impose heavy penalties\n\n for all fraudul ent attempts at their violation or evasion on\n\n the part of persons liab le to enrollment\, or of any officers\n\n charged with carrying them into effect\; (§ 26) Enacts that\n\n all able-bodied male persons of African d escent\, between\n\n the ages of 20 and 45\, resident in the United States \, wheth-\n\n er citizens or not\, shall be enrolled\; that when the slave \n\n of a loyal master is drafted and mustered into service\, the\n\n mast er shall have a certificate thereof\, and the bounty of\n\n $100 shall be paid to any person to whom the recruit\, at\n\n the time of his being must ered into service\, owes service\n\n or labor\, on his freeing the recruit \; that the Secretary of\n\n War shall appoint a commission in each Slave State rep-\n\n resented in Congress\, who shall award to any loyal person\ n\n to whom the colored volunteer owes service a sum not ex-\n\n ceeding $ 300\, payable out of commutation money\, upon\n\n the master freeing the s lave\; and that in all cases where\n\n slaves have been enlisted the provi sion as to bounty and\n\n compensation shall be the same as in the case of those to\n\n be enlisted\; (§ 27.) Repeals all sections of the existing En-\n\n rollment act which are inconsistent with this.—The House\n\n the n adjourned to Monday\, February 15.—February\n\n 15. Several bills were introduced and reported from Com-\n\n mittees. The principal of these are to the following pur-\n\n port: Extending the time for withdrawing goods from pub-\n\n lic stores and warehouses\; Granting lands to the Pacific\n\ n Railroad and Telegraph Company\; For a uniform system\n\n of bankruptcy\ ; Establishing a branch mint in Idaho Ter-\n\n ritory\; For constructing a ship canal around Niagara\n\n Falls.—Mr. Windom offered a joint resolut ion proposing\n\n to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit slavery in t he\n\n United States and Territories: referred.—The Judiciary\n\n Commit tee were directed to inquire into the expediency\n\n of establishing an Ex ecutive Department\, to be called that\n\n of the Revenue\, to have charge of the Customs\, Internal\n\n Revenue\, and Currency.—Mr. Arnold offere d a resolution\n\n declaring that “The Constitution of the United States \n\n should be so amended as to abolish slavery in the United\n\n States w herever it now exists\, and to prohibit its extension\n\n in every part th ereof forever.” A motion to lay on the\n\n table was rejected\, 79 to 58 \, and the resolution passed\, 78\n\n to 62.—Mr. Stevens\, from the Comm ittee on Ways and\n\n Means\, reported back the Senate's amendments to the In-\n\n ternal Revenue bill. The bill of the Senate\, he said\, was\n\n p referable to what had been agreed to in the House as to\n\n the tax on spi rits\, and the date of its going into effect.\n\n The Committee were of op inion that all taxes should be\n\n prospective\; manufacturers had receive d a virtual pledge\n\n to this effect. As a revenue measure also the Senat e bill\n\n was preferable. The amount of spirits on hand which the\n\n Hou se proposed to tax did not amount to more than\n\n 10\,000\,000 gallons\, upon which the tax would be $4\,000\,000\;\n\n but practically not more th an half of this would be taxed.\n\n The Senate bill would after the 1st of January yield\n\n $14\,000\,000 or $15\,000\,000. Mr. Fernando Wood said that\n\n the tax on spirits on hand would yield $10\,000\,000. He\n\n hims elf knew three men who had on hand nearly 5\,000\,000\n\n gallons.—Mr. D avis\, from Select Committee on Insurrec-\n\n tionary States\, reported a bill giving to certain States\n\n whose Governments have been usurped or o verthrown a\n\n republican form of government.—February 16. After\n\n r outine business the question of reception and reference of\n\n the credent ials of Mr. Johnson\, who appeared as Represent-\n\n ative from Arkansas\, was taken up. A discussion ensued\,\n\n which elicited the fact that ther e was a wide difference\n\n in the views of Republican members upon the qu estion\n\n whether there was really any State of Arkansas now ex-\n\n isti ng and entitled to be represented in Congress. Finally\n\n the whole subje ct was referred to the Committee on Elec-\n\n tions.—The Revenue bill wa s brought up with the amend-\n\n ments of the Senate. That imposing a duty of 70 cents\n\n upon all distilled or removed from July 1 to January 1\,\ n\n and 80 cents thereafter was disagreed with\, 105 to 41\;\n\n that stri king out tax on all spirits now on hand was agreed\n\n with\, 77 to 73\; a nd that striking out the additional tax\n\n of 20 cents on adulterated spi rits\, sold as rum\, brandy\, etc.\,\n\n was agreed to.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n RATIFICATION TIMELINE\n\n\n\n President Lincoln in his last spee ch\, on April 11\, 1865\, called the question about whether the Southern s tates were in or out of the Union a \"pernicious abstraction\". He declare d they were not \"in their proper practical relation with the Union\"\; wh ence everyone's object should be to restore that relation. [ https://arch ive.org/details/oxfordhistoryof00mori/page/710/mode/2up ] Lincoln was assa ssinated three days later.\n\n\n\n With Congress out of session\, the new president\, Andrew Johnson\, began a period known as \"Presidential Reco nstruction\"\, in which he personally oversaw the creation of new state go vernments throughout the South. He oversaw the convening of state politica l conventions populated by delegates whom he deemed to be loyal. Three lea ding issues came before the conventions: secession itself\, the abolition of slavery\, and the Confederate war debt. Alabama\, Florida\, Georgia\, M ississippi\, North Carolina\, and South Carolina held conventions in 1865\ , while Texas' convention did not organize until March 1866. [Harrison\, \ "Lawfulness of the Reconstruction Amendments\" (2001)\, pp. 394–397.] [  Eric L. McKitrick (1960). Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction. U. Chicago Press. p. 178. ISBN 9780195057072. \; https://books.google.com/books? id=MqL8lmT74HEC&\;pg=PA178#v=onepage&\;q&\;f=false ] [ Clara Mil dred Thompson (1915). Reconstruction in Georgia: economic\, social\, poli tical\, 1865–1872. Columbia University Press. p. 156. \; https://archi ve.org/details/bub_gb_i5shAQAAIAAJ/page/155/mode/2up ] Johnson hoped to pr event deliberation over whether to re-admit the Southern states by accompl ishing full ratification before Congress reconvened in December. He believ ed he could silence those who wished to deny the Southern states their pla ce in the Union by pointing to how essential their assent had been to the successful ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.[ Vorenberg (2001)\,  Final Freedom\, pp. 227–228]\n\n\n\n Direct negotiations between state g overnments and the Johnson administration ensued. As the summer wore on\, administration officials began giving assurances of the measure's limited scope with their demands for ratification. Johnson himself suggested direc tly to the governors of Mississippi and North Carolina that they could pro actively control the allocation of rights to freedmen. Though Johnson obvi ously expected the freed people to enjoy at least some civil rights\, incl uding\, as he specified\, the right to testify in court\, he wanted state lawmakers to know that the power to confer such rights would remain with t he states.[ Vorenberg (2001)\, Final Freedom\, p. 229.] When South Carol ina provisional governor Benjamin Franklin Perry objected to the scope o f the amendment's enforcement clause\, Secretary of State Seward responded by telegraph that in fact the second clause \"is really restraining in it s effect\, instead of enlarging the powers of Congress\".[ Vorenberg (2001 )\, Final Freedom\, p. 229.] Politicians throughout the South were conce rned that Congress might cite the amendment's enforcement powers as a way to authorize black suffrage.[Du Bois (1935)\, Black Reconstruction\, p. 2 08. ]\n\n\n\n When South Carolina ratified the Amendment in November 1865\ , it issued its own interpretive declaration that \"any attempt by Congres s toward legislating upon the political status of former slaves\, or their civil relations\, would be contrary to the Constitution of the United Sta tes.\"[ McAward\, Jennifer Mason (November 2012). \"McCulloch and the T hirteenth Amendment\". { https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030315/http: //columbialawreview.org/mcculloch-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/ } Columbi a Law Review. 112 (7). Columbia Law School: 1769–1809. JSTOR 4170 8164. { https://www.jstor.org/stable/41708164 } Archived from the origi nal on November 17\, 2015. Pdf. { https://web.archive.org/web/201509232 05538/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-181 0.pdf } ]: 1786–1787 [ Thorpe (1901)\, Constitutional History\, p . 210. ] Alabama and Louisiana also declared that their ratification did not imply federal power to legislate on the status of former slaves.[ McA ward\, Jennifer Mason (November 2012). \"McCulloch and the Thirteenth Am endment\". { https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030315/http://columbiala wreview.org/mcculloch-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/ } Columbia Law Review . 112 (7). Columbia Law School: 1769–1809. JSTOR 41708164. { http s://www.jstor.org/stable/41708164 } Archived from the original on Novem ber 17\, 2015. Pdf. { https://web.archive.org/web/20150923205538/http:// www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-1810.pdf } ]:  1787 [ Tsesis (2004)\, The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom\, p. 48. ] During the first week of December\, North Carolina and Georgia gave the amendment the final votes needed for it to become part of the Con stitution.\n\n\n\n The first 27 states to ratify the Amendment were:[ U.S . Government Printing Office\, 112th Congress\, 2nd Session\, Senate Docum ent No. 112–9 (2013). \"The Constitution of the United States Of Americ a Analysis And Interpretation Centennial Edition Interim Edition: Analysis Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 26\, 2 013s\" (PDF). p. 30. { https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-20 13/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf } Archived (PDF) { https://web.archive.org/web /20140225114303/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN- 2013.pdf } from the original on February 25\, 2014. Retrieved February 17 \, 2014. ]\n\n\n\n Illinois: February 1\, 1865\n\n\n\n Rhode Island: Febr uary 2\, 1865\n\n\n\n Michigan: February 3\, 1865\n\n\n\n Maryland: Februa ry 3\, 1865\n\n\n\n New York: February 3\, 1865\n\n\n\n Pennsylvania: Febr uary 3\, 1865\n\n\n\n West Virginia: February 3\, 1865\n\n\n\n Missouri: F ebruary 6\, 1865\n\n\n\n Maine: February 7\, 1865\n\n\n\n Kansas: February 7\, 1865\n\n\n\n Massachusetts: February 7\, 1865\n\n\n\n Virginia: Febru ary 9\, 1865\n\n\n\n Ohio: February 10\, 1865\n\n\n\n Indiana: February 13 \, 1865\n\n\n\n Nevada: February 16\, 1865\n\n\n\n Louisiana: February 17\ , 1865\n\n\n\n Minnesota: February 23\, 1865\n\n\n\n Wisconsin: February 2 4\, 1865\n\n\n\n Vermont: March 9\, 1865\n\n\n\n Tennessee: April 7\, 1865 \n\n\n\n Arkansas: April 14\, 1865\n\n\n\n Connecticut: May 4\, 1865\n\n\n \n New Hampshire: July 1\, 1865\n\n\n\n South Carolina: November 13\, 1865 \n\n\n\n Alabama: December 2\, 1865\n\n\n\n North Carolina: December 4\, 1 865\n\n\n\n Georgia: December 6\, 1865\n\n\n\n Having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (27 of the 36 states\, includ ing those that had been in rebellion)\, Secretary of State Seward\, on Dec ember 18\, 1865\, certified that the Thirteenth Amendment had become valid \, to all intents and purposes\, as a part of the Constitution.[ Seward c ertificate Archived March 18\, 2021\, at the Wayback Machine proclaimi ng the Thirteenth Amendment to have been adopted as part of the Constituti on as of December 6\, 1865. ] Included on the enrolled list of ratifying states were the three ex-Confederate states that had given their assent\, but with strings attached. Seward accepted their affirmative votes and bru shed aside their interpretive declarations without comment\, challenge or acknowledgment.[ Vorenberg (2001)\, Final Freedom\, p. 232. ]\n\n\n\n Th e Thirteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified by the other states\, as follows:[ U.S. Government Printing Office\, 112th Congress\, 2nd Session\ , Senate Document No. 112–9 (2013). \"The Constitution of the United St ates Of America Analysis And Interpretation Centennial Edition Interim Edi tion: Analysis Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 26\, 2013s\" (PDF). p. 30. { https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pk g/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf } Archived (PDF) { https://web.a rchive.org/web/20140225114303/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/ pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf } from the original on February 25\, 2014. Retrieve d February 17\, 2014. ]: 30 \n\n\n\n Oregon: December 8\, 1865\n\n\n \n California: December 19\, 1865\n\n\n\n Florida: December 28\, 1865 (rea ffirmed June 9\, 1868)\n\n\n\n Iowa: January 15\, 1866\n\n\n\n New Jersey: January 23\, 1866 (after rejection March 16\, 1865)\n\n\n\n Texas: Februa ry 18\, 1870\n\n\n\n Delaware: February 12\, 1901 (after rejection Februar y 8\, 1865)\n\n\n\n Kentucky: March 18\, 1976[ Kocher\, Greg (February 23 \, 2013). \"Kentucky supported Lincoln's efforts to abolish slavery—111 years late\". { https://archive.ph/20140220035343/http://www.kentucky.co m/2013/02/23/2528807/kentucky-supported-lincolns-efforts.html }Lexington H erald-Leader. Archived from the original on February 20\, 2014. Retriev ed February 17\, 2014. ] (after rejection February 24\, 1865)\n\n\n\n M ississippi: March 16\, 1995 (after rejection December 5\, 1865\; not certi fied until February 7\, 2013)[ Ben Waldron (February 18\, 2013). \"Missi ssippi Officially Abolishes Slavery\, Ratifies 13th Amendment\". { https: //abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/mississippi-officially-abolishes- slavery-ratifies-13th-amendment/ } ABC News. Archived from the original on June 27\, 2013. Retrieved April 23\, 2013. ]\n\n\n\n With the ratific ation by Mississippi in 1995\, and certification thereof in 2013\, the ame ndment was finally ratified by all states having existed at the time of it s adoption in 1865.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Amendment XIII in the N ational Archives\, bearing the signature of Abraham Lincoln\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n PENAL LABOR\n\n\n\n The Thirteenth Amendment exempts penal labor from i ts prohibition of forced labor. This allows prisoners who have been convic ted of crimes (not those merely awaiting trial) to be required to perform labor or else face punishment while in custody.[ Howe\, Scott (2009). \" Slavery as Punishment: Original Public Meaning\, Cruel and Unusual Punishm ent\, and the Neglected Clause in the Thirteenth Amendment\". { https://a rizonalawreview.org/howe/ } Arizona Law Review. 51 (4): 983. Archived  from the original on December 29\, 2017. Retrieved December 28\, 2017. ] \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n [ Radde\, Kaitlyn (November 17\, 2022). \"Louisiana vo ters rejected an antislavery ballot measure. The reasons are complicated\" . { https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137398039/louisiana-voters-rejected-a n-antislavery-ballot-measure-the-reason-is-complicate } NPR. Archived fr om the original on January 15\, 2023. Retrieved October 19\, 2023. ]\n\n DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20251218 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR