Virginia

Finally, we come to Virginia. Virginia's response is never noted by the State Department, and also is never publicly announced by the Secretary, even though the report containing the erroneous statement concerning South Carolina mentions that Virginia has not yet weighed in. The Secretary's personal correspondence with Charles Buck only days later confirms his cognizance of that fact. It is clear that he anticipates receiving word of Virginia's decision at any moment. However, no record whatsoever of Virginia's response ever appears in the State Department's Documentary History and no further announcement was ever made by Secretary Adams on the subject of the amendment. In order to know what happened, we must follow the Virginia's legislative history of the amendment.

Here, we must digress briefly. Just as the War of 1812 per se was a non-legislative event that had direct bearing on the history of this amendment, Virginia's particular situation is also relevant. If it can ever be said that any one state has gained or maintained precedence over the other states in any way, then Virginia certainly holds that place. We find that the most favored and quoted of the Founding Fathers were native Virginians, and so the sequence very naturally follows that those very same Virginians were also chosen as 4 of the first 5 Presidents of the United States. Each in his turn (except for George Washington) served first in the legislature of his state, then as United States Secretary of State, and then as President. From a purely political point of view, or from any other view for that matter, Virginia was at a great vantagepoint. Situated only a very short distance from the capitol in Washington (named after Virginia's own favorite son), interacting directly with the federal government in Washington was highly convenient. If physical proximity afforded any additional opportunity for direct involvement, then Virginia certainly had it - along with ready access to both the official and commercially printed news of the day, as well as the repositories of official records and the offices (and officers) of the Republic themselves. Ordinarily, this situation made Virginia prompt in its communications, and famously outspoken in its opinion on all aspects of government, both internal and external, from philosophy to practice.

And yet, on the matter of Virginia's ratification, the official State Department records fall abruptly silent on January 22, 1818, as if Virginia did not even exist. That last entry is the transmittal from Connecticut's Secretary Thomas Day. Secretary Day sends the news again, at long last, that Connecticut had failed to ratify the 13^th amendment in 1813 -nearly 5 years earlier.³³ On the face of it, this would make explanation of the State Department's apparent failure to recognize Virginia almost impossible. We must still look into Virginia's legislative records themselves for the answer.

The Congressional Resolution proposing the 13^th Amendment is dated November 27, 1809. The sentiments of the time are clearly expressed in an address from Governor Tyler to the Virginia Legislature dated December 3, 1810 and quoted here in part:

…. All these abominable encroachments on our rights, might have been adjusted long sinse, but for the factious spirit so unfortunately prevailing among many of our countrymen; a spirit which has led to indiscriminate opposition to every wise and energetic measure, and has gone a great way towards involving the United States in civil discord. This unfortunately too clearly proved the beneficial effects of a disunion of sentiment, and a too great love of money, the prevailing passion of the times, which would sacrifice the very independence of our country for a price -- for a mean and degraded America -- A Commerce which never increases the wealth of any nation, without bringing into it a due proportion of the vices of other countries. It produces also, what is called in polite circles, citizens of the world, the worst citizens in the world -- who having no attachment to any country, make themselves wings to fly away with from impending danger. Commerce is certainly beneficial to society in a secondary degree, but never should it have the ascendancy over the agricultural and manufacturing interests -- these are our primary objects. Commerce also begets a predilection for every thing foreign, and is too apt to engender contempt for things of our own. It permits an interference of foreigners with our Government and its measures, which no country but our's ever will suffer to that degree which we have experienced. Those characters, however, should know, that a day of retribution may come, and he who cannot honor our principles, because a slave to prejudice, should at least enjoy the blessings of our freedom and hospitality in silence, or chose a clime more congenial to his feelings and sentiments. [sic]

"The world is all before him, where to seek a place of rest."

Governor Tyler doesn't leave much to the imagination concerning his position on foreign influences. But he doesn't stop there. He goes on to discuss the effects of such people on commerce and banking:

Such people fail not to intermeddle with our country's affairs, contending for the superiority of foreign governments and fashions, and endeavoring to subject the very people who foster them to foreign domination, while, nevertheless, they are suffered with unexampled lenity and forbearance, to go on, increasing their wealths and fictitious consequences, under the protection of laws for which they have no respect, but which ought to be regarded by them with pious affection and unbounded gratitude. It is a consolation to reflect, that what we have so much regretted, the interruption of our commerce, will and must turn eventually to our advantage, by directing our attention to domestic manufactures, the only true ground upon which a nation can be independent and happy -- for can he be said to be truley independent whose meat and clothing hang on another's favor?
Can we not be content to wear a coat of our own manufacturing, though not so finely and handsomely wrought? Or must it be touched with the finger of a foreign artist, to make it pass current among the Beau Monde?
It is time to yield up the contemptible business, of retailing foreign ideas and sentiments of shreds of goods and scripts of paper, to the extent which has hitherto existed….[sic]

When we look at Virginia's legislature journals, we find due enrollment on February 2^nd, 1811 of Congress' Resolution proposing the 13th Amendment.³⁴ We also find that in the opening session of every legislative year, each house would recite and approve its internal operating rules.^35,36 In the Virginia House of Delegates, it was the rule, year after year, that a matter decided in one session could not be reopened to debate until a future session. The Senate rules were nearly the same, but with the added phrase "...except where it may be judged proper to recede from any determination, in consequence of a conference with the House of Delegates."

On Monday, February 4^th of 1811, the House of Delegates read the proposed constitutional amendment, agreed to it, and ordered the Clerk to carry the Resolution to the Senate, requesting their concurrence. The entry also states that their committee had examined several "other enrolled bills" and found them to be enrolled.³⁷ On the following Monday, the Clerk carried the resolution over to the Senate as requested.³⁸ On February 14^th, the Senate disagreed to the Resolution.³⁹ Having done so, the House could not now open the matter again until the following session, but could then change its mind again if it wished [see Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 SW. Ct. 972 (1939)]. As it happened, February 14^th was the last day of that session anyway. Until December of 1811, James Monroe served as the Governor of Virginia, at which time he left to serve as Secretary of State under James Madison. That same month, on December 9^th, the House heard a petition of Samuel Pleasants, publisher, regarding the need for more copies of the Statutes at Large and the Acts, which had not been republished since 1807. Pleasants had begun printing new copies, and offered to print as many copies as might be desired. (In Virginia, the population was growing very quickly. New county and state governments had been formed, new laws written, and the supply of the original books was completely insufficient.) This is closely akin to the situation of the United States Government a year earlier in 1810 and again later on in 1845, which also found itself with no readily available references to its exact body of law. The Virginia House appointed a committee to bring in a bill to have the work done.⁴⁰ During that same month, both the House and the Senate heard the results and Resolutions on the proposed amendment from Maryland, Tennessee, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky. All of the documents were ordered to lie on the table in the House. Note: At the federal level, the source law is the Statutes at Large, and the United States Codes are a derivative work used as reference. In Virginia, the situation is reversed. The Statutes at Large is a separate and earlier historical work. The Revised Codes became the source law.
In late January of 1812, the new Governor delivered the news of North Carolina's ratification to the Assembly.⁴¹ On February 7^th of 1812, an engrossed bill was taken from the table, blanks filled in, and titled, An act making further provision for furnishing the public officers of this commonwealth with the laws thereof. (This was the bill referred to at the time of Mr. Pleasants' petition, and refers only to the earlier edition of The Statutes at Large, not the Revised Codes published in 1819.) The bill was passed, and the Clerk was ordered to carry the bill to the Senate for concurrence. On that same day, news of Georgia's ratification of the 13^th Amendment was also received by the House, and ordered to lie on the table.⁴²

The Act passed in the Senate on the 7^th also appears in the Acts of the General Assembly. It reiterates the short supply of the revised codes, and authorizes the Governor to purchase 500 copies of the first volume in the set, and 1500 copies of the second volume, at a maximum of $4 per copy. A section of the Act directs the committee of 3 examiners to make the necessary comparisons as follows:

…. That upon the certificate of Andrew Stevenson, William Munford, and William Hay, jr, or any two of them, being published with the said laws, stating that they had carefully compared the edition of the acts, so to be published, with the original laws, and found them to be truly and accurately printed, they shall be received and considered of equal authority in the courts of this commonwealth, as the originals from which they are taken.

The Act then goes on to require the public printer to annually print the acts of the General Assembly. It also requires the Governor to have one copy sent to each of the clerks of the Virginia courts, and one copy to the governor of every state and territory in the union with a request to interchange laws with them annually. (This establishes how it was that the several states were in the habit of receiving Virginia's law in bound volumes each year. The importance of this fact will be seen shortly.)

As of June 12, 1812, the country was officially at war.
Now, at this point, we must watch the titles of the acts carefully, because another bill pertaining to the publication of the laws was about to be written. Update and publication of the law was something of a continuous effort, and was done in the 1790's, again in 1813, and then again in 1819. Each time, a committee of Revisors was appointed to do the actual work of making comparisons and seeing that the publication was accurate. Because of the time and amount of work involved, multiple acts were sometimes passed, referring to a particular revision during the entire period of its preparation.
On February 6^th of 1813, A bill to amend the act authorizing William Waller Hening to publish an edition of certain laws of this commonwealth, and for other purposes was read a 2^nd time and ordered to be engrossed and read a 3^rd time by the Senate.⁴³ The completed Act is printed in the Acts of the General Assembly. It is stipulated that the last copy of the Statutes authorized in 1808 had been greatly delayed, and that difficulties in the mode of examining the laws had precluded correctness of that copy. The Act appoints 3 new examiners, states again that any 2 of the 3 examiners may certify the work, after which itcan be published, with equal authority to the originals being given to the new work. (This particular Act refers only to Hening's work covering the history and statutes from the early days of Virginia - this was treated as a separate project from the Revised Codes project we will see later.)⁴⁴
On November 26 of 1814, the House requested the Governor to provide them with a copy of the constitutional amendment proposed during the Tennessee"s last session.⁴⁵ Two days later, the Governor responded that he did not have the bill, as it was already sent during the last session, but never returned to his office.⁴⁶ In December, The House acted on a proposed amendment from Pennsylvania to reduce the term of United States Senators from 6 to 4 years. A Resolution was passed, instructing the senators from Virginia to try to obtain the amendment through the Congress instead.⁴⁷
Here, the trail becomes a bit sparse, because there is also noted a shortage of parchment available for the printing of laws and official documents. In the Senate Journal, we find the following entry for January 6, 1815:

Whereas it appears doubtful whether the quantity of parchment, laid in for the purpose of enrolling the acts of the present session of the General Assembly, will be entirely sufficient for that purpose ; and a supply of that article now on the way from Baltimore to the City of Richmond, may not be received in time ;
Be it therefore resolved by the General Assembly, That if there shall happen to be a deficiency of parchment, the enrollment of the laws, which may be passed during the residue of the present session, shall be made on paper ; Provided, That the acts so enrolled shall be examined and authenticated in the same manner as those enrolled on parchment ; and that it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have true copies thereof enrolled on parchment, as soon as a supply can be obtained; and to lay such copies before the Legislature at their next meeting, in order that they may be duly authenticated...⁴⁸

The Resolution was sent to the House for their concurrence. This may seem like a small matter to us, but in those days, paper was still considered to be suitable only for documents of a more temporary nature.
On December 5, 1815, the governor sends word of several different constitutional amendments having been acted on in several states. The documents are tabled, taken up and read the following day, and on motion tabled again.⁴⁹ On December 7^th, the Virginia Senate, always particular about disseminating news of its own actions, had not only accepted the use of paper as a temporary medium for preserving its record; it also elected an Official Printer to the Commonwealth. It chose Thomas A Ritchie for that job. Ritchie was also the publisher of the Richmond Enquirer.⁵⁰
On the February 8, 1816, news of several state-proposed amendments in motion are heard - Georgia disapproves an amendment from North Carolina, but proposes an amendment of its own to impose uniform methods of choosing electors in presidential elections. Transmittals of the results from Georgia, Vermont, Ohio, and Tennessee - all of them in disapproval of amendments proposed by Massachusetts and Connecticut are also heard, and all are ordered to lie on the table.⁵¹ On February 14^th, the state-proposed amendments were assigned to a committee. On February 16th, a Resolution is passed by both Virginia houses disagreeing to all 7 of the state-proposed amendments, and transmittals of the Resolution are ordered to be sent by the Governor to the Virginia congressmen and the governors of all the other states.⁵²
The journals clearly show how the States transmitted news of both State- and Congress-proposed amendments back and forth amongst themselves. Serious thought was given to actions taken or proposed in Washington, but the States themselves got their information on what was, or was not, to be the law directly from one another. The right to propose, approve, or disapprove constitutional amendments was operated actively and often, by all of the several States in concert, and without any reference whatsoever to the federal executive or judicial branches for that authority, precisely as specified in Articles IV and V of the Constitution itself. This is important to note, because the failure to recognize this pronounced distinction of operation between the states- and federal-roles played a great part in what later happened to this amendment.
On November 12 of 1816, a House committee is appointed to examine the enrolled bills. On that same day, Thomas Ritchie, Official Printer to the Commonwealth, is officially given a non-voting seat in the House, from which he could take detailed notes of the debates. At the same time, Ritchie is ordered henceforth to annually send 4 copies of the House Journals along with the Laws of the Commonwealth to every county, 1 copy to every county clerk, and 1 copy to every court in the state sitting at law or equity. This may well be the earliest example of a sitting political body in America designating something closely akin to a Press Room - except that Ritchie was actually seated within the Bar of the House. He was expected not only to print the general news of the day, but also the official documents and announcements of the State of Virginia, including reports of the legislative debates.⁵³

On December 31, 1816, the VA Senate journal reports as follows:

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from John Bioren, William J. Duane and Roger C. Weightman, publishers of a new edition of the laws of the United States, enclosing an Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, authorizing the purchase on behalf of that State of 100 copies of the said laws, and soliciting the patronage of the State of Virginia, on the publication of the same.

The said letter and act, being read, on motion of Mr. Cabell, were ordered to be laid upon the table.

This event might be of no great significance, other than to establish a means by which Virginia might be able to acquire copies of the United States Statutes. There is no evidence that Virginia ever made the purchase proposed by these publishers. But as it happens, this particular edition of the Statutes was to play a very significant part in the later history of the 13^th Amendment itself (see "The State Department").

Just a few days after President Monroe had Secretary Adams inquire as to the status of ratification in Virginia, the following entry appears in the Journal of the Virginia Senate:

Wednesday, January 28, 1818

Mr. Johnson, from the Committee appointed yesterday, made the following report relative to the revised bills, which was read :

The Committee appointed to enquire and report " What in their opinion, would be the most prudent course, to be pursued by the Senate, in relation to the revised bills," beg leave to submit the following result of their enquiry:---

The Committee acknowledge their incompetency to scan, with critical accuracy, the work, which has been reported to the General Assembly, by the Committee of Revisors, appointed by an act of the last session of the Legislature---They cannot, however, be insensible of the great value of that work, and of the very great labour which it has cost; and the defects which they think they perceive in it, can be attributed only to that want of time, and want of power in the revisors, of which they themselves make mention in their report. They believe that defects do exist, and that they are such as forbid the Legislature, until they are remedied, to give the compilation to the public, as containing the code of our laws. The defects which appear to your Committee, are of the following description---

First---Defects in the arrangement; which may be reduced to these

heads, viz:--

1. In putting into one act, what belongs to another.

2. In not putting together in their proper order, the different provisions in the same act, which are connected with each other;

3. In not compiling new bills, formed of the provisions on the same subjects, to be found in various acts, as for example---A bill to regulate proceedings in civil actions at Common Law, to apply to all the courts of law:---A bill to regulate proceedings in Chancery, to apply to the Superior and Inferior Courts of Equity;---A bill regulating costs, to apply to all Courts;---A bill for the limitations of civil actions;---A bill for the recovery of small debts, &c.

4. In not classing the bills themselves, and placing them together, in the order prescribed, by the analogy which they bear to each other---Thus the bills concerning the several Courts of Justice, and proceedings in Courts, with other connected with them, might form one class, and be placed together in their proper order.

Secondly---Defects of omission.---Instances of which, may be found in the omission to compile into one act, the several acts formerly made to prevent the circulation of private banks notes, and the act lately passed to prevent the circulation of the notes of unchartered banks---and the omission to compile, or to note for publication, some important laws, generally denominated land laws, on which they depend the titles of much of the real property in this Commonwealth.

And thirdly---Defects of amendment.---These defects the Committee believe are very numerous, and may be classed under the following heads:---

1. In not reforming the language of the revised bills, so as to make it suitable to the present state of the law----it frequently happening that the language of a law enacted some time since, has now become either improper, or inadequate, in consequence of subsequent amendments.

2. In not making the various provisions of laws, enacted at different times, and now brought together in one bill, consistent with each other.

3. In not suggesting such amendments, as are necessary to remedy the defects of the present system of laws, without changing the essential principles thereof.

How to remedy these defects, is a question on which your Committee will offer some reflections to the House:---

They believe it is out of the power of the present Legislature to apply the remedy.

It is obvious that much time, and much deliberate and critical examination of the subject, would be necessary to the proper discharge of this duty. This, it seems to your Committee, cannot now be bestowed, with the prospect of any useful result. Upwards of ninety revised bills have been reported to the General Assembly; more than forty of them have passed the House of Delegates, and of them, twenty have passed the Senate. The session must now have arrived within a few weeks of the ordinary period of adjournment; and it is believed that there is enough of other business before the Legislature, to employ the remnant of the session. No hope therefore remains, that the whole code can be gone through; and it is not believed, that with due deliberation, and with proper attention to the other subjects of legislation, any material progress could now be made, with the revised bills. There are some considerations, which would embarrass the proceedings of the Senate upon this subject. Several of the revised bills which have passed, both branches of the Legislature, are intimately connected with others which remain to be acted upon. Some of the bills, which are now before the Senate, are probably as intimately connected with others, which have not yet passed, and may not during the session, pass the House of Delegates. And to act advisedly upon this subject, it appears to your Committee, that all bills intimately connected with each other, should be under consideration of the same committee, at the same time---Again, To facilitate the examination of the revised bills, the books which were used by the revisors, with their marginal notes and references, were deposited with the Clerk of the House of Delegates.---Your committee are informed that these books, which would in your opinion, afford great facility in examining this subject, cannot be procured for the use of committees of the Senate. In addition, it may be remarked, that the Senate cannot apply the remedy to some of the defects above enumerated; they have not the power to compile new bills. The committee are of opinion that a subsequent session of the Legislature would be much more competent to the task of acting judiciously upon this subject.

They hope and believe that the revisal would be re-committed to the same gentlemen who have reported it, and that their powers would be enlarged so as to enable them to propose such changes in the present system of laws, as may be necessary to arrest its obvious defects, without materially changing its essential principles. That they should be required to class and methodise [sic] and simplify the system ; that they should be required to cause two sets of their books, with marginal notes and references, to be preserved, the one for the use of the House of Delegates, the other for the Senate ; and that they should be allowed time to perform the work with care and deliberation.

The great advantages which such a course would afford to a subsequent Legislature, in acting upon this subject, need not be enumerated. The classification of the bills, itself, besides the public benefit arising from it, would compensate for the whole expense of the revision, in the time it would save the Legislature in acting upon them.

But if the revisal should not be re-committed to the revisors, yet your Committee think, that a subsequent Legislature would act upon this subject with much greater advantages than the present. The experience of the present, will point out to the future session, the most judicious course to be pursued. In addition to that, the volume at present reported, will be in the hands of the future members for many months before the commencement of the session, and will not be before the public.

For these reasons amongst others, which might be urged, your Committee would recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution:---

Resolved, That the several Committees to whom revised bills have been referred, ought to be discharged from considering them, and that the further consideration of the said bills, ought to be postponed until the first Monday in December next.

The Resolution at the conclusion of the said report, being twice read, was on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House. [Formatting and emphasis added.]

So at this time, even though the work was well under way, and anticipation of the forthcoming Revised Codes was high, the committee recommended taking additional time in the interest of being even more careful and thorough about the work at hand, and the House readily agreed. Additional working copies were made, and the work in progress was seen by even more members of the legislature, leaving no question at all as to whether its contents were very well known and carefully reviewed.

On January 2, 1819, an article in the Richmond Enquirer states that no important business is being transacted in the legislature at the moment, but that revision of the laws is progressing rapidly.
On Monday, March 6, 1819, the Committee on the Revisal of the Laws in the House brings in a bill concerning the publication of the Statutes at large. The bill is returned to the committee.⁵⁴ (This is the third separate bill regarding the printing of the laws of Virginia, and this one applies to having all the codes revised and republished - not to be confused with Hening's earlier 13-volume historical project.) On January 7 of 1819, Thomas Ritchie is again elected by both houses of the legislature as Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia. (It is also reported in the House Journal on that same day that the revision of the laws is proceeding rapidly.)⁵⁵ On March 10 of 1819, the enrolled bill, concerning publication of the Statutes at large, was read a third time in the House, voted and affirmed, and sent to the Senate.⁵⁶ On March 12, the Senate assigned the Re-publication of the Laws Act to the Courts of Justice Committee for final review. An amendment was made to the Act concerning the republication of the laws, sent to the House for concurrence, and the agreement of the House is noted. A committee was assigned to examine the enrolled bills in that house. All were found to be truly enrolled. The Act was signed by the Speaker of the Senate on March 12, 1819.⁵⁷
To recap, the Acts of the General Assembly for 1819 now carries three new chapters on the subject of passing, printing, and publishing the laws. The first of these chapters is Chapter XVII. --An act concerning the laws of this Commonwealth. [Passed March 10, 1819] The Act contains 5 sections, requiring, amongst other things, that every act passed is to go into effect on the first day of the following April, unless another date is mentioned, and requiring the date of passage to be noted after the title of the act, as noted above. It further requires that any act repealed also repeals every previous law, unless specific language is included to do otherwise. Then an act from the previous year is repealed, and the date of enactment for this act is given to be the date of its passage.
The Acts shows the following chapter as …XVIII. --An act concerning the publication of the Statutes at large. --[passed March 10th, 1819.] comprised of 3 sections. The first section authorizes the Governor to purchase the volumes under the same terms as the Act of February 5, 1808, but raising the number of copies purchased to 1000, with up to 100 copies available for sale. The rest go to public officers. The state reserves copyright on the works. Section 2, also as in previous years, specifies that any two members of the Executive Council may certify…"that the said laws have been carefully compared by them, with the original laws, and found to be truly and accurately printed, they shall be received and considered of equal authority in the courts of this Commonwealth, as the originals from which they are taken." Section 3 makes the act effective on its date of passage.
The third new chapter is designated as CHAPTER XXXV. --An act providing for the re-publication of the laws of this Commonwealth. --[Passed March 12th, 1819.] Now this is an exceptionally long Act, which goes on for some 14 pages, but there was good reason for that. It contains ten sections, which we list here in brief form:

1.Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say:
The constitution of the United States, and the amendments thereto.
A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention, which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
The constitution or form of government agreed to, and resolved upon, by the delegates and representatives of the several counties and corporations of Virginia.

That section of the Act then goes on to specify several pages of individual acts and groups of acts to be included. Many of these reduce multiple earlier acts into one for the purpose of reenactment, almost none of which are specifically enumerated, since it is already specified that the newly published Revised Codes will supercede any older laws and specifically enact all those published with this edition in one action. Amongst those specified are:

…. All such other acts of a general nature, passed during the present and the last session of the legislature, not herein particularly enumerated, which have not been either repealed, or incorporated, in other acts.

And,

….All such other acts of a general nature, now in force, not mentioned in the volume, reported to the legislature, at their last session, by the committee of revisors, as may have been pretermitted in this act.

Section 2 Specifies that dates of passage must be placed immediately after titles.
Section 3 Specifies the printing itself, including a complete index and proper marginal notes and references.
Section 4 places the publication under the immediate supervision of Benjamin Watkins Leigh. Leigh is given the responsibility to determine the order in which the laws are printed, class them according to subject, note their enactment dates, make notes of explanation and reference, provide a full and complete index to the whole code, and to have the proof sheets carefully examined. He is authorized to employ clerks to help him, and

…Upon his certificate that the laws have been carefully examined, and that he finds them correctly printed, they shall be received in evidence in the same manner as the originals.

Section 5 Specifies that Ritchie must deliver at least 3,000 copies to the Governor on or before The first of December and the balance before January.
Section 6 Specifies that Ritchie is to be bonded.
Section 7 provides for the Governor to make an advance of $5,000 to Ritchie from the public treasury.
Section 8 Enacts that revised bills passed in the present session are not to be included, unless they take effect before the next January 1.
Section 9 Repeals all laws not included as of January 1.
Section 10 makes the entire act effective on passage.
On March 12, 1819 the enactment date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code, the work is complete, with Thomas Ritchie as the publisher. The 13th Amendment is published, along with the rest of the United States Constitution. The book itself is certified and carries the seal of the state. The title page notes clearly that the Constitution and the Amendments are included within.⁵⁸ The side margins of the pages are notated, as Leigh had been personally ordered to do by the Assembly. The entry for Article 13 carries a sidebar note referring the reader to the base law in the main body of the Constitution, and the passage in the main body also refers the reader back to the 13th Amendment.
By order of the General Assembly, 10 copies are designated for the Executive branch of Virginia to be kept in the Council Chamber. 5 copies are for the Clerk of each house in the General Assembly; 1 for each treasurer; 1 for the register; and 1 each for the president and directors of the literary fund and board of public works. 1 is for the superintendent of this edition of the laws; 1 for the Attorney General and for each attorney prosecuting for the Commonwealth; and 1 for the clerk of every court of record. 1 goes to each judge of every court of appeals, the general court, and the superior courts of Virginia. 1 copy goes to every United States judge resident in the state of Virginia; and 1 copy each go to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe.⁵⁹ [Emphasis added.]
On the title page of the Revised Codes, we see:

The Revised code of the laws of Virginia: being a collection of all such acts of the General assembly, of a public and permanent nature, as are now in force; with a general index. To which are prefixed, the Constitution of the United States; the declaration of rights; and the constitution of Virginia. Published pursuant to an act of the General assembly, entitled "An act providing for the re-publication of the laws of this commonwealth", passed March 12, 1819.

Richmond: Printed by Thomas Ritchie, printer to the commonwealth, 1819.

Justice Bushrod Washington of the Supreme Court serves as editor for the Index to the laws, published in a separate volume.⁶⁰
To this day, the Library of Congress lists the Revised Codes of 1819 in precisely the manner shown on its title page. There is no doubt whatsoever that it was Virginia's exact intention to publish the Constitution with the 13th amendment as a part of its Codes, and to do so prominently. The bill to publish the complete work having been properly enrolled, all bills previously found to be enrolled and effective before January 1 of the following year, and numerous state officials having edited the complete text, the 13th amendment passed into law at the same time. This was done in much the same way Virginia would often take numerous Acts all at one time, and as it had specified that it would do in this particular edition of the codes.
On that very same day, The Richmond Enquirer announces:

The General Assembly will possibly adjourn this day, after a long and laborious session of 97 days--the great object of the revision of the laws being thoroughly completed. The people will no longer be sent to hunt through various sessions acts for the law of the land; but it will be laid before them in one compact, compiled publication--For their perseverance in this work, the thanks of the people are due to their representatives.

280. An act, "providing for the republication of the laws of this commonwealth." The Revision, to be edited by Mr. B. W. Leigh, and printed by T. Ritchie, (Public Printer) in two volumes on good paper, bound in calf &c. The State takes 4000 copies for the use of her officers, judges, magistrates &c. at $6 per copy.⁶¹

While Virginia's legislative practices were fairly quiet in nature, its methods of notifying the government and the public of its results were not.
The exact question that frustrated researchers for so long and fueled various arguments over the ratification issue was the lack of a separately recorded vote pertaining to the amendment itself. The answer to this does not become apparent until one examines the entire body of Virginia's legislative records. Ordinarily, one might expect to simply scan through the Acts of the General Assembly and locate that exact resolution by its title - particularly so, because a constitutional amendment is of such importance and permanence as to merit such special treatment. We do find several earlier entries regarding the amendment being treated as a stand-alone issue,⁶² as well as entries inclusive of other acts.⁶³
However, Virginia had formed the same habit as the legislatures of other states and of Congress itself of reducing many Acts into a single Act on a regular basis. In the majority of cases where this was done, the several Acts being reduced were restricted to statutory Acts, that type of act representing the vast majority of the legislature's business. In this particular case, however, the committees of the House and the Senate had made a thorough examination of all enrolled bills, just as we know other states did (and still do) from time to time. This is an essential practice for any governing body in determining exactly what business is still on the table, but becomes even more important when there is an intention to codify and reenact the entire body of law at one time and using a single resolution to do so. There can be no doubt that the bill regarding the 13^th Amendment was amongst the others examined for proper enrollment and inclusion into the Revised Codes, specifically because the records in both houses had already found it to be so earlier. Bills have no way of "un-enrolling" themselves, with the exception of being formally rejected. Also, the question of the amendment's status had just been raised by the State Department only days before the Committee of Revisors issued their report. Had this not been the case, Mr. Leigh, the clerks, and the committees would have had to go to some great lengths to obtain the exact language of the amendment from some other source in order to include it.
Part of the very object of reducing the entire code into a condensed work was to clear the table of all legislative business transacted up to that point without instantly recreating the situation of having the law only available by means of constant checking and cross-checking. The clearly stated intention of the Assembly was to codify all the laws of the State of Virginia at one time and to publish this as a single work. Were that particular bill relating to the amendment to be excluded, the two houses would have had to make some agreement to that effect, in order to exclude the one enrolled bill from all the others and leave the bill pendant. Rather than giving the amendment itself short shrift, the legislature instead gave it precisely the same attention as the entire existing body of law of the state. This was actually specified within Chapter XXXV in the clause pertaining to inclusion of the Constitution and the amendments. While it is not unusual for a state to refer to and declare the United States Constitution within its state constitution (Georgia is an example of this), or to include the United States Constitution along with a printed compilation of its codes, Virginia had quite specific reasons for doing so. First, a new constitutional amendment was to be included, and second, specific acts within the state code were being wholly replaced directly with constitutional law.
We can certainly question the wisdom of not enumerating within the enacting resolution all of the enrolled bills to be included for the sake of later clarity as to exactly what new laws were added (and deleted) through that single Resolution. However, the legislature was not engaged in an attempt to satisfy latter day researchers. Their intention was clearly stated as being solely that of providing the people with a single source reference for all current law, enacted once, and with absolutely no question left as to what might have passed before or since. This concern was encompassed by the inclusion of all pretermitted acts, i.e., all acts not specifically enumerated were also officially included. The content of the certified and sealed publication itself precludes any real question as to the itemized contents of that list of enrolled bills. It is, in itself, the embodiment of every one of them, with the only clearly stated exception being those which could not go into effect until sometime after the coming January 1. Unlike Bioren and Duane in attempting to anticipate legislative actions in the states over which the Congress had no direct control, Virginia did not have that problem. The legislature itself had immediate and direct control over the final outcome of the amendment and all other enrolled bills at the time, so no guesswork of any kind was involved. Considering the magnitude of the work, the errata sheet contained in volume 2 of the Revised Codes is very short, and as we might expect from the foregoing, does not make any correction or reference to Article XIII.
So Virginia, unlike her counterpart states, did not send a separate transmittal and Resolution to the State Department. In fact, Virginia sent her entire body of laws all at one time, and directed the publication to the President. And further, Virginia did not simply send her notice of ratification to any one of the usual offices - she sent it to many of them at once. In accordance with her previous act of February 7, 1812, copies would also have to go out to all the other states and territories. We find within the covers of that important book both the Constitution itself, the certifications of the editorial committee composed of Virginia's finest and most trusted legal minds, and including the Resolution describing who, exactly, would receive official copies of that very book. As with the other methods of enactment and announcement mentioned in the foregoing sections, this form of enactment falls well within the provisions of Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. However, there are no other known cases wherein a state's complete revision of the codes coincided with adoption of this constitutional amendment.
Amongst all the entries in the house journals of Virginia, there is a very clear consistency of communication from the governor's office with the legislature. As each state announced activity on each of the various amendments in motion during those years, the Governor sent word and accompanying documents to the Assembly to keep them informed. However, at no time does the inquiry from Secretary of State Adams find its way into the journal entries as receiving any particular notice. This would appear to be another anomaly in the reporting on this particular amendment. And this can only can only make sense in light of the fact that both the governor and the legislature already knew both what the contents and the form of the reply were to be, and so there was nothing to do but wait for the legislature to finish the work in progress. As it was, the work to revise and compact the entire body of law was, and had been, under way for a considerable period of time when the letter from Adams was written. Within just days of the State Department inquiry, the House of Delegates agreed that the work should be carried over to the next session, for the very purpose of making it all accurate and cleanly justiceable. Had there been any intention to take an up or down vote on the single resolution containing the amendment, then the Secretary's inquiry would have merited special mention in the legislative journals. We can do nothing more than speculate as to how long anyone guessed the balance of the work would actually take from January of 1818 until the work was completed, approved, and the enacting resolution could be voted upon.
In 1820, the year following completion of the Revised Codes, William Waller Hening, has completed his work as an assistant to Benjamin Watkins Leigh on the 1819 Revised Codes. He returns to his previous historical work as author of the Laws. The preface to his new volume is:

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

THE second edition of this work was entirely out of print, and not a copy to be had at any price, when the legislature, by an act of the 15th of February, 1817, made provision for " a new edition of the laws of this commonwealth." Until that work was completed, it was impossible to make any progress in this, as the laws were not only subject to a new arrangement, but to the introduction of new matter. The Revisors reported to the session of 1817-1818, at which, part of the bills went through the parliamentiary forms, and were enacted into laws ; but the residue were not acted on until the next session ; when the " Revised Code of 1819" was completed. In no revisal of our laws has so much and such important new matter

been introduced. The very able superintendent of the publication of the Code (Benjamin Watkins Leigh, Esq.) having been pleased to designate the author of this work, as one of his assistants, it afforded him an opportunity of marking, with greater accuracy, the various changes which our laws had undergone. In this edition, all the references have been made to the Revised Code of 1819. Where the law has been altered, correspondent alterations have been made in this book ; where new subjects have been introduced into our laws since the publication of the second edition, new titles have been raised in this edition. So great and so numerous are the alterations that the former editions of this work ought not to be depended upon as a safe guide.

WILLIAM WALLER HENING.

Richmond, October 18th, 1820.

Hening knew precisely what was contained in the 1819 Revised Codes, and had just examined the laws yet again for inclusion into his own historical work. As with the errata pages in the 2^nd volume of the Revised Codes and the index (also edited by some of the same men who worked on the Revised Codes), no error as to the 13^th Amendment is noted. Any notion that Virginia had been in any way mistaken came much later.

Continue

This Internet Presentation is Copyright 13th-amendment.org

Documents presented on this site are the property of their respective authors as credited. Please contact them for reprint permissions.
For problems or questions regarding this web site

contact [Project 13 Email]
Last updated: 08/28/02