Amendment XIII to the U.S. Constitution

Slavery in the United States was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. Its adoption was made possible by the confluence of a variety of forces. One necessary element was the precipitate decline of slave‐state influence in Congress. The secession of most slave states in 1860 gave the free states almost complete control of the Union government. In the early 1860s, most members of Congress from the loyal states belonged to either the Republican or Union party, whose policies were influenced by the antislavery movement.

A second critical factor was the Civil War's impact on the American concept of federalism. Before 1861, the belief in states' rights sharply limited the potential scope of federal action on slavery; only the most radical abolitionists advocated removing the authority of each state over slavery within its borders. Although ideas of states' rights remained a strong ideological influence even after the Civil War, by the end of the war Republicans were more receptive to an expanded federal role.

Nonetheless, Congressional approval of the amendment in 1865 came only after a protracted political struggle. Although the amendment passed easily in the Senate in 1864, during the Thirty‐eighth Congress Republicans lacked the required two‐thirds majority in the House of Representatives. When the House first considered the amendment in 1864, proponents were unable to attract the necessary Democratic votes. The Republican victory in the elections of 1864 changed the political dynamic, however. After that election, an intensive lobbying effort by the White House changed enough Democratic votes to allow the amendment to pass the House on reconsideration in 1865. In the same year, the Thirteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution after approval by the requisite number of state legislatures. Some of the ratifications came under duress; Congressional Republicans made clear to the legislatures of the ex‐Confederate states that ratification was necessary before readmission to full participation in the Union (see Constitutional Amending Process).

Section 1 of the amendment specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. Section 2 grants Congress the authority to enforce the provisions of section 1. Even under the narrowest possible interpretation, the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment was a major change in the American political structure. For the first time, federal law imposed a significant constraint on the power of the states to define the status of their own residents.

The precise scope of the change intended by the drafters was a matter of some debate during the Reconstruction era and continues to be an issue on which scholars differ. Some contend that the drafters intended only to dissolve the master‐slave relationship per se, leaving all other state prerogatives untouched. Others argue for a broader reading, asserting that section 1 constitutionalizes an open‐ended, evolving concept of freedom or, at the very least, that section 2 grants Congress the authority to prescribe and protect the rights that differentiate a slave from a free person.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) suggested that section 2 gave Congress the authority to outlaw “badges and incidents” of slavery as well as the institution itself. At the same time, however, the Court defined badges and incidents quite narrowly, holding that the Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress no power to reach private action generally (United States v. Harris, 1883) or to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations (Civil Rights Cases). Thus it is not surprising that for much of the twentieth century civil rights litigation focused almost entirely on section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868.

The Thirteenth Amendment made a dramatic reappearance in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968). Jones dealt with the interpretation of a statute that granted to all citizens the same property rights “as [are] enjoyed by white citizens.” The question was whether this prohibition—derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866—prohibited private racial discrimination and whether Congress had authority to reach private action under the Thirteenth Amendment. The Court held that the statute did prohibit private discrimination, and that section 2 of the amendment granted Congress the necessary authority. Thus the Thirteenth Amendment reemerged as an important element of contemporary civil rights jurisprudence.

See also Constitutional Amendments; State Sovereignty and States' Rights.

Bibliography

• Earl M. Maltz, Civil Rights, The Constitution and Congress, 1863–1869 (1990)

— Earl M. Maltz

View more Law & Legal Issues videos

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1865. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery within the United States.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were approved by Congress and ratified by the states after the Civil War. Known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, they were designed to protect individual rights. The Thirteenth Amendment forbids involuntary servitude or slavery, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime.

For many decades, however, the goals of the Civil War Amendments were frustrated. Due perhaps to the waning public support for postwar Reconstruction and the nation's lack of sensitivity to individual rights, the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed the application of the amendments. The Supreme Court thwarted the amendments in two ways: by restrictively interpreting the substantive provisions of the amendments and by rigidly confining Congress's enforcement power.

Congress enacted a number of statutes to enforce the provisions of the Civil War Amendments, but by the end of the nineteenth century, most of those statutes had been overturned by the courts, repealed, or nullified by subsequent legislation. For example, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 336), which provided that all persons should have full and equal enjoyment of public inns, parks, theaters, and other places of amusement, regardless of race or color. Although some federal courts upheld the constitutionality of the act, many courts struck it down. These decisions were then appealed together to the U.S. Supreme Court and became known as the Civil Rights cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 (1883). The cases involved theaters in New York and California that would not seat blacks, a hotel in Missouri and a restaurant in Kansas that would not serve blacks, and a train in Tennessee that would not allow a black woman in the "ladies" car. The Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 by an 8-1 vote, holding that Congress had exceeded its authority to enforce the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that private discrimination against blacks did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery. Following this decision, several northern and western states began enacting their own bans on discrimination in public places. But many other states did the opposite: they began codifying racial segregation and discrimination in laws that became known as the Jim Crow laws.

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256, in which it upheld segregation on railroad cars. Desegregationists had hoped that the Supreme Court would acknowledge that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce allowed it to ban segregation on public transportation. But the Court avoided this issue, holding that this particular railway was a purely local line. In addition, the Court found that the segregation rules did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment because they did not establish a state of involuntary servitude, although they did distinguish between races. In a lone dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the "arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the constitution."

During the next six decades, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to uphold segregation of the races in schools, public accommodations, public transportation, and various other aspects of public life, so long as the treatment of the races was equal. The Court refused to hear cases arguing that the Thirteenth Amendment was violated by private covenants between whites who agreed not to sell or lease their homes to African Americans. Thus, the covenants were allowed to stand. Gradually, though, the Supreme Court's narrow view of the Civil War Amendments expanded, resulting in significant changes in civil and criminal law. This expansion began in 1954, when the Court overturned its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and outlawed the separate-but-equal doctrine (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 [1954]).

Although the Supreme Court had declared invalid the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it had not invalidated an earlier act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1982). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was specifically enacted to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery. By 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court was relying on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to prohibit individuals from discriminating against racial minorities in the sale or lease of housing (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189 [1968]). This decision was issued just weeks after Congress enacted the first federal fair housing laws. In reaching the decision in Jones, the Supreme Court first had to decide whether Congress had the power to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the majority, turned to the Thirteenth Amendment and observed that it was adopted to remove the "badges of slavery" and that it gave Congress power to effect that removal. Stewart wrote:

Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation… . [W]hen racial discrimination herds men into ghettos and makes their ability to buy property turn on the color of their skin, then it too is a relic of slavery.

The Supreme Court continues to address issues that arise under the Thirteenth Amendment. In the 1988 case of United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 100 L. Ed. 2d 788, the Court explored the meaning of the term involuntary servitude. This case addressed the Thirteenth Amendment as well as a federal criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1584) that forbids involuntary servitude. At issue in the case were two mentally retarded men in poor health who had been kept laboring on a farm. The men worked seven days a week, seventeen hours a day, initially for $15 per week and then for no pay at all. Their employers used various forms of physical and psychological threats and force to keep the men on the farm. The Court held that "involuntary servitude" requires more than mere psychological coercion; it also requires physical or legal coercion. But, the Court noted, the Thirteenth Amendment was designed not only to abolish slavery of African Americans, but also to prevent other forms of compulsory labor akin to that slavery.

Observing that the definition of slavery has shifted since the Civil War, courts have held that involuntary servitude does not necessarily require a black slave and a white master (Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F. Supp. 1337 [E.D. Pa. 1992]). The courts have found that religious sects may be guilty of subjecting an individual to involuntary servitude if the sect knowingly and willfully holds an individual against her will (United States v. Lewis, 644 F. Supp. 1391 [W.D. Mich. 1986], aff'd, 840 F.2d 1276 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894, 109 S. Ct. 234, 102 L. Ed. 2d 224 [1988]). In addition, forcing a mental patient to perform nontherapeutic labor may be a form of involuntary servitude (Weidenfeller v. Kidulis, 380 F. Supp. 445 [E.D. Wis. 1974]). However, laws that prohibit landlords from evicting long-term tenants have been held by the courts not to constitute involuntary servitude (Dawson v. Higgins, 610 N.Y.S.2d 200 [App. Div. 1994]).

The Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (see Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918]).

A related statute is the Anti-Peonage Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 1994). Peonage is defined as compulsory service based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The courts have held that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the Anti-Peonage Act prevents a convicted person from being required to work on public streets as part of his sentence (Loeb v. Jennings, 67 S.E. 101 (Ga. 1910), aff'd, 219 U.S. 582, 31 S. Ct. 469, 55 L. Ed. 345 [1911]). In addition, neither of these laws prevents the government from garnishing wages or using the court's contempt power to collect overdue taxes or child support (Beltran v. Cohen, 303 F. Supp. 889 [N.D. Cal. 1969]; Knight v. Knight, 996 F.2d 1225 [9th Cir. 1993]).

The courts have also held that state workfare programs that require or encourage citizens to obtain gainful employment in order to participate in the state's public assistance programs do not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Brogan v. San Mateo County, 901 F.2d 762 [9th Cir. 1990]). In another interesting application of these laws, a federal court held that a high school program that required all students to complete sixty hours of community service in order to graduate did not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F. Supp. 1337 [E.D. Pa. 1992]).

See: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas; Civil Rights; Fifteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment; Plessy v. Ferguson.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note:
A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1

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

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 More:

The Constitution
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)
The Other Amendments (11-27)

United States of America
This article is part of the series: United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble Articles of the Constitution I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights I · II · III · IV · V VI · VII · VIII · IX · X Subsequent Amendments XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · XX XXI · XXII · XXIII · XXIV · XXV XXVI · XXVII Unratified Amendments I(1) · XIII(1) · XIII(2) · XX(1) · XXVII(1) · XXVII(2)
Other countries ·  Law Portal view talk edit

Amendment XIII in the National Archives

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War.

President Lincoln and other Republicans were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which in 1863 declared the freedom of slaves in ten Confederate states then in rebellion, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was solely based on Lincoln's war powers. The Proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states nor itself make slavery illegal.^[1]

Contents 1 Text 2 History 3 Interpretation 3.1 Involuntary servitude 3.2 Free versus unfree labor 3.3 Definitions of conditions addressed by Thirteenth Amendment 4 Enforcement (Section 2) 4.1 Threat of legal consequences 5 Proposal and ratification 6 Earlier proposed Thirteenth Amendments 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 External links

Text

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.^[2]

History

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2010)

The first 12 amendments were adopted within 15 years of the Constitution’s adoption. The first ten (the Bill of Rights) were adopted in 1791, the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 and the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed there had been no new amendments adopted in more than 60 years.

During the secession crisis, but prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, the majority of slavery-related bills had protected slavery. The United States had ceased slave importation and intervened militarily against the Atlantic slave trade, but had made few proposals to abolish domestic slavery, and only a small number to abolish the domestic slave trade. Representative John Quincy Adams had made a proposal in 1839, but there were no new proposals until December 14, 1863, when a bill to support an amendment to abolish slavery throughout the entire United States was introduced by Representative James Mitchell Ashley (Republican, Ohio). This was soon followed by a similar proposal made by Representative James F. Wilson (Republican, Iowa).

Eventually the Congress and the public began to take notice and a number of additional legislative proposals were brought forward. On January 11, 1864, Senator John B. Henderson of Missouri submitted a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. The abolition of slavery had historically been associated with Republicans, but Henderson was one of the War Democrats. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Lyman Trumbull (Republican, Illinois), became involved in merging different proposals for an amendment. On February 8 of that year, another Republican, Senator Charles Sumner (Radical Republican, Massachusetts), submitted a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery as well as guarantee equality. As the number of proposals and the extent of their scope began to grow, the Senate Judiciary Committee presented the Senate with an amendment proposal combining the drafts of Ashley, Wilson and Henderson.^[3]

While the Senate did pass the amendment on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, the House declined to do so. After it was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts came to fruition when the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56. The Thirteenth Amendment's archival copy bears an apparent Presidential signature, under the usual ones of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, after the words "Approved February 1, 1865".^[4]

The Thirteenth Amendment completed the abolition of slavery in the United States, which had begun with the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.^[5]

Shortly after the amendment's adoption, selective enforcement of certain laws, such as laws against vagrancy, allowed blacks to continue to be subjected to involuntary servitude in some cases.^[6] See also Black Codes.

The Thirteenth Amendment was followed by the Fourteenth Amendment (civil rights in the states), in 1868, and the Fifteenth Amendment (which bans racial voting restrictions), in 1870.

Interpretation

Involuntary servitude

In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Offenses against the Thirteenth Amendment have not been prosecuted since 1947.^[7][8]

Psychological coercion had been the primary means of forcing involuntary servitude in United States v. Ingalls, 73 F. Supp. 76, 77 (S.D. Cal. 1947). However, in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment did not prohibit compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion.^[9][10] Kozminski limited involuntary servitude to those situations when the master subjects the servant to:

1. threatened or actual physical force,
2. threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion or
3. fraud or deceit where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or mentally incompetent.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386, updated the federal anti-slavery statutes to include victims who are enslaved through psychological coercion, even if there was no physical coercion.^[11][12]

U.S. Courts of Appeals, in Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, Herndon v. Chapel Hill, and Steirer v. Bethlehem School District, have ruled that the use of community service as a high school graduation requirement did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment.^[13]

Free versus unfree labor

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)

Labor is defined as work of economic or financial value. Unfree labor (i.e., labor not willingly given), is obtained in a number of ways:

• causing or threatening to cause serious harm to any person;
• physically restraining or threatening to physically restrain another person;
• abusing or threatening to abuse the law or legal process;
• knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating or possessing any actual or purported passport or other immigration document, or any other actual or purported government identification document, of another person;
• blackmail;
• causing or threatening to cause financial harm to any person—i.e., using financial control over a person.

Definitions of conditions addressed by Thirteenth Amendment

Peonage^[14]

Refers to a person in "debt servitude," or involuntary servitude tied to the payment of a debt. Compulsion to servitude includes the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his or her will.

Involuntary servitude^[15]

Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Requiring specific performance as a remedy for breach of personal services contracts has been understood to be a form of involuntary servitude.^[16]

Forced labor^[17]

Labor or service obtained by:

• threats of serious harm or physical restraint;
• any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe they would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if they did not perform such labor or services:
• the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

Enforcement (Section 2)

Main article: Congressional power of enforcement

Threat of legal consequences

Victims of human trafficking and other conditions of forced labor are commonly coerced by threat of legal actions to their detriment. A leading example is deportation of illegal immigrants. Victims of forced labor and trafficking are protected by Title 18 of the U.S. Code.^[18]

• Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights:^[19]

Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States

• Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:^[20]

It is a crime for any person acting under color of law (federal, state or local officials who enforce statutes, ordinances, regulations, or customs) to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This includes willfully subjecting or causing to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Proposal and ratification

The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by the Thirty-eighth United States Congress, on January 31, 1865. The amendment was adopted on December 6, 1865, when Georgia ratified it. In a proclamation by Secretary of State William Henry Seward, dated December 18, 1865, it was declared to have been ratified by the legislatures of 27 of the then 36 states. The dates of ratification were:^[21]

1. Illinois (February 1, 1865)
2. Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
3. Michigan (February 3, 1865)
4. Maryland (February 3, 1865)
5. New York (February 3, 1865)
6. Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
7. West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
8. Missouri (February 6, 1865)
9. Maine (February 7, 1865)
10. Kansas (February 7, 1865)
11. Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
12. Virginia (February 9, 1865) - first former Confederate State to ratify the amendment, two months before Lee's surrender (in Virginia)
13. Ohio (February 10, 1865)
14. Indiana (February 13, 1865)
15. Nevada (February 16, 1865)
16. Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
17. Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
18. Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
19. Vermont (March 8, 1865)
20. Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
21. Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
22. Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
23. New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
24. South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
25. Alabama (December 2, 1865)
26. North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
27. Georgia (December 6, 1865)

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

1. Oregon (December 8, 1865)
2. California (December 19, 1865)
3. Florida (December 28, 1865, reaffirmed on June 9, 1869)
4. Iowa (January 15, 1866)
5. New Jersey (January 23, 1866, after having rejected it on March 16, 1865)
6. Texas (February 18, 1870)
7. Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 8, 1865)
8. Kentucky (March 18, 1976, after having rejected it on February 24, 1865)
9. Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5, 1865)

Earlier proposed Thirteenth Amendments

Each of two amendments proposed by the Congress would have become the Thirteenth Amendment if it had been ratified when originally proposed.

• Titles of Nobility Amendment, proposed by the Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states, would have revoked the citizenship of anyone either (1) accepting a foreign title of nobility or (2) accepting any foreign payment without Congressional authorization.

• The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.^[22] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption of any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referenced the Corwin Amendment:^[23][24]

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

See also

• Crittenden Compromise
• Missouri Compromise
• Slave and free states
• Slavery Abolition Act 1833, ending slavery in most of the British Empire
• Lyman Trumbull
• Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Notes

1. ^ Leidner, G.. "The Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation". http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm. "He recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed quickly by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery." 
2. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html
3. ^ Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
4. ^ Charters of Freedom – The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights
5. ^ Primary Documents in American History: The Thirteenth Amendment Library of Congress. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
6. ^ Carter, William M. Jr. (2006-2007), Judicial Review of Thirteenth Amendment Legislation: Congruence and Proportionality or Necessary and Proper, 38, U. Tol. L. Rev., pp. 973, http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/utol38&section=64 
7. ^ "The 13th Amendment and the Lost Origins of Civil Rights" Risa Goluboff (2001) Duke Law Journal Vol 50 p. 1609. See section on Elizabeth Ingalls and Dora Jones. Refer to United States v. Ingalls, 73 F. Supp. 76, 77 (S.D. Cal. 1947) Southern District Court California
8. ^ U.S. v. Ingalls, 73 F.Supp. 76 (1947) as cited by Traver, Robert (1967). The Jealous Mistress. Boston: Little, Brown. 
9. ^ "Thirteenth Amendment—Slavery and Involuntary Servitude" GPO Access, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 1557
10. ^ "The 13th Amendment and the Lost Origins of Civil Rights" Risa Goluboff (2001) Duke Law Journal Vol 50 p. 1609, n. 228
11. ^ Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet
12. ^ Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 2000 U.S. Department of State
13. ^ Loupe, Diane (August 2000). "Community Service: Mandatory or Voluntary? – Industry Overview". School Administrator: 8. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSD/is_7_57/ai_77204744/pg_8/. 
14. ^ Peonage Section 1581 of Title 18 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Involuntary servitude, forced labor and sex trafficking statutes enforced
15. ^ Involuntary Servitude Section 1584 of Title 18 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Involuntary servitude, forced labor and sex trafficking statutes enforced
16. ^ Oman, Nathan B.,Specific Performance and the Thirteenth Amendment. Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming Available at SSRN: [1]
17. ^ Forced Labor Section 1589 of Title 18 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Involuntary servitude, forced labor and sex trafficking statutes enforced. NB According to the Dept. of Justice, "Congress enacted § 1589 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), which interpreted § 1584 to require the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. Section 1589 broadens the definition of the kinds of coercion that might result in forced labor."
18. ^ Crimes and criminal procedure
19. ^ Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights
20. ^ Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
21. ^ Mount, Steve (January 2007). "Ratification of Constitutional Amendments". http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html. Retrieved February 24, 2007. 
22. ^ http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=02CorwinAmend
23. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
24. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=T0IGUhxqUuYC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22The+Corwin+Amendment+in+the+Secession+Crisis%22+%22Ohio+Historical+Quarterly%22&source=bl&ots=UTc9bFKRFF&sig=_dJGSX-qqXguLdYNL_YQQZv2g4k&hl=en&ei=XKK0StWfNp2G6wPXi5HKCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

References

• Alexander Tsesis, The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History (2004)
• Michael Vorenberg, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment (2001)
• Herman Belz, Emancipation and Equal Rights: Politics and Constitutionalism in the Civil War Era (1978)
• Mitch Kachun, Festivals of Freedom: Memory and Meaning in African American Emancipation Celebrations, 1808–1915 (2003)
• C. Peter Ripley, Roy E. Finkenbine, Michael F. Hembree, Donald Yacovone, Witness for Freedom: African American Voices on Race, Slavery, and Emancipation (1993)
• Model State Anti-trafficking Criminal Statute – U.S. Dept of Justice

External links

• Original Document Proposing Abolition of Slavery
• Mr. Lincoln and Freedom: Thirteenth Amendment
• Thirteenth Amendment and related resources at the Library of Congress
• National Archives: Thirteenth Amendment
• Ghost Amendment: The Thirteenth Amendment that Never Was (Description of the Corwin Amendment)
• CRS Annotated Constitution: Thirteenth Amendment

v d e United States Constitution Text Preamble and Articles Bill of Rights Subsequent Amendments Articles Preamble One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Amendments Bill of Rights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ratified Proposed Conventions to propose State ratifying conventions Formation History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three-Fifths Compromise Signers) Federalist Papers (list Massachusetts Compromise Clauses Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Emolument Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Ineligibility Militia Natural–born citizen Necessary and Proper No Religious Test Origination Postal Presentment Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Self-Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial Supremacy Suspension Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers Interpretation Concurrent powers Congressional enforcement Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Executive privilege Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Preemption Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Unitary executive theory

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)