Historic oversight corrected: Mississippi finally ratifies 13th amendment

[jimmy olsen]

Lol, Mississippi! 

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130217/NEWS01/302170050/?nclick_check=1

Oscar-nominated "Lincoln," which depicts the political fight to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, played a role in Mississippi officially ratifying the amendment this month — a century and a half later.

The story opens, not surprisingly, in a movie theater.

Last November, Dr. Ranjan Batra, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomical sciences at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, saw the Steven Spielberg film and wondered afterward what happened when the states voted on ratification.

That night, Batra — a native of India who became a U.S. citizen in 2008 — went on the usconstitution.net website, learning the rest of the story.

After Congress voted for the 13th Amendment in January 1864, the measure went to the states for ratification.

On Dec. 6, 1864, the amendment received the two-thirds' vote it needed when Georgia became the 27th state to ratify it. States that rejected the measure included Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey and Mississippi.

In the months and years that followed, states continued to ratify the amendment, including those that had initially rejected it. New Jersey ratified the amendment in 1866, Delaware in 1901 and Kentucky in 1976.

But there was an asterisk beside Mississippi. A note read: "Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official."

The next day, Batra spoke with Ken Sullivan, an anatomical material specialist for UMC's body donation program.

When Batra mentioned Mississippi had never ratified the amendment, Sullivan responded that he remembered state lawmakers had voted to ratify the amendment in 1995, when he was a senior at Crystal Springs High School.

Batra shared what he had read online, and Sullivan started researching.

He telephoned the National Archives' Office of the Federal Register, confirmed Mississippi had yet to officially ratify the amendment and found out what paperwork was needed.

That weekend, Sullivan took his wife, Kris, to see "Lincoln," which details the 16th president's fight to abolish slavery once and for all.

"People stood up and applauded at the end of it," he said. "That's the first time I ever saw an audience do that."

Sullivan had tears in his eyes, overwhelmed.

He knew he would do what he could to ensure his native state officially ratified the amendment. "I felt very connected to the history," he said.

He tracked down a copy of the 1995 Senate resolution, introduced by state Sen. Hillman Frazier, D-Jackson, who had been upset to learn Mississippi was the only state that had never ratified the 13th Amendment.

The resolution passed both the Mississippi Senate and House.

"It was unanimous," Frazier recalled. "Some didn't vote, but we didn't receive a 'nay' vote."

The last paragraph of the resolution called on the secretary of state to send a copy to the Office of the Federal Register.

Why the copy was never sent in 1995 remains unknown.

"What an amendment to have an error in filing," said Dick Molpus, who served then as secretary of state. "Thanks to Ken Sullivan for being a good citizen in bringing this oversight to light, so it can be corrected."

That "Lincoln" played a role pleases him, he said. "It was one of the most inspirational movies I've ever seen."

After seeing the film, Sullivan contacted the office of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, who agreed to file the paperwork and make it official.

On Jan. 30, Hosemann sent the Office of the Federal Register a copy of the 1995 Senate resolution, adopted by both the Mississippi Senate and House.

On Feb. 7, Charles A. Barth, director of the Federal Register, wrote back that he had received the resolution: "With this action, the State of Mississippi has ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Frazier remarked, "We're very deliberate in our state. We finally got it right."

Hosemann said he is glad to see the chapter closed, adding, "It was long overdue."

On Wednesday, he met with Sullivan and his family.

That same day, Sullivan introduced his daughters to state government, just as his father, Dale T. Sullivan, deputy director of the Mississippi Association of School Superintendents, had done for him decades earlier.

To be a part of something historic, to see the 13th Amendment finally ratified pleases Sullivan. "Now it's officially filed and recorded," he said. "There's no asterisk by Mississippi any more."

[Viking]

WTF?

Oh, well, at least the civil war is finally over.

[The Brain]

The states obviously need more oversight.

[dps]

Any vote in a state legislature an the issue after Georgia's ratification is what is known as a fucking waste of time.

[Lettow77]

Dr. Ranjan Batra, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomical sciences at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, saw the Steven Spielberg film and wondered afterward what happened when the states voted on ratification.

outside agitators continue to plague Mississippi, I see.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

[Neil]

Except for PR purposes.

[Valmy]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

It makes everybody feel better to have it eventually be unanimous.

[Barrister]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

It makes everybody feel better to have it eventually be unanimous.

Unanimity in constitutional amendments is highly over-rated.

[Razgovory]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

It makes everybody feel better to have it eventually be unanimous.

Unanimity in constitutional amendments is highly over-rated.

Mississippi's history with race relations suggests otherwise.

[alfred russel]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

I don't know that warrants passing a law over. I assume the archivist could do this over his lunch break?

It also could serve a purpose. With some amendments there has been controversy whether they were properly approved (for example, it used to be the case that while 3/4 of the states approved amendments, they would sometimes approve different wording). If some ratifications are thrown out, "extras" could be useful.

[The Brain]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

I don't know that warrants passing a law over. I assume the archivist could do this over his lunch break?

You want to fight the unions over a pointless formality?

[alfred russel]

You want to fight the unions over a pointless formality?

The archivist union wouldn't be the first to go up against the government. They would be walking the trail blazed by the air traffic controllers.

[dps]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

It makes everybody feel better to have it eventually be unanimous.

Touchy-feely shit is appropriate in personal relationships and chick flicks, not the legislature.

[Razgovory]

It's binding when 3/4ths of the States at the time ratified it, so really it doesn't matter if any of the other extant States at that time who didn't initially ratify decide to do so later. I'd even be in favor of a Congressional regulation or law saying the Archivist will not accept any ratifications or further noise on the issue once the amendment has the force of law. No reason to deal with it after that point.

It makes everybody feel better to have it eventually be unanimous.

Touchy-feely shit is appropriate in personal relationships and chick flicks, not the legislature.

I disagree.  When taking a major step, you want everyone on board.  There is a reason why proponents of Revolution pushed really hard to make sure there wouldn't be any dissenting votes on Deceleration of Independence.