The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as following:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure and unimportant. The references to "nobility," "honour," "emperor," "king," and "prince" lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty, post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seems so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment (it is believed) can be ignored.
Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honours," that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was regarded by Western nations upon its inception. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.
Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish uprising (1794) were, in part, encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.
Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy militarily, they resorted to political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception - it was perhaps the first "cold war."
TITLES OF NOBILITY
Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knights shields as "Esquires." As lances, shields and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (concerned here with lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire," which denoted a level of upper citizenry, more specifically referred to as "gentry," which was a clearly established, honored, respected, and enforced title of nobility. The title of "Esquire" is still used even today by some lawyers, and even where it is not, the principle at law known as the "establishment of a contract or thing by performance," the use of the title and position of Esquire Nobility by so many lawyers from those days forward, has clearly established in the minds and hearts of American people that "lawyers" or "attorneys" are somehow above everybody else, having once been universally described as "Esquires," and given different and greater rights by the governments accordingly than the common American people.
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys, but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor." There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer, there was no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" - a "title of British nobility."
"Esquire was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendments ought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect! Lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic (and certainly not altruistic), and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the U.S. Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the Amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another." A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers, non-lawyers generally cannot.
By prohibiting "honors," the Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an equal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to insure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, both "esquire" and "honor" would be key targets of the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" no longer apply today precisely as they did back in the early 1800's, political system, it is clearly known that an "esquire" or bar attorney receives far better treatment in and by the courts as well as by the public at large in general, whereas "pro se's" are treated like so much rabble, their opinions are regarded as [garbage], and they are treated pretty much by various government officials as useless eaters, or subjects out of control. The concept of "honor" remains relevant, possibly more so today than at any previous time in U.S. history, for they, the "honors," are greatly feared and even revered, even by the esquires who are considered even as being below them.
And as a further example, anyone who had (or has) a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor," and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy, but not as a matter of any Constitutional right. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).