For over two centuries, the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) has existed in a legal limbo — proposed, ratified by multiple states, printed in official law books, and even acknowledged in diplomatic correspondence, yet silently omitted from the U.S. Constitution by the very government that once declared it law.
The evidence is not theoretical. It is handwritten, dated, and signed — preserved in the archives of the Department of State, state legislatures, and early American law publications. Together, these documents reveal a story not of neglect, but of deliberate omission.
The 1814 Monroe Circular: Official Recognition of Ratification
The first critical document is James Monroe’s circular to foreign ministers, dated January 12, 1814. Monroe, then Secretary of State under President Madison, informed U.S. diplomats abroad that Congress had proposed an amendment “to prevent citizens of the United States from accepting offices under foreign powers” and that, “this amendment having been adopted by a large majority of the states, the President is of opinion that it would be improper to grant exequaturs to citizens of the United States.”
This single paragraph is devastating to modern claims that TONA was never ratified. The executive branch — the same that transmitted amendments to the states — was acting under the belief that the amendment had been adopted. Monroe’s directive was not tentative; it ordered the revocation of exequaturs (the official permissions for Americans to serve as foreign consuls). This is not speculation — it is the government behaving as though the amendment was already in force.
The 1816 Letter to Ralph B. Forbes: Confirmation from the Department of State
Two years later, the Department of State again confirmed TONA’s adoption. In a letter dated October 30, 1816, Monroe (by then still Secretary of State) responded to a U.S. citizen who had sought approval to act as a foreign consul. Monroe explained the delay in issuing such permissions, citing that “a proposition made a few years since by Congress to the several States, so to amend the Constitution of the United States as to discourage our citizens by certain penalties from accepting offices of any kind from foreign states or princes… Upon an examination of the subject, it is ascertained that the requisite number of the States have accepted the proposition and that it has become a part of the Constitution.”
In other words, the Department of State — the very agency responsible for authenticating constitutional ratifications — officially stated that the amendment had become law. There is no ambiguity in the language: it was “ascertained” that TONA had met the constitutional threshold.
Connecticut’s 1813 Certification: The Pivotal Record
The third key piece is Governor John Cotton Smith’s June 2, 1813 letter to the Secretary of State, certifying that Connecticut’s legislature had “adopted at the present session a resolution relative to an amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed by Congress.”
This letter, authenticated and preserved in the state’s archives, proves that Connecticut did act on the amendment — directly refuting later claims that it had declined to do so. The Connecticut committee report originally favored ratification; only later, through suspiciously altered documents, was that approval obscured.
The attached forensic comparison of the Theodore Dwight signature and the overwritten text in the committee report strongly suggests that the original language — which supported adoption — was tampered with. The noise and fiber disruption around the substituted word “refusing” indicate an earlier erased word, most likely “agreeing” or “approving.”
If proven, that single alteration would explain how Connecticut’s ratification was erased from official history — leaving the federal record one state short of the necessary count.
The 1815–1816 Publications: TONA in Official Law Books
Equally important is Henry Potter’s 1816 edition of “A Guide to Sheriffs, Coroners, Clerks, Constables, and Other Civil Officers,” printed in Raleigh, North Carolina. In its appendix, Potter — a sitting U.S. District Judge — includes the Constitution of the United States with amendments, listing TONA as the “Additional Amendment,” complete with its full text.
The footnote reads:
“This article was proposed at the Second Session of the Eleventh Congress.”
Potter’s inclusion of the amendment, in a law manual used by public officers, shows that contemporaries viewed it as an operative part of the Constitution. Official government printers across multiple states published the same version through the 1820s. This was not a fringe misunderstanding; it was part of the official legal corpus.
Why TONA Was Suppressed
The disappearance of TONA from later publications was not the result of clerical oversight. The timing coincides with the post-War of 1812 political realignments — when federal power was consolidating and the Madison-Monroe administration sought to restore normal relations with Britain and Europe.
Acknowledging TONA would have invalidated foreign titles, pensions, and investments held by American elites, including diplomats and financiers with British and French ties. As Monroe transitioned from Secretary of State to President, official recognition quietly ceased. The State Department’s printed copies after 1818 omit the amendment entirely.
By 1845, when the Statutes at Large began to systematize constitutional texts, TONA was gone — despite surviving in earlier federal and state records. Once omitted, its absence became “fact” through repetition, while the surviving records were ignored or misfiled.
Why Suppression Continues Today
The continued suppression of TONA today stems from three intertwined motives:
-
Institutional Inertia and Liability – Official recognition would admit that the federal government once declared an amendment ratified, then concealed or reversed it. That admission would carry enormous legal and political consequences.
-
Conflict with Modern Power Structures – TONA directly threatens the concept of dual loyalties, foreign influence, and the revolving door between government and corporate interests. In an era where officials routinely hold dual citizenship or receive foreign honors, TONA’s enforcement would be politically explosive.
-
Control of the Narrative – By maintaining that TONA was “never adopted,” modern institutions preserve control over constitutional interpretation. Accepting TONA as valid would undermine a century of judicial precedent and expose the fragility of the government’s record-keeping.
What It Will Take for Recognition
Restoring TONA to its rightful place will require not just scholarship but constitutional courage:
-
Official Archival Acknowledgment – The National Archives and the Department of State must be compelled — by Congress or the courts — to produce, certify, and publicly acknowledge these 1813–1816 records of adoption.
-
State Reaffirmations – Modern state legislatures can re-certify TONA under Article V, explicitly referencing their historical ratifications to confirm continuity. If enough states reaffirm, Congress must act.
-
Congressional Declaration – Congress has the authority to declare an amendment valid upon evidence of prior ratification, as it did in Leser v. Garnett (1922), which held that once an amendment is proclaimed, courts must accept it as valid.
-
Public Awareness and Litigation – Grassroots efforts, academic publications, and strategic litigation can force judicial review. If courts are presented with authenticated executive records confirming ratification, they will have no constitutional basis to deny it.
Conclusion: The Amendment That Never Died
The documents are clear: between 1812 and 1816, the United States government itself declared that the Titles of Nobility Amendment had been adopted. That historical fact cannot be undone by later omission.
What remains is not to argue whether TONA was real — the record already proves that — but to demand that the institutions sworn to preserve constitutional truth finally admit what they once affirmed.
Until that day, the suppression of TONA remains one of the most profound constitutional deceptions in American history — not a forgotten amendment, but a buried one.
