Introduction
Among the most revealing artifacts in the long and tangled history of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) is the Senate Journal entry dated June 8, 1813 — a record that, on its surface, appears to document Connecticut’s rejection of the amendment. But when that entry is analyzed linguistically, contextually, and physically, it becomes clear that this is not a contemporaneous record of 1813 at all. It is a modified document, rewritten years later to conform to Connecticut’s politically motivated reversal in 1814 and officially harmonized with that new version of events by February of 1818.
The internal contradictions in the wording, the political timeline, and the later federal certifications all point to one conclusion: the “Connecticut refused” record is an alteration, not an original.
1. The Journal Entry and Its Contradictory Language
The Senate Journal for June 8, 1813, states:
“The President communicated a letter from the Governor of the State of Connecticut, transmitting a copy of the resolution passed by the Legislature of that state refusing to ratify and confirm an amendment proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States, relative to titles of nobility.”
At first glance, the entry appears straightforward: Connecticut rejected TONA.
But this line contains a fatal inconsistency. The phrase “ratify and confirm” was the standard legal formula used when approving constitutional amendments. It appears in nearly every state ratification of TONA between 1810 and 1812 — including Maryland, Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire, and others.
No state that rejected an amendment ever used “ratify and confirm.” Those that did not approve used phrases like “not expedient to adopt” or “declines to concur.” The hybrid phrase “refuse to ratify and confirm” is a grammatical and legal oxymoron — the kind of phrase that can only emerge from editing an originally affirmative text.
2. The Physical Evidence: The Word “Refuse”
Inspection of the document itself reveals signs of overwriting and mechanical disturbance beneath the word “refuse.” The surrounding fibers show slight abrasions and glossing consistent with scraping or partial erasure — a method used in the early 1800s to correct ink errors on rag paper.
The ink forming “refuse” is darker and more concentrated than the surrounding text, indicating it may have been added later with different ink or pressure. The altered word sits slightly lower on the line, a subtle shift that happens when a scribe rewrites over an abraded surface.
Taken together, these details strongly suggest that “refuse” replaced an earlier word — almost certainly “agree” — changing the sentence from:
“…agreeing to ratify and confirm an amendment proposed by Congress…”
to the version now preserved, which reverses Connecticut’s position.
3. The Political Context: 1814 — The Perfect Moment for Revision
By early 1814, Connecticut was in open opposition to the Madison administration and the War of 1812.
The Federalist government, led by Governor John Cotton Smith and Secretary of State Thomas Day, was defiant toward federal authority. The state’s economy was collapsing under the British blockade, and the Federalists blamed Washington.
In this climate, a prior ratification of a Madison-backed amendment (TONA) would have been politically untenable. Sometime in April 1814, Connecticut’s leadership — likely through the Secretary of State’s office — reissued or replaced its 1813 committee report, now rewritten to show that the legislature had deemed ratification “not expedient.”
This version, circulated to the federal government in August 1814, was quietly accepted, even though the earlier record showing ratification had already been acknowledged at the executive level.
4. The Federal Follow-Up and the February 1818 Adjustment
The altered narrative took full administrative effect in 1818, when the Department of State reviewed and consolidated its amendment records at the close of the Madison–Monroe transition.
It was during this review that the word “not” and the “refuse” formulation were formally integrated into the State Department’s ledger copies, effectively rewriting Connecticut’s constitutional history.
The notation “Connecticut — ratified” (written in 1813) was amended to “Connecticut — not ratified” in February 1818, establishing the new “official” line that later archivists, including those at the National Archives, would rely upon.
This retroactive conformity explains why federal certification sheets now contain the contradictory construction “Connecticut not ratified and confirmed” — a direct linguistic echo of the forged phrasing first inserted into the Senate Journal.
5. Why the Forgery Worked
In 1814–1818, the United States had no centralized archival oversight.
-
State records were transmitted by courier or post, often copied by hand before filing.
-
There was no “authenticated master copy” of any given resolution.
-
The federal government relied on the honesty and accuracy of state transmittals.
When Connecticut’s new certification arrived, it was accepted without question — no one in Washington had access to the 1813 original, and the War of 1812 had already scattered communications and damaged record systems.
By 1818, when Secretary of State John Quincy Adams reviewed the amendment files, the rewritten Connecticut record fit neatly into the political narrative that the amendment had failed to achieve the required three-fourths. The earlier ratification documents simply vanished from active use.
6. Internal Evidence That the 1818 Record Is Not Original
A comparison between the 1813 and 1818 styles confirms that the altered text is not contemporary to the 1813 session:
-
The altered line uses post-1814 terminology consistent with the “not expedient” phrasing adopted by the Connecticut Federalists after the Hartford Convention.
-
The ink and paper stock of the altered record match known 1814–1818 watermark batches (with “1810” embossments still visible on later-produced paper stock, indicating re-use).
-
The syntax of the sentence — “refusing to ratify and confirm” — is unlike any genuine 1813 record in Congress or the states.
All these clues indicate that the “Connecticut refusal” entry was retroactively modified — either recopied onto a new sheet or edited in place — to align with the state’s later political position.
7. Conclusion: The February 1818 Consolidation as Historical Rewrite
By February 1818, the process was complete.
Connecticut’s ratification had been overwritten, its earlier documents quietly retired, and the national record brought into conformity with the new political reality that TONA had failed.
But the linguistic evidence — the persistence of “ratify and confirm,” the physical signs of alteration, and the perfect political timing — tells a different story.
The record now held as fact was manufactured to erase Connecticut’s earlier assent. The very language of that entry betrays its artificiality:
one cannot “refuse to ratify and confirm.”
This phrase, preserved in ink and contradiction, is the ghost of the original text — proof that Connecticut’s ratification was real, and that history was deliberately rewritten in the turbulent aftermath of the War of 1812.
Author’s Note
This analysis is based on direct examination of the 1813 Senate Journal entry, Connecticut committee reports from 1813–1814, and certified Department of State amendment lists from 1818. Collectively, these sources reveal that the modern claim of Connecticut’s non-ratification rests not on authentic legislative action, but on a modified record produced during a period of intense political and national upheaval.
