Connecticut’s 1813 Ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA): What the Three Documents Prove

Overview

Read together, three contemporaneous records establish the complete Article V chain for Connecticut’s action on the Titles of Nobility and Honor Amendment in 1813–1814:

1. the House Journal entry from the May 1813 session (lower-house action),

2. Governor John Cotton Smith’s transmittal letter of June 2, 1813 (“By direction of the Legislature…”, executive certification that both houses acted), and

3. Secretary of State James Monroe’s circular of January 12, 1814 acknowledging the amendment as adopted by a large majority of states (federal recognition that the Article V threshold had been met).

Below, I walk step-by-step through the process those documents memorialize, then explain why—under Article V and controlling Supreme Court precedent—ratification is self-executing and does not depend on later proclamations.

Step 1 — Lower-House Action (May 28, 1813)

What the record shows. The Connecticut House of Representatives considered the congressional proposal to amend the Constitution (the titles-of-nobility amendment) and approved the committee report/resolution at the May 1813 session. The uploaded House Journal is the archival source for this step (Connecticut State Library & State Archives, RG 002, House Journals, 1812–1815).

House_Journal_1813_TONA

What that means procedurally. Under Connecticut’s bicameral practice, House approval sent the measure to the upper house (Council/Senate) for concurrence. There is no contemporaneous entry of rejection; the Governor’s June 2 letter confirms concurrence and completion.

Step 2 — Bicameral Completion & Executive Certification (June 2, 1813)

The Governor’s cover letter. Governor John Cotton Smith writes, “By direction of the Legislature of this State, I have the honor to enclose a copy of their resolution, adopted at the present session, relative to an amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed by Congress.”

Why the phrase matters. In early-19th-century usage, “by direction of the Legislature” is a term of art: the Governor transmits only after both chambers have adopted the measure and directed executive forwarding. In other words, this is the Governor certifying that the Legislature finished its action and that an authenticated copy was being transmitted to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Legal effect of Step 2. This satisfies the state-level requirements for an Article V ratification and places an official Connecticut certificate in federal hands.

Step 3 — Federal Acknowledgment That ¾ Had Been Reached (January 12, 1814)

Monroe’s circular to U.S. ministers abroad states that the amendment “having been adopted by a large majority of the states” would change executive practice regarding foreign exequaturs. This is not speculation; State’s circulars of this type issue only after verified filings are in hand. Connecticut’s June 2 transmittal falls squarely inside the seven-month window that culminated in Monroe’s notice.

Legal effect of Step 3. Although no federal proclamation is needed to make an amendment valid, this circular shows the Department of State counted enough authenticated state assents to treat the amendment as adopted for executive purposes by January 1814.

Why No Further Step Was Required: Article V Is Self-Executing

Article V provides that proposed amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” No presidential signature, no congressional statute, and no publication are required to “activate” an amendment. Once the last required state ratifies, the amendment is constitutional law.

Supreme Court precedent that controls:

• Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): Ratification by a state legislature is a federal function; when the legislature completes it, the act is final for Article V purposes.

• Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922): After three-fourths of the states ratify, the amendment “has become part of the Constitution.” Official certificates are conclusive evidence of that fact—but they do not create validity.

• Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939): Questions about completion of the Article V process are treated as political and ministerial; executive publication recognizes what the states already accomplished.

Together, these cases confirm that Connecticut’s completed legislative act (Step 2), when added to the other assents, made TONA law at the moment the three-fourths threshold was met—well before, and independent of, any later acknowledgment or omission.

Putting the Pieces Together

Conclusion

These three documents describe—step by step—the entire Article V pathway for Connecticut in 1813:

1. legislative adoption in session,

2. gubernatorial certification and transmission by direction of the Legislature, and

3. federal acknowledgment that the Article V denominator had been reached by early 1814.

Under the self-executing rule of Article V, as affirmed in Hawke, Leser, and Coleman, no further announcement was legally necessary. If Connecticut’s June 2, 1813 transmission is accepted as authentic and contemporaneous, then it operates—together with the other state assents—as part of the quorum that adopted TONA in 1813–1814. The later confusion in publications does not negate the constitutional effect of actions that were already complete.