Precedents and Procedures for Correcting Connecticut’s Record on the Titles of Nobility Amendment

Introduction

In 1813, the Connecticut General Assembly accepted and approved a committee report concerning the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the United States Constitution. The handwritten journal entry for May 28, 1813, clearly shows ratification, while later copies of the committee report and subsequent correspondence were altered to state that the amendment was “not expedient.” This alteration produced two conflicting records—one indicating ratification, the other indicating rejection.

The question now is: How can Connecticut officially correct its historical record to reflect the original legislative act of ratification?
The answer lies in historical precedent, statutory authority, and long-established administrative practice between the states, the National Archives, and the Office of the Federal Register.

I. Historical Precedents for Correcting or Clarifying Ratification Records

1. Mississippi and the 13th Amendment (1995–2013)

Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in 1995, but due to a clerical oversight, its certification was never transmitted to the federal government. When the error was discovered in 2013, the state submitted its official certification to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), which accepted it and updated the national record.
Result: The correction was formally recognized 148 years after the original ratification deadline, proving that the process of updating amendment records remains open when errors are discovered.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Ignored Rescissions

Ohio and New Jersey both attempted to rescind their ratifications after initially approving the Fourteenth Amendment. Secretary of State William H. Seward acknowledged the controversy but, after congressional instruction, issued a final proclamation counting both states as ratifiers.
Result: The federal government established the precedent that once a state ratifies, that action is final and later “do not ratify” or rescission attempts are ignored.

3. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870): New York’s Withdrawal Ignored

New York ratified the Fifteenth Amendment and later attempted to withdraw its approval. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish disregarded the withdrawal and included New York among the ratifying states in his proclamation of adoption (16 Stat. 1131).
Result: The executive branch reaffirmed that a valid ratification cannot be undone by subsequent state action.

4. Modern Federal Practice under NARA and the Office of the Federal Register

Under 1 U.S.C. §106b, the Archivist of the United States (delegated through the OFR) has the duty to receive, examine, and certify all state ratifications of constitutional amendments. The OFR ensures that each state submission bears proper legislative authentication and legal form.
When a state later discovers an error in its records or certification, it may transmit a corrected or supplemental certification to the OFR. The OFR then updates its official archival file and may issue a notation or correction in the Federal Register.

II. The Process by Which Connecticut May Correct Its Record

Step 1 – State-Level Review and Authentication

1. Initiation of Review

   • The Connecticut State Archivist (within the Connecticut State Library) may initiate a review of the disputed 1813 committee report and related correspondence.

   • This can occur upon a formal written request supported by documentary evidence—such as the House Journal entry, governor’s letters, and comparative handwriting analysis.

2. Verification of Authenticity

   • The Archives can verify provenance, examine handwriting and ink characteristics, and determine which version of the document reflects the authentic legislative action.

   • Under State Library procedures, falsified or erroneous copies can be annotated, replaced, or reclassified in the archival record as “superseded” or “historically incorrect.”

3. Official Finding or Certification

   • Once verified, the State Archivist or Attorney General can issue an official certification stating that the authentic legislative record of May 28, 1813, reflects ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment.

   • This certification should be endorsed by the Connecticut Secretary of the State, who is the statutory custodian of constitutional ratification records.

Step 2 – Legislative or Executive Confirmation

Although not required, Connecticut may choose to reinforce the correction through:

• A joint resolution of the General Assembly affirming that the 1813 journal record constitutes ratification, or

• An executive proclamation by the Governor acknowledging the correction and directing that the State Archives update the official record.

Such actions mirror those taken historically by other states when clarifying amendment records or correcting legislative errors.

Step 3 – Federal Submission and Record Update

1. Transmission to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR)

   • The corrected certification and supporting documentation should be transmitted to:
     Director, Office of the Federal Register
     National Archives and Records Administration
     Washington, D.C. 20408

2. Federal Review

   • The OFR will examine the submission for authenticity, confirm that it bears the state seal and proper signatures, and then update the federal ratification file for the Titles of Nobility Amendment.

3. Public Notice

   • If warranted, the OFR may issue an official notation or update in the Federal Register acknowledging receipt of Connecticut’s corrected certification, much as it did for Mississippi’s 13th Amendment documentation.

III. Legal and Constitutional Standing

Once Connecticut’s correction is accepted by the OFR/NARA:

• The corrected record becomes part of the federal evidentiary file under 1 U.S.C. §106b.

• Under Supreme Court precedent—Leser v. Garnett (1922)—the executive proclamation or federal record of ratification is “conclusive upon the courts.”

• Therefore, a properly certified correction submitted today carries the same legal force as an original certification transmitted in 1813.

IV. Why This Matters

Correcting the archival record does not alter history—it restores it. Connecticut’s own handwritten House Journal entry and governor’s correspondence show that the state ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. A falsified committee report and subsequent altered certifications misrepresented that fact.

By following the same corrective process used by Mississippi in 2013, and by invoking the established federal practice of non-recognition of rescissions, Connecticut can bring its archival and legal record back into alignment with the truth of 1813.

Conclusion

Historical errors, even those two centuries old, are not beyond correction. The precedent is clear:

• A state may amend its record when new evidence demonstrates that an earlier document was falsified or incomplete.

• The federal government, through the Office of the Federal Register, routinely accepts and records such corrections.

• Once corrected, the updated certification becomes binding and final under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Connecticut thus possesses both the precedent and the procedure to restore its rightful place as the thirteenth state to ratify the Titles of Nobility Amendment—and, in doing so, to correct one of the oldest documentary irregularities in American constitutional history.