How Connecticut’s own handwritten journal proves that it ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment—and how later alterations attempted to erase that act.
I. The Journal’s Authority
Among the surviving constitutional records in the Connecticut State Archives, few are as decisive as the House Journal for the May 1813 session.
This document, preserved in the Records of the Connecticut General Assembly (Archival Record Group #002, 1812–1815), is the official contemporaneous ledger kept by the Clerk of the House during daily proceedings
House_Journal_1813_TONA
.
Unlike later printed versions or committee copies, this handwritten volume was recorded in real time.
It is not a secondary summary or retrospective copy—it is the working document of the legislative process itself, making it the final word on what the House actually did.
Under early nineteenth-century Connecticut law, the journal was the controlling record of legislative intent.
If an amendment or resolution was received, assigned to committee, reported, and the report accepted, that entry itself constituted the legal record of the General Assembly’s decision.
II. What the Journal Shows
In May 1813, the Titles of Nobility Amendment—proposed by Congress in 1810—arrived formally before Connecticut’s legislature.
The journal shows, in unbroken chronological order:
-
The amendment was received and read in the House.
-
It was referred to a joint committee for consideration.
-
The committee reported back to the House.
-
The House accepted that report.
At no point in the original handwriting is there any language stating that the report was rejected, tabled, or deemed “not expedient.”
No marginal corrections, strikethroughs, or after-the-fact notations appear anywhere in the entry.
This chain of actions—referral, report, and acceptance—was exactly how Connecticut ratified prior constitutional amendments.
Under the state’s own legislative procedure, acceptance of a committee report recommending ratification was itself a ratification.
There was no need for a separate resolution.
Thus, the House Journal of May 1813 stands as direct documentary evidence that Connecticut approved the Titles of Nobility Amendment.
III. Absence of Rejection or Reversal
The power of the journal lies as much in what it doesn’t say as in what it does.
If the House had voted not to ratify, the clerk would have been required to record that action in the same session, beneath the committee report.
No such notation exists.
Nor is there any entry in later 1813 or early 1814 sessions rescinding or reconsidering the vote.
That silence is fatal to any claim that Connecticut “refused” the amendment at the time.
The “not expedient” phrasing that later appeared in the so-called committee report now catalogued as Vol. 22, Docs 95–96 does not originate in this journal; it was introduced later, almost certainly during the political upheaval of April 1814 when the state’s Federalist leadership sought to distance itself from Madison’s administration.
IV. Historical and Political Context
The journal’s plain entries were written before the British blockade of 1814, before the Hartford Convention, and before the federal government’s January 12 1814 circular declaring the amendment adopted.
At the time of the journal’s writing, the amendment’s ratification was routine and non-controversial.
Only later, after public anger toward the war and President Madison intensified, did Connecticut’s leadership have political reason to rewrite its constitutional record.
By then, however, the 1813 House Journal already fixed the historical fact: the state had ratified.
V. Legal Significance
In constitutional law, contemporaneous legislative journals are the ultimate proof of ratification.
Courts and Congress alike have long held that later administrative alterations cannot undo what an authenticated journal records.
Therefore, the 1813 Connecticut House Journal establishes that:
-
The state legislature acted affirmatively on the Titles of Nobility Amendment.
-
Later “do not ratify” certificates (August 1814, February 1818) were political reversals, not constitutional actions.
-
The 1814 and 1818 revisions contradict the original controlling record and hold no legal force under Article V.
VI. Conclusion
The handwritten House Journal of May 1813 is Connecticut’s own testimony.
It shows, in the ink of its official clerk, that the General Assembly received, reviewed, and accepted the Titles of Nobility Amendment.No rejection was recorded; no reversal occurred during that session.
The journal therefore stands as the earliest and most authoritative evidence that Connecticut ratified the amendment, and that later documents claiming otherwise represent a post-facto political alteration, not the state’s lawful constitutional act.
