On January 12, 1814—amid the War of 1812 and four years into the life of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA)—Secretary of State James Monroe sent a circular to foreign ministers that still puzzles researchers today. In a few poised lines, Monroe told the diplomatic corps that Congress had proposed an amendment designed to prevent U.S. citizens from accepting offices under foreign powers and that, “having been adopted by a large majority of the states,” the President deemed it improper to grant (and proper to revoke) exequaturs authorizing Americans to serve as foreign consuls in U.S. ports.
That sentence—adopted by a large majority of the states—is the spark that keeps this document hot two centuries later.
What the Circular Says—and Why It Matters
The circular does three important things:
-
Describes the amendment’s purpose: to stop U.S. citizens from accepting foreign titles, offices, presents, pensions, or emoluments without consent of Congress.
-
Claims broad state approval: not a casual aside, but an official statement to the diplomatic community that the amendment had been adopted by “a large majority” of states.
-
Announces executive policy: on that basis, the President (Madison) considered it improper to issue or continue exequaturs to U.S. citizens serving foreign governments—effectively a rule change with real-world consequences for consular practice.
Even without resolving the ratification count, the circular shows the United States shifting policy in the exact domain TONA regulates: Americans holding foreign offices.
The Legal Backdrop (and a Gap)
In January 1814, there was no federal statute requiring the Secretary of State to certify or publicly proclaim the adoption of an amendment. That ministerial duty wasn’t codified until 1818. Before then, the government relied on custom: the State Department tracked ratifications, corresponded with governors, and sometimes circulated notices—but there was no legally prescribed certification format.
That gap helps explain why we have assertions of widespread adoption (like this circular) without a single, neatly bound federal certificate from 1814 listing each ratifying state.
Three Documents, One Trajectory
Look at the circular alongside two other State Department letters:
-
May 11, 1815 (to M. de Kantzow): Monroe grants a temporary exequatur to Sweden’s nominee but stresses that letting U.S. citizens hold foreign consular offices does not conform to U.S. principles. The policy announced in 1814 is still the baseline—exceptions are carefully framed.
-
October 30, 1816 (to Ralph B. Forbes): State goes further, stating that examination shows the requisite number of states have accepted the amendment and that it “has thus become a part of the Constitution.” The letter then recites TONA’s text.
Taken together, the 1814–1816 paper trail reads like a sequence:
(1) broad adoption → (2) policy applied → (3) affirmative statement of constitutional status.
Why “Large Majority” Is So Controversial
TONA’s adoption threshold in 1810–1812 was three-fourths of 17 states = 13. By early 1814, several states had ratified, others had rejected or tabled, and the War of 1812 had disrupted legislative calendars and mail. The phrase “large majority” could mean:
-
Plain-English shorthand for “we’re basically there,” reflecting what State believed from the returns on hand;
-
A diplomatic signal justifying immediate executive action (revoking/withholding exequaturs) to align U.S. practice with the amendment’s republican principle;
-
A cautious hedge pending final tallies—avoiding the technical term “requisite number” used later in 1816.
The choice of words matters because it shows how the executive communicated confidence in the amendment’s success while stopping just short of a formal, tally-based proclamation.
What the Circular Proves (and Doesn’t)
Proves:
-
The official U.S. position to foreign governments in January 1814 was that the amendment had strong state support.
-
The executive branch changed policy on consular exequaturs consistent with TONA’s substance—treating U.S. citizens’ service to foreign powers as improper.
Doesn’t, by itself, prove:
-
The Article V completion moment—i.e., exactly which states, on what dates, and whether/when the three-fourths threshold was crossed. For that, researchers still assemble state journals, resolutions, and transmittal receipts.
Plausible Explanations for the “Mystery”
-
Operating on best-known counts
In wartime conditions, State may have been acting on received returns that, in their internal ledger, amounted to functional adoption—even if later archivists couldn’t locate every transmission. -
Policy first, paperwork later
The U.S. had strong republican reasons to discourage foreign offices for citizens regardless. The circular uses TONA’s momentum to justify an immediate policy—revocations now, formalities to follow. -
Evolving recordkeeping
Without an 1814 certification statute, documentation was decentralized. By 1816, State felt comfortable stating in writing that the requisite number had ratified; by 1818, Congress finally standardized the process.
Research Questions That Could Break the Case
-
Where are the exequatur logs? A ledger showing revocations or refusals in 1814–1816 would correlate executive practice to the circular’s claims.
-
Foreign legation replies: Did embassies acknowledge or contest the new policy?
-
State receipts: Which state ratification certificates did State have in hand by January 1814?
-
Printer trails: Early 1810s law compilations and circulars might list states or summarize counts now missing from central files.
Why the Circular Still Resonates
-
It’s a contemporaneous, outward-facing U.S. statement—not a diary entry—meant to shape international conduct.
-
It shows the government behaving as if TONA’s core rule governed Americans’ relations with foreign powers.
-
It anchors the narrative bridge from proposal (1810) → wartime adoption push → postwar assertion (1816) that the amendment had become part of the Constitution.
A Careful Conclusion
The January 12, 1814 circular doesn’t close the adoption question. But it does establish that, by early 1814, the United States—through its chief diplomatic office—told the world the amendment had been adopted by a large majority and implemented the very policy TONA demands. When read with the 1815 and 1816 letters, it depicts an executive branch that believed TONA was not merely aspirational but operational.
Whether that belief rested on a ratification count that satisfies every modern evidentiary demand is the historian’s work. The circular is the inflection point: the moment the principle at the heart of TONA stepped out of legislative debate and into the machinery of U.S. foreign-relations practice.