Introduction
In the early years of the United States, the Founders were deeply concerned about foreign influence corrupting their new republic. They had just fought a revolution to escape the control of European monarchs, and they wanted to make sure that no American citizen—especially those in government—would ever owe allegiance to a king, prince, or foreign power.
From that concern came one of the most fascinating and controversial proposed amendments to the Constitution: the Titles of Nobility Amendment, often called TONA.
1. The Roots of the Idea
The U.S. Constitution already contained two provisions addressing “titles of nobility.”
-
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 forbids the federal government from granting any title of nobility, and it also prohibits federal officials from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without Congress’s consent.
-
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 extends the same prohibition to the states.
However, by the early 1800s, Congress became concerned that these clauses didn’t go far enough. The young republic was expanding, and some Americans were accepting honors from foreign powers—knighthoods, medals, or other distinctions—that might divide their loyalties.
2. The Proposal of 1810
On May 1, 1810, the Eleventh Congress passed a proposed constitutional amendment with overwhelming support. The text read:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
This meant that accepting a foreign title or gift without Congress’s approval would result in the loss of U.S. citizenship—a severe penalty by any standard.
The amendment was approved by the Senate on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19 to 5, and by the House on May 1, 1810, by 87 to 3.
It was then sent to the states for ratification, as required by Article V of the Constitution.
3. Sent to the States for Ratification
At the time, there were 17 states in the Union, so 13 states (three-fourths) had to ratify it for it to become law.
The amendment was distributed to the governors of all the states by Secretary of State Robert Smith.
During this period, tensions between the United States and Great Britain were increasing, eventually leading to the War of 1812. Foreign influence and loyalty issues were very real concerns—many Americans feared that aristocratic ties could threaten republican liberty.
4. Early State Ratifications
Within the first year, a majority of the states acted on the proposal:
-
Maryland ratified it on December 25, 1810
-
Kentucky followed on January 31, 1811
-
Ohio ratified it January 31, 1811
-
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey soon afterward
-
Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and others took it under consideration
Records from this era were often scattered, damaged, or later lost due to the war and poor archival practices. This has fueled centuries of debate about which states officially ratified the amendment.
5. The Virginia Question
The Commonwealth of Virginia plays the key role in the mystery of TONA.
By 1811, Virginia’s legislature considered and debated the amendment. Many researchers—including those who examined early 19th-century law books and journals—point to evidence that Virginia ratified it in 1811.
If true, that would have made it the 13th ratifying state, enough to complete adoption at the time.
However, the federal government later claimed that Virginia never officially transmitted a ratification notice to Washington. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) today maintains that the amendment was never ratified because the required number of states did not approve it.
Despite that, official publications from 1815 to 1860 (including state and federal compilations of laws) printed the amendment as Article XIII of the Constitution—suggesting that many in government believed it was valid law.
6. Disappearance and Confusion
By the mid-1800s, newer editions of federal law books began omitting the amendment without explanation. When the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was passed in 1865, it officially took the next numerical place in the Constitution.
This led to generations of confusion—why was there another “13th Amendment” already printed decades earlier?
Some historians suggest it was a clerical error or miscommunication between state and federal printers. Others argue that it reflected a legitimate but later suppressed ratification, perhaps lost or ignored during the upheavals of the War of 1812.
7. Why It Matters
The Titles of Nobility Amendment captures the early republic’s fear of corruption through foreign influence—a concern that remains relevant today. It reflects the Founders’ belief that American citizenship and loyalty should never be divided.
The controversy surrounding its ratification also raises important questions about how constitutional amendments are tracked, recorded, and preserved.
8. The Official Modern Status
According to the National Archives and the U.S. Office of the Federal Register, TONA was never officially ratified because not enough states approved it before new states joined the Union, raising the ratification threshold.
It remains a pending amendment—technically still before the states—since Congress did not set a deadline for ratification.
Conclusion
The Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810 is one of the most intriguing “what ifs” in American constitutional history.
It reflects the deep republican suspicion of aristocracy and the belief that public officials must owe allegiance to no one but the people of the United States.
Whether you see it as a forgotten safeguard or a historical curiosity, TONA tells us a great deal about how seriously early Americans took the idea of independence—not just from kings and princes, but from every form of privilege and divided loyalty.
