[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000072","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/73\/state-title-of-nobility\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EState Title of Nobility\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 10, Clause 1\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo State shall...grant any Title of Nobility.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELike the corresponding prohibition on federal\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Etitles of nobility in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, the prohibition on state titles of nobility was designed to affirm and protect the republican character of the American government. Both provisions were carried forward from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, which had forbidden \u201cthe United States in Congress assembled,\u201d as well as \u201cany of them,\u201d to \u201cgrant any title of nobility.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EEven before the Articles, states had renounced the power to grant titles. David Ramsay, the eighteenth-century historian of the American Revolution, reported that at the time of independence the states \u201cagreed in prohibiting all hereditary honours and distinction of ranks\u201d in order to provide \u201cfarther security for the continuance of republican principles in the American constitution.\u201d \u003Ci\u003EThe History of the\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003EAmerican Revolution \u003C\/i\u003E(1789). American state\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Elegislatures, he further observed, were \u201cminiature pictures of the community,\u201d representing persons of all stations and classes rather than confining their membership to persons of noble rank. James Madison also found in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist \u003C\/i\u003ENo. 39 that \u201cthe general form and aspect\u201d of\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EAmerican governments could only be \u201cstrictly republican\u201d: \u201c[i]t is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.\u201d Given the social and political circumstances of the United States at the time of the Founding, therefore, it is not surprising that the Constitution\u2019s prohibition on state titles of nobility was uncontroversial: as Madison wrote tersely in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 44, the prohibition \u201cneeds no comment.\u201d What is perhaps surprising, then, is that it was thought necessary at all.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe answer may be that the Founders feared that, without adequate precautions, the republican venture might fail. \u201c[W]ho can say,\u201d Madison asked in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 43, \u201cwhat experiments may be produced by the caprice of particular States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign powers?\u201d Before the French Revolution, republican governments were rare: they existed only in such countries as Holland, Poland, or Venice, and even there only (as Madison argued in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 39) in attenuated or precarious forms. The existence of genuinely republican institutions, made possible by the absence of a hereditary aristocracy, was the hallmark of American exceptionalism. Conscious of that fact, the Founders sought to ensure, chiefly by the architectural features of the Constitution but also by such minor clauses as the prohibitions on titles, that the American political experiment that rested, as Madison said, \u201con the capacity of mankind for self-government\u201d would succeed.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe defense of a republican polity led some of the state ratifying conventions in 1788 to propose amendments that would have stiffened the prohibition on titles, such as deleting the exception in the clause that allows Congress to consent to a state grant of a title of nobility. In addition, the fear that foreign immigrants already possessing titles might retain them led Congress in 1795 to forbid naturalization to a titled foreigner unless he formally renounced his title. 1 Stat. 414 (1795).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn 1810, Congress went further. In their long political and military contest, both Great Britain and Napoleonic France had sought to induce the United States to take sides. In response, Congress with near unanimity passed an amendment to the Constitution that would have revoked the citizenship of any person, whether natural born or naturalized, who accepted or retained a foreign title or emolument. The amendment had no congressional consent exception for titles although it did for emoluments. Eleven of the then required thirteen states ratified the amendment and, for a while, it was mistakenly listed as \u201cThe Thirteenth Amendment\u201d in the United States Statutes at Large, prompting an 1817 House resolution and a follow-up presidential enquiry that corrected the error.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Robert_Delahunty.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.stthomas.edu\/law\/faculty\/bios\/delahuntyrobert.htm\u0022\u003ERobert Delahunty\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Associate Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000072-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000072-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000072-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000072-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000072-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000072-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000067\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EEmoluments Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]