This evening, George Washington confided in his diary these words: “Concluded the business of Convention, all to signing the proceedings; to effect which the House sat till 6:00 o’clock; and adjourned ‘till Monday that the Constitution which it was proposed to offer to the people might be engrossed – and a number of printed copies struck off. Dined at Mr. Morris’s & spent the evening there.”
The Committee of Style has done a remarkable job. After three days of debate, few changes of consequence have been approved. Today, sitting until 6:00 in the evening, more than two dozen amendments were rejected. The only substantive change approved was an addition to the amendment process. The Convention has nearly completed its work. What it has not debated, however, is a creative clause crafted by Gouverneur Morris, a member of the Committee credited with the polish, grace, and style of its final draft.
As presented to the Convention by the Committee of Detail on August 6, the draft Constitution had included a preamble to its twenty-three articles. It began with “We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island” and so on, listing all thirteen States. It continued, “do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.” Morris’s revision of the preamble omitted the list of States, thereby limiting the authority of the Constitution to “We, the People of the United States,” basing the government on the consent of the people, not the States.
Morris’s preamble also expanded the purposes of the new government - “to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The preamble had been accepted without comment.
As the long day approached its end, Edmund Randolph rose, “animadverting on the indefinite and dangerous powers given by the Constitution to Congress.” Expressing “the pain he felt at differing from the body of the Convention…anxiously wishing for some accommodating expedient which would relieve him from his embarrassments,” made a motion that State conventions be invited to submit amendments and final decisions be made by another general convention. Should his proposition be disregarded, “it would be impossible for him to put his name to the instrument.” His motion failed unanimously, but not before he and others shared their sentiments. In fact, Randolph left his options open. As to whether or not he will support the Constitution later, when it will be considered in Virginia, he would “not deprive himself of the freedom to do so.”
George Mason followed Randolph. His objections are well known among his fellow delegates, having been clearly stated in a written statement circulated among them earlier this week. Today, he spoke of the “dangerous power and structure of the government, concluding that it would end either in monarchy, or a tyrannical aristocracy, which he was in doubt, but one or the other, he was sure.”
Challenging the rule of secrecy under which the Convention has conducted its deliberations, Mason noted that “this Constitution has been formed without the knowledge or ideas of the people. A second Convention will know more of the sense of the people and be able to provide a system more consonant to it.” He simply could not say to the people, “take this or nothing.” As the Constitution now stands, he announced, “I can neither give it my support or vote in Virginia; and I could not sign here what I cannot support there. With the expedient of another Convention, I could sign.”
Charles Pinckney responded respectfully to his friends. “These declarations from members so respectable at the close of this important scene,” he began, “give a peculiar solemnity to the present moment.” But “calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different States on the subject of government at large” would result in nothing but “confusion and contrariety.” The States would never agree in their plans, and the deputies to a second convention would never agree. “Conventions are serious things,” he said, “and ought not to be repeated.” Like Randolph and Mason, Pinckney “is not without objections to the plan.” He objects to the weakness and dependence of the executive. He objects to the power of “a majority only of Congress over commerce.” But “apprehending the danger of a general confusion, and an ultimate decision by the sword, he should give the plan his support.”
Elbridge Gerry has frequently dissented from his fellow delegates but has been generally constructive. Nevertheless, this afternoon he enumerated “the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution.” They include the duration and re-eligibility of the Senate; the power of the House to conceal its journals; the power of Congress over the places of election; the power of Congress over its own compensation; unfair representation of Massachusetts in the House; the three-fifths compromise concerning slavery; and the Vice President as head of the Senate. Even these were surmountable, he said, “if the rights of the citizens were not rendered insecure.” This could be accomplished by eliminating the “necessary and proper” clause and the power of Congress to raise armies and money without limit. It would include assuring trial by jury in civil cases. “Under such a view of the Constitution,” the best that could be conceived in Gerry’s mind would be to “provide for a second general convention.”
Madison’s notes record that the final decision taken today was “on the question to agree to the Constitution as amended. All the States ‘ay.’ The Constitution was then ordered to be engrossed. And the House adjourned.”
Delaware’s John Dickinson has returned to Wilmington, plagued with headaches, but he wrote to his fellow delegate George Read with a request. “If the Constitution is to be signed by the members of that body, please be so good as to subscribe Mr. Dickinson’s name.”