Skip to comments.Constitution Day 1787!
Posted on 09/17/2011 4:40:14 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Fabulous Franklin Speech. 1:30,000. General Washington. Gerry Speech. Anarchy. Signing. Rising Sun.
The engrossed Constitution being read,
Docr. FRANKLIN rose with a speech in his hand, which he had reduced to writing for his own conveniency, [FN2] and which Mr. Wilson read in the words following.
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.
Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.
The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
He then moved that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of Sepr. &c-In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."
This ambiguous form had been drawn up by Mr. G. M. in order to gain the dissenting members, and put into the hands of Docr. Franklin that it might have the better chance of success.
Mr. GORHAM said if it was not too late he could wish, for the purpose of lessening objections to the Constitution, that the clause declaring "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand" which had produced so much discussion, might be yet reconsidered, in order to strike out 40,000 & insert "thirty thousand." This would not he remarked establish that as an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable.
Mr. KING & Mr. CARROL seconded & supported the idea of Mr. Gorham.
When the PRESIDENT rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible. The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan, and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give [FN3] much satisfaction to see it adopted [FN4]
No opposition was made to the proposition of Mr. Gorham and it was agreed to unanimously.
On the question to agree to the Constitution enrolled in order to be signed. It was agreed to all the States [FN6] answering ay.
Mr. RANDOLPH then rose and with an allusion to the observations of Docr. Franklin apologized for his refusing to sign the Constitution notwithstanding the vast majority & venerable names that would give sanction to its wisdom and its worth. He said however that he did not mean by this refusal to decide that he should oppose the Constitution without doors. He meant only to keep himself free to be governed by his duty as it should be prescribed by his future judgment. He refused to sign, because he thought the object of the Convention would be frustrated by the alternative which it presented to the people. Nine States will fail to ratify the plan and confusion must ensue. With such a view of the subject he ought not, he could not, by pledging himself to support the plan, restrain himself from taking such steps as might appear to him most consistent with the public good.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS said that he too had objections, but considering the present plan as the best that was to be attained, he should take it with all its faults. The majority had determined in its favor and by that determination he should abide. The moment this plan goes forth all other considerations will be laid aside, and the great question will be, shall there be a national Government or not? and this must take place or a general anarchy will be the alternative. He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the [FN7] States present were unanimous.
Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested that the signing should be confined to the letter accompanying the Constitution to Congress, which might perhaps do nearly as well, and would he found be [FN8] satisfactory to some members [FN9] who disliked the Constitution. For himself he did not think a better plan was to be expected and had no scruples against putting his name to it.
Mr. HAMILTON expressed his anxiety that every member should sign. A few characters of consequence, by opposing or even refusing to sign the Constitution, might do infinite mischief by kindling the latent sparks which [FN10] lurk under an enthusiasm in favor of the Convention which may soon subside. No man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his [FN11] were known to be; but is it possible to deliberate between anarchy and Convulsion on one side, and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other.
Mr. BLOUNT said he had declared that he would not sign, so as to pledge himself in support of the plan, but he was relieved by the form proposed and would without committing himself attest the fact that the plan was the unanimous act of the States in Convention.
Docr. FRANKLIN expressed his fears from what Mr. Randolph had said, that he thought himself alluded to in the remarks offered this morning to the House. He declared that when drawing up that paper he did not know that any particular member would refuse to sign his name to the instrument, and hoped to be so understood. He professed a high sense of obligation to Mr. Randolph for having brought forward the plan in the first instance, and for the assistance he had given in its progress, and hoped that he would yet lay aside his objections, and by concurring with his brethren, prevent the great mischief which the refusal of his name might produce.
Mr. RANDOLPH could not but regard the signing in the proposed form, as the same with signing the Constitution. The change of form therefore could make no difference with him. He repeated that in refusing to sign the Constitution, he took a step which might be the most awful of his life, but it was dictated by his conscience, and it was not possible for him to hesitate, much less, to change. He repeated also his persuasion, that the holding out this plan with a final alternative to the people, of accepting or rejecting it in toto, would really produce the anarchy & civil convulsions which were apprehended from the refusal of individuals to sign it.
Mr. GERRY described the painful feelings of his situation, and the embarrassment [FN12] under which he rose to offer any further observations on the subject wch. had been finally decided. Whilst the plan was depending, he had treated it with all the freedom he thought it deserved. He now felt himself bound as he was disposed to treat it with the respect due to the Act of the Convention. He hoped he should not violate that respect in declaring on this occasion his fears that a Civil war may result from the present crisis of the U. S. In Massachussetts, particularly he saw the danger of this calamitous event-In that State there are two parties, one devoted to Democracy, the worst he thought of all political evils, the other as violent in the opposite extreme. From the collision of these in opposing and resisting the Constitution, confusion was greatly to be feared. He had thought it necessary, for this & other reasons that the plan should have been proposed in a more mediating shape, in order to abate the heat and opposition of parties. As it has been passed by the Convention, he was persuaded it would have a contrary effect. He could not therefore by signing the Constitution pledge himself to abide by it at all events. The proposed form made no difference with him. But if it were not otherwise apparent, the refusals to sign should never be known from him. Alluding to the remarks of Docr. Franklin, he could not he said but view them as levelled at himself and the other gentlemen who meant not to sign..
Genl. PINKNEY. We are not likely to gain many converts by the ambiguity of the proposed form of signing. He thought it best to be candid and let the form speak the substance. If the meaning of the signers be left in doubt, his purpose would not be answered. He should sign the Constitution with a view to support it with all his influence, and wished to pledge himself accordingly.
Docr. FRANKLIN. It is too soon to pledge ourselves before Congress and our Constituents shall have approved the plan.
Mr. INGERSOL did not consider the signing, either as a mere attestation of the fact, or as pledging the signers to support the Constitution at all events; but as a recommendation, of what, all things considered, was the most eligible.
On the motion of Docr. Franklin N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. divd. [FN13] Geo. ay. [FN15]
Mr. KING suggested that the Journals of the Convention should be either destroyed, or deposited in the custody of the President. He thought if suffered to be made public, a bad use would be made of them by those who would wish to prevent the adoption of the Constitution.
Mr. WILSON prefered the second expedient, he had at one time liked the first best; but as false suggestions may be propagated it should not be made impossible to contradict them.
A question was then put on depositing the Journals and other papers of the Convention in the hands of the President, on which, N. H. ay. Mtts. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pena. ay. Del. ay. Md. [FN18] no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN19]
The President having asked what the Convention meant should be done with the Journals &c, whether copies were to be allowed to the members if applied for. It was Resolved nem: con "that he retain the Journal and other papers, subject to the order of the [FN22] Congress, if ever formed under the Constitution.
The members then proceeded to sign the instrument. [FN23]
[FN24] Whilst the last members were signing it [FN25] Doctr. FRANKLIN looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicisitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.
[FN24] The Constitution being signed by all the members except Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Gerry who declined giving it the sanction of their names, the Convention dissolved itself by an Adjournment sine die-
[FN26] The few alterations and corrections made in these debates which are not in my hand writing, were dictated by me and made in my presence by John C. Payne.
FN1 The year "1787" is omitted in the transcript.
FN2 The word "conveniency" is changed in the transcript to "convenience."
FN3 The word "him" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN4 Transfer the remarks in brackets, to the bottom marigin. [FN5] [This was the only occasion on which the President entered at all into the discussions of the Convention].
FN5 Madison's direction is omitted in the transcript.
FN6 The word "States" is italicized in the transcript.
FN7 The transcript italicizes the word "the."
FN8 The words "be found" are substituted in the transcript for "the found be."
FN9 He alluded to Mr. Blount for one.
FN10 The word "which" is changed in the transcript to "that."
FN11 The word "own" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN12 The transcript uses the word "embarrassment" in the plural.
FN13 Genl. Pinkey & Mr Butler disliked the equivocal form of the [FN14] signing, and on that account voted in the negative.
FN14 The word "the" is omitted in the transcript.
FN15 In the transcript the vote reads: "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, No
rth Carolina, Georgia, aye-10; South Carolina, [FN16] divided."
FN16 TO be transferred hither. [FN17]
FN17 Madison's direction concerning his note is omitted in the transcript.
FN18 This negative of Maryland was occasioned by the language of the instructions to the Deputies of that State, which required them to report to the State, the proceedings of the Convention.
FN19 In the transcript the vote reads: "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-10; Maryland, [FN20] no-1."
FN20 Transfer. [FN21]
FN21 Madison's direction concerning his note is omitted in the transcript.
FN22 The word "the" is omitted in the transcript.
FN23 In place of the word "instrument," the transcript inserts the following words: "Constitution, as finally amended, as follows." The Constitution is then inserted.
FN24 These two final paragraphs of Madison's notes are transposed in the transcript to follow the signatures to the Constitution.
FN25 The word "it" is omitted in the transcript.
FN26 This statement and Madison's signature are omitted in the transcript.
Mr. Franklin considered the Constitution the best obtainable from imperfect men. Foreign enemies will be surprised to find a collection of squabbling States on the edge of dissolution created such a plan. They will be equally surprised to find others intend to meet later on to cut each others throats. He consented to the Constitution because he was not sure it was not the best. If ratified, he hoped the delegates would do their best to ensure the government was well administered.
He asked the fellow delegates to doubt a little of their infallibility.
Nathaniel Gorham asked if it was not too late to alter the ratio of maximum representation to 1:30,000. It would assist ratification.
Rufus King and Daniel Carroll seconded.
George Washington, President of the Convention had heretofore refrained from offering an opinion. Inasmuch as objections to the plan should be minimized, he supported the change as beneficial and of such consequence that it would give him much satisfaction to see it adopted.
Mr. Gorhams motion passed unanimously.
Governor Randolph spoke in opposition and apologized for not agreeing with the gentlemen who signed it. It did not mean he would join those who at that moment were planning their public opposition. He predicted the Constitution would not be ratified by nine States. (Gov. Randolph would later defend the Constitution at the VA Ratifying Convention.)
Governeur Morris had objections too, but would take it with all of its faults. The great question will be, shall there be a national government or not? If not, there will be anarchy.
Hugh Williamson would limit signing to the letter accompanying the Constitution to Congress. He did not think a better plan could be expected.
Alexander Hamilton wished every member to sign. Infinite mischief would be done by the refusal of consequential men to do so. All knew his ideas were remote from the plan, but there was no choice between anarchy on one side and the chance of good government on the other.
William Blount (NC) would sign without committing himself to supporting it.
Benjamin Franklin wished to assure Governor Randolph that his comments were not directed at him. He acknowledged and thanked the Governor for bringing the plan forward in the first place. He hoped he would put aside his objections and prevent the great mischief his absence might produce. Edmund Randolph had to move with his conscience; he would not sign. He also objected to the up or down alternatives presented to the people. Forcing them to either accept or reject the Constitution in toto would produce anarchy and civil convulsions.
Elbridge Gerry respectfully elaborated on his intent to not sign the Constitution. He feared civil war in the present crisis facing the US. In MA, the State was torn between democracy and another violent party. Confusion and opposition will result from the failure of the Constitution to better mediate the parties. He could not pledge himself to abide by the plan and considered Mr. Franklins comments directed at him.
General Pinckney did not see the form of signing as converting any opponents. He pledged to support the Constitution with all his influence.
Benjamin Franklin thought it best to withhold support before Congress forwards, and the people of the States ratify.
Jared Ingersoll (PA) viewed signing as a recommendation of what most is most eligible, passable.
The motion of Mr. Franklin, that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of September - In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names," passed 10-0-1.
Rufus King asked whether the record of votes should be entrusted to the President or destroyed. If offered to the public they would be used to defeat the Constitution.
James Wilson preferred to trust the journal to the safekeeping of the President. The Convention voted unanimously to keep it confidential until a new Congress, if formed, should decide otherwise. Members signed the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin made his famous observation that a rising sun was painted on the back of George Washingtons chair.
The Constitution, being signed by all members present, (Recall that Robert Yates, John Lansing both from NY, left the Convention in early July. John Mercer and Luther Martin from MD left on September 4th, and RI never showed up at all.) save Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, Mr. Gerry, the Convention adjourned sine die.
We can hardly, truly appreciate 224 years later the enormity of what these men accomplished. Think of the regional animosities that occur in mostly in good humor at FreeRepublic, when for instance, the War between the States comes up. Multiply that by a hundred to perhaps get our minds around the State and regional distrust these men had upon meeting in May 1787.
A few notables of the era decided to not attend when appointed by their States. Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, both of Virginia declined. They were prominent, respected, revolutionary patriots. We will never know how our governing document would have emerged differently had these men been present. Other notable delegates contributed for a period and left early. At the top were Judge Robert Yates and John Lansing of New York, who left during the second week of July, presumably to consult with Governor Clinton and plan opposition to whatever the remaining delegates passed. Luther Martin, Attorney General of his State, the sour and pigheaded, managed to prick egos as well as consciences before he left to organize similar resistance in Maryland.
So, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph were not the only ones to express dismay with the Constitution. They were without a doubt, the most gentlemanly in their opposition. Despite misgivings, they attended and influenced the Convention to the end.
They were true Americans as much as James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the other signers and defenders of the Constitution.
Ultimately, our liberty is ours to regain or lose. No piece of parchment alone can retrieve that which our ancestors fought and died to give us.
Awesome day; where is Palin supposed to be today? Anyone know here logistics?
If it ain’t today, I’m not sure I want it to be...not sure how positive such an announcement would be for our side at this point.
The negative book is out and it is being laughed at, so that is good.
How could Palin and Perry team up at this point? Anyone think she and Perry are talking off-record?
I am getting fatigued with this, I have to admit.
“her logistics” sorry. I shouldn’t type before finishing my mug of java.
> Awesome day; where is Palin supposed to be today? Anyone know here logistics?
I predict that, being Constitution Day, Mrs. Palin will announce her candidacy sometime today. She’s probably rehearsing her announcement speech right now. That’s where she is.
Happy Constitution Day, Freepers!
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...
Excellent and thank you for this thought provoking series.
On finishing, I decided to read what the authors on the subject read, i.e. the record as written by the Framers. This began this last December and I took notes as I went along.
Additional companion books to the Convention I used:
Original Meanings, by Jack N. Rakove.
1787, The Grand Convention, by Clinton Rossiter.
Decision in Philadelphia, by Christopher and James Lincoln Collier.
I'm collating a final post on the Constitution for this afternoon. It will examine our governing document from a different perspective than usually seen at FR.
Great post, and thanks for the ping Pharmboy!
THANKS to you both.....
Our liberty is our to regain —or lose-— Of the two options I much prefer to contribute to the former -as I have seen enough loss already.
This I have written my Senators, and Rep Tipton to remind them of the day and how with help from Democrats and even bipartisan help Barry Soetoro aka Barak Hussein Obama II has achieved his purpose of fundamental change in America— Now it is our time to stand and deliver a Patriots response— I will live a free man under our written Constitution —or die in striving to reclaim what has been taken by the Beguiler- I accept any help to that end The Code taken as my own in 1969 Remains so long as I have breath it will be honored.
Imagine being so passionate about something, i.e., their new country, and simultaneously being willing to compromise on some personally held beliefs and even acknowledging one’s own fallability, in order to see that the new nation would survive and prosper. If only old Ben and the boys were around today!
Every once in a while we read a thread on calling a Constitutional Convention. Good grief.
While there were competing factions back in 1787, made up of north/south, western/Atlantic, large/small States, carrying/agricultural, they agreed to a Union that did not trample on anyone's vital interests.
Today? We have something of the majoritarian rule our Framers were determined to avoid. Democracy is killing our once republic.
Amen! Many of those calling for a 20th or now 21st Century Constitutional Convention not only can’t even tell the difference between a democracy and a republic, they don’t even know the USA is the latter.
And thanks for posting your sources...most helpful.
See here for some more great quotes about democracy.
I recommend his book for those who have a clue, some familiarity with our founding and framing, so that excludes most college age students. Basically, I appreciate the facts he presents, not so much his interpretation of them.
For instance, his first Chapter is “The Perils of Originalism.” My margin notes are thick and hostile. He doesn't come out and say the common man is unqualified to understand and demand compliance with the Constitution, but comes very close.
Since the notes of the Framers as collated by Max Farrand in 1911 are available online to all, I found that most of the time, none of the authors added very much to what I read and interpreted on my own. For those who do not wish to read the debates and would rather economize their time, Collier's and Rossiter’s books are the best.
The real value of each is their “backstory” research, i.e. events that occurred outside the convention. For instance, the 3/5 rule concerning representation was first debated in 1783 under the Confederation as a rule for taxation. I learned that John Dickinson in his draft of the Articles, and later Roger Sherman at the Convention, worked to add a clause that kept “internal police power” within the states. The furor over the connected issues of western land speculators, Jay-Gardoqui Treaty that almost blew up the Convention before it began cannot be learned from the Framer's notes, but from historians, even like the Lefty Rakove.
So, while Rakove must be last on my list, it is still worthwhile. Just don't make it the first book you give your kids.
Thank you so much for the post and the reading list.
Great read! Really brings it to life. Is that from one of Rossiter’s books?
Nope. I wrote post #2 a couple days ago.
Wow. Great stuff. But may I suggest that you space out your posts a bit, say one per day or the like? When you post so many articles at once, you push your own articles off the page along with articles posted by others.
Thanks. Point well taken, I’ll do that for my next series.
Hmm, if you don’t mind, how did you come across this four month old post?
Um, it showed up at the top of my “latest articles” page. I didn’t check the original post date. Must have been bumped up there by someone commenting on it...
OK, no recent comment before mine. I have no idea why it popped up on my “latest articles” page.
I blame the solar eruption yesterday...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.