Changing Course: The Three Non-Signers of the Constitution
Of the delegates present on the final day of the Constitutional Convention on 17 September 1787, only three refused to sign the Constitution—Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia. Ironically, all three had come to Philadelphia as staunch advocates for a substantially more powerful federal government that would correct the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. In fact, Governor Randolph had delivered the Convention’s opening speech on 29 May, introducing the “Virginia Plan” which called for replacing the Articles with an entirely new constitution, not merely amending them.
Of the 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention at various times, Mason, Gerry, and Randolph were among the most vocal—delivering 127, 113, and 79 speeches, respectively, ranking fifth, sixth, and seventh in frequency. They were also active in shaping the proceedings through formal motions: Gerry presented 55 (the fourth most), while Randolph offered 44 motions (sixth), and Mason 36 (ninth). Each contributed significantly to committee work as well. Mason served on 4 different committees and Randolph on 3, while Gerry chaired the pivotal Committee on Representation. That committee played a crucial role in saving the Convention from disbanding when, on 3 July, it proposed the “Great Compromise,” which proposed a bicameral Congress with a House of Representatives proportionally based on population and a Senate having equal state representation.
William Pierce, a Georgia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, offered favorable character sketches of each of the three delegates who ultimately refused to sign the Constitution. In his description of Elbridge Gerry, Pierce wrote:
“Mr. Gerry’s character is marked for integrity and perseverance. He is a hesitating and laborious speaker; possesses a great degree of confidence and goes extensively into all subjects that he speaks on, without respect to elegance or flower of diction. He is connected and sometimes clear in his arguments, conceives well, and cherishes as his first virtue, a love for his Country. Mr. Gerry is very much of a Gentleman in his principles and manners;—he has been engaged in the mercantile line and is a Man of property. He is about 37 years of age.”
“Mr. Mason is a Gentleman of remarkable strong powers, and possesses a clear and copious understanding. He is able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America. Mr. Mason is about 60 years old, with a fine strong constitution.”
“Mr. Randolph is Governor of Virginia,—a young Gentleman in whom unite all the accomplishments of the Scholar, and the Statesman. He came forward with the postulata, or first principles, on which the Convention acted, and he supported them with a force of eloquence and reasoning that did him great honor. He has a most harmonious voice, a fine person and striking manners. Mr. Randolph is about 32 years of age.”
On Saturday, 15 September, the last full day of debates, the non-signers apologetically offered their reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution. In his notes of the Convention debates, James Madison recorded the speeches of the non-signers.
“Mr. Randolph animadverting on the indefinite and dangerous power given by the Constitution to Congress, expressing the pain he felt at differing from the body of the Convention, on the close of the great & awful subject of their labours, and anxiously wishing for some accommodating expedient which would relieve him from his embarrassments, made a motion importing ‘that amendments to the plan might be offered by the State Conventions, which should be submitted to and finally decided on by another general Convention.’ Should this proposition be disregarded, it would he said be impossible for him to put his name to the instrument. Whether he should oppose it afterwards he would not then decide but he would not deprive himself of the freedom to do so in his own State, if that course should be prescribed by his final judgment—
“Col: Mason 2ded. & followed Mr. Randolph in animadversions on 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 other, he was sure. This Constitution had been formed without the knowledge or idea 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. It was improper to say to the people, take this or nothing. As the Constitution now stands, he could neither give it his support or vote in Virginia; and he could not sign here what he could not support there. With the expedient of another Convention as proposed, he could sign.
“Mr. Gerry stated the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution. 1. the duration and re-eligibility of the Senate. 2. the power of the House of Representatives to conceal their journals. 3. the power of Congress over the places of election. 4. the unlimited power of Congress over their own compensations. 5. Massachusetts has not a due share of Representatives allotted to her. 6. 3/5 of the Blacks are to be represented as if they were freemen. 7. Under the power over commerce, monopolies may be established. 8. The vice president being made head of the Senate. He could however he said get over all these, if the rights of the Citizens were not rendered insecure 1. by the general power of the Legislature to make what laws they may please to call necessary and proper. 2. raise armies and money without limit. 3. to establish a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases. Under such a view of the Constitution, the best that could be done he conceived was to provide for a second general Convention.”
Madison also recorded the response of Charles Pinckney of South Carolina to the non-signers. “These declarations from members so respectable at the close of this important scene, give a peculiar solemnity to the present moment. He descanted on the consequences of calling forth the deliberations & amendments of the different States on the subject of Government at large. Nothing but confusion & contrariety could spring from the experiment. The States will never agree in their plans, and the Deputies to a second Convention coming together under the discordant impressions, of their Constituents, will never agree. Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated. He was not without objections as well as others to the plan. He objected to the contemptible weakness & dependence of the Executive. He objected to the power of a [simple] majority only of Congs. over Commerce. But apprehending the danger of a general confusion, and an ultimate decision by the Sword, he should give the plan his support.”
The delegates then voted to reject Randolph’s motion for a second convention.
Within a month, a barrage of attacks on the non-signers appeared in newspapers throughout the country, most heavily in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia. Two paragraphs in the Pennsylvania Journal on 17 October 1787 typify the criticisms:
“Letters are received by the last post from Boston, which say, that Mr. Gerry, a Member of the late fœderal Convention, is not only censured by the public in general, but by his best friends, for not signing the Constitution proposed by that august body.
“We hear from Virginia, that on the arrival of Mr. Mason (one of their Delegates in Convention) at Alexandria, he was waited on by the Mayor and Corporation of that Town, who told him, they were not come to return him their thanks for his conduct in refusing to sign the Fœderal Constitution; but to express their abhorrence to it, and to advise him to withdraw from that town within an hour, for they could not answer for his personal safety, from an enraged populace, should he exceed that time.” Within a month, the first paragraph was reprinted in seventeen newspapers: Vt. (1), N.H. (1), Mass. (3), Conn. (2), N.Y. (5), N.J. (1), Pa. (3), Md. (1). The second paragraph appeared in twenty-eight newspapers: Vt. (1), N.H. (3), Mass. (6), R.I. (1), Conn. (6), N.Y. (5), N.J. (1), Pa. (4), Md. (1). Also on 17 October, the Pennsylvania Gazette printed another criticism of Mason. “We hear from Virginia, that George Mason has been treated with every possible mark of contempt and neglect, for neglecting to sign the Fœderal Constitution, and that Patrick Henry, Esq; is using his influence in the state, in promoting its adoption.” Within two weeks, this item was reprinted twelve times: N.H. (1), Mass. (4), R.I. (1), Conn. (1), N.Y. (1), Pa. (2), Md. (2).
These kinds of criticism made the three non-signers reluctant to air their objections publicly, although Mason and Gerry shared their objections privately. Gerry also submitted his objections to the Massachusetts state legislature in a letter that he wrote from New York City on 18 October 1787. Manuscript copies of Mason’s objections circulated widely for two months before they were printed separately in three newspapers—one in Boston on 21 November and two in Virginia on 22 and 23 November. Objecting to the “clandestine manner” of circulating Mason’s objections only in manuscript form, Federalists instigated the first two of the newspaper printings of Mason’s objections so that they could be submitted “to the test of a public investigation.” Mason’s objections were reprinted in twenty-five newspapers, in the Philadelphia American Museum, in two Richmond pamphlet anthologies, and as a broadside in Richmond. Gerry’s objections included in his 18 October 1787 letter to the state legislature was printed in the Massachusetts Centinel on 3 November and reprinted in forty-one newspapers within two months. Both Mason’s and Gerry’s objections were widely and sharply criticized throughout the country.
Randolph studiously avoided any public printing of his objections until four Virginia legislators requested him to provide his reasons for not signing the Constitution. In a letter dated 10 October 1787 addressed to the legislature, Randolph’s objections were first published in a pamphlet around 27 December 1787 (Evans 20669). The pamphlet was reprinted in two installments in the Richmond Virginia Gazette on 3 and 10 January 1788, in the January issue of the Philadelphia American Museum, in sixteen newspapers outside of Virginia by 31 March, and in a New York Antifederalist pamphlet anthology published during the first week of April 1788 (Evans 21344). The anthology, distributed throughout New York, omitted the second from the last paragraph in which Randolph declared his devotion to the Union and his willingness, “as an individual citizen,” to accept the Constitution even without amendments. “A Federalist” noted the omission of what he described as “the most interesting paragraph in the whole letter” and denounced that it was “wantonly suppressed to the great injustice of that liberal patriot, and with the most daring affrontery to the public” (Poughkeepsie Country Journal, 22 April).
Gerry decided not to stand for election to the Massachusetts ratifying Convention. However, after considerable debate, the Convention invited Gerry to attend as a non-delegate to answer questions that might arise about the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention and his refusal to sign the Constitution. Gerry accepted the invitation and attended, but after a week’s attendance, he bitterly left when a majority of the Convention wanted to limit him to written responses to written questions. Mason and Randolph were elected to the Virginia ratifying Convention. Mason, along with Patrick Henry, led the Antifederalist opposition to the Constitution. Before the Convention met, Randolph’s stance on the Constitution was uncertain, but with his first speech on 4 June, he joined with James Madison in leading the Federalists saying that ratification was the only way to preserve the Union. According to Mason, Virginia Antifederalists thereafter referred to Randolph as the young Benedict Arnold.
With the adoption and implementation of the Constitution, George Mason retired from public service. In 1790, he refused to replace the deceased William Grayson as one of Virginia’s U.S. senators. Gerry reluctantly accepted election to the first U.S. House of Representatives, and Edmund Randolph was appointed the first U.S. attorney general.