Center for the Study of the American Constitution

Cyber Monday … CSAC Books for the Holidays!

https://charge.wisc.edu/csac/

The CSAC has put together a special “bookshelf” containing all 19 books in our library (excluding the DHRC volumes)—a $300 value for $100!
These books are also available individually at a discounted price of up to 50% off the retail value.
Please visit our Bookstore for details and ordering.

https://charge.wisc.edu/csac/

Home The Center for the Study of the American Constitution (CSAC) is a non-profit, non-partisan center dedicated to serving scholars, educators, and students who are interested in the American Constitution in its historical context. The Center is home to The Documentary History of the Ratification of ....

CSAC Books for the Holidays!

https://charge.wisc.edu/csac/

The CSAC has put together a special “bookshelf” containing all 19 books in our library (excluding the DHRC volumes)—a $300 value for $100!
These books are also available individually at a discounted price of up to 50% off the retail value.
Please visit our Bookstore for details and ordering.

Home The Center for the Study of the American Constitution (CSAC) is a non-profit, non-partisan center dedicated to serving scholars, educators, and students who are interested in the American Constitution in its historical context. The Center is home to The Documentary History of the Ratification of ....

The Five Most Important Speeches During the Ratification Debates

Throughout the debate over ratifying the newly proposed Constitution of 1787, thousands of speeches were given in a variety of forums. Speeches were delivered in the Constitutional Convention, the Confederation Congress, legislative assemblies (by governors and legislators), state ratifying conventions, public meetings, debating societies, and even in churches. In some cases, notes of speeches survive that were taken by people in the audience, by shorthand note takers bent on their publication, and occasionally even by the orator himself. Many speeches were recorded in newspapers and pamphlets. The impact of most of these speeches is difficult to determine. However, some had not only an immediate impact but subsequently a much broader impact on the national ratification debate. This blog entry lists five of the most important speeches during the year-long debate over ratifying the Constitution.

To read more on this subject, please visit our Blog post at https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/11/04/the-five-most-important-speeches-during-the-ratification-debates/

A National Magazine: Mathew Carey’s American Museum

In July 1788, Mathew Carey, a twenty-eight-year-old Irish immigrant living in Philadelphia, looked back over the past year which had been eventful for both Carey and his adopted country. In 1787 a Convention of delegates from twelve of the country’s thirteen states proposed a new form of government that the American people debated for over a year before agreeing to its ratification. This is also the year Carey began publishing the American Museum, a monthly literary magazine filled with articles on politics, economics, medicine, agriculture, patriotism, religion, and morality, as well as poetry, humor, and satire.

As Carey observed the debate over the new Constitution, he realized what a momentous event was occurring. He had been forced to flee his native Ireland for fear of being arrested by the British authorities for publishing a seditious newspaper that espoused Irish nationalism. But in America, the government itself encouraged the public debate over the new Constitution, which, if adopted, would totally supplant the government then in being. Surely, Carey thought, this must be an extraordinary event in the annals of mankind—men deciding peacefully and rationally on the form of government they wished to live under. What circumstances could have produced such an unusual occurrence?

To read more on this subject, please visit our Blog post at https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/09/11/a-national-magazine-mathew-careys-american-museum/

Absent and Missed: Non-Attendance at the Constitutional Convention

Throughout history the Constitutional Convention of 1787 has been uniformly praised. Four of the fifty-five delegates who attended have been particularly honored for their noteworthy contributions—George Washington, James Madison, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris. The motivation of the three non-signers—Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason—has been repeatedly analyzed. Understandably, however, little attention has been devoted to the importance of those who did not attend the Convention. Rhode Island’s refusal to appoint delegates to the Convention is always cited as an example of its obstinance. Some historians have suggested that the absence of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both then serving as diplomats in Europe, was beneficial because they would have been disruptive. The refusal of Patrick Henry to serve has attracted only superficial attention, with historians focusing almost solely on his alleged statement that he “smelt a rat” as the reason for his refusal to accept the appointment. The consequences for these absences have never been fully examined.

It is impossible to accurately determine the changes that might have occurred in the Constitutional Convention and in the debate over ratification if a dozen or so important men had attended and participated in the Convention. However, their attendance could very well have significantly changed the Constitution submitted to the states for their ratification.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/09/09/absent-and-missed-non-attendance-at-the-constitutional-convention/

Jump-Starting Ratification: Franklin’s Last Speech in the Constitutional Convention

Benjamin Franklin was one of the most important delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Because he brought no new ideas to the Convention and did not deliver remarks that changed the course of the Convention’s proceedings, his importance was largely symbolic. In 1787, Franklin and George Washington were venerated as the two greatest living Americans—the diplomatic and the military heroes of the Revolution. By merely attending the Convention, their imprimatur gave Americans confidence that the outcome of the Convention would be beneficial rather than dangerous. The fact that Franklin was eighty-two years old and that Washington had voluntarily surrendered his commission as commander-in-chief at the end of war seemed to assure Americans that these two statesmen would not betray their country.

On 17 September 1787, as the Convention’s final session finished reading the Constitution, an enfeebled Franklin asked his fellow Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson to read a speech that contained Franklin’s reasons for supporting the Constitution—even though he did not approve every provision. Franklin did not list his objections, nor did he express them outside the Convention. He believed that a strong central government was needed and doubted that any other convention could produce a better constitution. Franklin was astonished that the Constitution approached “so near to perfection.” He expected “no better” and was “not sure that it is not the best.” To inspire greater public confidence in the document, Franklin asked each delegate to sign the Constitution. All but three delegates complied. Two days later, the Pennsylvania Gazette reported that the speech was “extremely sensible” and that Franklin’s support of the Constitution would
encourage all his Pennsylvania friends to favor the Constitution.

To read more on this subject, please visit our Blog post at https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/07/25/jump-starting-ratification-franklins-last-speech-in-the-constitutional-convention/

“Wallowing in the superfluity of liberty”: Agrarian Unrest and the Constitution

In 1787, about ninety percent of the population of the United States was engaged in agriculture. After the Revolution, many of these people, particularly those in the backcountry, struggled to pay their taxes and debts. Sheriffs seized private property and imprisoned debtors who failed to meet the demands of their creditors. Most states had insolvency laws that protected creditors’ rights, but none had bankruptcy laws that protected debtors’ rights. Petitions for relief flooded state legislatures. While most demands for relief came from small farmers, others were submitted by debt-ridden planters and from speculators in public securities and purchasers of confiscated Loyalist estates. Legislatures responded by lowering taxes, postponing their collection, or providing for their payment in farm produce. Several legislatures went further by interfering with private contracts by making produce or property legal tender, by delaying the collection of private debts, and by providing for payments in installments.

Often, these relief measures failed to alleviate the full impact of the postwar depression. Consequently, debtors throughout the United States resorted to sporadic acts of violence. Tax collectors and sheriffs were often intimidated and sometimes beaten, foreclosure proceedings were disrupted, courts were closed, courthouses were burned, and imprisoned rioters were forcibly freed. On 20 September 1786 armed farmers surrounded the legislature in Exeter, New Hampshire, and demanded an emittance of paper money, the abolition of debts and taxes, and the equal distribution of property. The next day the mob was routed by the local militia. There were also isolated incidents or threats of violence in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, while two courthouses were burned in Virginia. These acts of violence occurred both in the backcountry and in urban areas. The most sustained violence, known as Shays’s Rebellion, occurred in Massachusetts.

To read more on this subject, please visit our Blog post at https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/07/22/wallowing-in-the-superfluity-of-liberty-agrarian-unrest-and-the-constitution/

Happy Constitution Day!

Recently the National Archives announced a new exhibit that will display the four pages of the Constitution, the additional page with two resolutions of the Constitutional Convention providing the procedure for the ratification and implementation of the Constitution, and the 27 amendments to the Constitution. Inexplicably, however, the exhibit that commemorates Constitution Day (17 September) does not include the wonderful cover letter signed by George Washington as the President of the Convention and addressed to the President of the Confederation Congress, Arthur St. Clair. This letter explains the difficulties faced by the Constitutional Convention and arguably became the single most important document in the year-long debate over the ratification of the Constitution. When Adam P. Levinson, the founder and director of Statutes and Stories, (https://statutesandstories.com/), learned of this proposed exhibit without Washington’s cover letter, he immediately mobilized his digital resources to circulate a “dear colleague” letter to have the cover letter added to the exhibit, thus completing the constitutional story. We invite you to notify Levinson and/or John P. Kaminski that you would like to add your name in support of this addition to the exhibit. For more on the cover letter, please see the CSAC blog “Covering the Constitution,” posted on September 13, 2020 [https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2020/09/13/covering-the-constitution/]

September 15, 2025

Dear National Archives:

As Constitution Day approaches we are excited about the recent announcement that the National Archives will be exhibiting the entire Constitution for the first time, including the “5th page” that includes two resolutions of the Constitutional Convention providing the procedure for the ratification and the implementation of the Constitution, and all 27 amendments. The exhibit will no doubt be historic!

With that said, the exhibit would be even more complete if the Constitution’s 17 September 1787 transmittal letter (hereinafter the “cover letter”) was also included. A stunning piece of American history, the cover letter was signed by George Washington as the President of the Constitutional Convention. As explained below, the cover letter accompanied the Constitution as it travelled from Philadelphia (where the Constitutional Convention met during the summer of 1787) to New York (where the Confederation Congress resided at the time).

The delegates to the Convention unanimously approved the cover letter “by paragraph,” making it an official publication of the Constitutional Convention [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0306]. The transmittal letter was prepared for Washington’s signature by the same “Committee of Style” that prepared the penultimate draft of the Constitution.

On the final day of the Constitutional Convention, the delegates famously lined up to sign the Constitution on 17 September 1787. Although their work in Philadelphia was concluding, the next chapter in the national saga was just beginning. At this point the Constitution was merely a proposal. It would need to be ratified by nine states before it could take effect among the ratifying states.

Beginning on September 19th the cover letter, the Constitution and the ratification resolutions (or “5th page”) were printed in approximately 100 newspapers around the country. When the Constitution was first released to the public, the widely disseminated cover letter was commonly printed together with the Constitution. Due to the relative brevity of both documents, they fit together in a single issue of the four-columned papers of the day. As the Constitution was a legal text, the cover letter helped explain the work and objectives of the Constitutional Convention. While most newspapers printed the cover letter below the Constitution, in several cases the cover letter was printed above the Constitution, as it helped introduce the Constitution to the public.

According to Professor Robert Rutland, “[n]othing similar to this had ever occurred before and has never happened since—a whole nation invited, and even encouraged, to read the entire Constitution.” In her book Brilliant Solution, Carol Berkin wrote that “The letter was the committee’s gift to their fellow delegates—a preemptive strike against the local critics they would have to face when they returned home.” The Center for the Study of the American Constitution explains that “[t]he importance of Washington’s letter of 17 September 1787 as president of the Convention to the president of Congress cannot be over emphasized.” In a sentence repeatedly quoted throughout the ratification debate, Washington described the proposed Constitution as “the Result of a Spirit of Amity and of that mutual Deference & Concession which the Peculiarity of our political Situation rendered indispensible.”

We fully understand that it may be difficult to include the cover letter in the exhibit which opens on September 16. Nevertheless, perhaps it might be added to the online exhibit or included in an exhibit next year beside our cherished Constitution.

We are happy to answer any questions about the cover letter or our humble request.

We have the honor to be your most faithful servants,

William B. Allen, PhD (Michigan State University Emeritus Dean and Professor)
Richard Brookhiser (historian, biographer, journalist)
Peter Charles Hoffer, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor, University of Georgia)
John P. Kaminski, PhD (Center for the Study of the American Constitution, Editor, Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution)
Edward L. Larson, PhD (Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law, Pepperdine University)
Adam P. Levinson, Esq. (Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, Scholarly Fellow; Statutesandstories.com, Founder)
Stuart Leibiger, PhD (Department of Humanity & Society Chair, La Salle University)
Timothy R. Schantz (Advisory Board member, Smithsonian Libraries and Archives; member of the Board of Councilors of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Co-Chair of the HSP Milestones Committee)
John R. Vile, PhD (Dean and Professor of Political Science, Middle Tennessee State University)

Statements in support of the friendly recommendation to include the cover letter in the current (or a future) exhibit:

“Naturally, I agree that the cover letter should be included in the display. It’s an integral part of the Convention’s report as it bookends with the Preamble in explaining the purpose of the Constitution and even goes beyond the Preamble in explaining how the Convention went about its business. Furthermore, the cover letter played a critical role in the ratification of the Constitution.” [John P. Kaminski, Center for the Study of the American Constitution]

“Tell them this was the header on George Washington’s email; they should show it too.” [Richard Brookhiser]

“I ENDORSE WHOLE HEARTEDLY THE PROPOSAL THAT THE “TRUE STORY” OF THE ADOPTION BE FULLY TOLD!” [W Allen, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Michigan State University]

”Of course, I’d like to see the cover letter included—and perhaps a newspaper copy from a newspaper printing both the cover letter and the Constitution on the same page would be better than a broadsheet copy because it would underscore how the two documents went out and were received together. The draft manuscript could also be included along with the newspaper copy.” [Edward J. Larson, Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law, Pepperdine University]

“I agree that the Cover Letter addressed to the Confederation Congress, drafted by Gouverneur Morris and signed by George Washington as Convention President, should be included in the exhibit. The Constitutional Convention chose to send this beautifully written and powerfully argued Cover Letter to Congress—instead of sending an address to the American people—to accompany the completed and signed Constitution.” [Stuart Leibiger, Department of Humanity & Society Chair, La Salle University]

Lost and Found: New Hampshire’s Founding Documents

On a research trip to Concord, New Hampshire, in October 1969, two important constitutional documents were found, each rolled up separately atop a metal supply cabinet in a large sprawling office room in the Secretary of State’s office. For safekeeping, these documents were safely squirreled away in a tin tube in a vault in the secretary of state’s office. They remained safe—but lost—for almost a decade before being located again. Their discovery by a young graduate student from the University of Wisconsin-Madison is one of those fascinating stories that happen serendipitously when on-site searching is conducted for primary sources.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/07/21/lost-and-found-new-hampshires-founding-documents/

Deism and The Founders

During the Revolutionary and Founding eras many Americans increasingly abandoned traditional Christianity, embracing beliefs that could be described as either Unitarian or Deist. Many of these converts publicly maintained their original religious affiliations, attempting to avoid the harsh censures that prominent deists like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson regularly received. Deists rejected the belief in the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, any notion of predestination, the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, and state-sponsored religion. Instead, they believed in one God, who was a benevolent initiator of all events. For them, the word of God was not to be found in the Bible, but in nature and the Creation. While they regarded Jesus as a historical figure whose morality and teachings were praiseworthy and should be followed, they believed that Christian clergy and priests of other religions had perverted the true religion. Deists believed that the way to God was open to all, and a direct relationship could exist between man and God without the assistance of clergy, Jesus or the state. They emphasized the importance of living a moral life and following the dictates of one’s own conscience. Although uncertain about the nature of the hereafter, deists believed in a life after death.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/07/17/deism-and-the-founders/

Patrick Henry: “He Spoke as Homer Wrote”

How can anyone truly capture the power of Patrick Henry before a live audience? In truth, it’s nearly impossible. Consider this: on 6 June 1791, President George Washington appeared at the Charlotte County courthouse in Virginia. Among the crowd was Richard Venable, a twenty-eight-year-old lawyer from Prince Edward County, who wrote in his diary: “Great Anxiety in the people to see Gen’l. Washington. Strange is the impulse which is felt by almost every breast to see the face of a great good man.” The sensation, Venable added, was “better felt than expressed.” That’s exactly what it was like to witness Patrick Henry speaking. You didn’t just hear him—you experienced him. You felt him. And only then could you understand his power.

A Henry speech was the Super Bowl, the seventh game of the World Series, and the championship game of the NCAA basketball tournament all rolled into one. This was great entertainment; this was stimulating and inspirational; this was one of those events that you remember forever.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/07/14/patrick-henry-he-spoke-as-homer-wrote/