QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
a series, preamble and articles, preamble

Signing Of The United States Constitution

“Not to be confused with Howard Chandler Christy's painting Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

Not to be confused with Howard Chandler Christy’s painting Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States .

Preamble and Articles

Amendments to the Constitution

Unratified Amendments :

History

Full text

Historic event

The Signing of the United States Constitution was not merely a ceremonial flourish, but a pivotal moment in the somewhat chaotic birth of a nation. It took place on September 17, 1787, within the hallowed, if likely stuffy, confines of Independence Hall in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . On this day, a somewhat reluctant collection of 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention , representing 12 of the fledgling states – Rhode Island , ever the contrarian, having chosen to remain conspicuously absent – affixed their names to the document. This act formalized their endorsement of the Constitution that had been painstakingly, and often acrimoniously, hammered out over the preceding four months.

Beyond the simple act of signing, this endorsement constituted the Constitution’s closing protocol . This wasn’t just a space for signatures; it was a carefully crafted, albeit brief, declaration. It affirmed that the delegates’ arduous work had finally reached a conclusion, and that those whose names now graced the parchment subscribed to the final, compromised document. The protocol encompassed a clear statement pronouncing the document’s adoption by the states present, a formulaic dating of this adoption, and, naturally, the signatures themselves. Adding a final, almost bureaucratic, layer of authentication, the convention’s diligent secretary, William Jackson , appended a note to meticulously verify four amendments that had been made by hand to the final document, signing his own name to attest to their validity.

The language of this concluding endorsement, a testament to political pragmatism rather than soaring idealism, was masterfully conceived by Gouverneur Morris and subsequently presented to the convention by the venerable Benjamin Franklin . Its ambiguity was not an oversight; it was a deliberate, calculated strategy. The hope, or perhaps the desperate gamble, was that this vague phrasing would manage to placate and ultimately win over the votes of dissenting delegates. The proponents of this entirely new framework for government, acutely aware of the formidable challenges ahead in securing the necessary consent from individual states for the Constitution to actually become operational, were utterly desperate to present a facade of unanimous support from all state delegations. The fear, a very real and palpable one, was that a significant number of delegates would outright refuse to give their individual, personal assent to the Constitution. Thus, to ensure the Convention’s actions appeared universally agreed upon, the rather artful and slightly deceptive formula, “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present…”, was ingeniously devised. A testament to the power of carefully chosen words, or perhaps a warning about their manipulative potential.

The U.S. Constitution , as signed, was designed to meticulously lay out the fundamental structure of the nation’s nascent federal government . It meticulously delineates how its three distinct branches – the legislative , executive , and judicial – were intended to function, a blueprint for a system of checks and balances that would, theoretically, prevent any one branch from acquiring too much power. Of the men who ultimately affixed their signatures to this foundational document, virtually every single one had played some direct, often perilous, role in the preceding American Revolution . A notable seven had been among those who signed the Declaration of Independence , committing treason against the Crown, and a substantial thirty had served on active military duty, enduring the hardships and brutal realities of war. In essence, these individuals represented a surprisingly diverse yet undeniably elite cross-section of 18th-century American leadership, boasting extensive experience in various forms of local, colonial, and state government. They were, in short, the survivors and architects of a revolution, now tasked with building something that might actually last.

In total, twelve of the original thirteen states were ultimately represented at the Constitutional Convention . As previously noted, Rhode Island famously declined to send any delegates, apparently preferring to observe from a distance, or perhaps just to avoid the inevitable debates. Out of the 74 delegates who were initially chosen to participate, a somewhat smaller contingent of 55 actually attended, and of those, only 39 ultimately put their name to the final document. Several attendees, perhaps overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the task or simply unable to stomach the compromises, departed before the final signing ceremony. More pointedly, three of the 42 delegates who remained until the very end still refused to sign, their objections proving insurmountable. Jonathan Dayton , at a mere 26 years of age, held the distinction of being the youngest signer, while the venerable Benjamin Franklin , at 81, was the oldest. A span of generations, united by a parchment, if not always by perfect consensus.

Text

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

George Washington —President and deputy from Virginia

Delaware { George Read Gunning Bedford Jr. John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jacob Broom }

Maryland { James McHenry Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Daniel Carroll }

Virginia { John Blair James Madison }

North Carolina { William Blount Richard Dobbs Spaight Hugh Williamson }

South Carolina { John Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler }

Georgia { William Few Abraham Baldwin }

New Hampshire { John Langdon Nicholas Gilman }

Massachusetts { Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King }

Connecticut { William Samuel Johnson Roger Sherman }

New York Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey { William Livingston David Brearley William Paterson Jonathan Dayton }

Pennsylvania { Benjamin Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robert Morris George Clymer Thomas Fitzsimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouverneur Morris }

The closing endorsement section of the United States Constitution

The Word “the”, being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page. The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Background

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States , by Howard Chandler Christy (1940)

The journey to the final signing ceremony was, as most significant human endeavors are, a messy and protracted affair. On July 24, 1787, amidst the sweltering Philadelphia summer, the convention delegates, perhaps sensing the urgency of their task, made a crucial decision: they selected a specialized Committee of Detail . The mandate for this committee was clear: to prepare a comprehensive draft constitution that accurately reflected the myriad resolutions and compromises that had been painfully hammered out by the convention up to that point. The committee’s eventual output, which effectively served as the constitution’s very first draft, was a substantial document comprising twenty-three distinct articles, preceded by a preamble . While this initial document largely conformed to the broad strokes of the resolutions already adopted by the Convention, certain portions were, inevitably, rephrased and refined during the drafting process, a continuous exercise in linguistic and conceptual negotiation.

Even after presenting this initial report, the Committee of Detail did not simply disband. It continued its work, meeting intermittently and diligently until the early days of September. During this extended period, the draft constitution was subjected to intense scrutiny, discussed and debated section by section, and clause by clause. Every minute detail was meticulously attended to, and further layers of compromise, often hard-won, were painstakingly effected. It seems even the most foundational documents are not immune to endless revisions.

As the summer waned, on September 8, 1787, a new, distinct body was impaneled: the Committee of Style . This committee, composed of different members, was entrusted with the critical task of distilling the sprawling twenty-three approved articles into a polished, final draft of the constitution. Their work culminated in a document presented to the convention on September 12. This refined draft notably contained a more concise structure of seven articles, alongside the now-familiar preamble, and a shrewdly crafted closing statement. This final flourish, cleverly penned by Gouverneur Morris , was specifically designed to present the constitution as if it had been adopted with resounding unanimity, a political sleight of hand to smooth over remaining dissent. The committee also thoughtfully prepared a proposed letter, intended to accompany the constitution when it was finally delivered to the Congress of the Confederation , a necessary diplomatic formality.

The very final document, meticulously engrossed onto parchment by the skilled hand of Jacob Shallus , was formally taken up on Monday, September 17, during the Convention’s conclusive session. It must be noted, with a touch of weary resignation, that not all delegates were thrilled with the outcome. Many expressed profound disappointment over the numerous compromises that had been woven into the fabric of the final document, believing these concessions had, in their view, significantly impaired its overall quality and ideological purity.

Alexander Hamilton , ever the eloquent firebrand, famously dismissed the Constitution as a “weak and worthless fabric,” seemingly convinced it was destined for a swift obsolescence. Luther Martin , known for his staunch anti-federalist views, regarded it with almost theatrical disdain, labeling it a “stab in the back of the goddess of liberty.” The most that even staunch advocates like James Madison and the majority of the remaining delegates could realistically hope for was that this practical, workable, and undeniably imperfect constitution – designed, let’s be honest, to address the immediate, pressing needs of thirteen disparate states with a population of roughly four million souls – might, with a bit of luck, endure for a single generation. A rather modest ambition for a document intended to shape the future of a continent.

It was Benjamin Franklin , with his characteristic blend of pragmatism and understated wisdom, who perhaps best encapsulated the sentiments of those who, despite their reservations, ultimately chose to sign. He stated, with a candor that cut through the lingering dissent: “There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” He clarified his decision to accept the Constitution, not out of unbridled enthusiasm, but “because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best.” A profoundly human sentiment, acknowledging imperfection while grasping for the best possible outcome in a sea of difficult choices.

About the endorsement

Gouverneur Morris , author of the Constitution’s closing endorsement

The closing endorsement of the U.S. Constitution serves a distinctly limited, almost perfunctory, authentication function. It is a mere historical record, not a source of power or a wellspring of governmental limitations. Unlike the preceding articles, it neither assigns any specific powers to the burgeoning federal government nor does it delineate particular restrictions on governmental action. Its utility, rather, lies in its capacity to provide essential documentation of the Constitution’s fundamental validity – a simple, declarative statement of “This is what was agreed to.” It meticulously records precisely who signed the Constitution, along with the specific time and location of their signatures. Furthermore, it subtly, yet significantly, describes the collective role played by these signers in the document’s arduous development. Due to this inherently limited, almost administrative, function, it is frequently overlooked in legal discourse. Indeed, no court, to my knowledge, has ever seen fit to cite it when rendering a judicial decision. It’s the appendix that everyone skips.

On that final, decisive day of the Constitutional Convention , Benjamin Franklin , ever the master of diplomatic persuasion, delivered a powerful address (which, due to his advanced age and infirmity, was read aloud by James Wilson ). In this speech, Franklin offered a robust endorsement of the Constitution, acknowledging its perceived imperfections but emphasizing the critical need for unity. In a brilliant maneuver designed to disarm critics and foster an essential sense of common accord, Franklin then proposed – and the convention, seeing the wisdom in his strategy, agreed – that the Constitution should be endorsed by the delegates not as official representatives of their respective states, but rather as individual witnesses to the “unanimous consent of the states present.” This subtle but crucial distinction meant that the signers subscribed their names not “on the part and behalf of particular states,” as they had done with the Articles of Confederation , but as personal attestations to the proceedings. This clever framing allowed delegates to sign without binding their states, thereby sidestepping potential political backlash and creating an illusion of collective endorsement. The names of these signers are, with the singular exception of Convention President George Washington , grouped methodically by state, with the states themselves listed in a geographical progression, from north to south. A neat, orderly presentation for what was a messy, human process.

About the signers

The initial pool of individuals selected to attend the Constitutional Convention numbered seventy-four. However, as is often the case with such grand undertakings, a substantial number either found themselves unable to attend due to various reasons, or, perhaps more tellingly, simply chose not to participate. In the end, fifty-five delegates actively engaged in the work of the convention. Yet, even among this dedicated group, thirteen individuals eventually dropped out, some for personal reasons, others in vocal protest over specific decisions or fundamental directions taken during the often-heated deliberations. A testament to the deeply divisive nature of the task at hand. Critically, three individuals, despite remaining engaged in the convention’s work until its very completion, ultimately refused to sign the final draft, their consciences or political calculations forbidding their assent.

The proposed constitution bears the inscribed names of thirty-nine delegates. Among these is John Dickinson , who, unfortunately indisposed by illness, granted explicit authorization to George Read to sign his name by proxy – a small but significant detail highlighting the practicalities of the era. Additionally, the convention’s diligent secretary, William Jackson , though not a delegate himself, signed the document. His signature served a precise, administrative purpose: to officially authenticate certain corrections that had been made to the text. George Washington , by virtue of his esteemed position as president of the Convention, had the honor of signing first, his signature standing alone at the top. He was then followed by the other delegates, whose names were grouped by their respective states, progressing geographically from north to south. Interestingly, Washington’s initial signature was placed near the right margin of the page. As the delegates continued to sign, they eventually ran out of available space, necessitating the commencement of a second column of signatures to the left. A visual representation of the expanding commitment.

Jonathan Dayton , who was a mere 26 years of age at the time, holds the distinction of being the youngest individual to append his name to the Constitution. At the other end of the generational spectrum was the venerable Benjamin Franklin , an octogenarian at 81, whose presence alone lent immense gravitas to the proceedings. Franklin also holds the melancholic distinction of being the first signer to pass away, in April 1790, while James Madison , the “Father of the Constitution,” was the last, departing this mortal coil in June 1836. It is a striking fact that virtually every single signer had played some direct, often dangerous, role in the American Revolution ; at least 29 of them had served in the Continental forces , with the majority holding positions of command, demonstrating their commitment to the cause of independence. Furthermore, all but seven of these foundational figures were native-born to the thirteen colonies. The exceptions include Pierce Butler , Thomas Fitzsimons , James McHenry , and William Paterson , all of whom were born in Ireland. Robert Morris hailed from England, James Wilson from Scotland, and the brilliant, if controversial, Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies. A truly international cast, united by a singular, audacious purpose.

Independence Hall’s Assembly Room , where both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were debated and signed.

The Syng inkstand , used at the signing of the Constitution and, eleven years earlier, the Declaration of Independence.

Accompanying documents

Once the Constitutional Convention finally adjourned on September 17, 1787, the meticulous William Jackson was entrusted with the critical mission of transporting the newly minted Constitution to Congress, which was then convened in New York City . His journey was not solitary; he also carried two crucial accompanying documents. The first was a formal resolution, carefully adopted by the delegates, recommending that the Constitutional Convention’s proposal be formally received by Congress and subsequently distributed to the individual states for their careful consideration, and ultimately, their approval or disapproval. The second document was a letter, penned on behalf of the delegates by none other than George Washington , addressed to the then-President of the Continental Congress , Arthur St. Clair , offering a comprehensive explanation and endorsement of the proposed Constitution.

Resolution to the Continental Congress

IN CONVENTION

Monday September 17. 1787

PRESENT

The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

RESOLVED

THAT the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution. That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their votes certified signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the Unanimous Order of the Convention,

GEORGE WASHINGTON President.

William Jackson Secretary

This resolution, a testament to the delegates’ understanding of the political tightrope they were walking, meticulously outlined the path forward for the new Constitution. It wasn’t enough for them to simply draft it; they had to ensure its legitimate adoption. The core directive was to present the Constitution to the existing Congress and then, crucially, to submit it to specially convened conventions of delegates in each state, chosen directly by the people. This was a deliberate move to vest the document with popular sovereignty, bypassing the potentially hostile state legislatures. The resolution further stipulated a clear process for the new government’s inauguration: once nine states ratified, Congress was to set specific dates for the appointment of Electors , their assembly to vote for the President , and the commencement of official proceedings under the new framework. This detailed plan underscored the pragmatic, step-by-step approach necessary to transition from the flawed Articles of Confederation to a more robust federal system, ensuring a structured rather than haphazard beginning for the nascent republic.

Letter to the President of the Continental Congress

IN CONVENTION,

September 17, 1787.

Sir, We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all—Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect,

We have the honor to be.

SIR,

Your Excellency’s most

Obedient and humble Servants,

GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT.

By unanimous Order of the Convention.

This accompanying letter, a masterclass in diplomatic persuasion, served as the delegates’ collective rationale for their creation. It opened by respectfully submitting the Constitution as “most advisable,” a subtle framing that hinted at the immense effort and compromise behind it. The core argument articulated was the long-felt need for a robust general government capable of wielding powers related to war, peace, treaties, finance, and commerce – capabilities conspicuously absent or feeble under the Articles of Confederation . The letter astutely acknowledged the inherent “impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men,” thereby justifying the tripartite structure of the new government. It then delved into the philosophical heart of their dilemma: the “impracticability” of preserving absolute state sovereignty while simultaneously ensuring the common interest and safety of all. The delegates invoked the social contract theory, stating that “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest,” a sacrifice whose “magnitude must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.” This was a frank admission of the difficult balance between individual liberty (or state sovereignty) and collective security. The letter underscored the profound difficulty in precisely drawing the line between surrendered and reserved rights, a challenge exacerbated by the diverse “situation, extent, habits, and particular interests” of the various states. The ultimate guiding principle, they asserted, was the “consolidation of our Union,” which they deemed paramount for “prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.” This overarching objective, “seriously and deeply impressed on our minds,” compelled each state delegation to exhibit a “less rigid” stance on “points of inferior magnitude.” Thus, the Constitution presented was characterized as the “result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A rather generous assessment of what was often a bare-knuckle political brawl, but a necessary narrative for public consumption. The letter concluded with a realistic, if hopeful, acknowledgment that universal approbation was unlikely, but expressed the fervent wish that the document would promote the “lasting welfare” and secure the “freedom and happiness” of their cherished country. A fittingly earnest plea for a document born of such profound, and often painful, compromise.

See also