George Mason: “Objections to This Constitution of Government”

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The purpose of the convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation. This document, which can be thought of as a precursor to the Constitution, was the one under which the United States had been operating since independence from Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation, however, proved to be a flawed document. A considerable amount of interstate conflict arose, and it was clear to the nation's leaders that the Articles of Confederation was a weak document, for it granted too much power to the individual states and not enough to the federal government. Many of the delegates to the convention, among them such prominent statesmen as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, arrived in Philadelphia with the intention not just of amending the articles but of creating an entirely new constitution.

The convention delegates, however, were by no means of one mind. Some members of the convention left in protest before the closing ceremonies because of objections to the proposed Constitution. Three others refused to sign the new document. As the remainder returned to their states to urge ratification, they knew that no one was entirely happy with the document. George Mason was one of Virginia's delegates to the convention. Although he was instrumental in the formation of the U.S. Constitution, believing that it would affect future generations of Americans, he ultimately was one of the three who refused to sign the document.

As the convention was nearing its end in September 1787, Mason proposed that a group be formed to develop a bill of rights that would preface the Constitution. In this effort he was supported by Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, who later served as vice president under James Madison and whose name would survive in the word gerrymander, referring to the process of drawing congressional districts in a way that helps the political party in power. The majority of the delegates to the convention, however, felt that the individual states' bills of rights would be sufficient and there was no need to draft another.

After the Constitutional Convention closed and the proposed constitution was returned to the states for ratification, debates about the merits of the new document were widespread in the press. The most famous documents examining the new constitution were the Federalist Papers, written largely by Hamilton and Madison. Taking part in the public debate, too, was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, whose “Letters of a Countryman” urged legislators not to make ratification contingent on the inclusion of a bill of rights. Mason, however, had a different view, and he wrote his reasons for objecting to the proposed Constitution on the back of a report from the convention's Committee of Style. First and foremost, the Constitution did not include a declaration of rights. Mason expresses his belief that without a bill of rights the document did not give enough consideration to the rights of citizens. He also asserts that the judicial branch of government was arranged in a way that left “justice … unattainable, by a great part of the community, as in England, and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.” He feared that the government would have too much power if the Constitution remained as it was.

In addition, Mason expresses fear that the president of the United States would ultimately become a “tool of the Senate,” “unsupported by proper information and advice.” Moreover, he argues that the president's ability to grant pardons for treason could allow the president to “screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.” Likewise, he contends that federal judges should be appointed by Congress rather than the president because the relationship between the president and the judiciary would “enable them to accomplish what usurpations they please upon the rights and liberties of the people.”

Mason claims that the office of vice president was unnecessary and only blurred the roles of the executive and legislative branches because the vice president became the president of the Senate. He also expresses fear that the five southern states, in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, would be ruined if a congressional majority were allowed to make all commercial and navigation legislation. Instead, he argues for a two-thirds majority in both houses. Ultimately, Mason predicts, the new government would become a “monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy.”