Sold – George Clymer Advocates the Bill of Rights During Its Debate in Congress, Decrying an Attempt

In the final days of the Federal Constitutional Convention, as delegates rushed to complete work on the final draft of the Constitution, George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the Constitution be “prefaced with a bill of rights.” This was very late in the game to propose measures that would require a lengthy debate and engender opposition based on the specific language being proposed. Moreover, many delegates felt the procedures that were being put into place by the Constitution would themselves provide or lead to protections. So on September 12, 1787, less than a week before adjourning, the proposal was rejected by the delegates as unnecessary to protect individual rights. James Madison, who would soon be instrumental in guiding a bill of rights through Congress, seemed to sum up the delegates’ feeling in dismissing bills of rights as so many "parchment barriers" whose "inefficacy" (he reminded his good friend, Thomas Jefferson) was repeatedly demonstrated "on those occasions when [their] control is most needed."   

However, the opponents of ratifying the Constitution used as a principal argument the lack of a bill of rights, and this resonated with many (Jefferson included). Then, during the ratification process, several states specifically called for a bill of rights. More momentously, and to Madison ominously, New York, when it ratified the Constitution, called for another constitutional convention to secure one. A new convention might not merely pass a bill of rights, but would have the right to change any aspect of the entire Constitutional edifice, which had been put together with such difficulty. Madison thought that would lead to unending mischief and determined to control the process by taking leadership of the amendment effort. He stated: "I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself…" On June 8, 1789, just three months after the first Federal Congress convened, Madison introduced in the House of Representatives his proposed amendments to the Constitution, ten of which would eventually become known as the Bill of Rights. These provide for freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion, prohibition of the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and guarantee of a speedy public trial with impartial jury, among other protections now considered fundamental.   

On August 15, 1789, during the House of Representatives discussion of these amendments, the issue of “Popular Instruction of Representatives” arose. This was a key subject, as it essentially involved whether the Constitution would establish a republic or a democracy. Those favoring the former wanted elected representatives to be free to vote their opinions and consciences. This would foster debate and make the U.S. legislative branch a seat of actual power. Those promoting the latter felt that state legislatures, being theoretically closer to the people, should have the ability to instruct their Federal representatives how to vote. This would make them mere figureheads, with the real debates and struggles over measures taking place in their state capitals. That day, Thomas Tudor Tucker, a South Carolina anti-Federalist, moved to insert a declaration of the right of “the people” to instruct representatives. The place this language was to be inserted was, incredibly, what we now know as the First Amendment. It was proposed to read:?“The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."   

James Madison rose to object, saying if by this declaration “we mean…that the people have a right to express and communicate their sentiments and wishes, we have provided for it already…If gentlemen mean to go further and to say that the people have a right to instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates were obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true. Suppose they instruct a representative by his vote to violate the Constitution, is he at liberty to obey such instructions?    

George Clymer of Pennsylvania, one of just six signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was a member of that first House of Representatives. He also spoke against the addition, stating, “This is a most dangerous principle, utterly destructive of all ideas of an independent and deliberative body…” For this position, he was vilified at home as an elitist, and worse. Yet his opinion won the day, and the proposal was defeated.   

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. On October 2, President Washington sent engrossed copies of the amendments to each state for consideration. Pennsylvania was in the forefront of the fight to secure the rights of the people. To further this goal, it called a state Constitutional Convention that met from November 1789 to September 1790. Ultimately the Convention would adopt the Pennslyvania Declaration of Rights, but along the way it was responsible for consideration and ratification of the proposed Federal Bill of Rights amendments. Many of the delegates, and their newspapers back home, were among those who had favored the Tucker measure. And Clymer was anything but popular with them.   

Autograph Letter Signed, 2 pages, New York, undated but written between November 24, 1789 and March 9, 1790, to fellow Pennsylvanian, James Wilson, who was also a signer of both historic documents. In it, he describes his mistreatment resulting from his being a proponent of the Bill of Rights as passed, the harm that his presence might do the cause of ratifying the Bill of Rights in Pennsylvania, and ends with his opinion on the real role of representatives to Congress. "Till the receipt of yours this evening, I had determined against meeting our assembly, believing my presence there would rather injure than aid the cause of the Convention, or any other cause I should attach myself to, so full are all our letters of the resoundings of rage and violence against us for a late vote. If it, however, is thought my duty to meet a storm I will not fail to do it. But when I shall quit this place is not certain. Thursday a question concerning permanent residency is to be brought by the Penna. delegates. This I suppose will end in nothing, but the issue [result] would in part be attributed to anyone who would leave [before voting on] the question. If at the same moment, I ought to be in another place, here is a choice of curses left for me – having learnt that I was not sent here to judge but to be judged…". He adds in a postscript: "I don’t know what Mr. Tilghman intends". With detached address leaf addressed in Clymer’s hand to Wilson, then in Philadelphia, franked "Free G. Clymer". Edward Tilghman was a prominent Philadelphia lawyer who was married to Clymer’s nephew.   

Pennsylvania ratified the Bill of Rights on March 10, 1790, and in 1791 enough states had approved that the first ten amendments to the Constitution became law. So Clymer’s worst fear – rejection of the amendments – did not come to pass. He, however, was disillusioned with Congress and retired after only one term.