           THE IMPACT OF MASONRY ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
                            May - September 1787 

        
                        by Stewart Wilson Miner, PGM 




    The purpose of this paper is to suggest how and to what degree 
    Freemasonry exerted an influence over the delegates and their work 
    at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 
    the epochal year of 1787. A number of Masons attended the 
    Convention, as we know, and we are told that among the 39 signers 
    of the Fundamental Law that they produced, 13 were at some time in 
    their lives associated with Masonry.  Of that number, 11 were 
    Freemasons at the time that they participated in the Convention. 
    Subsequent to the Convention, two others, William Patterson of New 
    Jersey and James McHenry of Maryland, became Masons in 1791 and 
    1806, respectively. 


    My interest, however, is not in numbers but in ideas.  What did the 
    delegates think, and why did they think as they did?  Were the 
    thoughts of Masons in the Convention distinguishable from the 
    thoughts of their non-Masonic counterparts and, if so, were their 
    opinions shaped by their experiences in the Craft?  Unfortunately 
    it is not possible to definitively answer these questions because 
    of a number of extenuating circumstances, among which the most 
    important may well have been the still unsettled state of the Craft 
    itself in the last decades of the Eighteenth century, in this 
    country and abroad.  The structure, authority, and customs and 
    courtesies of the fraternity, whose Grand Lodge form dated only 
    from 1717, were still evolving.  Hence Masonry in the years between 
    the formation of the first independent Grand Lodge in Virginia in 
    1778 and the convocation of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 
    was living through a period in which active Masons were concerned 
    primarily about the establishment and regulation of the Craft.  And 
    even with regard to those restrictive purposes, they wrote 
    relatively little. 


    Nevertheless, many of Masonry's students, despite the fragmentary 
    nature of the evidence at hand, attribute great political 
    importance to the Craft during the Eighteenth Century.  Among those 
    who have done so is Bernard Fay, a distinguished scholar who in 
    1935 wrote a lengthy opus entitled "Revolution and Freemasonry 
    1680-1800".  In that work he remarked that from the Middle Ages, 
    Freemasonry in England was a social force.  "Through their 
    technical secrets gathered from all corners of the globe, the glory 
    acquired by their achievements and the numerous great people who 
    wished to be affiliated with that great guild, " he said, "the 
    Masons held tremendous power."  It was his observation that with 
    the advent of the Renaissance, a period of decadence began, and in 
    consequence the Masons lost some of their power, though they 
    retained their popularity.  People were building less, he said, but 
    they were philosophizing more, and he claimed that the mysteries of 
    the Craft, whose members seemed to possess powerful secrets, 
    "piqued the interest and inflamed the imagination of the people . . 
    . ." 


    In his review of the formation of the Mother Grand Lodge in England, 
    Fay concluded that decisions were made which transformed 
    professional Masonry into philosophic Masonry, a change that 
    included all men of good will to its membership, "regardless of 
    profession, race, religion or nationality."  This change was 
    implemented, Fay averred, largely through the efforts of John 
    Theophilous Desaugliers, who wanted the people to fight against the 
    ignorance of man. "Under his influence," said Fay, "Freemasonry was 
    organized as the great center of enlightenment, which was to 
    dissipate the darkness of the century and confound both the foolish 
    superstitions of the time and the blind obstinacy of the atheist." 


    Fay saw the reorganization of Masonry in 1717, "an association 
    which had relinquished all of its technical preoccupations and aimed 
    to devote itself to philosophy and benevolence with the high 
    purpose of restoring social and moral order by establishing a new 
    intellectual discipline."  Its purpose, he declared, "was a 
    complete renewal of all accepted values and the establishment of a 
    new code of morals."  In its new role, "Masonry no longer placed 
    itself on the ground of feudal and monarchical loyalty," he said, 
    in claiming that, "Masonry invariably denied that it had anything 
    to do with politics, but it never allowed governments to thwart the 
    fulfillment of its mission and at the very beginning closed all 
    Lodges to state control." 


    It should be recognized that Fay, in commenting on the second charge 
    in Anderson's Constitutions (dealing with a Mason's relationship to 
    the civil magistrate, supreme and subordinate), never claimed that 
    the speculative Masons of England used the Craft to obtain 
    political ends.  And this is as it should be, for in the entirety 
    of the period from 1717, when the Mother Grand Lodge was formed, 
    through the years of the Constitutional Convention in America and 
    beyond the English Craft was concerned about more mundane problems 
    which, if unresolved, may well have destroyed the Craft.  Their 
    concerns focused upon the unification of as many as five Grand 
    Lodges into one, and on the attainment of unanimity over internal 
    issues pertaining to the processing of candidates and the 
    perfection of Freemasonry's ritual and ceremonies.  It is to 
    subjects such as these that the written record of Masonry in the 
    Eighteenth Century in England was focused, and it did so almost 
    exclusively. 


    It is difficult to say how the growing experiences of a Speculative 
    Craft in Europe, principally in England, Scotland, and Ireland, 
    influenced the molding of Masonic thought in America. Undoubtedly, 
    there was an influence, through the creation of the Provincial 
    Grand Lodges, through the chartering of local Lodges, and through 
    the conferral of the Degrees in Europe on Americans sojourning 
    there for business or study. 


    Moreover, the military Lodges attached to the British armed forces 
    in America were potent forces in the spread of Freemasonry in this 
    part of the New World.  But the records of such activities are 
    scant, as M/W Melvin M. Johnson, Past Grand Master of Massachusetts 
    observed in his book, "The Beginnings of Freemasonry in America".  
    Therein he notes: 

    "The early Lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges were careless about 
    the keeping of records.  Even the Mother Grand Lodge itself has no 
    formal record book for more than six years after its organization.  
    And the premier Provincial Grand Lodge of the Western Hemisphere, 
    organized in Boston, Massachusetts July 30, 1933, has no formal and 
    continuous records written in a book at the time of the recorded 
    events, until 1750. 


    Clearly the record of Freemasonry in America, prior to the creation 
    of independent Grand Lodges is incomplete, a fact that its accurate 
    interpretation impossible.  Still, says Johnson, "too many so-
    called Masonic historians, since the days when they should have 
    known better, have added fiction to fable and imagination to both, 
    using the manifest errors of their predecessors as gospel, dreams 
    as evidence, and guess as proof." 


    It is from the prospective of these sage words of warning that I 
    recently reviewed a modern tract entitled "Freemasonry and the 
    Constitution", wherein one reads an interesting assortment of 
    inflated claims in which truth and fiction are intermixed.  In this 
    document it is stated that the rise of modern Masonry coincided 
    with the struggle for constitutional government and the growth of 
    the newly developed middle class; that the forefathers of our 
    Fraternity on both sides of the Atlantic were unceasing in 
    combating the forces of autocracy and mob rule; that it was the 
    thoughts of Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Bacon, and John Locke that the 
    Constitution makers of 1787 had in mind; that the philosophies 
    underlying the American Constitution and Freemasonry are identical 
    in character; that Freemasonry's principles made it the leading 
    social force of the Eighteenth Century; that the framers of the 
    Constitution looked to Montesquieu as the oracle of their political 
    wisdom; and that Washington and six Masons, who had been or would 
    ultimately be Grand Masters, labored with other members of the 
    Craft (inferentially on the basis of their Masonry) to lay wide and 
    deep the foundations of our liberties. 


    A still more recent work, prepared as a guide for use in the 
    celebration of our Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, repeats 
    many of these claims and adds another element to them.  In it one 
    notes the attempt to associate the words of the Preamble to Masonic 
    philosophy.  The proponents of this claim have apparently 
    overlooked the fact that the Preamble was a last minute inclusion 
    of the Committee on Style and Arrangement, a group of five which 
    included four non-Masons, and that the actual words came from the 
    pen of one of the latter, Gouveneur Morris. The only Mason on the 
    Committee was Rufus King, who is believed to have entered the 
    Fraternity in 1781.  Obviously his Masonic experience was limited.  
    This document has one redeeming feature, however, in that it 
    presents a well balanced assessment of the Constitution as 
    freedom's greatest document, in the form of an extract taken from 
    the Sovereign Grand Commander's message that appeared in the 
    September 1986 issue of "The New Age". 


    I hold that in claims such as those to which I have referred there 
    are elements of both fact and fantasy, and when taken as a whole, 
    they do little to explain the basic thoughts of either the Masons 
    or the non-Masons who made up the membership of the Constitutional 
    Convention.  There men of good faith, from various walks of life, 
    fought for the best interests of their constituencies, and when 
    necessary for the good of the nation, they pragmatically arbitrated 
    their differences.  This is the message of those who have recorded 
    their impressions of the Convention, and this is also the opinion 
    of Catherine Drinker Bowen, an authority whose book, "The Miracle 
    at  Philadelphia", has become a classic.  In that work, she states 
    her case as follows: 

    Characteristically, the Convention never stayed long upon theory.  
    Its business was not to defend "freedom" or to vindicate a 
    revolution.  That had been done long ago, in July 1776 and later, 
    when colony after colony created its state constitution, flinging 
    out its particular preamble of political and religious freedom.  
    The Convention of 1787 would debate the rights of states, but not 
    the rights of man in general.  The records show nothing grandly 
    declaratory or defiant, as in the French Constituent Assembly of 
    1789.  America had passed that phase; had anyone challenged 
    members, they would have said such declarations were already 
    cemented in their blood.  In 1787 the states sat not to justify the 
    term United States but to institute a working government for those 
    states.  One finds no quotations from Rousseau, John Locke, 
    Burlamaqui or the French "philosophies", and if Montesquieu is 
    invoked it is to defend the practical organization of a tripartite 
    government.  When the Federal Convention discussed political power, 
    or governmental authority, they discussed it in terms of what was 
    likely to happen to Delaware or Pennsylvania, New Jersey or 
    Georgia. 
     

    Most of the members of the Philadelphia Convention, in short, were 
    old hands, politicians to the bone.  That some of them happened to 
    be men of vision, educated in law and the science of government, 
    did not distract them from the matters impending.  There was a 
    minimum of oratory or showing off.  Each time a member seemed about 
    to soar into the empyrean of social theory - the 18th century 
    called it "reason" - somebody brought him round and shortly.  
    "Experience must be our only guide," said John Dickenson of 
    Delaware.  "Reason may mislead us. 


    Ms. Bowen relied heavily on the notes compiled by James Madison for 
    the information she presented in her book. She states that Madison 
    was an indefatigable reporter, "his notes comprehensive, set down 
    without comment or aside."  Others at the Convention also took 
    notes, she said, including Hamilton, Yates, and Lansing of New 
    York, McHenry of Maryland, Patterson of New Jersey, Rufus King of 
    Massachusetts, William Pierce of Georgia, and George Mason of 
    Virginia.  But in her view most of the memoranda they produced 
    "were brief, incomplete," and, "had it not been for Madison we 
    should possess very scanty records of the Convention."  She used 
    those records effectively to analyze the work of the Convention, 
    where political strength was formed out of disunity. 


    Examination of the material presented in the book, "Miracle at 
    Philadelphia", reveals the depths of the divisions that separated 
    States and even the delegates within states over major issues that 
    were placed before the Convention.  Men of honor and of conviction 
    stood at odds over the merits of the organizational plans 
    presented, and even after the attainment of agreement on the plan, 
    there was seemingly endless disagreement over implementation. 
    Questions pertaining to executive power, representation in the 
    Congress, and the differentiation of the federal and state 
    prerogatives necessitated hours of debate over the course of the 
    summer. 


    The record of the Virginia delegation testifies to the spirit of 
    independence that prevailed at the Convention.  This delegation, in 
    addition to George Washington, the chairman, included Edmund 
    Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, Jr., George Mason, George 
    Wythe, and James McClurg. Randolph had the honor of presenting the 
    Virginia Resolves, the so-called Virginia Plan, which ultimately 
    became the foundation upon which the Constitution rests.  But when 
    it became time to sign the finished document, Randolph declined to 
    do so.  So too did George Mason, who was numbered among those who 
    favored the New Jersey rather than the Virginia Plan.  Randolph and 
    Mason were both concerned about the impact of the document on the 
    fundamental rights of states and individuals whose interests may 
    well have been endangered by what Madison foresaw as a new 
    government "vibrating between a monarchy and a corrupt, oppressive 
    aristocracy."  In fact only three Virginians, Washington, Madison, 
    and Blair, actually signed the document in Philadelphia, a sparse 
    showing for the Commonwealth which considered itself the prime 
    mover in the affair.  In fairness, however, two others, George 
    Wythe and George McClurg, indicated their approval of the draft, 
    although they were not present for the signing. 


    But if State delegations were divided, so too were the Masons at 
    the Convention.  They opted to defend the interests of their 
    constituents, and it does not appear that they caucused at any time 
    as Masons to look at the problems set before them.  In fact, they 
    expounded and vigorously defended their views, unencumbered by 
    anything except the facts as they perceived them.  In consequence 
    there was a lack of unanimity among Masons at the Convention over a 
    number of issues, and this is as it should have been. 


    The foremost member of the Craft in Philadelphia was George 
    Washington, who acted as Chairman of the Convention, in which 
    capacity he opted to refrain from speaking to the issues that came 
    before the delegates, even when discussions were held in the forum 
    of a committee of the whole.  Before the opening of the Convention 
    he made it known that his sympathies lay with a national 
    government.  Yet only on the last day, September 17, did Washington 
    rise to take part in the discussions.  This, it appears, was his 
    management style.  Also declining to speak was his fellow 
    Virginian, John Blair who, like Washington, silently favored a 
    strong central government.  So too did Benjamin Franklin of 
    Pennsylvania, Rufus King of Massachusetts, Nicolas Gelman of New 
    Hampshire, John Dickenson of Delaware, and Daniel Carroll of 
    Maryland, all of whom chose to speak to and work for the kind of a 
    Constitution that was ultimately adopted. 


    This did not deter other Masons at the Convention from working hard 
    for an alternative, the New Jersey Plan, and after the rejection of 
    that plan, from championing the cause of states rights in the 
    debates that were essential to the formulation of the articles and 
    sections of the document that was to be produced. They saw in the 
    Constitutional proposals dangers that would work to the 
    disadvantage of the smaller states. Included in this group of 
    Masons were Gunning Bedford of Delaware, David Brearley, John 
    Dayton, and William Patterson of New Jersey; and probably Jacob 
    Broom, also of Delaware. Nevertheless, when it came time to sign 
    the finished document, they all did.  One known Mason, Edmund 
    Randolph of Virginia, declined to sign, however, as noted above, as 
    did two others who may have been members of the Craft -William 
    Blount of North Carolina and Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts.  The 
    only other non-signer among the delegates who were still in 
    Philadelphia at the close of the Convention was George Mason, also 
    from Virginia. 


    It may be of interest to note that among the Masons who signed the 
    Constitution, four of them, David Brearley, Gunning Bedford, Jr., 
    John Blair and Ben Franklin had the privilege of serving their 
    jurisdictions as Grand Masters.  On the whole, however, and 
    excepting Franklin and Washington, whose Masonic experience dated 
    from 1731 and 1753, respectively, Masons at the Convention were 
    young in the Craft. Six of the eleven who had taken the degrees 
    prior to the Convention had been Masons for less than ten years; 
    one of the group was a fourteen year Mason; one a 34-year Mason 
    (Washington); one a Mason for 56 years (Franklin); and the 
    longevity of another, Jonathon Dayton, is not precisely known.  
    Interestingly, two of the delegates normally counted among the 
    Masonic signers, William Patterson and James McHenry, did not enter 
    the Craft until after the close of the Convention, in 1791 and 
    1806, respectively.  In such circumstances the extent to which 
    Masonry may have influenced the participation of most of the group 
    must remain a matter of conjecture. 


    Nevertheless there are interesting parallels which can be drawn 
    between the development of Masonry in the Eighteenth Century and 
    the development of the U.S. Constitution.  Both the U.S. 
    Constitution and the Constitutions of Masonry were created in 
    response to need, and in the responses of those involved, permanent 
    changes were induced on the structure of the body fraternal and the 
    body politic.  These responses, in short, transformed man's 
    perspectives relative the extension and preservation of authority, 
    to the application of executive power, and to the definition of the 
    basic rights of the governed. 


    Joseph Fort Newton, speaking to the formation of the first Grand 
    Lodge in London, observed that by this act, "Masonry was not simply 
    revived, but refashioned, recast, and refounded on a different 
    basis . . .," and in the process, he observed, the Craft had 
    undergone a "complete and thorough-going revolution." The 
    transformation of the American Government in consequence of the 
    actions taken at the Constitutional Convention was no less 
    revolutionary, for it created a new and complete political 
    philosophy, one characterized by some as "the most profound and 
    perfect ever devised by man."  As Ralph J. Pollard observed years 
    ago, the government created was ". . . the finished and perfect 
    product of 10 Centuries of Anglo-Saxon political experience." 


    The revolution in the Craft to which Newton referred was threefold 
    in nature.  "First," he said, "the very idea of a Grand Lodge as a 
    central governing body with a supreme authority was novel, as much 
    in its existence as in its extraordinary powers, unlike anything 
    before known to the Craft.  There had been certain old Lodges, to 
    be sure, which had exercised some of the functions of a Grand 
    Lodge, to the extent, at least, of giving authority and direction 
    to the founding of other Lodges; . . .  But the Grand Lodge of 1717 
    went further, in that it took complete command of its Lodges . . .; 
    and it is no wonder that this unheard-of authority provoked 
    resentment and challenge, the more it no longer confined its 
    jurisdiction to Lodges within ten miles of London, as it first 
    declared, but invaded the Provinces." 


    Seventy years later the delegates to the Constitutional Convention 
    took action in the political sphere by creating a Fundamental Law 
    to transform a Confederation of separate States into a Federal 
    Union of United States, and by so doing, to subordinate and define 
    the political rights and powers of all governing bodies in the 
    nation.  The task was not an easy one, and its and its completion 
    necessitated compromise, arrived at in consequence of long and 
    sometimes bitter debate.  Many leaders in several states in the 
    Confederation did not look with favor on the process.  But in the 
    end union was established, and the die was cast for the future of 
    this part of the American continent.  The country opted for 
    federation rather than confederation, and thereby assured the 
    concentration of national power in a national government. 


    The second part of Masonry's transformation, as seen by Newton, 
    concerned the administration of the Craft. "The office of Grand 
    Master," he said, "was new both in its creation and in the power 
    with which it was invested; a power unquestioned, it would seem, 
    and well nigh absolute - augmented apace until he had the sole 
    power of appointing both his wardens."  Newton, commenting on the 
    consequences of this innovation in the management of the Craft, 
    stated that: "Happily, the early Grand Masters - with one notable 
    exception - were wise men in no way disposed to exercise, much less 
    abuse, the vast power with which they were invested."  The 
    Constitutional Convention took action that also revolutionized the 
    exercise of executive authority in the United States.  The issue 
    was hotly debated, of course, and there were those who bitterly 
    opposed the establishment of a single executive.  But reason won 
    out, and in the end, the Presidency of this country was allocated 
    powers that exceeded those of the British sovereign.  The 
    Presidential selection process, however, was by a means much more 
    democratic then was that used to select Grand Masters in the Mother 
    Grand Lodge. 


    The third major feature of the Masonic Revolution that took place 
    in England after the creation of the Mother Grand Lodge in 1717, 
    according to Newton, concerned the position of Masonry relative to 
    government and religion.  The new Constitutions, adopted in 1723, 
    forbid Masonic meddling in politics by stating its resolve "against 
    all Politics as what never yet conduced to the welfare of the 
    Lodge, nor ever will."  This position was taken in the aftermath of 
    an attempt by a Grand Master, the Duke of Wharton, to use the power 
    of the Craft against the ruling sovereign.  Much more significant 
    to the Craft, however, was the rewriting of Masonry's position 
    relative to God and religion.  In this rewrite Christianity was 
    discarded as the only religion of Masonry.  In the opinion of Gould 
    this decision was looked upon by many Masons in those days in very 
    much the manner that we now regard the absence of any religious 
    formulary whatever in the so-called Masonry of the Grand Oriente of 
    France.  This Charge was the cause of decades of discussion in 
    England and one of the primary causes of the serious split that 
    occurred in Masonry in that country in the 1750's. 


    The Anderson Constitution and the Charges therein contained were 
    accepted without question in the United States, the Craft always 
    priding itself on the fact that it refrained from partisan politics 
    and on the fact that it respected the spiritual preferences of all 
    men who professed a belief in God.  Thus it was easy for Masons, 
    before, at the Convention, and afterwards, to champion the cause of 
    human rights, particularly those encompassed by the amendments to 
    the Constitution, affixed after the approval of the Constitution 
    proper. 


    In conclusion I should like to observe that the organization of 
    American Freemasonry, unlike its English forebears, never looked 
    with approval on the unification of the Craft into one major 
    national Grand Lodge.  Its Grand Lodge structure, formulated for 
    the most part in the last quarter of the Eighteenth Century, was 
    State oriented, and that orientation prevails to this day.  Thus it 
    is interesting to note that while the leaders of American 
    Freemasonry held and still hold to the principal of State 
    sovereignty in matters fraternal, they were willing in 1787, and 
    have been ever since, to centralize and Federalize in matters 
    political.  Can there be any more telling evidence that our brother 
    Masons were able to successfully differentiate between their 
    obligations and to properly prioritize their responses?  It 
    appears, in short, that they "put first things first" at 
    Philadelphia in 1787. 

