Fifty-five delegates participated in the Constitutional Convention, but attendance was anything but consistent. At one time or another, delegates attended the Convention from every state except Rhode Island. Attendance fluctuated throughout the 88 days, with some delegates participating only briefly, some coming and going throughout the summer, and others remaining for the entirety of the proceedings (here’s looking at you, South Carolina!). A look at the Convention’s attendance record reveals its inconsistent nature. You would be hard pressed to find a day when delegates from all 12 states were present at the same time, much less one when all 55 delegates were in attendance.

Delegates faced a monumental task when agreeing to serve at the Constitutional Convention. The United States was dealing with post-Revolutionary challenges, an ineffective government, and growing concerns that the new nation might not endure. Much was at stake when delegates began arriving in May 1787. Tasked with revising the Articles of Confederation, few could have foreseen where the Convention would lead—or just how long the process would take.

Extensive debate in the first weeks led delegates to recognize that the Convention would extend longer than initially anticipated. More significantly, they increasingly recognized that simply revising the Articles of Confederation would not adequately address the nation’s challenges.

As delegates worked to design a new structure of government, reaching agreement proved increasingly difficult. The diversity of opinions raised doubts about whether a workable resolution could be achieved, while the slow pace of the proceedings left delegates frustrated and fatigued.

The Convention’s ultimate success can be attributed to many factors, including extensive compromise, the use of committees, the balancing of regional interests, and a shared drive to establish a more effective government. At the center of it all, however, were the delegates themselves. These individuals debated, compromised, disagreed, and ultimately decided whether or not the Constitution they had created deserved their support.

With so much at stake, months and energy invested in the proceedings, and a final product that the majority agreed upon, why would some delegates choose not to sign the final document? Of the 55 delegates who participated in the Convention, 16 did not sign for a variety of reasons. For many, the explanation was simple: they were no longer in Philadelphia by the time the Constitution was signed. Among them were William R. Davie (NC), Oliver Elsworth (CT), William Houston (GA), William C. Houston (NJ), Alexander Martin (NC), James McClurg (VA), William Pierce (GA), Caleb Strong (MA), and George Wythe (VA), who had left the Convention by September 17th. Many of these men later participated in their respective state ratifying conventions.

Other delegates were absent from the signing because they had deliberately left the Convention over disagreements with its direction. John Lansing Jr. (NY) and Robert Yates (NY) believed the Convention had exceeded its mandate by abandoning the Articles of Confederation in favor of an entirely new system of government. They left Philadelphia in early July, later explaining their departure in a joint letter to Governor George Clinton (NY).  Similarly, Luther Martin (MD) and John Francis Mercer (MD) left before the Convention concluded. Both delegates had reservations about the proposed Constitution and the stronger national government it created. Martin, in particular, had spoken at length earlier in the Convention about preserving state authority.

The three most notable non-signers were a different story: not only were they still in attendance on the Convention’s final day, but they had been among the most active participants throughout the proceedings. Elbridge Gerry (MA) was an engaged but skeptical participant who questioned particular proposals while still supporting a stronger national government and working to compromise. As the Convention neared its end, however, his concerns about the completed Constitution increased significantly. On September 17th, Gerry explained his decision not to sign, warning that the Constitution could deepen existing political divisions and even contribute to “civil war.” 

George Mason (VA) attended the Convention in its entirety and served on four committees throughout the proceedings. He supported the creation of a new system of government but was concerned with the concentration of power in the federal government. As the Convention wrapped up, Mason became increasingly dissatisfied with the Constitution. Two days before the signing, Mason made it clear that his objections had become large enough that he would not be able to support the completed document. He criticized the structure of the new government and favored an additional convention that could amend the document based on public feedback. Without the opportunity to do so, Mason declared that he could not sign the Constitution in Philadelphia as he could not support it in Virginia. 

Perhaps the most confounding non-signer was Edmund J. Randolph (VA). He attended the entire Convention, introduced the Virginia Plan which provided the framework for the Convention’s initial debates, and served on three committees, including the Committee of Detail which produced the first draft of the Constitution. On September 15th, Randolph proposed a second general convention to consider amendments suggested by the states. When the proposal overwhelmingly failed, he decided not to sign. Randolph’s refusal did not signify a rejection of the Constitution as a whole; he wanted to remain free to advocate changes and feared that an all-or-nothing choice could jeopardize ratification and lead to political disorder. He described the decision as “the most awful of his life” and later expanded on his reasoning in a letter to the Virginia House. By Virginia’s ratifying convention in 1788, however, Randolph supported ratification.

The 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention were never all gathered in Philadelphia at the same time, nor did they ultimately reach the same conclusions about the Constitution they helped create. Their varied participation, contribution, and support reflect the compromise and disagreement needed to shape the final document.

For Further Reading: 

Luther Martin’s Objections to the Virginia Plan

George Mason’s Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention

Michelle Adams Alderfer is a 2021 graduate of the Master of Arts in American History and Government program at Ashland University and a recipient of the program’s Chairman’s Award for her capstone project on the ratification of the 19^th Amendment. After teaching eighth-grade U.S. History for 11 years, she now contributes to Teaching American History’s Digital Atlas project.