237 years ago, George Washington debunked a popular myth about COS

“I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man.”

Providence may have influenced the 1787 Constitutional Convention; the Founders certainly believed so. But the above quote about the Constitution from Alexander Hamilton proves that not even they believed the document was infallible.

In a letter written to Marquis de Lafayette 237 years ago today (February 7, 1788), George Washington expressed his belief that the Framers had been divinely assisted at the convention in Philadelphia. “It appears to me . . . little short of a miracle, that the Delegates from so many different States (which States you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well founded objections,” he recognized. 

However, in the very next line, he admitted that the proposed national charter was “tinctured with some real (though not radical) defects.” 

“We are not to expect perfection in this world: but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of Government,” he wrote. “Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found an experiment less perfect than it can be made—a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration.”

Washington’s future Secretary of the Treasury shared similar sentiments. After writing over 50 of the 85 Federalist Papers defending the Constitution, Hamilton granted that the constitutional system, “though it may not be perfect in every part, is, upon the whole, a good one; is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit; and is such an one as promises every species of security which a reasonable people can desire.”

He cautioned it would be imprudent “to prolong the precarious state of our national affairs, and to expose the Union to the jeopardy of successive experiments, in the chimerical [mythical] pursuit of a perfect plan. I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man,” he said. Nevertheless, while the Constitution may have born the scars of the collective “errors and prejudices” of the disparate men who created it, it also benefited from their combined “good sense and wisdom.” As Hamilton saw it, “The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials?” 

Modern defenders of the Constitution who describe it as “divinely inspired” often argue it should remain untouched, as it is considered sacred and inviolate. Clearly, the Founders rejected this view. Obviously, we should share their tremendous respect for the document and seek to follow it as closely as possible. But, much like the Union itself, the Constitution is a work in progress, constantly advancing toward greater levels of perfection.

Now, we must be careful to distinguish between this view and the subversive notion of a “living” Constitution. Proponents of the latter perspective suggest we do not have to interpret the words of the Constitution literally and that the document should be permitted to evolve without formal amendments. Of course, this strange argument wouldn’t apply to any other law (try telling a judge you shouldn’t be held accountable for illegal behavior because the law was “open to interpretation”). However, within the parameters of the Constitution, the Founders intended for future generations to correct their work.   

This may prompt the question, why, if the Founders knew the Constitution was imperfect, did they feel comfortable with adopting it? Because, as Washington wrote, “a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration.”

Hamilton was even more explicit. The “fifth article of the plan,” he said, was that door.

“In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed,” he noted. But Hamilton was unconcerned. “For my own part . . . I think there is no weight in the observation just stated.”

Why not? Because “the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. [According to Article V], the Congress will be obliged ‘on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.’”

“The words of this article are peremptory,” the author pointed out. “The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

Men are not angels; not even the Founders, despite their renowned insight and acuity, could write the perfect Constitution. But, in their great wisdom, they empowered state legislatures, as representatives of the American people, to “ameliorate” their errors. In their view, the national authority would never become overbearing as long as Article V was properly utilized. If we truly respected them, perhaps it’s time we took their advice.

Sign the Convention of States petition and get involved today!