The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United

States

Donald S. Lutz, University of Houston

The Preamble to the United States Constitution not only

introduces the document; it encapsulates and reflects the various

sources of, and influences upon, our constitutional tradition. The

covenants and compacts written by colonists during the early

seventeenth century first established the form and general

elements of American constitutions. Early in the eighteenth

century the ideas and values of Harrington and the

Commonwealth thinkers, Florentine republicanism as exemplified

by Machiavelli, and the contract theorists, especially Hobbes and

Locke, provided additional philosophical underpinnings. These

three strands of thought were woven into the fabric of the

covenant/compact tradition, and the synthesis achieved fullest

expression in the state constitutions written between 1776 and

1787. Beginning in the 1770's, the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment writers, particularly

Hume, and of the European Enlightenment more generally, especially Montesquieu, were

injected into American political thought. The Federalists who assembled in Philadelphia in the

summer of 1787 brought Enlightenment ideas into American constitutionalism, but the

founders had additional models for government in the early state constitutions. Our

constitutional tradition also responded to critical political situations. Constitutions are never

written in a political vacuum, but tend to present a "snapshot" of the balance of political forces

at the time of their writing. Our analysis of the Preamble's form and content, then, must

necessarily focus upon the early colonial foundation documents, the early state constitutions,

the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, and the historical events surrounding the

writing of the Constitution, including the matter of the Articles of Confederation.

Form of the Documents

By 1787 Americans had been writing documents of political foundation

for over a century and a half. Although technically governed by a charter from the English

Crown, colonists to America were invariably granted the right by these charters to erect and

conduct local government as long as the laws passed were not in contradiction with English

law. Thus, from the very beginning Americans had considerable control over their local

political affairs; the Mayflower Compact is a good example of the foundation documents they

wrote for themselves to formalize local government. These brief documents were direct

descendants of religious covenants developed by Calvinist-oriented Protestants and influenced

by the Old Testament, especially the book of Deuteronomy.

In the name of God, amen. We whose names are underwritten. . . do, by these presents,

covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and

preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute,

and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to

time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, to

which we promise all due submission and obedience

Mayflower Compact, in part, adopted November 11, 1620. Text taken from F. N.

Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other

Organic Laws of the United States, Vol. 111, p. 1841.

Dozens of similar local documents of foundation would be written in the next twenty years

throughout the colonies. Typically these documents would embody the principles of popular

sovereignty, majority rule, and political equality among citizens, through there was some

qualification of these principles in practice. Ideally, government was to be based upon the

ABOUT THE

AUTHOR

Donald S. Lutz, is

associate professor of

political science at the

University of Houston. He

is the editor, with Charles

S. Hyneman of American

Political Writing During the

Founding Era, 1760-1805

(Liberty Press, 1982).

Page 2

consent of the people, either directly or indirectly through representatives elected for that

purpose, and decisions were to be derived from an open and deliberate discussion of what

best served the common good. The colonists drew up longer and longer codes of law, altered

and expanded their political systems, and brought the basics of their government into single

documents which laid out fundamental, principles and institutions. At this point, the earlier

documents of foundation tended to become introductory statements of the grounds and

intention of these longer proto-constitutions. In 1636 the citizens of Plymouth, Massachusetts

wrote the first true constitution in American history, and used as a preface the Plymouth

agreement which they had adopted the same day.

We the associates of New-Plymouth coming hither as freeborn subjects of the State of England

endowed with all and singular the privileges belonging to such being assembled; doe ordain

Constitute and enact that noe act imposition law or ordinance be made or imposed upon us at

present, or to come but such as shall be imposed by Consent of the body of associates or their

representatives legally assembled; which is according to the free liberties of the State of

England.

Plymouth Agreement, from the preface to the Pilgrim Code of Law, adopted

November 15, 1636. Text is taken from Harry M. Ward, Statism in Plymouth Colony,

p. 17.

Between 1620 and 1776, simple foundation documents written by the colonists, and derived

from religious covenants both in form and content, became secularized preambles to modern

constitutions. During this evolution of a constitutional tradition, Americans usually included

five foundation elements in their documents of political foundation. First, there was an

explanation of why the document was necessary. Second, the document created, defined or

redefined a people, a community of individuals. Third, it laid out the fundamental values or

goals which described the kind of people this community was or hoped to become. Fourth, the

document formally established a civil society by creating a government. Fifth and finally, the

document laid out the specific design for the governmental institutions through which the

community would make collective decisions.

It became standard practice to combine the first four foundation elements with a bill of rights

as a long introduction to the body of the document. In the early state constitutions, the

section after the preamble would often begin with, "Part II: The Constitution or Form of

Government," and only then launch into an institutional description of the sort we usually

associate with constitutions. This structure made the bills of rights part of the preamble, by

implication prior to, and thus not part of, the constitution proper. The Preamble to the United

States Constitution did not have a bill of rights to help it carry the load of the four foundation

elements, but it is easy to see the long documentary tradition of which it is a part.

The Preamble to the federal Constitution begins "We the people," another structural device

taken from early state constitutions. Most of the colonial documents written between 1620 and

1650 began with the phrase "We the undersigned," and the signatures invariably represented

all the free, property-owning adult males in the community. Using only fifty-two words, the

Preamble to the Constitution efficiently contains the requisite foundation elements. It creates a

people, the citizens of the United States, where the Articles of Confederation had recognized

only a league of states, (each of which was constituted a people by their respective

constitutions). We are given the reasons the document is needed at the same time that we

have a list of fundamental values or goals-union, justice, domestic tranquility, the common

defense, the general welfare, and liberty. The words "do ordain and establish this Constitution"

create a government. Thus, we have the first four foundation elements at hand, ready to be

joined by the fifth, the institutional description, in the body of the document.

Content

We

have been implying a direct connection in form between the preambles of the early state

constitutions and our national Preamble, but it must be remembered that the framers of our

national Constitution met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 in order to overcome the

Page 3

weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation which failed to create an adequate national

government. State constitutions did not have as their purpose the design of a national

government. Thus, the founders could not extract such ideas from them. In fact, the framers

in many instances were reacting against what they found in the more parochial state

constitutions, including their preambles. Nevertheless, just as bicameralism, representation,

and a host of other ideas flowed into the national document from the state constitutions as a

result of the familiar and persistent patterns carried in the heads of the framers from living

under the state constitutions, so too did the Preamble. The national Preamble derived partly

through the apposition of the state preambles, and partly in opposition to them. Furthermore,

the state constitutions had an impact on the national Constitution by the simple fact of the

existence of the states prior to the birth of the nation. The proposed national Constitution had

to incorporate a federal system to acknowledge the autonomous purview of the states. Thus,

the states are mentioned in the national document, either directly or by clear implication, over

fifty times in forty-two separate sections. Our political system is defined by an interlocking

system of constitutions, and the state documents are an essential part of a proper, complete

United States Constitution. The preambles to the state constitutions set the pattern for

preambles to constitutions, introduced other portions of the interlocking system, and served

as positive and negative examples of content for the framers.

Since the preambles and bills of rights of the early state constitutions reflected the colonial

tradition, they contained many English Whig, republican, and contractarian elements. But they

also contained elements derived from the more recent Enlightenment tradition, elements

which first showed up in force in the Declaration of Independence. To the earlier values were

added life, liberty, and happiness.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men, are created equal, that they are endowed

by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the

pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

deriving their, just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of

Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter, or

abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and

organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and

Happiness.

Beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, adopted July

4, 1776.

The Declaration had a tremendous impact upon the early state constitutions. Eight of them

borrowed language directly from the Declaration, and the 1777 New York Constitution

reprinted the entire Declaration of Independence as part of its preamble.

In 1776 the state of Virginia adopted a constitution, and its preamble and the Virginia Bill of

Rights resemble the Declaration at least in part because Thomas Jefferson was centrally

involved with both.

We therefore, the delegates and representatives of the good people of Virginia, having

maturely considered the premises, and viewing with great concern the deplorable conditions to

which this once happy country must be reduced, unless some regular adequate mode of civil

polity is speedily adapted.do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia to

be as followed.

The last paragraph of a 1,500 word introductory statement to the 1776 Virginia

Constitution. Text taken from F.N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions,

Vol. VII, P. 3815.

Page 4

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, Of

which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive or divest

their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and

possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section I of the Bill of Rights of the 1776 Virginia Constitution. Text from Thorpe, p.

3813.

It thereafter became typical to use the first article or two of the respective state constitution's

bill of rights to complete the laying out of fundamental values begun in the state preamble

proper. These long introductions to state constitutions, combining a preamble with a bill of

rights to lay out the first four foundation elements, were usually several thousand words long.

The preambles themselves averaged about 425 words, ranging in length from the 42 words in

the 1784 New Hampshire document to over 1,300 words in the 1776 South Carolina and 1777

Vermont documents. The New Hampshire Constitution is instructive for comparing a short,

northern document with the long Virginia document written eight years earlier.

The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of New Hampshire, do hereby

solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and

independent Body-politic, or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Entire preamble to Part II-The Form of Government, of the 1784 New Hampshire

Constitution. Text taken from Thorpe, p. 2458.

All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates

from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are- the enjoying

and defending life and liberty-acquiring, possessing and protecting property-and in a word, of

seeking and obtaining happiness.

Articles I and II of the Bill of Rights to the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution. Text

from Thorpe, p. 2453.

The essential contents are the same as found in the 1776 Virginia document, but the format

differs a bit. Here we have the first two articles of the bill of rights containing more explicitly

what has been, and in most instances still will be, contained in the preamble. The preamble

has been moved to Part II, the beginning of the Constitution proper. Together, the preamble

and first two articles of the bill of rights contain the values first enunciated during the colonial

era-popular consent, the general good, etc.-as well as the more recently appropriated

Enlightenment values of life, liberty, and happiness. Two more brief extracts from state

preambles will show how the formulas can vary.

Wherefore, in our present state, in order to prevent anarchy and confusion, it becomes

necessary, that government should be established in this State; therefore we, the

Representatives of the freemen of North Carolina, chosen and assembled in Congress, for the

express purpose of framing a Constitution under the authority of the people, most conducive

to their happiness and prosperity, do declare, that a government for this State shall be

established, in manner and form following

Last paragraph of the preamble to the 1776 North Carolina Constitution. Text from

Thorpe, pp. 2789-90.

Page 5

We, therefore, the representatives of the people, from, whom all power originates, and for

whose benefit all government is intended, by virtue of the power delegated to us, do ordain

and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, that the following rules and regulations be

adopted for the entire government of this state

Last paragraph of the preamble to the 1777 Georgia Constitution. Text taken from

Thorpe, 778.

It is too easy to view the national Preamble as simply a more efficient, more abstract

rendering of the equivalent in the state constitutions. The state preambles and associated

portions of their respective bills of rights lay out not only a richer set of goals than does the

national Preamble, but also a somewhat different set of values and goals that reflect radical

Whig and Biblical sources. The state documents speak of the consent of the people, the

common good, deliberative processes, God's dissensation, equality, the ability of people to

form and change government, as well as the common defense, liberty, domestic tranquility,

and the passage of these things to posterity. Whereas the national Preamble speaks of justice,

the state preambles describe in some detail the nature of fair and equal treatment of all

citizens. The national Preamble speaks of the general welfare, but the state preambles use the

alternative language of "happiness and prosperity" in the 1776 North Carolina Constitution,

and the "common good" of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution. The state formulations tend

to be richer in that they imply a community of interests rather than simply material

sufficiency. The Federalists who wrote the Constitution hoped to create an effective national

government with an emphasis upon effectiveness. Not wishing to impinge on American

freedoms, they nonetheless saw a serious need to overcome the instability at the state level

that appeared to arise from excessive state autonomy. They had no need to emphasize liberty,

consent, majority rule and legislative supremacy because these values were protected by state

constitutions, and the federal government had a different role to play. To dramatize the point,

we reproduce here two state preambles which best summarize the political theory operative at

the state level, with its ringing language derived from contractarian, radical Whig and

covenantal sources. They are full and explicit. The first, the 1776 Pennsylvania Preamble,

introduced the most radically egalitarian constitution of the era. The second, the Preamble to

the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, introduced a traditional, mainstream document that was

to become the model for later state constitutions. As we will see, the Federalists were having

neither.

Whereas all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection

of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural

rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and

whenever these great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by

common consent to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to

promote their safety and happiness We, the representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, in

general convention met, for the express purpose of framing such a government, confessing

the goodness of the great Governor of the universe . in permitting the people of this State, by

common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves such just rules as

they shall think best, for governing their future society . as will best promote the general

happiness of the people of this State, and their posterity, and provide for future

improvements, without partiality for, or prejudice against any particular class, sect, or

denomination of men whatever, do by virtue of the authority vested in us by our constituents,

ordain, declare, and establish, the following Declaration of Rights and Frame of Government,

to be the CONSTITUTION of the commonwealth

About 40% of the preamble to the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution. Text taken from

Thorpe, pp. 3081-82.

Page 6

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and

unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,

possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article I of the Declaration of Rights of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution. Taken

from Thorpe, p. 3082.

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the

existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with

the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life:

and Whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the

government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by

which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people,

that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people,

therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making

laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them; that every

man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness

of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an

opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into

an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and o forming a new constitution of

civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so

interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain, and establish, the following Declaration of Rights,

and Frame of Government, as the CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS.

Entire Preamble to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution. Text taken from Thorpe,

pp. 1888-89.

Neither of these preambles could have introduced the United States Constitution. Whether

mainstream or radical, large state or small state, northern or southern, the consistent pattern

and content of American foundation documents from 1620 to 1784 is clear. The Federalists

framing the national Preamble found themselves needing a preamble, unable to use much of

what was to be had at the state level, yet seeking some basis for continuity that would echo

the basic symbols of the American political tradition.

Edmund Randolph introduced a statement, apparently edited in part by John Rutledge, which

urged the Convention in Philadelphia to stick to "simple and precise language, and general

propositions." He also argued that a preamble should not designate the ends of government,

nor contain the language of covenants or compacts; they were, he believed, working with a

people and government already in being, not creating a new people or polity. Leaving aside

the question of how language can be precise and general at the same time, or what they

thought they were doing in Philadelphia if not creating a new people or polity, it is clear that

Randolph was among those not wishing to repeat the form or content of state preambles in

the national preamble. At several points in the discussion it was suggested that any preamble

should indicate only that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate for achieving the

general happiness, and thus a new constitution was being written. The framers, and especially

those on the Committee of Style and Arrangement, chose instead to write a Preamble that

looked superficially similar to those in the state documents. The result was briefer and

contained language that was less precise and more general. It thereby appeared to include

many traditional values and goals, yet it removed references to those things which the

Federalists found most objectionable for a national government-the emphasis upon relatively

direct popular consent and equality, the dominance of the legislative branch, a moralistic

Page 7

stance with respect to politics, and the tendency for the states to act as if each were an

independent nation. The national Preamble also reflects the greatest concerns of the

nationalists- union, as opposed to a league of squabbling states; justice, as opposed to

legislatures responding to rapidly shifting majorities; domestic tranquility, as opposed to the

kind of insurrections that had already occurred in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North

Carolina, insurrections that the Federalists felt stemmed from too much popular consent, too

much legislative supremacy, and too much equality in state governments. As for the common

defense, the general welfare, and liberty, the framers were drawing here upon the first

American national constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Early in the Convention

proceedings, Edmund Randolph of Virginia introduced the most nationalistic of all the proposed

constitutions-the Virginia Plan. His very first resolution used the tactic of taking the language

found in the Articles as the measure of what was to be done-to achieve a common defense,

enhance security of liberty, and promote the general welfare. These goals implied the contents

for a preamble to any new constitution the Convention might produce.

The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for

their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.

First sentence of Article 111, the Articles of Confederation, adopted November 15,

1777.

Resolved, that the articles of confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged, as to

accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defense, security of

liberty and general welfare.

The first motion by Edmund Randolph introducing the Virginia Plan at the

Constitutional Convention, May 29, 1787.

Randolph's approach had the virtue of making the proposed Constitution appear to be a

fulfillment of the Articles, and thus almost a natural development. However, mid-way through

the Convention, a tentative preamble was adopted that began, "We the people of the States of

New-Hampshire, Massachusetts," etc. It too had the virtue of implying a connection with the

Articles, perhaps too much of one, since it still connoted a loose league of sovereign states.

We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, and Providence

Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New-Jersey, Pennslyvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,

North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following

Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

The Preamble to the proposed United States Constitution as it went to the

Committee of Style and Arrangement from the full convention at the end of August,

1787.

The amendment of this proposed Preamble by the Committee of Style and Arrangement

demonstrated an understanding of both politics and the importance of rhetoric. The

Committee kept "We the people" which resonated so strongly with American foundation

documents since 1620, and replaced the list of states with "of the United States of America,"

thus rendering the Preamble in accord with the Federalist nationalist perspective. "Common

defence, security of liberty, and the general welfare" were resurrected from the early

Randolph resolution, and thus from the Articles of Confederation. This addition not only lent a

touch of continuity and a dollop of legitimacy, it also resonated with some of the language

found in the state preambles, such as "happiness and prosperity," "the common good," "the

security and protection of the community," "safety and happiness," and "safety and

tranquility." A rereading of the passages from the state constitutions here provided will show

the connections. "Union," "justice," and "domestic tranquility," Federalist preoccupations, were

Page 8

inserted before "common defense," "security of liberty," and "general welfare." For the last

sentence, the Committee on Style and Arrangement revised slightly the final clause from the

original Preamble that the Convention had devised. The result looked, on a quick reading, to

be similar to the preambles found in the state constitutions, but it actually differed from the

state formulations in being more general, and in omitting the conventional language of earlier

preambles. The Preamble did borrow directly from the long-standing American tradition of

foundation documents by beginning with "We the people," and by including the traditional four

foundation elements. The version that had been given to the Committee on Style and

Arrangement by the Convention for polishing had contained only three elements-it did not list

any goals or provide any hint of why a new Constitution was needed. The Preamble to the

United States Constitution thus is linked with a long line of American documents, beginning

with the Mayflower Compact, and running up through the Declaration of Independence, the

Articles of Confederation, and many of the early state constitutions. Properly understood, the

Preamble is not only an introduction to our national Constitution but is also emblematic of our

constitutional history.

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more Perfect Union, establish Justice,

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, adopted September 17, 1787.

Select Bibliography

The early covenants and compacts can be found reproduced in

Donald S. Lutz, Documents of Political Foundation Written by Colonial Americans (Philadelphia:

Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1984).

The early state constitutions and other colonial documents are reproduced in Francis N.

Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws

of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 7 vols.

The best book on the contents and derivation of early American political thinking is Gordon S.

Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776- 1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1969).

For works on the early state constitutions, see Donald S. Lutz, Popular Consent and Popular

Control: Whig Political Theory in the Early State Constitutions (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 1980) and Willi Paul Adams, The First American Constitutions: Republican

Ideology and the Making of the State Constitutions in the Revolutionary Era (Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 1980).

Other useful introductions to various aspects of American political theory outlined here are: J.

G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975);

Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard

University Press, 1959); Gary Wills, Explaining America: The Federalist (New York: Penguin

Books, 1981); and David Lundberg and Henry F. May, "The Enlightened Reader in America,"

American Quarterly, XXVIII, No. 2 (special issue), 262-293.

For the actual writing of the Preamble the reader will want to consult Max Farrand, ed, The

Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press 1937), 4 vols.

Copyright 1985 by the American Political Science Association and American Historical

Association. This essay may be photocopied if attributed as follows: "Reprinted from this

Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Fall 1985, published by Project '87 of the American

Political Science Association and American Historical Association. For further information on

APSA copyrights contact APSA at apsa@apsanet.org, by phone at (202) 483-2512 or Fax (202)

483-2657.