The Australian Constitution, written in the 1890s, was drawn from both the United States Constitution and the British ‘unwritten’ constitution. These two constitutional models differ importantly in the significance they accord to words. The American Constitution uses words as an expresssion of sovereignty, a way of bringing into being a nation and a people. The nation it created was and remains deeply textual, even scriptural. American writing, both in journalism and fiction, has retained this mastery with words. The British model is a constitution that describes, rather than creates. Its unwritten constitution is a record of practices and traditions. British writing is strong on character and description, and is markedly less constitutive. The word is not the beginning, as it is in America. Where does Australia stand in these traditions? Although its constitution is written, it did not follow the American way of using words. Yet it has not fully followed the British approach, either. Australia is a nation of story telling, even in its constitution. This paper describes the historical background to these different constitutional models, and contemplates the value of wordcraft. Writing, rather than fighting, it concludes, is the lesson of history.