The Compleated Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1757-1790)

by Benjamin Franklin

  A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA: ONLY A VIRTUOUS PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF FREEDOM

  There seemed to be little thought in the states of mending their particular constitutions, but the Articles of Confederation were generally thought defective and blamed as not having given sufficient powers to Congress, the federal head. That there should be faults in our first sketches or plans of government is not surprising; rather, considering the times, and the circumstances under which they were formed, it is surprising that the faults are so few. A convention was first proposed by Virginia, and since was recommended by Congress, to assemble in Philadelphia to revise that constitution, and propose a better one, and the General Assembly desired my assistance in the business of amending the federal Constitution. I noted that France also was engaged in the same project at the same time to have an assembly of notables to consult on improvements of the government, and I expressed the wish that both assemblies would be blessed with success and promote the happiness of both nations. Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

  Many of the delegates arrived at the convention in Philadelphia in May, 1787. They comprised some of the principal people from several states of our confederation, what the French call une assemblée des notables. Gen. Washington was chosen president of the convention. The delegates did me the honor of dining with me, when the cask of port was broached, and its contents met with the most cordial reception and universal approbation. In short the company agreed unanimously that it was the best porter they had ever tasted.

  I attended faithfully the business of the convention 5 hours in every day from the beginning, which was something more than four months. My health continued throughout, some telling me I looked better, and they supposed the daily exercise of going and returning from the State House did me good.

  TWO PASSIONS HAVE A VIOLENT EFFECT IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN

  I expressed with reluctance a disapprobation on some of the articles of the plan. I happened to differ in particular regarding the salaries to the executive branch. I told the body that I see inconveniences in the appointment of salaries, where I see none in refusing them, but on the contrary great advantages. There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effect. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honour that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such positions was one reason the British government was so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true source of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonourable terms of peace. And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, thro’ all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves to this government and be their rulers. And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: for their vanquished competitors of the same spirit and from the same motives will perpetually be endeavouring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

  A CONSTANT WARFARE BETWEEN THE GOVERNING AND THE GOVERNED

  Besides these evils, tho’ we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for propos’d augmentations. And there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able to return to give more to them. Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasion’d great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the princes or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. I am apprehensive, therefore, perhaps too apprehensive, that the government of these states may in future times end in a monarchy, and a King will the sooner be set over us.

  It may be imagined by some that this is a utopian idea, and that we can never find men to serve us in the executive department without paying them well for their services. I conceive this to be a mistake. The High Sheriff of a county in England is an honourable office, but it is not a profitable one. Yet it is executed, and well executed, and usually by some of the principal gentlemen of the county. Another instance is the Quakers. It is an establish’d rule with them that they are not to go to law, but in their controversies they must apply to their meetings. Committees of these sit with patience to hear the parties, and spend much time in composing their differences. In doing this, they are supported by a sense of duty, and the respect paid to usefulness. It is honourable to be so employ’d, but it was never made profitable by salaries, fees, or perquisites. And indeed in all cases of public service, the less the profit the greater the honour. To bring the matter nearer home, have we not seen the greatest and most important of our offices, that of general of our armies, executed for eight years together, without the smallest salary, by a patriot whom I will not now offend by any other praise? I think we shall never be without a sufficient number of wise and good men to undertake and execute well and faithfully the office in question. I only bring the instances to show that the pleasures of doing good and serving their country are sufficient motives with some minds to give up a great portion of their time to the public without the mean inducement of pecuniary satisfaction.133

  SINGLE VS. DUAL LEGISLATURE: THE FABLE OF THE SNAKE WITH TWO HEADS

  In the debates, I also opposed a legislature with two branches, which I thought would occasion lengthy disputes and delays and great expenses, and promote factions among the people and obstruct the public business. I said to the delegates of Pennsylvania, “Have we not experienced in this colony under the government of the proprietors the mischiefs of a second branch existing in the proprietaryfamily? What a train of mischiefs, even to the preventing of the defense of the province during several years, when distressed by an Indian war, was caused by the iniquitous demand that the proprietors should be exempt from taxation. Has our present legislature in one assembly committed any errors of importance, which they have not remedied, or may not easily remedy, and more easily probably than if divided into two branches? And if the wisdom brought by the members to the Assembly is divided into two branches, may it not be too weak in each to support a good measure or obstruct a bad one? Has not the famous political fable of the snake with two heads and one body some useful instruction contained in it? She was going to a brook to drink and in her way was to pass thro’ a hedge, a twig of which opposed her direct course; one head chose to go on the right side of the twig, the other on the left; so that time was spent in the contest and, before the decision was completed, the poor snake died with thirst.”

  The important ends of civil government are the personal securities of life and liberty; these remain the same in every member of the society, and the poorest continues to have an equal claim to them with the most opulent, whatever differences of time, chance or industry may occasion their circumstance. I was sorry to see a disposition among some of our people (especially in Pennsylvania) to commence an aristocracy, by giving the rich a predominancy in government, a choice peculiar to themselves in one half the legislature, to be proudly called the upper house, and th
e other branch chosen by the majority of the people degraded by the denomination of the lower.

  REPRESENTATION BY POPULATION OR BY STATE?

  During the warm debates on the subject of representation, I expressed my views that the number of representatives should bear some proportion to the number of the represented, and that the decisions should be by the majority of members, not by the majority of states. This was objected to, from an apprehension that the greater states would then swallow up the smaller. I recollected that in the beginning of this century, when the union was propos’d of the two kingdoms, England and Scotland, the Scot patriots were full of fears, that unless they had equal number of representatives in Parliament they should be ruined by the superiority of the English. They finally agreed, however, that the different proportions of importance in the union of the two nations should be attended to, whereby they were to have only forty members in the House of Commons, and only sixteen of their peers were to sit in the House of Lords. A very great inferiority of numbers! And yet to this day I do not recollect that anything has been done in the Parliament of Great Britain to the prejudice of Scotland.

  GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN!

  It gave me great pleasure to observe that until the point the proportion of representation in Congress came before us, our debates had been carry’d on with great coolness and temper. For we were sent hither to consult, not to contend with each other, harmony and union being extremely necessary in promoting and securing the common good. However, a contrary kind of discord and division arose, and we made small progress after 4 or 5 weeks of close attendance and continual reasoning with each other. There were different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many Noes as Ayes. Methinks it was melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seemed to feel our want of political wisdom, since we were running all about in search of it. We went back to ancient history for models of government, and examin’d the different forms of those republics which, having been originally form’d with seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we view’d modern states all round Europe, but found none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

  In this situation, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, I asked the delegates how it happened that we had not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in that room for the divine protection! Our prayers were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engag’d in the struggle must have observ’d frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favour. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.

  And now, I asked, have we forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that GOD governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

  I therefore moved that henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in that assembly every morning before we proceeded to business; and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. Unfortunately, the convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary!!

  We continued the debate on representation June 30, 1787. Many expedients had been proposed without effect. I agreed that there ought to be some difference between the first and second branches. But how? I said, “A joiner, when he wants to fit two boards, takes off with his plane the uneven parts from each side, and thus they fit. Let us do the same.” I therefore proposed this expedient: Let the Senate be elected by the states equally, and the House by the number of the represented in each state. I have the happiness to report that a similar plan was eventually adopted.134

  I CONSENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM APPROACHES SO NEAR TO PERFECTION

  The convention finish’d its work on the 17TH of September, 1787. On this final day I arose and made the following speech, which was read to the delegates:

  “I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but I am not sure I shall ever approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being oblig’d by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele, a protestant, in a dedication tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches is their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines; that is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But tho’ many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little dispute with her sister, said, “I don’t know how it happens, sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right.” Il n’y a que moi a toujours raison.

  “In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such. Because I think a general government necessary for us, there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better constitution: For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded, like those of the builders of Babel, and that our states are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.”

  MAY EACH DOUBT A LITTLE OF HIS OWN INFALLIBILITY

  My speech to the Convention continued: “Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whisper’d a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If everyone of us in returning to our constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavour to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favour among foreign nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength and efficiency of any government in procuring and securing happiness to the people depends on the general o
pinion of the goodness of that government as well as the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of our posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution, wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavours to the means of having it well administered.

  “On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the convention who may still have objections to it would, with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity put his name to this instrument.”

  IS THIS A RISING OR A SETTING SUN?

  The motion was made and done by unanimous consent, which was agreed to and added accordingly. Whilst the last members were signing the document, I looked toward the president’s chair, at the back of which a sun happened to be painted, and observed to a few members near me, that I had often found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have, said I, often in the course of the session and in the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears over the issues, looked at that sun behind the president, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.

  The new federal Constitution we propos’d was published in the papers. The forming of it so as to accommodate all the different interests and views was a difficult task and perhaps, after all, I did not think it would be receiv’d with the same unanimity in the different states, that the convention had given the example of, in delivering it for their consideration. We have, however, done our best.