But, sir, in the present mode of voting by states, it is equally in the power of the lesser states to swallow up the greater; and this is mathematically demonstrable. Suppose, for example, that 7 smaller states had each 3 members in the house, and the six larger to have one with another 6 members. And that upon a question, two members of each smaller state should be in the affirmative, and one in the negative, they will make:
Affirmatives 14—Negatives 7
and that all the larger states should be unanimously in the negative, they would make:
Negatives 36—In all, 43
It is then apparent that the 14 carry the question against the 41, and the minority overpowers the majority, contrary to the common practice of assemblies in all countries and ages.
The greater states, sir, are naturally as unwilling to have their property left in the disposition of the smaller, as the smaller are to leave theirs in the disposition of the greater. An honorable gentleman has to avoid this difficulty, hinted a proposition of equalizing the states. It appears to me an equitable one, and I should for my own part, not be against such a measure, if it might be found practicable. Formerly, indeed, when almost every province had a different constitution some with greater others with fewer privileges, it was of importance to the borderers when their boundaries were contested, whether, by running the division lines they were placed on one side or the other. At present when such differences are done away, it is less material. The interest of a state is made up of the interests of its individual members. If they are not injured, the state is not injured. Small states are more easily well and happily governed than large ones. If therefore in such an equal division, it should be found necessary to diminish Pennsylvania, I should not be averse to the giving a part of it to n. Jersey, and another to Delaware; but as there would probably be considerable difficulties in adjusting such a division; and however equally made at first, it would be continually varying by the augmentation of inhabitants in some states and their more fixed proportion in others; and thence frequent occasion for new divisions; I beg leave to propose for the consideration of the committee another mode, which appears to me, to be as equitable, more easily carried into practice, and more permanent in its nature.
Let the weakest state say what proportion of money or force it is able and willing to furnish for the general purposes of the union.
Let all the others oblige themselves to furnish, even an equal proportion.
The whole of these joins supplies to be absolutely in the disposition of Congress.
The Congress in this case to be composed of an equal number of delegates from each state:
And their decisions to be by the majority of individual members voting.
If these joint and equal supplies should on particular occasions not be sufficient, let Congress make requisitions on the richer and more powerful states for farther aids, to be voluntarily afforded; leaving to each state the right of considering the necessity and utility of the aid desired, and of giving more or less as it should be found proper.
This mode is not new; it formerly was practiced with success by the British government, with respect to Ireland and the colonies. We sometimes gave even more than they expected or thought just to accept; and in the last war, carried on while we were united, they gave us back in 5 years a million sterling. We should probably have continued such voluntary contributions, whenever the occasions appeared to require them for the common good of the empire: it was not till they chose to force us, and to deprive us of the merit and pleasure of voluntary contributions, that we refused and resisted. Those contributions however were to be disposed of at the pleasure of a government in which we had no representative. I am therefore persuaded that they will not be refused to one in which the representation shall be equal.
Motion for Prayers
As the days grew even hotter, so again did the dispute over representation.
Once again it was time for Franklin to try to restore equanimity, and this time he did so in an unexpected way. In a speech on June 28, he suggested that they open each session with a prayer.
Franklin was a believer, even more so as he grew older, in a rather general and at times nebulous divine providence, the principle that God had a benevolent interest in the affairs of men. But he never showed much faith in the more specific notion of providence which held that God would intervene directly based on personal prayer. So the question arises: Did he make his proposal for prayer out of a deep religious faith or out of a pragmatic political belief that it would encourage calm in the deliberations?
There was, as usual, probably an element of both, but perhaps a bit more of the latter. Franklin was never known to pray publicly himself, and he rarely attended church. Yet he thought it useful to remind this assembly of demi-gods that they were in the presence of a God far greater, and that history was watching as well. In order to succeed they had to be awed by the magnitude of their task and be humbled, not assertive.
Alexander Hamilton warned that the sudden hiring of a chaplain might frighten the public into thinking that “embarrassments and dissensions within the convention had suggested this measure.” Franklin replied that a sense of alarm outside the hall might help rather than hurt the deliberations within. Another objection was raised, that there was no money to pay a chaplain. The idea was quietly shelved.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, JUNE 28, 1787
Mr. President,
The small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other, our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running all about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics, which, having been originally formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not, hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection! Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance?
I have lived, sir, 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, sir, 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 beg leave to move,
That henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business; and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.
Note by Franklin: The Convention ex
cept three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary!!
Franklin’s Closing Speech
The convention did finally compromise on a proportional House and a Senate with equal votes per state, a motion that was formally made by Franklin. It was a triumph of conciliation and humility and the respect for other opinions that undergirds a democracy.
Franklin’s final triumph was to express these sentiments, with a wry but powerful charm, in a remarkable closing address to the convention. The speech was a testament to the virtue of intellectual tolerance and to the evil of presumed infallibility, and it proclaimed for the ages the enlightened creed that became central to America’s freedom. With his deft and self-deprecating use of double negatives—“I am not sure I shall never approve it,” “I am not sure that it is not the best”—he emphasized the humility and appreciation for human fallibility that was necessary to form a nation. They were the most eloquent words Franklin ever wrote—and perhaps the best ever written by anyone about the magic of the American system and the spirit that created it. Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, CONCLUDING SPEECH, SEPTEMBER 17, 1787
Mr. President,
I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, 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 in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrine, is, the Romish church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though 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 farther 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; and 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.
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 whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor 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 favor 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 opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of that government as well as of 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 endeavors 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.
A Miffy Family
Franklin’s closest sibling was his sister Jane Franklin Mecom. His letters to her were always informative and affectionate, and he lamented that he was unlikely ever to see her again. He could, however, still chide her for her sloppiness in keeping post office accounts and make fun of the edgy qualities of their relatives.
TO JANE MECOM, AUGUST 3, 1789
Dear Sister,
I have received your kind letter of the 23rd past, and am glad to learn that you have at length got some of those I so long since wrote to you. I think your post office is very badly managed. I expect your bill, and shall pay it when it appears. I would have you put the books into cousin Jonathan’s hands who will dispose of them for you if he can, or return them hither. I am very much pleased to hear that you have had no misunderstanding with his good father. Indeed if there had been any such, I should have concluded that it was your fault for I think our family were always subject to being a little miffy. By the way, is our relationship in Nantucket quite worn out? I have met with none from thence of late years who were disposed to be acquainted with me, except Capt. Timothy Foulger. They are wonderfully shy. But I admire their honest plainness of speech. About a year ago I invited two of them to dine with me. Their answer was that they would if they could not do better. I suppose they did better, for I never saw them afterwards; and so had no opportunity of showing my miff, if I had one. Give my love to cousin Williams’s, and thank them from me for all their kindess to you, which I have always been acquainted with by you, and take as if done to myself. I am sorry to learn from his son, that his health is not so firm as formerly. A journey hither by land might do him good, and I should be happy to see him. I shall make the addition you desire to my superscriptions, desiring in return that you would make a subtraction from yours. The word excellency does not belong to me, and dr. Will be sufficient to distinguish me from my grandson. This family joins in love to you and yours, with
Your affectionate Brother,
B. Franklin
Webster’s Dictionary
To Noah Webster, the famous lexicographer who had dedicated his Dissertations on the English Language to him, Franklin lamented the loose new word usages infecting the language, a common complaint of curmudgeonly writers but a bit atypical of the jovial Franklin, who had once taken pleasure in inventing new English words and, with even more pleasure, amusing the ladies of Paris with new French ones.
TO NOAH WEBSTER, DECEMBER 26, 1789
Dear Sir,
I received some time since your Dissertations on the English Language. (The book was not accompanied by any letter or message, informing me to whom I am obliged for it; but I suppose it is to yourself.) It is an excellent work, and will be greatly useful in turning the thoughts of our countrymen to correct writing. Please to accept my thanks for it, as well as for the great honor you have done me, in its dedication. I ought to have made this acknowledgment sooner, but much indisposition prevented me.
I cannot but applaud your zeal for preserving the purity of our language, both in its expressions and pronunciation, and in correcting the popular errors, several of our states are
continually falling into with respect to both. Give me leave to mention some of them, though possibly they may already have occurred to you. I wish however that in some future publication of yours, you would set a discountenancing mark upon them. The first I remember is the word improved. When I left New England in the year 23, this word had never been used among us, as far as I know, but in the sense of ameliorated or made better, except once in a very old book of Dr. Mather’s entitled remarkable providences. As that eminent man wrote a very obscure hand, I remember that when I read that word in his book, used instead of the word employed, I conjectured that it was an error of the printer, who had mistaken a too short l in the writing for an r, and a y with too short a tail for a v, whereby employed was converted into improved; but when I returned to Boston in 1733, I found this change had obtained favor, and was then become common; for I met with it often in perusing the newspapers, where it frequently made an appearance rather ridiculous: such, for instance, as the advertisement of a country-house to be sold, which had been many years improved as a tavern; and in the character of a deceased country-gentleman, that he had been, for more than 30 years, improved as a justice-of-peace. This use of the word improve is peculiar to New England, and not to be met with among any other speakers of English, either on this or the other side of the water.