The Most Famous Compromiser: Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was, no doubt, the most cosmopolitan member of the Convention, the first American of international renown, a member of the Royal Society, many colonies’ former agent in England and the former U.S. minister to France, where he played a critical role in treaty negotiations and mingled with the top literatti (in England as well).  Franklin had been urging the colonies to “Join or Die” since the 1750’s, so he would seem a natural nationalist, who would urge his fellow delegates to look beyond their local interests to the good of the whole.  And no doubt this was his natural inclination, but instead his statesmanship took the form of resisting that natural inclination and working, instead, to reassure the small states and reach the compromise that save the Constitution.

 He indicated his natural inclination, saying he would prefer to see each representative consider himself a representative of the whole rather than an agent for a particular state, and it would not matter how representation was apportioned.  Since this was not realistic, he favored representation in proportion to population and voting as individuals, rather than by states.  He did not see this as threatening to swallow up the small states any more than Scotland was swallowed up by a union with England.  In the interest of equalizing states, he even offered to give up a part of Pennsylvania to Delaware and New Jersey, but, he said, this would not be a good long-term solution since populations are constantly shifting, which would require state boundaries to be constantly shifting as well to maintain equality.

As a compromise, he proposed for the smallest state to volunteer to provide whatever quota of money or force it could afford and have all others agree to furnish an equal portion.  Congress would then consisted of an equal number of representatives from each states, who would vote as individuals, rather than by states.  If more supplies were required, Congress could make up the difference by requesting voluntary contributions from the larger and more powerful states, which he believed they would be willing to furnish.  He apparently considered equal representation by states as just so long as each state was financing the system equally.  What he considered most unjust was the system of voting by states.  Under that system, the majority of each state’s delegation, in effect, cast that state’s vote.  Since larger states generally had larger delegations than small ones, it would be possible for a measure favored by a bare majority of the seven smaller states’ delegations to pass, even though unanimously opposed by all the large states, and a distinct minority of members of the legislature could prevail over the majority.

This proposal was made when the Convention was debating whether representation would be by population or by states in either house, or even whether to have two houses at all.  Later, when it became apparent that there would be two houses and that the lower house would be proportional to population, he proposed a similar system for the Senate:

If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger.  If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger.  When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of the plank do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. 

He proposed instead to have an equal number of representatives per state in the Senate, each voting as individuals.  In all matter involving the sovereignty of individual states or the overall powers of the central government, each state would have and equal vote.  In all matters related to spending, states would have a vote in proportion to their contribution to the treasury.  In fact, however, the large states never said anything to indicate that they were resisting equality in the Senate for fear that it would tax then excessively; their arguments were based on the principle that every person should be equally represented and the practical argument that unless representation was in proportion to a state’s actual importance, the government would be hopelessly weak.

Franklin served on the committee that first proposed the Great Compromise, to have states equally represented in the Senate in exchange for giving the House sole authority to originate money bills.  This compromise was apparently his proposal,  and he made clear that he considered these two conditions dependent on each other and would not support them separately.  His main other contributions on centralization were to propose a federal authority to cut canals, and, at the end, to urge everyone to support the Constitution, despite having some doubts abouts it because a stronger government was clearly needed (9/17/87, pp. 653-654).  As the delegates proceeded to sign the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin gave the most famous statement of then Convention.  George Washington, presiding over the meeting, had been sitting in a chair with a sun painted on it:

Washington's Chair

I have, said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the viscisitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whenter it was rising or setting; But now at length I have the hapiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.