Mixed Old and New Democrats: Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin did not express his opinion on as many positions as Randolph or Mason, but to the extent that he did, he also showed some openness to both old and new democracy.  In one regard at least, Franklin was the most radical old democrat present; at least theoretically he saw no  need for an upper house in the legislature. However, since no one else in the Convention supported his position, Franklin did not press the point.  Franklin was second only to Sherman in his distrust of the executive.  He shared
Randolph’s fear that a single executive as the “foetus” of a monarchy, ever trying to accumulate more power.  He also opposed an executive veto, fearing that the executive would be constantly abusing his veto to extort more money and power, until accumulated all the prerogatives of the British monarch and could have his way by bribes without having to use his veto.  He would agree to allow the executive to suspend, rather than veto, objectionable laws.  He also favored joining a council to the executive in making appointments fearing that “caprice, the intrigues of favorites & mistresses & c” would have sway Presidents, just as they swayed kings.  He also said, only half-jokingly, that it was favorable to executive to be impeachable because if the executive betrays the people’s trust, if he cannot be impeached, the only way to get rid of him was by assassination!  Although he did not directly address the issue of ineligibility to office, he certainly appeared to favor it, saying that it was the prospect of office that made the British government so “tempestuous” and, as we have seen, feared the executive influence that would arise from that sort of patronage.  It was apparently Franklin who first proposed  to link giving each state equal representation in the Senate to giving the House the sole authority to originate money bills and made it clear that these two proposals to be dependent on each other.  As he explained, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can bust judge.  This would, he thought, be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.” Franklin’s only position that was not old democratic was that he proposed having one representative to every 40,000 people, which many others believed was inadequate.

 Franklin also supported new democracy in the sense of opposing property restrictions, either on the vote or on office holding.  If Madison did not seem to recognize that the propertyless nonetheless had legitimate interests they needed to protect, Franklin did.  In England, he said, after denying the vote to the propertyless, Parliament subjected them to “peculiar labors and hardships.”  Above all, restricting the vote to freeholders would “depress the virtue & public spirit of our common people.” Likewise, property restrictions on office holding would also “debase the spirit of the common people.”

If honesty was often the companion of wealth and poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property.  Some of the greatest rogues he had ever acquainted with, were the richest rogues.  

He likewise opposed requiring a long period of citizenship for Senators as “illiberal” and hostile to friends in Europe and to potential immigrants.  He also made one at least potentially radical new democratic proposal for choosing judges.  Instead of giving their appointment to the executive or legislature, why not adopt the method used in Scotland, where judges were elected by the lawyers, who always chose the best lawyer around in order to eliminate a rival and divide his practice among themselves!  It is not clear how serious he was in this proposal, but it at least leaves the door open to semi-popular election of judges.  On the other hand, Franklin did not take the new democratic position on representation.  As we have seen, he proposed that each state have an equal number of representatives, to vote as individuals, with each state to have an equal vote on matters regarding the sovereignty of states and votes on money to be proportional to each state’s contribution.  Franklin apparently did not understand just how important a matter of principle representation by population was to new democrats.

Benjamin Franklin, alone among the delegates, occasionally had seemingly utopian or visionary ideas of government.  He urged that the chief executive not receive a salary, saying that to the Presidency an office of both honor and profit would be too tempting to the greedy.  Even if only a modest salary were set at first, there would always be reasons to increase it, and eventually the President would use the wealth of the office to set himself up as a monarch.  Surely there were men who would be willing to serve out of pure public spirit and not for money.  Franklin did not seem to recognize that denying a salary to the President would be just as effective as setting actual property restrictions in limiting the office to the rich.  He also seconded a motion by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney not to pay Senators, even though General Pinckney made clear that this was to ensure Senators would be rich, something Franklin presumably did not favor.  His proposal, discussed in the section on centralization, of financing the federal government by voluntary contributions from the states also seems visionary and was not taken seriously by any of the other delegates.