On May 25, 1787, delegates
representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia's
Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The
building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the
drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the
Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea
of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new
scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a
delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president. The delegates
were generally convinced that an effective central government with a
wide range of enforceable powers must replace the weaker Congress
established by the Articles of Confederation. The high intellectual
quality of the delegates to the convention was remarkable.
During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal
organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and
balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state
representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional
legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem
was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral
legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House
of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper
house (Senate).
During our 2013 small monthly group studying the
debates (during the Constitutional Convention) I was especially
impressed with what Benjamin Franklin said on June 2, 1787 as the
Convention further considered the power of the Executive department. He
spoke about a "favorite idea of his: that officers of government
should not receive salaries." Franklin obviously knew history and
human nature, so he had to speak up. What he said was prophetic:
"It is with reluctance that I rise to express a
disapprobation of any one article of the plan for which we are so much
obliged to the honorable gentleman who laid it before us. From its first
reading I have born a good will to it, and in general wished it success.
In this particular of salaries to the Executive branch I happen to
differ; and as my opinion may appear new and chimerical, it is only from
a persuasion that it is right, and from a sense of duty that I hazard
it. The Committee will judge of my reasons when they have heard them.,
and their judgment may possibly change mine...I think I see
inconveniences in the appoinment of salaries; I see none in refusing
them, but on the contrary, great advantages.
"Sir, there are two passions which have a
powerful influence on 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
effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour that shall
be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and
earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders
the British Government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the
true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the
Nation, distracting its Councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless and
mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable
terms of peace.
"And of what kind are the men that will strive
for this profitable pre-eminence, through 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 into your Government and be your 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.
"Besides these evils, Sir, though 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
proposed augmentations. And there will always be a party for giving more
to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in 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
governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other
to pay less. And this has alone occasioned 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, the
revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are
never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are
discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince
has of money to distribute among his partizans and pay the troops that
are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.
There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow
the example of Pharoah, get first all the people's money, then all their
lands, and then make them and their children servants forever. It will
be said, that we don't propose to establish Kings. I know it. But there
is a natural inclination in mankind to Kingly Government. It sometimes
relieves them from Aristocratic domination. They had rather have one
tyrant than five hundred. It gives more of the appearance of equality
among Citizens, and that they like. I am apprehensive therefore, perhaps
too apprehensive, that the Government of these States, may in future
times, end in a Monarchy. But this Catastrophe I think may be long
delayed, if in our proposed System we do not sow the seeds of
contention, action and tumult, by making our posts of honor, places of
profit. If we do, I fear that though we do employ at first a number, and
not a single person, the number will in time be set aside, it will only
nourish the fetus of a King, as the honorable gentleman from Virginia
very aptly expressed it, and a King will the sooner be set over us.
"It may be imagined by some that this is an
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. Some existing facts present themselves to
me, which incline me to a contrary opinion. The high Sheriff of a County
in England is an honorable office, but it is not a profitable one. It is
rather expensive and therefore not sought for. But yet it is executed,
and usually by some of the principal Gentlemen of the County. In France,
the office of Counselor or Member of their Judiciary Parliaments is more
honorable. It is therefore purchased at a high price: There are indeed
fees on the law proceedings, which are divided among them, but these
fees do not amount to more than three percent on the sum paid for the
place. Therefore as legal interest is there at five percent they in fact
pay two percent for being allowed to do the Judiciary business of the
Nation, which is at the same time entirely exempt from the burden of
paying them any salaries for their services. I do not however mean to
recommend this as an eligible mode for our Judiciary department. I only
bring the instance to show that the pleasure of doing good and serving
their Country and the respect of such conduct entitles them to, 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.
"Another instance is that of a respectable
Society who have made the experiment, and practiced it with success more
than an hundred years. I mean the Quakers. It is an established rule
with them, that they are not to go to law; but in their controversies
they must apply to their monthly, quarterly and yearly 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
honorable to be so employed, 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 honor.
"To bring the matter nearer home, have we not
seen, the great 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; and
this through fatigues and distresses in common with the other brave men
his military friends and companions, and the constant anxieties peculiar
to his station? And shall we doubt finding three or four men in all the
United States, with public spirit enough to bear sitting in peaceful
Council for perhaps an equal term, merely to preside over our civil
concerns, and see that our laws are duly executed? Sir, I have a better
opinion of our Country. 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.
"Sir, the saving of the salaries that may at
first be proposed is not an object with me. The subsequent mischief's of
proposing them are what I apprehend. And therefore it is, that I move
the amendment. If it is not seconded or accepted I must be contented
with the satisfaction of having delivered my opinion frankly and done my
duty."
The motion was seconded by Colonel Hamilton with
the view he said merely of bringing so respectable a proposition before
the Committee, and which was besides enforced by arguments that had a
certain degree of weight. No debate ensued, and the proposition was
postponed for the consideration of the members. It was treated with
great respect, but rather for the author of it, than from any apparent
conviction of its expediency or practicability.
During an intensive debate, the delegates devised
a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of
checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state
representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional
legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem
was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral
legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House
of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper
house (Senate).
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the
United States of America is signed by 38 of 41 delegates present at the
conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. As dictated
by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was
ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five
states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and
Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession. However, other states,
especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve
undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of
basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the
press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which
Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with
the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The
Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by
Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the
ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that
government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In
June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.
On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted
12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution--the Bill of Rights--and sent
them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were
ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state
to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal
control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of
slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government
threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29,
1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the
last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today, the
U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the
world.
Back
