FRANCHISE
/ AND PROPERTY REQUIREMENT
.. Notes on Virginia . . . shows what I think
on the question of the right of electing and being elected . . . on
a year's residence in the country; or the possession of property in
it, or a year's enrollment in its militia. When the constitution of
Virginia was framed I was in attendance at Congress. Had I been here
I should probably have proposed a general suffrage: because my
opinion has always been in favor of it Still I find very honest men
who, thinking the possession of some property necessary to give
independence of mind, are for restraining the elective franchise to
property. I believe we may lessen the danger of buying and selling
votes, by making the number of voters too great for any means of
purchase: I may further say that I have not observed men's honesty
to increase with their riches. |
Jeremiah
Moor
14 Aug 1800 |
FRANCHISE
/ BELONGS TO ALL MEN
I received in due time your favor of the 12th,
requesting my opinion on the proposition to call a convention for
amending the constitution of the State. That this should not be
perfect cannot be a subject of wonder. …The basis of our
constitution is in opposition to the principle of equal political
rights, refusing to all but freeholders any participation in the
natural right of self-government. It is believed, for example, that
a very great majority of the militia, on whom the burden of military
duty was imposed in the late war, were men unrepresented in the
legislation which imposed this burden on them. However nature may by
mental or physical disqualifications have marked infants and the
weaker sex for the protection, rather than the direction of
government, yet among the men who either pay or fight for their
country, no line of right can be drawn. The exclusion of a majority
of our freemen from the right of representation is merely arbitrary,
and an usurpation of the minority over the majority; for it is
believed that the non-freeholders compose the majority of our free
and adult male citizens. |
John
Hambden Pleasants
19 Apr 1824 |
BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN
At a large table where I dined the other day,
a gentleman from Switzerland expressed his apprehensions for the
fate of Dr. Franklin, as he said he had been informed, that he would
be received with stones by the people, who were generally
dissatisfied with the Revolution, and incensed against all those who
had assisted in bringing it about. I told him his apprehensions were
just, and that the people of America would probably salute Dr.
Franklin with the same stones they had thrown at the Marquis
Fayette. The reception of the Doctor is an object of very general
attention, and will weigh in Europe, as an evidence of the
satisfaction or dissatisfaction of America, with their Revolution.
|
James
Monroe
28 Aug 1785 |
FRANKLIN,
BENJAMIN
I feel both the wish and the duty to
communicate, in compliance with your request, whatever, within my
knowledge, might render justice to the memory of our great
countryman, Dr. Franklin, in which Philosophy has to deplore one of
its principal luminaries extinguished. But my opportunities of
knowing the interesting facts of his life, have not been equal to my
desire of making them known. I could indeed relate a number of those
bon mots, with which he used to charm every society, as having heard
many of them. But these are not your object. Particulars of greater
dignity happened not to occur during his stay of nine months, after
my arrival in France.
A little before that, Argand had invented his celebrated lamp, in
which the flame is spread into a hollow cylinder, and thus brought
into contact with the air within as well as without. Doctor Franklin
had been on the point of the same discovery. The idea had occurred
to him; but he had tried a bull-rush as a wick, which did not
succeed. His occupations did not permit him to repeat and extend his
trials to the introduction of a larger column of air than could pass
through the stem of a bull-rush.
The animal magnetism too of the maniac Mesmer, had just received
its death wound from his hand in conjunction with his brethren of
the learned committee appointed to unveil that compound of fraud and
folly. But after this, nothing very interesting was before the
public, either in philosophy or politics, during his stay; and he
was principally occupied in winding up his affairs there.
I can only therefore testify in general, that there appeared to me
more respect and veneration attached to the character of Doctor
Franklin in France, than to that of any other person in the same
country, foreign or native. I had opportunities of knowing
particularly how far these sentiments were felt by the foreign
ambassadors and ministers at the court of Versailles. The fable of
his capture by the Algerines, propagated by the English newspapers,
excited no uneasiness; as it was seen at once to be a dish cooked up
to the palate of their readers. But nothing could exceed the anxiety
of his diplomatic brethren, on a subsequent report of his death,
which, though premature, bore some marks of authenticity.
I found the ministers of France equally impressed with the talents
and integrity of Dr. Franklin. The Count de Vergennes particularly
gave me repeated and unequivocal demonstrations of his entire
confidence in him.
When he left Passy, it seemed as if the village had lost its
patriarch. On taking leave of the court, which he did by letter, the
King ordered him to be handsomely complimented, and furnished him
with a litter and mules of his own, the only kind of conveyance the
state of his health could bear.
The succession to Dr. Franklin, at the court of France, was an
excellent school of humility. On being presented to any one as the
minister of America, the commonplace question used in such cases was
"c'est votts, Monsieur, qui remplace le Docteur Franklin?"
"it is you, Sir, who replace Doctor Franklin?" I generally
answered, "no one can replace him, Sir: I am only his
successor." |
Unknown
recipient
19 Feb 1791 |
FRANKLIN,
BENJAMIN / REFLECTIONS ON
…On the death of Doctor Franklin, the King
and Convention of France went into mourning. So did the House of
Representatives of the United States: the Senate refused. I proposed
to General Washington that the executive department should wear
mourning; he declined it, because he said he should not know where
to draw the line, if he once began that ceremony. Mr. Adams was then
Vice-President, and I thought General Washington had his eye on him,
whom he certainly did not love. I told him the world had drawn so
broad a line between himself and Doctor Franklin, on the one side,
and the residue of mankind, on the other, that we might wear
mourning for them, and the question still remain new and undecided
as to all others. He thought it best, however, to avoid it. |
Benjamin
Rush
4 Oct 1803 |
FRANKLIN,
BENJAMIN / REFLECTIONS REGARDING
Yours of November the 8th has been some time
received; but it is in my power to give little satisfaction as to
its inquiries. Dr. Franklin had many political enemies, as every
character must, which, with decision enough to have opinions, has
energy and talent to give them effect on the feelings of the
adversary opinion. These enmities were chiefly in Pennsylvania and
Massachusetts. In the former, they were merely of the proprietary
party. In the latter, they did not commence till the Revolution, and
then sprung chiefly from personal animosities, which spreading by
little and little, became at length of some extent. Dr. Lee was his
principal calumniator, a man of much malignity, who, besides
enlisting his whole family in the same hostility, was enabled, as
the agent of Massachusetts with the British government, to infuse it
into that State with considerable effect. Mr. Izard, the Doctor's
enemy also, but from a pecuniary transaction, never countenanced
these charges against him. Mr. Jay, Silas Deane, Mr. Laurens, his
colleagues also, ever maintained towards him unlimited confidence
and respect. That he would have waived the formal recognition of our
independence, I never heard on any authority worthy notice. As to
the fisheries, England was urgent to retain them exclusively, France
neutral, and I believe, that had they been ultimately made a sine
qua non, our commissioners (Mr. Adams excepted) would have
relinquished them, rather than have broken off the treaty. To Mr.
Adams' perseverance alone, on that point, I have always understood
we were indebted for their reservation. As to the charge of
subservience to France, besides the evidence of his friendly
colleagues before named, two years of my own service with him at
Paris, daily visits, and the most friendly and confidential
conversation, convince me it had not a shadow of foundation. He
possessed the confidence of that government in the highest degree,
insomuch, that it may truly be said, that they were more under his
influence, than he under theirs. The fact is, that his temper was so
amiable and conciliatory, his conduct so rational, never urging
impossibilities, or even things unreasonably inconvenient to them,
in short, so moderate and attentive to their difficulties, as well
as our own, that what his enemies called subserviency, I saw was
only that reasonable disposition, which, sensible that advantages
are not all to be on one side, yielding what is just and liberal, is
the more certain of obtaining liberality and justice. Mutual
confidence produces, of course, mutual influence, and this was all
which subsisted between Dr. Franklin and the government of France.
I state a few anecdotes of Dr. Franklin, within my own knowledge,
too much in detail for the scale of Delaplaine's work. …
Our revolutionary process, as is well known, commenced by
petitions, memorials, remonstrances, etc., from the old Congress.
These were followed by a non-importation agreement, as a pacific
instrument of coercion. While that was before us, and sundry
exceptions, as of arms; ammunition, etc., were moved from different
quarters of the house, I was sitting by Dr. Franklin and observed to
him that I thought we should except books; that we ought not to
exclude science, even coming from an enemy. He thought so too, and I
proposed the exception, which was agreed to. Soon after it occurred
that medicine should be excepted, and I suggested that also to the
Doctor. "As to that," said he, "I will tell you a
story. When I was in London, in such a year, there was a weekly club
of physicians, of which Sir John Pringle was president, and I was
invited by my friend Dr. Fothergill to attend when convenient. Their
rule was to propose a thesis one week and discuss it the next. I
happened there when the question to be considered was whether
physicians had, on the whole, done most good or harm? The young
members, particularly, having discussed it very learnedly and
eloquently till the subject was exhausted, one of them observed to
Sir John Pringle, that although it was not usual for the President
to take part in a debate; yet they were desirous to know his opinion
on the question. He said they must first tell him whether, under the
appellation of physicians, they meant to include old 'women,
if they did he thought they had done more good than harm, otherwise
more harm than good." ...
When Dr. Franklin went to France, on his revolutionary mission, his
eminence as a philosopher, his venerable appearance, and the cause
on which he was sent, rendered him extremely popular. For all ranks
and conditions of men there, entered warmly into the American
interest. He was, therefore, feasted and invited into all the court
parties. At these he sometimes met the old Duchess of Bourbon, who,
being a chess player of about his force, they very generally played
together. Happening once to put her king into prize, the Doctor took
it. "Ah," said she, "we do not take kings so." "We
do in America," said the Doctor.
At one of these parties the Emperor Joseph III, then at Paris,
incog., under the title of Count Falkenstein, was overlooking the
game in silence, while the company was engaged in animated
conversations on the American question. "How happens it, M. Te
Comte," said the Duchess, "that while we all feel so much
interest in the cause of the Americans, you say nothing for them?"
"I am a king by trade," said he.
When the Declaration of Independence was under the consideration of
Congress, there were two or three unlucky expressions in it which
gave offence to some members. The words "Scotch and other
foreign auxiliaries" excited the ire of a gentleman or two of
that country. Severe strictures on the conduct of the British king,
in negotiating our repeated repeals of the law which permitted the
importation of slaves, were disapproved by some Southern gentlemen,
whose reflections were not yet matured to the full abhorrence of
that traffic. Although the offensive expressions were immediately
yielded these gentlemen continued their depredations on other parts
of the instrument. I was sitting by Dr. Franklin, who perceived that
I was not insensible to these mutilations. "I have made it a
rule," said he, "whenever in my power, to avoid becoming
the draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body. I took my
lesson from an incident which I will relate to you. When I was a
journeyman printer, one of my companions, an apprentice hatter,
having served out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His
first concern was to have a handsome signboard, with a proper
inscription. He composed it in these words, 'John Thompson, Hatter,
makes and sells hats for ready money,' with a figure of
a hat subjoined; but he thought he would submit it to his friends
for their amendments. The first he showed it to thought the word
'Hatter' tautologous, because followed by the words 'makes
hats,' which show he was a hatter. It was struck oat. The next
observed that the word 'makes' might as well be omitted,
because his customers would not care who made the hats. If good and
to their mind, they would buy, by whomsoever made. He struck it out.
A third said he thought the words 'for ready money' were
useless, as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit.
Every one who purchased expected to pay. They were parted with, and
the inscription now stood, 'John Thompson sells hats.' 'Sells
bats!' says his next friend. Why nobody will expect you to give
them away, what then is the use of that word? It was stricken out,
and 'bats' followed it, the rather as there was one painted
on the board. So the inscription was reduced ultimately to 'John
Thompson' with the figure of a hat subjoined."
The Doctor and Silas Deane were in conversation one day at Passy,
on the numerous errors in the Abbe's Histoire des deux Indes,
when he happened to step in. After the usual salutations, Silas
Deane said to him, "The Doctor and myself, Abbe', were just
speaking of the errors of fact into which you have been led in your
history." "Oh, no Sir," said the Abbe', "that is
impossible. I took the greatest care not to insert a single fact,
for which I had not the most unquestionable authority." "Why,"
says Deane, "there is the story of Polly Baker, and the
eloquent apology you have put into her mouth, when brought before a
court of Massachusetts to suffer punishment under a law which you
cite, for having had a bastard. I know there never was such a law in
Massachusetts." "Be assured," said the Abbe', "you
are mistaken, and that that is a true story. I do not immediately
recollect indeed the particular information on which I quote it; but
I am certain that I had for it unquestionable authority."
Doctor Franklin, who had been for some time shaking with
unrestrained laughter at the Abbe's confidence in his authority for
that tale, said, "I will tell you, Abbe', the origin of that
story. When I was a pninter and editor of a newspaper, we were
sometimes slack of news, and to amuse our customers, I used to fill
up our vacant columns with anecdotes and fables, and fancies of my
own, and this of Polly Baker is a story of my making, on one of
these occasions." The Abbe', without the least disconcert,
exclaimed with a laugh, "Oh, very well, Doctor, I had rather
relate your stories than other men's truths." |
Robert
Walsh
4 Dec 1818 |
FREEDOM
OF RELIGION
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious
exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been
delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the
States, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only
proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of
fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectjy assume
to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which
the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant,
too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be
sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of
fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps
in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty
make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to
whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of
religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its
discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that
the General Government should be invested with the power of
effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and
prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of
discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for
itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for
them, according. to their own particular tenets; and this right can
never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has
deposited it. |
Samuel
Miller
(Reverend)
23 Jan 1808 |
FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS / IDEALS OF
To your request of my opinion of the manner in
which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I
should answer, "by restraining it to true facts and sound
principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few
subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the
press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits,
than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can
now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes
suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent
of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in
situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of
the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my
fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live and die in the
belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in
the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in
newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the
world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are
affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from
them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a
successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe
to his will, etc., etc.; but no details can be relied on. I will
add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better
informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is
nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and
errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and
the details are all false. |
John
Norvell
11 Jun 1807 |
FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS / FALSEHOODS
Conscious that there was not a truth on earth
which I feared should be known, I have lent myself willingly as the
subject of a great experiment, which was to prove that an
administration, conducting itself with integrity and common
understanding, cannot be battered down, even by the falsehoods of a
licentious press, and consequently still less by the press, as
restrained within the legal and wholesome limits of truth. This
experiment was wanting for the world to demonstrate the falsehood of
the pretext that freedom of the press is incompatible with orderly
government. I have never therefore even contradicted the thousands
of calumnies so industriously propagated against myself. But the
fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it
abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its
strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth. Within that it
is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and of civil
liberty. …It would seem impossible that an intelligent people,
with the faculty of reading and right of thinking, should continue
much longer to slumber under the pupilage of an interested
aristocracy of priests and lawyers, persuading them to distrust
themselves, and to let them think for them. |
Thomas
Seymour
11 Feb 1807 |
FRENCH
PEOPLE
I am much pleased with the people of this
country. The roughness of the human mind is so thoroughly rubbed off
with them, that it seems as if one might glide through a whole life
among them without a jostle. Perhaps, too, their manners may be the
best calculated for happiness to a people in their situation, but I
am convinced they fall far short of effecting a happiness so
temperate, so uniform, and so lasting as is generally enjoyed with
us. The domestic bonds here are absolutely done away, and where can
their compensation be found? Perhaps they may catch some moments of
transport above the level of the ordinary tranquil joy we
experience, but they are separated by long intervals, during which
all the passions are at sea without rudder or compass. Yet,
fallacious as the pursuits of happiness are, they seem on the whole
to furnish the most effectual abstraction from a contemplation of
the hardness of their government. Indeed, it is difficult to
conceive how so good a people, with so good a King, so well-disposed
rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile a soil, should be
rendered so ineffectual for producing human happiness by one single
curse, -- that of a bad form of government. But it is a fact, in
spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are ground to
powder by the vices of the form of government. Of twenty millions of
people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion there are nineteen
millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human
existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the
whole United States. I beg your pardon for getting into politics. I
will add only one sentiment more of that character, that is, nourish
peace with their persons, but war against their manners. Every step
we take towards the adoption of their manners is a step to perfect
misery. |
Mrs.
Trist
18 Aug 1785 |
|
