Although authorized by the Congress of the
Confederation, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was nevertheless cloaked with secrecy
and confidentiality. The official papers of the Convention sat in the Department of State,
untouched, until 1818. Yet in retrospect, the gathering reveals both the men and the
issues they faced during the founding era. Through analysis of both the Philadelphia
debates and the various ratification conventions, we realize the concerns and needs of a
developing nation.
Men of means and education pursued a limited, federal government
capable of providing political and economic stability in a land of diverse sectional
interests. The fight for freedom had been experiential; much of the struggle for structure
and unity would be theoretical. The doctrines of scholars would meet with the practical
necessities of an emerging nation, resulting in a balanced blend of pragmatism and
principle—the Constitution of the United States of America.
However, one of the most controversial issues, State's representation, could have
nullified the entire process. Tempers flared and interests clashed as the delegates sought
their respective goals. It was within this quagmire of divisiveness that the elder
statesman, Benjamin Franklin, offered his famous appeal for harmony and
conciliation—an appeal for God's intervention.
His solicitation seems almost out of character with our current understanding of the
man. Wasn't he a deist, believing in the clockmaker God who stepped back to watch the
hands of time move toward eternity? Could God govern in the affairs of men, or nations,
from such a distance? Perhaps Franklin's appeal for prayer was out of despair and
desperation; perhaps he was senile as some suggest; or perhaps we have misunderstood
Franklin's deism, misreading the man in the coonskin cap.
Confusion still surrounds Franklin's efforts, however, and the primary source of this
confusion appears to be a letter from William Steele to his son, Jonathan. Written in
September of 1825, the letter contained William's recollection of a conversation with
General Jonathan Dayton, a member of the Constitutional Convention (and afterwards Speaker
of the House of Representatives). This account also found its way into at least one
national periodical, the National Intelligencer, and other sources as well. As Steele
tells it, Dayton offered this account of Franklin's words:
We have arrived, Mr. President . . . at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our
deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great as
could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is
thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skillfully removed,
to render all our fond hopes of a constitution abortive.
It is, however, to be feared that the members of this Convention are not in a temper,
at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would,
therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at
this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present
ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate
investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this
Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own
party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that
they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and
candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble
again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one
as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing
circumstances, can be obtained.
(Here the countenance of Washington brightened, and a cheering ray seemed to break in
upon the gloom which had recently covered our political horizon.) The doctor continued:
Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really
surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our
deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing,
before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to
assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of
the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council,
enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of
truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!
The doctor sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so
dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were
the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable
Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose
an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the
expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every
countenance.
According to Steele, Dayton then recalled Alexander Hamilton's protest and sarcastic
refusal to accept "foreign aid." And then he continued:
Washington fixed his eye upon the speaker [Hamilton], with a mixture of surprise and
indignation, while he uttered this impertinent and impious speech, and then looked around
to ascertain in what manner it affected others. They did not leave him a moment to doubt;
no one deigned to reply, or take the smallest notice of the speaker, but the motion for
appointing a chaplain was instantly seconded and carried; whether under the silent
disapprobation of Mr. H___, or his solitary negative, I do not recollect. The motion for
an adjournment was then put and carried unanimously, and the Convention adjourned
accordingly.
The three days of recess were spent in the manner advised by Doctor Franklin; the
opposite parties mixed with each other, and a free and frank interchange of sentiments
took place. On the fourth day we assembled again, and if great additional light had not
been thrown on the subject, every unfriendly feeling had been expelled; and a spirit of
conciliation had been cultivated, which promised, at least, a calm and dispassionate
reconsideration of the subject [state's representation].
William Steele closed the letter confident he had "faithfully stated the
facts" motivated by a desire to "perpetuate the facts." From this source,
and others, one might easily draw the conclusion that Franklin's efforts brought a
harmonious reconciliation to the Convention.
James Madison, however, in a letter to Jared Sparks on April 8, 1831, referred to this
account as "erroneously given, with every semblance of authenticity." And then
in another letter to Thomas S. Grimke (January 6, 1834), Madison went further in his
clarification concerning the "proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious
service in the Federal Convention." He said:
The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of
time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting
what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee.
He then continued:
That the communication [Steele's account of Dayton's testimony] was erroneous is
certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain.
Madison's Journal originally contained a summary of Franklin's words. However, in a
later revision, he inserted the speech as written in Franklin's own handwriting. It is the
authoritative source concerning the Convention.
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks attendance & continual
reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several
of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the
imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political
wisdom, some we have been running 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 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 G. Britain, when we
were sensible of danger we had daily prayer 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? 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 labour 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 bye word down to future ages. And what is
worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing
Governments be 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 blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning
before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested
to officiate in that service—
Mr. Sherman (from Connecticut) seconded the motion.
Mr. Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such
a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late
day, 1, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions [criticisms], and 2, lead the public
to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested
this measure. It was answered by [Dr. Franklin], Mr. Sherman and others, that the past
omission of a duty could not justify a further omission—that the rejection of such a
proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the
adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of
things within, would at least be as likely to good as ill.
Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The
Convention had no funds.
Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon
be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of
Independence; and thenceforward prayers be used in the Convention every morning. Dr.
Franklin seconded this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing
the matter by adjourning was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.
But the final word in this discussion comes from Franklin's own pen. In John Bigelow's,
The Works of Benjamin Franklin, a footnote (pg. 378) referring to Franklin's speech
states:
To the original draft of this speech there is the following note appended in the
handwriting of Dr. Franklin: "The convention, except three or four persons, thought
prayer unnecessary." [This same notation is given as a footnote on page 452 of Max
Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention.]
Bigelow continues by saying "the time which had elapsed without prayers in the
convention, sufficiently explains the failures of Franklin's motions."
As one reads these various sources, however, the response to Franklin's motion should
not be viewed as an atheistic or deistic expression from the delegates. In their view,
prayer was an official ceremony requiring ordained clergy to "officiate," (as
Dr. Franklin noted) and the funds to pay them (as Mr. Williamson observed). It was not as
simple as asking "Brother George" to ask God's blessings on their deliberations.
This was not the general approach to religion during this time in history; orthodox
formality was the preferable style and manner, at least in official settings. For example,
when Rev. Duche offered the first prayer in the Continental Congress, he appeared
"with his clerk and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in the established
form. . . . " Granted, he also unexpectedly "struck out into an extemporary
prayer," but the point is made: religious formality was the order of the day.
Those orders were followed a few days later at the Reformed Calvinist Lutheran Church.
In response to Franklin's appeal, Virginia's Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal. He
recommended that a "sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of
July, the anniversary of Independence,— & thence forward prayers be used in ye
Convention every morning." One report has Washington leading most of the Convention
delegates to the church, where James Campbell preached a sermon trusting in the wisdom of
the delegates to establish a "free and vigorous government."
As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional
Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin's
recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House
and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing
no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote
the Amendment.
The real strength of Franklin's motion, from the conservative viewpoint, is as an
example of his supposed "deism," which is a far cry from what some would make it
out to be. Franklin obviously felt that God governed in the affairs of men—not
exactly the general understanding of today's deism. But many people attempt to
anachronously impose today's definition upon Franklin, Jefferson, and others, implying
they had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is usually done to support a broad,
separationist approach to religion and government, which is inconsistent with the words
and deeds of those who created America's political system.
Franklin, as well as all of the Framers of the Constitution, realized the value of
religion in society. And they realized the value of prayer in the weightier matters of
politics. As it turns out, Dr. Franklin was not senile at all; he was simply asking for
divine assistance in what proved to be the formation of our American system. Perhaps there
were no "official" prayers during the Convention, but denying that the delegates
wanted God's blessing and direction—now that would be senility.
Summary
- An 1825 letter gave an erroneous account of Franklin's appeal.
- Various periodicals circulated the story, assuming it to be correct.
- Numerous others have presented the inaccurate details.
- Madison's 1831 letter called the account erroneous.
- Madison's 1834 letter clarified:
- The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of
time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting
what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee.
- Franklin drafted his appeal, and Madison included the written speech in his revised
Journal.
- Franklin offers the final say on the matter:
- The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.
- However, Virginia's Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal: a July Fourth Sermon at the
Convention's request, followed by morning prayers. Washington led most of the delegates to
hear the sermon and enjoy the festivities.
- Although they did not bring in Chaplains, the first Congress instituted a Chaplaincy
program that exists to this day.