This article focuses on a concerted intellectual and political movement for the reform of the U.S. constitution, led by a constellation of radicals based in Philadelphia and inspired by the constitutional example of the French Republic. In response to what radical journalists like Benjamin Franklin Bache and Thomas Paine perceived to be the monarchial drift of the late Washington administration, they began to press for a drastic reform of the U.S. Constitution, pointing to the more egalitarian French constitution with its powerful unicameral legislature and weak plural executive, as their model. Through a survey of radical newspapers, pamphlets, and letters this paper reconstructs this mostly unknown constitutional polemic, as well as the sharp response it drew from John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other committed American defenders of the British constitution. A prologue establishes the enduring importance of Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 for philosophes and radicals in both France and America. Part I examines the radical argument for restricting the prerogatives of the upper chamber, which proliferated in the aftermath of the Jay Treaty and pivoted on the supposedly more egalitarian unicameralism of the French constitutions of 1791 and 1793. Part II traces the radical argument for replacing the presidency with a plural executive committee, modeled on the French Directory of 1795, on the grounds that such an arrangement was not only less warped by monarchism, but also more suited to times of war and exigency, as demonstrated by the astonishing military success of the French Republic. The arguments presented here thus underline the surprising fragility and contingency of the constitutional settlement in the early republic and highlight the powerful Atlantic currents that shaped American constitutional debate in the era of the French Revolution. “M R . F R A N K L I N ’ S C O N S T I T U T I O N ” John Adams was in high spirits on 2 February 1790 as he posted a letter to his friend Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush, along with other leading citizens of Philadelphia, had * PhD candidate, Harvard University Department of Government. Thanks to David Barron, R.B. Bernstein, Daniel Hulsebosch, Eric Nelson, William Nelson, Arjun Ramamurti, and participants in the Harvard Political Theory Workshop, the Cambridge Workshop in Political Thought and Intellectual History, the Golieb Seminar in Legal History at New York University School of Law, and the editors and anonymous reviewers at AJLH for their immensely helpful comments. Translations by the author, except where indicated. VC The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 1 American Journal of Legal History, 2017, 57, 1–50 doi: 10.1093/ajlh/njw023 Article Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article-abstract/57/1/1/3063266 by Harvard Library user on 22 April 2018 recently organized a constitutional convention to replace Pennsylvania’s outmoded “democratic” constitution of 1776 with a new charter, one closely modeled on the 1787 federal compact. “I congratulate you,” the Vice President wrote, “on the prospect of a new Constitution for Pennsylvania. Poor France I fear will bleed for too exactly copying your old one. When I see such miserable crudities approved by such Men as Rochefoucauld and Condorcet, I am disposed to think very humbly of human understanding.” As he instructed another correspondent two decades later, he had been dismayed to discover, on arriving in France in February 1780, that the Massachusetts Constitution he had played a leading role in drafting and ratifying was widely dismissed in the fashionable journals and salons. The lumières were particularly discomfited by the strong executive and the highly-articulated separation of powers, two principles on which the Massachusetts Constitution departed sharply from its predecessors in the American states. The beau idéal of the French elite was the simple, highly democratic frame of Pennsylvania, which featured a remarkably wide franchise, a unicameral legislature, and a supreme executive council of 12 men that carried out the law but did not veto legislation. Adams recounted his chilly reception with evident bitterness in the 1809 letter: “Mr. Turgot, the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, and Mr. Condorcet and others, admired Mr. Franklin’s Constitution and reprobated mine.” Benjamin Franklin was certainly not the sole author of Pennsylvania’s 1776 charter. Indeed, preoccupied by his simultaneous service in the Continental Congress, he was only intermittently present at the deliberations from which it emerged. But he was known to, and admired by, its most influential delegates, and his intellectual signature is clearly visible on the final document. Thomas Paine, present at the charter’s creation, would later recall that Franklin’s intervention was decisive on several points, including the choice of a unicameral legislature. In the words of Franklin’s grandson and literary executor William Temple Franklin, “the single legislative and plural executive appear to have been his favorite tenets.” He was responsible for 1 John Adams to Benjamin Rush (Feb. 2, 1790), in OLD FAMILY LETTERS: COPIED FROM THE ORIGINALS FOR ALEXANDER BIDDLE, SERIES A 54 (Phila., J.B. Lippincott 1892). 2 John Adams to Samuel Perley (June 19, 1809), in FOUNDERS ONLINE (NATIONAL ARCHIVES) , http://foun ders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5343 (last modified October 5, 2016) [early access document from ADAMS PAPERS]. 3 GORDON S. WOOD, THE AMERICANIZATION OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 164-66 (2003). Cf. Diary entry for June 23, 1778, in 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 391 (L.H. Butterfield ed., 1961) (“It is believed that he made all the American Constitutions, and their Confederation. But he made neither. He did not even make the Constitution of Pensilvania, bad as it is.”). 4 The judgment of William Hanna that Franklin had no “significant influence on the form of the new government” is greatly overstated. Compare WILLIAM S. HANNA, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND PENNSYLVANIA POLITICS 223 n.14 (1966) and WOOD, supra note 3, at 164. And of course Franklin’s actual authorship is less important than his subsequent endorsement of its principles, and his role in Europe as its translator and leading evangelist. See Horst Dippel, Aux origines du radicalisme bourgeois, 16 FRANCIA 61, 64 (1989) (Fr.) (“Même si sa contribution a été beaucoup moins importante a l’achèvement de la constitution, Franklin a aimé jouer le rôle du Solon américain”). 5 Thomas Paine, Constitutional Reform, in 4 WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE 465 (Moncure Daniel Conway ed., 1908). See also Timothy Matlack, To Richard Bache, Esq., Chairman of the Republican Society, PENN. PACKET, Mar. 30, 1779, at 2 (“When the debate was nearly closed, Doctor Franklin was requested by the Convention to give his opinion on the point—and he declared it to be clearly and fully in favor of a legislature to consist of a single branch”). 2 American Journal of Legal History Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article-abstract/57/1/1/3063266 by Harvard Library user on 22 April 2018 disseminating these ideals in Europe by arranging for the translation of the Pennsylvania constitution into French, which was included in every edition of his best-selling Almanack. And he would continue to defend its ideals long after they had been abjured by the rest of the revolutionary generation as unsuited to the needs of a modern commercial republic. The modern consensus is that Franklin was not a political theorist of note; as the editor of the Cambridge edition of his works concedes, “[h]e was not an abstract or systematic thinker.” Nevertheless, for the revolutionary generation in France, where he served as ambassador from 1776 to 1785, Franklin was the preeminent political philosopher of the age. Philippe-Antoine Grouvelle, who two years later would vote for the execution of Louis XVI, compared Franklin to the great lawgivers of antiquity. Brissot de Warville lauded Franklin as the greatest legislator of the epoch and proudly boasted of his ambition to become the “Franklin” of a future French republic. In a glowing portrait published in 1790 Jean-Pierre-Louis de Luchet credited Franklin with erecting the first genuinely egalitarian republican system: “Before him the majority of publicists had reasoned like educated slaves of their masters; like Montesquieu they had used all their wit to justify the status quo.” Condorcet called him “the Solon of Philadelphia, who placed the constitution of his country on the unshakeable foundation of the rights of man.” And Mirabeau insisted that the Philadelphian was “one of the greatest men who ever served philosophy and liberty.” For the generation that would make the French Revolution, Franklin was not merely the scientist who ripped thunderbolts from heaven or the statesman who wrested scepters from the hands of tyrants; he was above all the thinker who perfected the idea of the democratic republic. He accomplished this not through a weighty treatise, but through his authorship and advocacy of the Pennsylvania constitution, widely viewed in its time as the crystallization of the Enlightenment’s most radical tendencies. Two features in particular attracted the attention of the philosophes. First, the Pennsylvania charter was 6 William Temple Franklin, Editor’s note in 1 MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 367 (William Temple Franklin ed., Phila., T.S. Manning 1818). See also Benjamin Franklin, Hints for the Members of the Convention, CARLISLE GAZETTE, Dec. 23, 1789 (“The division of the Legislature into two or three branches in England, was it the product of wisdom or the effect of necessity, arising from the preexisting prevalence of an odious feudal system? Which government, notwithstanding this division, has now become in fact an absolute

中文翻译：

---

Franklin Redivivus：激进宪法，1791-1799

本文重点关注由一群设在费城的激进派领导并受到法兰西共和国宪法范例的启发，为改革美国宪法而开展的协调一致的知识分子和政治运动。为了回应像本杰明·富兰克林·巴奇和托马斯·潘恩这样的激进记者所认为的华盛顿已故政府的君主制倾向，他们开始敦促对美国宪法进行彻底改革，指出法国宪法更加平等，拥有强大的一院制立法机构和弱复数执行，作为他们的模型。通过对激进报纸、小册子和信件的调查，本文重构了这一鲜为人知的宪法论战，以及它从约翰·亚当斯、亚历山大·汉密尔顿、和其他坚定的美国捍卫英国宪法的人。序言确立了本杰明·富兰克林和 1776 年宾夕法尼亚州宪法对法国和美国的哲学家和激进分子的持久重要性。第一部分考察了限制上议院特权的激进论点，这种论点在杰伊条约之后激增，并以 1791 年和 1793 年法国宪法的所谓更加平等的一院制为中心。第二部分追溯了取代上议院特权的激进论点。以 1795 年法国目录为蓝本的多元执行委员会担任总统，理由是这样的安排不仅较少受到君主制的扭曲，而且更适合战争和紧急情况，正如法国在军事上取得的惊人成功所证明的那样。法兰西共和国。因此，这里提出的论点强调了早期共和国宪法解决令人惊讶的脆弱性和偶然性，并突出了在法国大革命时代塑造美国宪法辩论的强大大西洋潮流。“先生 。富兰克林的宪法 1790 年 2 月 2 日，约翰·亚当斯 (John Adams) 兴致勃勃地给他的朋友本杰明·拉什 (Benjamin Rush) 寄了一封信。拉什博士与费城的其他主要公民一起，拥有哈佛大学政府部门的博士候选人。感谢 David Barron、RB Bernstein、Daniel Hulsebosch、Eric Nelson、William Nelson、Arjun Ramamurti 以及哈佛政治理论研讨会、剑桥政治思想和思想史研讨会、纽约大学法学院 Golieb 法律史研讨会的参与者法律的，以及 AJLH 的编辑和匿名审稿人，感谢他们提供的非常有用的意见。作者的翻译，除非另有说明。VC The Author 2017。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com 1 American Journal of Legal History, 2017, 57, 1–50 doi: 10.1093/ajlh/njw023 文章下载自 https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article -abstract/57/1/1/3063266 哈佛图书馆用户于 2018 年 4 月 22 日最近组织了一次制宪会议，以新宪章取代宾夕法尼亚州过时的 1776 年“民主”宪法，该宪法与 1787 年联邦契约密切相关。“我祝贺你，”副总统写道，“对宾夕法尼亚州新宪法的前景表示祝贺。我担心可怜的法国会因为太精确地复制你的旧版本而流血。当我看到像罗什富科和孔多塞这样的人认可如此悲惨的粗鲁时，我倾向于非常谦虚地思考人类的理解。” 20 年后，当他告诉另一位记者时，他沮丧地发现，在 1780 年 2 月抵达法国时，他在起草和批准过程中发挥主导作用的马萨诸塞州宪法在时尚期刊和沙龙中被广泛忽视。卢米埃尔对强有力的行政部门和高度明确的分权感到特别不安，马萨诸塞州宪法在这两项原则上与其在美国各州的前身截然不同。法国精英的理想是宾夕法尼亚州简单、高度民主的框架，其特点是非常广泛的专营权、一院制的立法机构、以及一个由 12 人组成的最高执行委员会，该委员会执行法律但不否决立法。亚当斯在 1809 年的信中用明显的苦涩叙述了他冰冷的接待：“先生。杜尔哥、拉罗什富科公爵、孔多塞先生和其他人都钦佩富兰克林先生的宪法并谴责我的宪法。” 本杰明富兰克林当然不是宾夕法尼亚州 1776 年宪章的唯一作者。事实上，他全神贯注于他同时在大陆会议上的服务，他只是间歇性地出席会议的审议。但他为最有影响力的代表所熟知和钦佩，他的智慧签名在最终文件上清晰可见。出席宪章制定的托马斯·潘恩 (Thomas Paine) 后来回忆说，富兰克林的干预在几个方面是决定性的，包括选择一院制立法机构。用富兰克林的孙子和文学执行人威廉坦普尔富兰克林的话来说，“单一立法和复数行政似乎是他最喜欢的信条。” 他负责 1 约翰亚当斯到本杰明拉什（1790 年 2 月 2 日），在旧家庭信件：从亚历山大比德的原件复制，系列 A 54（费城，JB Lippincott 1892）。2 John Adams 致 Samuel Perley（1809 年 6 月 19 日），在 FOUNDERS ONLINE（国家档案），http://foun ders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5343（最后修改时间为 2016 年 10 月 5 日） ) [来自 ADAMS PAPERS 的早期访问文件]。3 戈登·S·伍德，本杰明·富兰克林的美国化，164-66 (2003)。参见 1778 年 6 月 23 日的日记条目，在 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 391 (LH Butterfield ed., 1961 年）（“据信他制定了所有美国宪法及其联邦。但他两者都没有制定。他甚至没有制定 Pensilvania 宪法，尽管它很糟糕。”）。4 威廉汉纳关于富兰克林“对新政府形式没有重大影响”的判断被大大夸大了。比较 WILLIAM S. HANNA, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND PENNSYLVANIA POLITICS 223 n.14 (1966) 和 WOOD, supra note 3, at 164。当然，富兰克林的实际作者身份不如他后来对其原则的认可以及他在欧洲的作用重要作为它的翻译和主要布道者。见 Horst Dippel, Aux origines du Radisisme bourgeois, 16 FRANCIA 61, 64 (1989) (Fr.) (“Même si sa contribution a été beaucoup moins importante a l'achèvement de lastitution, Franklin aaié jouer le rôle du Solon américin ”）。5 Thomas Paine，宪法改革，在 4 WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE 465 (Moncure Daniel Conway ed., 1908)。另见 Timothy Matlack, To Richard Bache, Esq., 共和党协会主席，宾夕法尼亚大学。PACKET，1779 年 3 月 30 日，第 2 段（“当辩论接近结束时，公约要求富兰克林博士就这一点发表意见——他宣布明确并完全支持立法机关一个分支”）。2 美国法律史杂志 哈佛图书馆用户于 2018 年 4 月 22 日从 https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article-abstract/57/1/1/3063266 下载，通过安排翻译宾夕法尼亚州宪法翻译成法文，这被收录在他最畅销的年鉴的每一版中。在革命一代的其他人认为不适合现代商业共和国的需要之后很久，他仍将继续捍卫其理想。现代共识是富兰克林不是著名的政治理论家。正如其著作剑桥版的编辑所承认的那样，“[他] 不是一个抽象或系统的思想家。” 尽管如此，富兰克林在 1776 年至 1785 年担任大使的法国革命一代是那个时代杰出的政治哲学家。菲利普-安托万·格鲁维尔（Philippe-Antoine Grouvelle）在两年后投票支持处决路易十六，他将富兰克林比作古代伟大的立法者。Brissot de Warville 称赞富兰克林是这个时代最伟大的立法者，并自豪地吹嘘自己成为未来法兰西共和国的“富兰克林”的雄心。在 1790 年出版的让-皮埃尔-路易斯·德·卢谢 (Jean-Pierre-Louis de Luchet) 发表的一幅光彩夺目的肖像画中，富兰克林建立了第一个真正平等的共和制度：“在他之前，大多数公关人员都像他们主人受过教育的奴隶一样进行推理；就像孟德斯鸠一样，他们用了所有的智慧来为现状辩护。” 孔多塞称他为“费城的梭伦，他将他的国家的宪法置于不可动摇的人权基础之上”。米拉波坚持认为费城人是“为哲学和自由服务的最伟大的人之一”。对于将要发生法国大革命的那一代人来说，富兰克林不仅是从天而降的科学家，或者从暴君手中夺取权杖的政治家；他首先是完善民主共和国理念的思想家。他不是通过一篇有分量的论文，而是通过他的作者身份和对宾夕法尼亚宪法的倡导来实现这一目标，该宪法在当时被广泛视为启蒙运动最激进倾向的结晶。有两个特征特别引起了哲学家的注意。首先，宾夕法尼亚州宪章是 6 William Temple Franklin，编者注在 1 MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 367（William Temple Franklin ed., Phila., TS Manning 1818）。另见本杰明·富兰克林，《对公约成员的提示》，《卡莱尔公报》，1789 年 12 月 23 日（“英国将立法机关分为两个或三个部门，是智慧的产物还是必要的结果，源于一个可憎的封建制度已经盛行？尽管有这种分裂，哪个政府，