The Mystery of the Pinckney Draught

by Charles C. Nott

"P.S.—You may be assured, Sir, that I have no intention of printing anything on this subject, nor of using your authority in any manner respecting it. I am aware of the delicate situation in which such a step would place you, and you may rely upon my discretion. I am greatly puzzled, however, in respect to the extraordinary coincidence between the two draughts. Notwithstanding my reasons above given, I cannot account for the committee's following any draught so servilely, especially with Randolph's Resolutions before them, and Randolph himself one of their number.—I doubt whether any clear light can be gained, till Pinckney's original draught shall be found, which is probably among the papers of one of the committee. It seems to me that your secretary of the convention was a very stupid secretary, not to take care of these things better, and to make a better Journal than the dry bones that now go by that name."

This letter set forth the real elements of the case, elements incontrovertible and absolutely certain—that Pinckney's draught was referred to the Committee of Detail; that it was never considered in the Convention; that the period within which the Committee framed their draught was a brief one; that the Committee's draught bears no resemblance in form to the resolutions of the Convention and contains provisions not found in them; that the Committee so departed from the resolutions, though Randolph himself was one of their number, and struck out an entirely new scheme in form of which no hint had been given in the debates and that the Committee's draught in form, language and arrangement appears to be a copy of Pinckney's with amendments and additions.

From these sure premises Sparks deduced two alternative conclusions; "I think any person examining the two [draughts] for the first time without a knowledge of the circumstances or of the bearing of the question would pronounce the Committee's report to be a copy of the draught with amendments in style and a few unimportant additions," "or that Mr. Pinckney sketched his draught from the Committee's, and in so artful a manner as to make it seem the original, a suspicion I suppose not to be admitted against a member of the convention."

In the second clause of the latter alternative Sparks with admirable sagacity applied the most delicate test that could be applied to the matter. He brings the dilemma down to this: The Committee must have used Pinckney's draught or Pinckney must have sketched his draught from the Committee's; and more than that, he must have sketched it "in so artful a manner as to make it seem the original."

When one instrument is fashioned after another the natural and even unconscious action of the mind is to correct and improve. It is a going forward toward a desirable result. To fashion the second instrument after the first but in such a manner that in many details there would be an unfailing inferiority would be a going backward. This inferiority in detail runs through the Pinckney draught as has repeatedly been shown before. When Sparks wrote the word "artful" he used the right word, the word which controlled the situation—"in so artful a manner as to make it seem the original" most accurately defines what Pinckney did in Charleston in 1818 if he then fabricated a new draught.

Of course such a fabrication was possible but it would have required a literary forger with a genius for literary forgery to have taken the Committee's draught and given these artless imperfections—these delicate touches of inferiority to the copy for the State Department.

To the specific charge that Pinckney must have sketched his draught "in so artful a manner as to make it seem the original" if it was not what he had represented it to be, Madison made no reply. Sparks had narrowed the issue to this, "Did the Committee follow Pinckney's draught or did Pinckney use the Committee's?" But Madison evaded the issue. Sparks had shown that the Committee did not confine themselves to results arrived at after discussion in the Convention; but that they had incorporated in their draught "important provisions not found in either" set of resolutions, and he called Madison's attention "to the extraordinary coincidence between the two draughts;" and he added that he could not "account for the Committee following any draught so servilely, especially with Randolph's resolutions before them, and Randolph himself one of their number." It was for Madison then to meet this issue and show definitely where the Committee got the many new provisions of their draught, important and unimportant, if they did not get them from the Pinckney draught.

On the 25th of November, 1831, Madison replied at length to Sparks' letter but he said not a word about the draught of the Committee or of Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State. His answer was in effect, "Impossible!"

Sparks did not acknowledge the receipt of the letter until the 17th of January, 1832, and then the acknowledgment was called out by a letter from Madison of January 7th. He yielded a reluctant assent, manifestly in deference to Madison, that "this letter seems to me conclusive, but" (he immediately adds), "I am still a good deal at a loss about the first draught of the Committee. The history of the composition of the draught would be a curious item in the proceedings of the Convention." Here Sparks again put his finger on one of the things that needed explanation, "the composition of the draught." His sagacious mind grasped the fact that the structure of the draught of the Constitution—of the Constitution itself, would indeed be a "curious item in the proceedings of the Convention." It was original work in style, order, details and arrangement; "a curious item" indeed! Whose was the hand that sketched it? When Sparks was so near the end of the matter and on the path which led to the end, it seems almost incredible that he did not take one step forward. If he had he would have solved the problem and dispelled the mystery.

Madison's letter of November 25th seems to have been written for posterity as well as for the man to whom it was sent. Its untold object manifestly was to divert attention from the draught of the Committee and to direct comparison to the Constitution itself. Three years later in his letter to Judge Duer he reiterated what he had said to Sparks, and again he said nothing upon the point which Sparks had plainly placed before him. Finally when he prepared his Note to the Plan, he for a third time, was silent on the primary issue in the case, Did the Committee follow Pinckney's draught or did Pinckney surreptitiously use the Committee's?