the Articles of Confederation.[1] These amendments, therefore, which he endorsed in 1786 and probably originated, are not merely a starting-point, they show somewhat of the character of the Pinckney Plan.
In the debates of the Federal Convention itself, during the discussion of the Randolph Resolutions in the Committee of the Whole—that is, during approximately the first two weeks of the Convention’s work—Pinckney’s attitude upon the various questions may be taken as fairly representing his original ideas, especially when his position was opposed to that of the leaders or to the general sentiment of the Convention. His later attitude was undoubtedly modified by the development of proceedings and can only be used with caution, although some suggestions may be obtained therefrom.[2]
While the delegates were gathering in Philadelphia and were waiting for a sufficient number to commence proceedings, George Read, of Delaware, wrote to his colleague Dickinson that he was “in possession of a copied draft of a federal system intended to be proposed,” and he outlined a few of the conspicuous features. These do not at all correspond to the features of the Virginia Plan, but they do tally exactly with certain characteristics of the Pinckney Plan that have been obtained from the study of the debates. There can be no doubt that it is the latter plan that is here described, especially as we have on other authority that Pinckney prepared his plan in advance of his going to Philadelphia.[3] From this letter of Read’s we get a few additional particulars, and the helpful suggestion that “some of its principal features are taken from the New York system of government.”[4]
The pamphlet entitled “Observations” must be used with some caution, as it was not printed until after the Convention was over, and Pinckney may have modified some of his statements or added somewhat to his speech as originally prepared.
And there is also the draft sent to John Quincy Adams in 1818. In the light of the documents already noticed, it is established beyond all doubt that this draft does not represent “Pinckney’s original plan with some additions and modifications.” It does not even have
- ↑ See Mr. McLaughlin’s confirmation of this position, American Historical Review, loc. cit.
- ↑ Mr. Jameson has made a careful analysis of this material; see his Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 117–120.
- ↑ “‘W. S. E. of S. C.’ (W. S. Elliot, grandson of Pinckney) in DeBow’s Review ⅩⅩⅩⅣ, 63, says: ‘This draft was made in Charleston before the writer thereof had any opportunity of conference with his co-workers, and carried with him to the Convention.’” Jameson, Studies, p. 120, note.
- ↑ Appendix A, ⅩⅦ.
