MADISON AS A WITNESS
Having now seen what Pinckney said in 1818 and what he did and where he
stood, let us turn to the other party in the controversy, Madison, and
examine the testimony which he gave and the evidence on which he relied.
His journal (as edited by Gilpin) after setting forth the speech of
Randolph on the 29th of May, and the reference of the 15 resolutions of
the Virginia delegates, to the Committee of the Whole, contains this
record:
"Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the house a draught of a
federal government to be agreed upon between the free and
independent states of America."
"Ordered that the same be referred to the Committee of the
Whole appointed to consider the state of the American
Union."
But Yates's Minutes give us one thing more: "Mr. Pinckney, a member from
South Carolina, then added that he had reduced his ideas of a new
government to a system, _which he then read_."
Madison's report of Pinckney's speech on the 25th of June stops with the
subject of State governments and the propriety of having but one general
system. But Yates gives in a condensed form the conclusion of Pinckney's
speech and contains the following sentences:
"I am led to form the second branch (of the legislature) differently
from the report. I have considered the subject with great attention and
I propose this plan (reads it) and if no better plan is proposed I will
then move its adoption."
Once while reflecting upon the extraordinary, the seemingly inexplicable
course which Madison pursued in relation to the Pinckney
draught--positive and yet evasive; alleging but never testifying--my eye
happened to fall on this minute of Yates and it suggested the fact of
these repeated omissions of Madison's to state the contents of the
Pinckney draught, and I asked myself the question, is it possible that
Madison never knew what the draught contained? In an examination of the
facts relating to this question I found that the entry in the journal,
above quoted, "Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the house a draught"
etc. had been taken word for word from the entry of the Secretary of the
Convention in the official Journal. I found also that at four different
times in the course of the debates Madison designated the draught by
four different terms; as Mr. Pinckney's "plan" as Mr. Pinckney's
"resolutions" as Mr. Pinckney's "motion" as Mr. Pinckney's
"propositions," not one of which expressed the idea of a formulated
Constitution. It is therefore evident that Madison did not hear Pinckney
read his draught as Yates did, and did not hear him say as Yates did,
"that he had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system." My
inference then was and still is, that Madison was temporarily absent
from the hall when Pinckney produced and read his draught and that on
hearing of it he went to the Secretary's desk and copied the entry in
the official journal--an entry which is also silent as to Pinckney
having read the draught and which describes it in language entirely
different from Yates's and entirely different from Pinckney's, for
Pinckney's draught does not profess to be an agreement "between the free
and independent States of America," but is avowedly an act of the people
of the United States. It therefore appears both positively and
negatively that Madison was not present when Pinckney presented his
draught; that he could not have heard Pinckney's designation of it as a
"system" and could not have heard Pinckney read it to the Convention. He
regrets in another place that he did not take a copy of it because of
its length and it may be inferred from what may be termed his unfailing
ignorance of its contents that he did not read it because of its length.
Madison had a poor opinion of Pinckney, a very poor opinion; and he held
fast to it all through his life. During the sitting of the Convention
the draught was referred to repeatedly in discussions and motions and
references. Madison recorded what was said, and the more important of
the motions and references, but his opinion of Pinckney was so poor that
he did not put himself to the trouble of stepping to the Secretary's
desk and reading the draught, much less of taking a copy of it. In
October 1787, after the dissolution of the Convention, he wrote from New
York to Washington and Jefferson, the following letters:
James Madison to General Washington.
NEW YORK, Octr. 14, 1787.
* * * * *
"I add to it a pamphlet which Mr. Pinckney has submitted to the public,
or rather as he professes, to the perusal of his friends, and a printed
sheet containing his ideas on a very delicate subject, too delicate in
my opinion to have been properly confided to the press. He conceives
that his precautions against any further circulation of the piece than
he himself authorizes, are so effectual as to justify the step. I wish
he may not be disappointed. In communicating a copy to you, I fulfill
his wishes only."
(Gaillard Hunt's Writings of Madison, Vol. V., p. 9.)
Madison to Jefferson.
NEW YORK, Octr. 24, 1787.
* * * * *
"To these papers I add a speech of Mr. C. P. on the Mississippi
business. It is printed under precautions of secrecy, but surely could
not have been properly exposed to so much risk of publication."
(Id., p. 39.)
Madison to General Washington.
NEW YORK, Oct. 28, 1787.
* * * * *
"Mr. Charles Pinckney's character is, as you observe well marked by the
publications which I enclosed. His printing the secret paper at this
time could have no motive but the appetite for expected praise; for the
subject to which it relates has been dormant a considerable time, and
seems likely to remain so."
(Id., p. 43.)
In the memorandum "For Mr. Paulding" written shortly before April 6,
1831, reappears Madison's poor opinion of Pinckney. "It has occurred to
me that a copy (of the Observations) may be attainable at the printing
office, if still kept up, or in some of the libraries or historical
collections in the city. When you can snatch a moment, in your walks
with other views, for a call at such places, you will promote an object
of some little interest as well as _delicacy_ by ascertaining whether
the article in question can be met with."
On the 25th of November, 1831, he wrote to Jared Sparks, "I lodged in
the same house with him, and he was fond of conversing on the subject.
As you will have less occasion than you expected to speak of the
Convention of 1787, may it not be best to say nothing of this _delicate_
topic relating to Mr. Pinckney, on which you cannot use all the lights
that exist and that may be added?"
On the 6th of January, 1834, he wrote to Thomas S. Grimke:
"There are a number of other points in the published draught, some
conforming most literally to the adopted Constitution, which, it is
ascertainable, could not have been the same in the draught laid before
the Convention. The conformity, and even identity of the draught in the
Journal, with the adopted Constitution, on points and details the
results of conflicts and compromises of opinion apparent in the Journal,
have excited an embarrassing curiosity often expressed to myself or in
my presence. The subject is in several respects a _delicate_ one; and
it is my wish that what is now said of it may be understood as yielded
to your earnest request, and as entirely confined to yourself. I knew
Mr. Pinckney well, and was always on a footing of friendship with him.
But this consideration ought not to weigh against justice to others, as
well as against truth on a subject like that of the Constitution of the
United States."
And on the 5th of June, 1835, he wrote to William A. Duer:
"I have marked this letter 'confidential,' and wish it to be considered
for yourself only. In my present condition enfeebled by age and crippled
by disease, I may well be excused for wishing not to be in any way
brought to public view on subjects involving considerations of a
_delicate_ nature."
Madison wrote with characteristic caution and courtesy but there is
something very suggestive in the way he uses the word "delicate."
Neither Mr. Paulding nor Mr. Sparks nor Mr. Grimke nor Judge Duer could
have doubted that there was something wrong in the draught--something so
wrong that Madison did not wish to speak of it.
It is manifest that when Madison first read the draught in the State
Department, he was surprised. He does not say so, and is very guarded in
what he does say; yet it is perfectly plain that the magnitude of this
contribution to the Constitution was something absolutely new to him. He
better than any other man was supposed to know, the work and workings of
the Convention, and lo, here was a document of more importance than any
given in his journal, or found among the records of the Convention, and
of its contents he had been ignorant until the document was laid before
the world by the State Department!
Between 1818 and 1836, the magnitude of this and its importance as an
historical document was forced upon Madison's attention from time to
time by younger men who took a warmer interest in the Constitution and
its history and its framers than their fathers had taken; and it is
apparent that he was astounded at the historical importance of the
document. Marshall was then drawing near to the end of his majestic
judicial reign, and though assailed and thwarted by the cavilings and
dissents of lesser men, had placed his imperishable impress upon the
Constitution and revealed to his countrymen its greatness and
consistency and power of nationality. The growing interest in the great
instrument would not be quieted. Madison would fain have kept silent, as
he advised his two most trusted correspondents to do. But he could not!
He was the greatest of authorities, living or dead, in all that
pertained to the making of the Constitution; the last living member of
the Convention; the sole chronicler of its secret history. It is as
plain now as it was then that he must speak. What could he say?
Madison was not able to say, "I read the Pinckney draught when it was
before the Convention, I studied it, I knew the contents well; the paper
in the State Department is not a substantial duplicate of that paper."
There remained then but this alternative; he must confess that he knew
no more about the Pinckney draught than did the men who were
interrogating him or he must do precisely what he did do, he must attack
it on documentary evidence as an advocate, and must remain silent as a
witness. If he had testified as a witness; if he had said of his own
knowledge that the paper which Pinckney placed in the State Department
was not a copy of the paper which he had laid before the Convention and
was not a substantial duplicate worthy of consideration, that would have
been the end of the matter. Certainly I should never have felt called
upon to make the present investigation. But Madison did not so testify.
Under the pressure of steadily increasing interest in the Constitution,
inquirer after inquirer came to him to explain how a man whom they did
not regard as a wise statesman could have contributed so much to the
Constitution, which they had regarded as the composite work of a number
of great men. They did not come to him for reasons or advice or
references to documentary evidence, but because he was the one survivor
of the men who could have testified, the only chronicler of what had
happened in the Convention from first to last, and they sought his
personal knowledge. They asked him to tell them what he knew concerning
the Pinckney draught, the original draught, the one which was before the
Convention; and he answered not a word! We must reject Madison as a
witness because he rejected himself.