THE SILENCE OF MADISON
Up to this point the draught in the State Department has been considered
precisely as Madison desired it should be considered; that is to say
upon his objections. The inquiry moreover has been confined to the final
indictment which he drew up, to-wit, the "Note of Mr. Madison to the
Plan of Charles Pinckney," and to the evidence which he adduced to
sustain it, to-wit Pinckney's Observations and letter and Madison's
Journal of the Convention. But there is another chapter which must be
considered, a chapter of facts and circumstances forming an unseen part
of the strategy which his cautious policy supplied.
In his letters to Sparks and the others as in the final "Note," there is
a studious comparison instituted between the draught in the State
Department and the Constitution itself. There is also an argument
implied that the draught in the Department cannot possibly be identical
with the draught presented to the Convention because it contains some
provisions which Pinckney opposed in the Convention. A student whose
inquiries were limited to early editions of Madison's Writings might
draw from them two extenuating inferences, the first of which would be
that the weakened memory of age and infirmity had failed to bring before
Madison the proper instrument for comparison, the draught of the
Committee of Detail; the second that he had never heard of Pinckney's
letter to the Secretary of State and knew not that Pinckney had notified
the Secretary that the copy which he sent was not a literal reproduction
of the lost draught and that it, like the original, contained provisions
which on further reflection he had opposed in the Convention.
In the spring of 1830 Mr. Jared Sparks passed a week with Madison at
Montpelier and on his return to Washington sent to him the following
letter:
"WASHINGTON, May 5th, 1830.
"Since my return I have conversed with Mr. Adams
concerning Charles Pinckney's draught of a constitution. He
says it was furnished by Mr. Pinckney, and that he has
never been able to hear of another copy. It was accompanied
by a long letter (written in 1819) now in the Department of
State, in which Mr. Pinckney claims to himself great merit
for the part he took in framing the constitution. A copy of
this letter may doubtless be procured from Mr. Brent,
should you desire to see it. Mr. Adams mentioned the
draught once to Mr. Rufus King, who said he remembered such
a draught, but that it went to a committee with other
papers, and was never heard of afterwards. Mr. King's views
of the subject, as far as I could collect them from Mr.
Adams, were precisely such as you expressed."
Here it may be noted that what Mr. Adams heard from Mr. King is recorded
in his Memoirs, May 4, 1830, Vol. VIII, p. 225. It is only what Sparks
reported to Madison. Mr. King had not seen the draught, and had not
heard any one narrate what its provisions were. Indeed his doubts and
suspicions seem to have been founded on no other fact than that he did
not hear it talked about. Like Madison, he was a witness who could
testify to nothing, not even to hearsay.
On the 24th of May, 1831, Mr. Sparks, who was then at work on his life
of Gouveneur Morris, again wrote to Madison.
"BOSTON, May 24, 1831.
"In touching on the Convention, I shall state the matter
relating to Mr. Pinckney's draught, as I have heard it from
you, and from Mr. Adams as reported to him by Mr. King.
Justice and truth seem to me to require this exposition. I
shall write to Charleston, and endeavor to have the draught
inspected, which was left by Mr. Pinckney. Your
explanation, that he probably added particulars as they
arose in debate, and at last forgot which was original and
what superadded, is the only plausible way of accounting
for the mystery, and it may pass for what it is worth.
Should anything occur to you, which you may think proper to
communicate to me on the subject, I shall be well pleased
to receive it."
Madison felt so solicitous about the inquiry in Charleston that on the
21st of June he wrote to Sparks, asking to be informed of the result "as
soon as it is ascertained."
But on the 16th of June Sparks had written to Madison the following
letter which could not have reached him when he wrote on the 21st.
"BOSTON, June 16th, 1831.
"I have procured from the Department of State a copy of the
letter from Mr. Charles Pinckney to Mr. Adams, when he sent
his draught for publication. This letter is so conclusive
on the subject that I do not think it necessary to make any
further inquiry. It is evident, that the draught, which he
forwarded, was a compilation made at the time from loose
sketches and notes. The letter should have been printed in
connexion with the draught. I imagine Mr. Pinckney expected
it. He does not pretend that this draught was absolutely
the one he handed into the Convention. He only 'believes'
it was the one, but is not certain.
"Should you have leisure, I beg you will favor me with your
views of this letter. It touches upon several matters
respecting the history and progress of the Convention. Do
these accord with your recollection? I would not weary or
trouble you, but when you recollect that there is no other
fountain to which I can go for information, I trust you
will pardon my importunity."
When Sparks wrote his hasty letter of June 16th he was evidently writing
under two misapprehensions. The first was that he supposed the question
involved was whether the draught on file was an exact copy of the lost
original; the second was that its verity depended entirely on Pinckney's
accompanying letter. To his inquiry what did Madison think of that
letter, Madison made no reply.
But in the course of the next five months Sparks cleared his mind of the
above misapprehensions and freed himself from the authority of Madison's
opinion; and his strong and well trained mind analysed the facts
involved and grasped the real problem of the case. This analysis and
this problem he set clearly before Madison in the following letter.
"BOSTON, November 14th, 1831.
"My mind has got into a new perplexity about Pinckney's
Draught of a Constitution. By a rigid comparison of that
instrument with a Draught of the Committee reported August
6th they are proved to be essentially, and almost
identically, the same thing. It is impossible to resist the
conviction, that they proceeded from one and the same
source.
"This being established, the only question is, whether it
originated with the committee, or with Mr. Pinckney, and I
confess that judging only from the face of the thing my
impressions incline to the latter. Here are my reasons.
"1. All the papers referred to the committee were
Randolph's Resolutions as amended, and Patterson's
Resolutions and Pinckney's Draught without having been
altered or considered. The committee had them in hand nine
days. Their Report bears no resemblance in form to either
of the sets of resolutions, and contains several important
provisions not found in either of them. Is it probable that
they would have deserted these, particularly the former,
which had been examined seriatim in the convention, and
struck out an entirely new scheme (in its form) of which no
hints had been given in the debates?
"2. The language and arrangement of the Report are an
improvement upon Pinckney's Draught. Negligent expressions
are corrected, words changed and sentences broken for the
better. In short, I think any person examining the two for
the first time, without a knowledge of 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.
"3. If this conclusion be not sound, it will follow that
Mr. Pinckney sketched his draught from the Committee's
Report, 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 for forming the Constitution of
the United States.
"Will you have the goodness to let me know your opinion? If
I am running upon a wrong track I should be glad to get out
of it, for I like not devious ways, and would fain have
light rather than darkness.
"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?
This silence of Madison's is a most curious instance of his sagacious
and adroit management. It was not his business to direct attention to
this troublesome final issue and he did not. The "Note of Mr. Madison to
the Plan of Charles Pinckney" would be published; the letters of Sparks
to himself might never see the light. Indeed I can give this tribute to
his adroitness--that this book was written in the belief that Madison,
never knew of Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, and that his
weakened mind had overlooked the draught of the Committee of Detail; and
it was not till the book was finished that I found the letters of Sparks
above quoted and was compelled thereby to supply this chapter, and
modify what I had elsewhere written.