University of Virginia Library

TO THOMAS S. GRIMKE.

Dear Sir Your letter of the 21st of Augst last
duly recd, and I must leave the delay of this
acknowledgment of it to your indulgent explanation.
I regret the delay itself less than the scanty supply
of autographs requested from me. The truth is that

my files have been so often resorted to on such
occasions, within a few years past, that they have
become quite barren, especially in the case of names
most distinguished. There is a difficulty also,
not readily suggesting itself, in the circumstance,
that wherever letters do not end on the first or third
page, the mere name cannot be cut off without the
mutilation of a written page Another circumstance
is that I have found it convenient to spare my
pigeon holes, by tearing off the superscribed parts
where they could be separated; so that autographs
have been deprived even of that resource.

You wish to be informed of the errors in your
pamphlet alluded to in my last. The first related
to the proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a
religious service in the Federal Convention. The
proposition was received and treated with the respect
due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded,
with considerations growing out of it, had the effect
of limiting what was done, to a reference of the
proposition to a highly respectable Committee.
This issue of it may be traced in the printed Journal.
The Quaker usage, never discontinued in the State
and the place where the Convention held its sittings,
might not have been without an influence as might
also, the discord of religious opinions within the
Convention, as well as among the clergy of the spot.
The error into which you had fallen may have been
confirmed by a communication in the National
Intelligencer some years ago, said to have been
received through a respectable channel from a member

of the Convention. That the communication
was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension
or misrecollection, uncertain.

The other error lies in the view which your note L
for the 18th page, gives of Mr. Pinckney's draft
of a Constitution for the U. S., and its conformity
to that adopted by the Convention. It appears that
the Draft laid by Mr. P. before the Convention, was
like some other important Documents, not among
its preserved proceedings. And you are not aware
that insuperable evidence exists, that the Draft
in the published Journal, could not, in a number
of instances, material as well as minute, be the same
with that laid before the Convention. Take for an
example of the former, the Article relating to the
House of Representatives more than any, the
corner stone of the Fabric. That the election of it
by the people as proposed by the printed Draft
in the Journal, could not be the mode of Election
proposed in the lost Draft, must be inferred from
the face of the Journal itself; for on the 6th of June,
but a few days after the lost Draft, was presented
to the Convention, Mr. P. moved to strike the word
"people" out of Mr. Randolph's proposition; and
to "Resolve that the members of the first branch
of the National Legislature ought to be elected
by the Legislatures of the several States. But there
is other and most conclusive proof, that an election
of the House of Representatives, by the people,
could not have been the mode proposed by him.
There are a number of other points in the published

Draft, some conforming most literally to the adopted
Constitution, which it is ascertainable, could not
have been the same in the Draft laid before the
Convention. The Conformity & even identity of the
Draft in the Journal, with the adopted Constitution,
on points & details the result of conflicts and compromizes
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. P. 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 U. S.

The propositions of Mr. Randolph were the result
of a Consultation among the seven Virginia Deputies,
of which he, being at the time Governor of the
State was the organ. The propositions were prepared
on the supposition that, considering the prominent
agency of Virga. in bringing about the Convention,
some initiative step might be expected from that
quarter. It was meant that they should sketch a
real and adequate Govt. for the Union, but without
committing the parties agst. a freedom in discussing
& deciding on any of them. The Journal shews
that they were in fact the basis of the deliberations
& proceedings of the Convention. And I am persuaded
that altho not in a developed & organized

form, they sufficiently contemplated it; and moreover
that they embraced a fuller outline of an adequate
system, than the plan laid before the Convention,
variant as that, ascertainably must have been, from
the Draft now in print.

Memo.—No provision in the Draft of Mr. P.
printed in the Journal for the mode of Electing the
President of the U. S.