Of Two Men and Two Worlds: Pinckney and Wilson in the Constitutional Struggle, Essay Example

Constitutional delegates Charles Pinckney and James Wilson represented more than different states; they represented different worlds. In the years following the American Revolution, the Constitution would become the document that transformed each colony from a small country within a larger country to a unified United States. This, like the men themselves, did not come without conflict and controversy. In these early debates, the inevitability of the Civil War is already apparent, as Charles Cotesworth Pinckney boldly stated that “if Congress had the power to regulate trade, the southern states would be ‘nothing more than overseers for the Northern States’” (Bruns).

The Pinckney’s represented South Carolina and spoke for both the south and the smaller states. After escaping the clutches of the English monarchy, they were not the only opponents of centralized government. Patrick Henry, whose words had stirred so many Americans to action during the Revolutionary War, declared that he would not be in attendance for he “smelt a rat” (Bruns). However, the issue of the derision between North and South extended along the lines of both representation and viewpoints concerning slavery. Northerners felt that representation should be divided evenly according to a proportionate representation of the population and that slavery negated the concepts of freedom and equality upon which the new government was formed; southerners felt that representation should be equal regardless of population and that slavery was a time-honored institution which contributed to the success of the country and was beyond the authority of the nation. Two of the greatest players in the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson of Pennsylvania and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, represented the larger concerns of the country and of the North and South, respectively.

Interestingly, Pinckney argued for a detailed record of the minutes during the Convention- but was defeated by a fear of the damage of misreporting and information manipulation. Perhaps even more intriguing, Pinckney had offered up his own representational solution to be offered up for consideration along with the Virginia Plan. He expressed his wonder at the liberality of the Randolph plan, asking if the new proposal for federal government intended to abolish states altogether. The detailed notes of James Madison only record the offer and note that the Convention was adjourned. This vague consideration of any aspect of the Convention’s daily events was uncharacteristic of Madison and highly peculiar, and Madison’s role in Pinckney’s extraction from Constitutional importance even extended so far as to persuade early historical authors to minimize the South Carolina representative’s contributions. Regardless, modern citizens can only guess from a few hints what plan of action Pinckney had initially proposed (Beeman 84-99).

The Pinckney Plan had been called the Avalon Project. His plan involved a legislation-Senate of two branches and a Congress- much like the final adopted government. Despite the belief that slaves were so inferior as to be fairly labeled as property, Pinckney asserted that their vote should account for three-fifths of that accorded to a white man. This ploy allowed white masters to attempt to persuade or force their slaves to vote according to the master’s desires and also to increase the southern states’ representation in the Senate. A Council for Revision- instead of the president alone- would retain the power to affect legislative development. Another notable suggestion of the Pinckney Plan was that the Senate and the House of Delegates would together determine who would fill the office of President (Tansill). Perhaps it was for the best that only aspects of this plan were adopted. After all, one convention could not agree on even the simplest measures of centralized government, so the chaos of joint elections for the executive branch would have proven to be a continual trial of patience and stalling tactics.

James Wilson was a man who often committed but rarely followed through. After touring the colleges of England in search of a degree (and not finding it), he came to America and used his connections from tutoring to petition for an honorary degree. He spoke with great vehemence and passion- but had a habit of leaving in a hurry, as he did when the Pennsylvania Congress deposed him for two weeks and when he fled from state to state to escape his debt in later years (“James Wilson” 1; Bruns).

After arguing so forcefully for independence, Wilson was initially tentative with his support for the Constitution but was later chosen to read Benjamin Franklin’s speech urging the delegates’ support of the new plans. He was unsure about where Pennsylvania stood (“James Wilson”). The Pennsylvania citizens acted on their support of the Constitution by forcibly detaining their anti-Federalist delegates (Bruns). Needless to say, Wilson understood and voted to ratify the Constitution. After the anti-Federalist fervor died down and he was no longer hung in effigy, Wilson faded away into obscurity (“James Wilson”). As we wrote earlier, this acceptance of the Constitution, like the delegates themselves, did not come without conflict and controversy. Just as it did during the Revolution, it demanded a tribute of the lifeblood of many great men. Ironically, Wilson was the vehicle for the survival of Pinckney’s Plan. One of the only original documents regarding the plan was found in Wilson’s belongings.

Conclusion

It could reasonably be argued that the ratification of the Constitution was a battle against the self-justification of several perspectives according to what best suited their needs. That is not to say that they were not- as Beeman’s ironical title claimed- plain, honest men– but that their pursuits were never without personal agenda. In our discussion of Pinckney’s Plan we discovered several themes of hypocrisy: considering slaves property and still desiring to benefit from their humanity through the utilization of the vote, Madison’s obsessive desire to keep the upstart Pinckney from taking his rightful place in Constitutional history, and moral men pandering to the state population by whom they were elected. Slavery and states’ rights would have the last word engraved on the tombstones of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The Constitutional collusion was responsible. Peacock though Pinckney might have been, his plan asked for the Virginia Plan to give but a little. They would not yield, and later the world would burn for it.

Works Cited

Beeman, Richard. Plain, Honest Men. 2010. Random House Trade Paperbacks. Print.

Bruns, Roger. “Constitution of the United States: A History”, A More Perfect Union : The Creation of the United States Constitution: 33. 1986. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html. Web.

Independence Hall Association. “James Wilson”. July 4 1995. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wilson.htm. Web.

Tansill, Charles. “The Plan of Charles Pinckney (South Carolina), Presented to the Federal Convention”.  Yale Law School. Retrieved from             http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pinckney.asp. Web.