Charles Pinckney: The Forgotten Framer and Originator of the Article V Limited Convention
Kenn Quinn, Northern Regional Director with U.S. Term Limits
If you like a good mystery and enjoy learning about the framing of the U.S. Constitution, then go grab yourself a fresh cup of coffee and settle in for a fascinating story. I stumbled upon this nugget while researching the formulation of the amendment process in Article V during the Federal Convention of 1787. In all the books and articles that I have read in regards to this subject, none of them have mentioned the story that I am about to share with you.
There is a Framer of the Constitution who has been so ignored by the vast majority of constitutional scholars that his contributions at the Convention have been virtually erased from our history. This member of the Convention is not only responsible for most of the provisions found in Article V, but quite possibly, he is responsible for contributing more provisions contained in the Constitution than any other delegate.  I felt compelled to write this article because I believe it is important that this person finally receives due recognition for all his effort in helping to establish our Constitution and especially for introducing the amending provisions contained in Article V.
This information also sheds new light on the intent of the Framers in regards to their understanding that an Article V convention would be limited to the topic of the applications submitted by two-thirds of the states, and not an open convention that could propose any amendment, which is erroneously advocated by many today.
George Mason Mistakenly Attributed for Introducing the Article V Convention
George Mason of Virginia is commonly recognized as the delegate most influential for introducing the convention mode into Article V, which provides the states equal authority with Congress in proposing amendments to the Constitution. This is primarily because of his strong support early in the debates of a resolution that provided for the amending of the Constitution without the consent of the national legislature.  On September 15th, the last working day of the Convention, he opposed the wording of Article V because it left the proposing of amendments up to Congress upon the application by two-thirds of the states.
Mason argued that the states should not depend on Congress to propose the amendments they applied for, because that body may become recalcitrant and refuse.  This prompted delegates, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, to move to amend so as: “to require a convention on application of two thirds of the states.” This motion was agreed to unanimously by the Convention. 
So, technically, it was not George Mason who introduced the convention into Article V, but rather delegates Morris and Gerry upon their motion, but nonetheless, it was because of Mason’s insistence that the Convention amended the provision.
Although Mason was a major contributor during the debates, the fact remains that he not only rejected Article V, but he rejected the entire Constitution by refusing to sign his name to the document, along with Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph and Delegate Elbridge Gerry. Mason left the Convention and opposed the ratification of the Constitution and became a leading anti-Federalist in his state of Virginia. After the Convention adjourned, he wrote his objections to the Constitution and sent it to a number of his friends including George Washington, stating all his reasons for opposing it. 
The real credit for introducing the convention provision in Article V does not belong to those three delegates on the last working day of the Convention, but to the delegate who introduced it in a system of government which he codified and presented on the very first working day of the Convention! The name of that delegate is Charles Pinckney from South Carolina.
Charles Pinckney Advocated for a Convention of the States Prior to the Annapolis Convention
Charles Pinckney from South Carolina served in the state legislature before being elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1784, where he remained in office until shortly after the Convention adjourned. Concerned over the weakness of the Articles of Confederation in being able to provide stability in the government and preserve the Union, Pinckney has been credited with being the initiator in Congress to call a Convention of the States to strengthen the Confederation.  
The following statements and actions demonstrate his determination to correct the imbalance of power between the federal government and the states. Pinckney was appointed by Congress, along with Delegates Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts and William Grayson of Virginia to deliver a stern warning to the New Jersey Legislature for refusing to comply with a requisition from the previous Congress. On March 13, 1786 Pinckney delivered the message in which he stated: “If New Jersey conceives herself oppressed under the present confederation, let her, through her delegates in congress, state to them the oppression she complains of, and urge the calling of a general convention of the states for the purpose of increasing the powers of the federal government and rendering it more adequate for the ends for which it was instituted;” 
A few months later, Pinckney continued his drive in Congress for a convention to revise the powers of the Confederation, but to no avail: “Congress must be invested with greater powers, or the federal government must fall. It is, therefore, necessary for congress either to appoint a convention for that purpose, or by requisition to call on the states for such powers as are necessary to enable it to administer the federal government.” 
Having no success in calling a convention, Pinckney requested a grand committee to begin working on amendments to the Articles of Confederation.  He was appointed chairman of the sub-committee, and drafted seven amendments which were reported to Congress on August 7th. 
Congress ignored the amendments as it waited for the outcome of the Annapolis Convention being held the following month.  Frustrated with the inability of Congress to accomplish the necessary changes, Pinckney took matters into his own hands and began to prepare a system of government that he would eventually present the following year in Philadelphia, which was the formal recommendation from the Annapolis Convention: “to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union:”  This was the opportunity Pinckney was waiting for and he diligently prepared his plan before arriving in Philadelphia.
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina Presents System of Government at the Beginning of the Convention
On Monday, May 29th the first substantial day of work began at the 1787 Federal Convention and Pinckney moved that a committee be appointed to superintend the minutes. Gouverneur Morris objected to it, stating: “The entry of the proceedings of the Convention belonged to the secretary as their impartial officer. A committee might have an interest and bias in moulding the entry according to their opinions and wishes.” The motion failed 5 nays, 4 ays. 
Now, I may be assuming too much here, but I believe Pinckney made this motion because he sensed there was going to be a bias leveled against him during the Convention and he did not want his contributions to go unnoticed. As one of the youngest members of the Convention, at age of twenty-nine, and among some of the leading statesmen in the country, perhaps he felt he would not be taken seriously by his colleagues and all of his hard work prior to arriving at the Convention would be overlooked. Or, maybe he believed that only one secretary would not be able to keep up with all of the activity of such a large gathering, and a committee would be better able to serve and record the proceedings. I will leave it up to the reader to decide, but my hunch is that it is the former.
If that motion had passed, the name of Mr. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina would probably be as well known today as the names of Washington, Madison, and Hamilton, but unfortunately, his contributions to our Constitution and his name have been relegated to obscurity.
Immediately after the vote for a committee, Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph opened the main business of the Convention by introducing fifteen resolutions, which he explained one by one, commonly referred to as the Virginia Plan, which was drafted by James Madison.  It was resolved that these resolutions would be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
Following Randolph’s opening, Madison in his Notes, mentions that: “Mr. Charles Pinkney laid before the house the draught of a federal Government which he had prepared to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of America. Mr. P. plan ordered that the same be referred to the Committee of the whole appointed to consider the State of the American Union.” 
However, Madison does not provide any details in regards to this draft of a federal government, and for the remainder of the Convention, refers to it only a few times by a variety of different terms, but not again as a draft of a federal government. 
In the Notes recorded by New York Delegate Robert Yates at the Convention, we find two short, but material additions not included in Madison’s Notes. On May 29th, Yates records that Pinckney read his new system of government after he laid it before the house. Then again on June 25th, after a long and inspirational speech by Pinckney, Yates records that he proposed his plan and read it again. In both of these instances, Madison remains silent about Pinckney reading his plan of a government to the Convention. 
Pinckney’s system of government was never debated among the members of the Convention  and on July 26th was referred to the Committee of Detail along with the New Jersey Plan and the amended Virginia Resolutions.  That was the last the Convention saw of the Pinckney Plan. Or was it?
Charles Pinckney’s Incredible Contributions or Inconceivable Plagiarisms?
In “The Mystery of the Pinckney Draught”, Charles C. Nott provides an overview of what happened after the Convention as it relates to Pinckney’s system of government;
On the adjournment of the Convention its records and papers were placed under seal and the obligation of secrecy was set upon its members. When ultimately the seals were broken and the package was opened, more than thirty years afterwards, the draught of Pinckney was not found. John Quincy Adams then Secretary of State applied to Pinckney for a copy; and he on the 30th of December 1818, sent to the Secretary of State the duplicate or copy of the draught now in the Department of State. The document was published and remained unquestioned until in 1830, six years after the death of Pinckney, it came, or was brought, to the attention of Madison; and he at different times wrote to at least four persons concerning it and also prepared a statement which was subsequently published with it in Gilpin’s edition of Madison’s Journal, and in Elliot’s Debates; and then the Pinckney draught slept unnoticed in constitutional publications until a review in the columns of the Nation awakened an interest in Mr. Worthington C. Ford and he in 1895 published the letter which accompanied the draught when it was placed in the State Department. Nevertheless, if the copy in the Department is identical in terms, or substantially identical in terms, with the paper which Pinckney presented to the Convention, then Charles Pinckney contributed more of words and provisions to the Constitution of the United States than any other man. And this draught so prepared by him was so largely adopted in a silent way that the law student who might chance to read it, not knowing of the comment of Madison and its rejection by all commentators, would be tempted to speak of the Constitution of the United States as the constitution of Pinckney. 
When Madison was asked about these astounding similarities later in his life, he approached the topic very carefully and in his Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney, May 29, 1787, which was published posthumously in his Journal, he attempts to discredit it by claiming the copy that Pinckney submitted to the Department of State was filled with errors and that the similitude was caused by insertions made by Pinckney due to his lapse of memory of certain events more than thirty years apart from when they occurred.  Unfortunately, Madison’s statements against the copy would forever taint Pinckney’s Draft as a plagiarism. 
One of the individuals who corresponded with Madison about the Pinckney Draft was Jared Sparks. In a letter dated November 14, 1831, Sparks states the following and then proceeds to list his reasons for believing that the Committee of Detail did indeed use the provisions provided in the Pinckney Draft as the basis for Constitution:
“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.” 
Charles C. Nott’s analysis has demonstrated the validity of the copy of Pinckney’s Draft submitted to the State Department in 1818 as being a copy of the actual draft he submitted to the Convention on May 29th and concludes:
Pinckney prepared a draught; it was presented to the Convention; it was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and thereby made accessible to every member of the Convention; it was referred to the Committee of Detail and thereby placed at the disposal of the committee and brought directly to the notice and knowledge of every member; the Committee never returned it to the Convention and it has not been found among the papers of any one of them; Pinckney published a description of it within a month after the adjournment of the Convention; and a month later re-published the description in a newspaper. In 1818 he authorized the publication of a paper which he certified to be a substantial copy of the draught; it was immediately published with the first publication of the secret journal of the Convention and widely disseminated as a public document; at the time of publication 16 members of the Convention were living who must have desired, we must assume, to see the journal of the proceedings in which they had personally taken part; and when they received the journal received with it a copy of Pinckney’s draught; and yet when Pinckney died more than six years afterwards no surviving member of the Convention had denied or questioned the verity of the published draught. 
Observations On The Plan of Government Submitted to The Federal Convention,
in Philadelphia, on the 28th of May, 1787“ 
By Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY, Delegate from the State of South-Carolina.
Delivered at different Times in the course of their Discussions.
The “Observations” were written by Pinckney and he had it published less than a month after the adjournment of the Convention. In it, he describes the articles contained in his system of government which he presented at the Convention.  This publication has been used as a source to both deny and confirm the copy of the Pinckney Draft in the State Department. 
As you will see in the Observations, Pinckney certainly was an advocate for a Convention of the States. In the first quote below, he explains that the current government should have been created by a Convention of the States and ratified by the people instead of how it was formed under the Articles of Confederation:
“That it ought to have been formed by a Convention of the States, expressly delegated for that purpose, and ratified by the authority of the people. This indispensable power it wants; and is, therefore, without the validity a federal Constitution ought certainly to have had…”
The second excerpt is Pinckney’s description of the amending provision in Art. XVI of his Plan of Government which he presented to the Convention on May 29th:
“The 16th article proposes to declare, that if it should hereafter appear necessary to the United States to recommend the Grant of any additional Powers, that the assent of a given number of the States shall be sufficient to invest them and bind the Union as fully as if they had been confirmed by the Legislatures of all the States. The principles of this, and the article which provides for the future alteration of the Constitution by its being first agreed to in Congress, and ratified by a certain proportion of the Legislatures, are precisely the same;…”
It is difficult to form a Government so perfect as to render alterations unnecessary; we must expect and provide for them;.. the alterations that nine think necessary, ought not to be impeded by four — a minority so inconsiderable should be obliged to yield. Upon this principle the present articles are formed,…”
In this final excerpt, Pinckney addresses the failure of Congress in securing additional powers for the Confederation and how the upcoming Convention of the States in Philadelphia, hopefully, will be able to preserve the Union:
“There have been frequent but unsuccessful attempts by Congress to obtain from the States the grant of additional powers, and such is the dangerous situation in which their negligence and inattention have placed the Federal concerns, that nothing less than a Convention of the States could probably prevent a dissolution of the Union. Whether we shall be so fortunate as to concur in measures calculated to remove these difficulties, and render our Government firm and energetic, remains to be proved. A change in our political System is inevitable; the States have wisely foreseen this, and provided a remedy. Congress have sanctioned it.”
The evidence is incontrovertible that Pinckney’s Draft was used by the Committee of Detail as the basis of the Constitution. Now let’s move on to the amending provision in Pinckney’s Draft which will demonstrate that he deserves to be recognized as the originator of the Article V convention and that such a convention could only be called if two-thirds of the states applied for the same amendment(s), a limited convention.
Comparison of Amending Provisions of Virginia and Pinckney Plans to the Draft of the Committee of Detail
On August 6th the Convention reconvened and the Committee of Detail reported its draft of a Constitution. Since the New Jersey Plan did not alter the amending provision under the Articles of Confederation, it will not be included in this comparison. The text of the amending provisions from the Virginia and Pinckney plans are compared to the provision in the draft reported by the Committee of Detail below:
Virginia Plan presented on May 29th as altered by the Committee of the Whole House
17. “Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the amendment of the articles of union whensoever it shall seem necessary.”
Pinckney Plan presented May 29th
Art. XVI. “If two thirds of the legislatures of the states apply for the same, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for the purpose of amending the constitution. Or should Congress, with the consent of two thirds of each house, propose to the states amendments to the same, the agreement of two thirds of the legislatures of the states shall be sufficient to make the said amendments parts of the constitution.”
Draft of a Constitution Reported by the Committee of Detail on August 6th
Art. XIX. “On the application of the legislature of two thirds of the states in the Union for an amendment of this Constitution, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose.”
The similarities between Pinckney’s Art. XVI and Art. XIX of the draft reported by Committee of Detail reveal that the committee worked off of Pinckney’s plan, as both include the following provisions, but none of them are contained within the Virginia Plan:
- Call of a convention by the legislature (Congress) of the United States.
- Applications required from two-thirds of the state legislatures.
- Applications need to be for the same amendment.
- Convention has full power to amend the Constitution.
On September 15th, after the Convention approved the text of the amending provision, now designated as Article V, it becomes very obvious when you compare it to Pinckney’s Art. XVI, that the Convention restored several of Pinckney’s original provisions. Below is a comparison between the main section of Article V with Pinckney’s Art XVI, and although some of the provisions are not exactly the same, they are very similar;
Amending provision of U.S. Constitution
Article V. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;…”
- Convention called by the legislature (Congress) of the United States.
- Applications required from two-thirds of the state legislatures.
- Convention has the power to propose (not amend, as in Pinckney’s Art. XVI) amendments.
- Congress may propose amendments with agreement from two-thirds of each house.
- Congressional amendment requires the agreement of the state legislatures (Article V adds conventions).
The Convention is Limited to the Subject of the Applications of Two-Thirds of the States
Today there is a lot of confusion in regards to whether an Article V convention can be limited to proposing specific amendments, or is it an open convention, that would allow the proposing of an unlimited number of amendments on unlimited subjects.
The Framers were very deliberate men and for them not to have provided us any evidence as to their intent for the purpose of such a convention during their debates, seems completely unfathomable. This is what caused me to take another look at the development stages of the amending provision of Article V and why Pinckney’s Draft is so important to this issue.
As we have seen in Pinckney’s Art. XVI, the intent, and language is undeniable, the states would need to apply for the same subject in order to have the convention called by the legislature (Congress): “If two thirds of the legislatures of the states apply for the same, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for the purpose of amending the constitution.” How can it be stated any clearer than that? The requirement that the applications be for the same amendment(s) was established on day one when Pinckney read his plan to the Convention. There is no proof whatsoever to even suggest that the members of the Convention interpreted the provision to be anything other than a limited convention.
When the Committee of Detail reported its draft of the Constitution on August 6th, Art. XIX retained similar wording; “On the application of the legislature of two thirds of the states in the Union for an amendment of this Constitution, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose.” The convention would be called to amend the Constitution for the purpose (an amendment) stated in the applications from the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. At this stage of development, the text of the provision gave the convention full power to not only propose, but also to amend the Constitution.
I’m sure some of you are thinking: “but they did not include the words “apply for the same” or “for that purpose” in Article V, so this means they meant it to be an open convention.” The Convention did not need to add those words to the text because this requirement was the established meaning of the provision. To demonstrate this, all we need to do is read the words of Madison before the vote on the motion: “to require a convention on application of two thirds of the states.” Up to this point, the wording of Article V only authorized Congress to propose amendments, even upon the applications from two-thirds of the states, which as I mentioned earlier, is what George Mason strongly objected to.
Here is the text of Article V when Madison made his comment: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the legislatures of the several states, shall propose, amendments to this Constitution…” The meaning is given to us by Madison as he; “did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the states, as to call a convention on the like application.” Madison thought it would be redundant for Congress to call a convention because it was already bound to propose the amendments applied for by two-thirds of the states. How could Congress propose amendments applied for by the states without specifying those amendment(s) in their applications?
Now, this is a very important point because it provides us insight as to the intent of this provision. The phrases “amendments applied for” and “on the like application” by Madison, along with “apply for the same” from Pinckney’s Art. XVI, and “for that purpose” from the Committee of Details Res. XIX, were not in the text of Article V, but that is exactly how it was being interpreted by the Convention.
The vote adding, “convention for proposing amendments” into Article V only removed the dependence on Congress to propose the amendment(s) and transferred that authority exclusively to the states. It did not change the requirement that applications from two-thirds of the states had to be for the same amendment(s), nor the purpose of the convention, to propose those specific amendments. This was the clear intention of the members as they formulated the text of the amending provision during the course of their debates, which is now embodied in Article V.
This is only the tip of the iceberg in regards to the evidence supporting that an Article V convention is a limited convention. In a future article, I plan to provide extensive evidence that continues to demonstrate this fact.
I highly recommend that you compare the Virginia and Pinckney plans to the draft Constitution reported by the Committee of Detail. You will be astonished to see how much it resembles Pinckney’s Plan and how many of his provisions are contained in it.
Although Pinckney was not an originator of most of these provisions, as many of them were taken directly from the Articles of Confederation, the New York Constitution, and the Massachusetts Constitution, he nonetheless is the individual that collated all of them into one complete system of government prior to arriving at the Convention and it was used as the basis of the Constitution. 
It is estimated that Pinckney contributed up to forty-three provisions found in the Constitution  and in regards to Article V, he deserves to be recognized as the originator of the provision for a limited convention.  Pinckney, along with all the other Framers were not perfect men, and some of their ideas we would not share, but it is undeniable that he was a major contributor to the forming of our Constitution. It is unfortunate that a man of such forethought, who arrived at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia with a complete Constitution in his hands to present to the states, has been basically erased from our constitutional history.
Let’s Call an Article V Convention for Proposing a Term Limits Amendment for Congress
I am a Regional Director for U.S. Term Limits and we are planning to implement this provision that Pinckney and the Framers gave us in Article V, by having two-thirds of the states submit applications for a limited convention to propose a Term Limits Amendment for Congress. The American people have wanted term limits on Congress for decades, but Congress refuses to propose such an amendment. Thankfully, the Framers provided us a solution in Article V that allows the states to propose the amendments desired by the people if Congress refuses. Term limits for Congress is one of the most popular issues among voters today, with a high level of support across political ideologies, age, race, and gender. This issue is completely non-partisan and if you want to get involved in something historical that will help restore our Congress to a body of citizen legislators instead of career politicians, then please consider helping us by signing our petition and getting involved in your state. It is time for We The People to take action and use the Constitution as the Framers intended us to use it. For more information please visit www.termlimits.com.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908. page 6.
 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as reported by James Madison, revised and newly arranged by Jonathan Elliot. Complete in One Volume. Vol. V. Supplement to Elliot’s Debates (Philadelphia, 1836). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1909#Elliot_1314-05_2038
 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as reported by James Madison, revised and newly arranged by Jonathan Elliot. Complete in One Volume. Vol. V. Supplement to Elliot’s Debates (Philadelphia, 1836). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1909#Elliot_1314-05_5579
 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as reported by James Madison, revised and newly arranged by Jonathan Elliot. Complete in One Volume. Vol. V. Supplement to Elliot’s Debates (Philadelphia, 1836). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1909#Elliot_1314-05_5580
 “To George Washington from George Mason, 7 October 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0331. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, vol. 5, 1 February 1787 – 31 December 1787, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997, pp. 355–358.]
 Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1986. page 94.
 Charles Singer, South Carolina, p. 83. (as cited by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1986, page 93.
 George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United, Volume II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885, page 187
 George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United, Volume II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885, page 189
 George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United, Volume II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885, page 190
 Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1986, page 94.
 Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1986, page 94.
 Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, Annapolis in the State of Maryland, September 11, 1786. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/annapoli.asp
 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as reported by James Madison, revised and newly arranged by Jonathan Elliot. Complete in One Volume. Vol. V. Supplement to Elliot’s Debates (Philadelphia, 1836). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1909#Elliot_1314-05_1602
 Virginia (Randolph) Plan as Amended (National Archives Microfilm Publication M866, 1 roll); The Official Records of the Constitutional Convention; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, Record Group 360; National Archives
 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). Vol. 1. 9/13/2018. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#Farrand_0544-01_199
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, page 31.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, pages 29,30.
 John Franklin Jameson, Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787, From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, Vol. I, V. The Text of the Pinckney Plan, Washington, Government Printing Office, page 111.
 The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as reported by James Madison, revised and newly arranged by Jonathan Elliot. Complete in One Volume. Vol. V. Supplement to Elliot’s Debates (Philadelphia, 1836). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1909#Elliot_1314-05_3301
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, page 4.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, pages 6-9.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, pages 57, 79.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, page 149.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, pages 201,202.
 Charles Pinckney, Observations On The Plan of Government Submitted to The Federal Convention, in Philadelphia, on the 28th of May, 1787 https://www.consource.org/document/charles-pinckney-observations-on-the-plan-of-government-submitted-to-the-federal-convention-in-philadelphia-1787-5-28/
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, page 90.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, pages 141, 142.
 Charles C. Nott, The Mystery of the Pinckney Draft, The Century Co., 1908, page 263.
 S. Sidney Ulmer, James Madison and the Pinckney Plan (as cited by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1986, page 97.
 Andrew C. McLaughlin, The American Historical Review, Volume IX, October 1903 to July 1904, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1904, page 740.