What do you think?
Rate this book
Forgotten Founder: The Life and Times of Charles Pinckney
Pinckney (1757-1824) is best known as the representative of South Carolina to the 1787 Constitutional Congress, where he presented one of the few complete drafts of government for the new nation. Later he broke with his Federalist family and supported the election of Democratic-Republican Jefferson to the presidency in 1800. Matthews strives to revive his memory in this revision of his doctoral dissertation in history for the University of South Carolina. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
186 pages, Hardcover
First published August 15, 2004
25 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 13, 2024
Pinckney is the man most instrumental, along with Aaron Burr, in getting Jefferson elected in 1800, because he made sure his state voted for him and not for his first cousin, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
This book kind of shows the difference between the first tier founders and the rest. While this individual had a lot of talent, intelligence and good ideas, it was not uniformly so. He also made some significant mistakes.
He was similar to Jefferson, in a lot of ways, actually:
- traveled to Europe on diplomatic mission
- toured the south of France
- left his post to visit Italy to study rice cultivation
- lost a wife early and took up with a slave mistress
- enslaved hundreds
- endlessly interested in politics
- mismanaged his estates
- spent heavily on luxuries
- went disastrously into debt
- had a sex scandal (being caught in an abandoned Washington house with a
"mulatto wench")
But unlike the Virginians, who tried to excuse slavery with the "wolf by the ears" analogy ("we have no way out of it"), the South Carolinians tried to justify it as a positive good.
Pinckney also seems to have had some blind spots in human relations. Even though they were on the same side, Pinckney repeatedly made a major enemy of Madison, though it was not really his fault all that much.
First, in the Continental Congress he wrote a vociferous letter against Jay's proposal to trade away the rights to navigation in the lower Mississippi. While an important issue for the southern states, his letter was over the line of decency. Monroe persuaded him not to send it, but also forwarded it to Madison back in Virginia, who saw him as an overly factious person ever after.
At the constitutional convention, Pinckney presented a plan, even before Virginia presented Madison's plan. This plan was quite close to what the conventioned ended on so that later when Pinckney wrote about this fact, Madison saw it as trying to steal his thunder.
Finally, Pinckney seems to have never understood that Madison did not like
him, yet kept writing letters asking for his help in getting a diplomatic assignment. That probably only earned him a lot more eye rolling and disdain.
Pinckney did seem to get along well with Jefferson and Monroe though, always more friendly and gregarious than Madison was.
The book does not seem particularly thorough. For example, Pinckney had a lot to do with getting his state to vote for Jefferson and Burr in 1800, but the book says almost nothing about the process of making it happen in the legislature, even though a great deal of this information is known.
It is also stated in some books that Pinckney was the one who was supposed to arrange withholding an electoral vote from Burr in 1800 so as to avoid an electoral college tie, but somehow failed to do so (and the dreadful tie happened to the disorganized Jeffersonians - in contrast, the more organized Hamiltonians always successfully withheld a vote). There is nothing about this in the book at all. Even if the author doesn't have a definitive answer, he could at least have discussed it.
The book doesn't even explain how its subject was related to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a frequent source of confusion. Yeah, it's easily looked up, but would it be so difficult to recount such a basic fact here? Maybe these complaints are a way of saying that the book is overly academic and assuming a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader.
Look, for example, at this quote from p. 111:
This is the only reference to this Jefferson letter in the entire book. What the heck! Even if you're a professional historian, do you really know Jefferson's correspondence so well that you remember the content of a letter he wrote to Monroe in early 1804? Would it have killed to author to let the reader know what Jefferson said? By the way, Graham was Pinckney's secretary/assistant, but a Madison protege.
I tracked down Jefferson's letter, by the way, and here is what he wrote:
The footnote to this online letter states
Strangely these newspaper accusations were not addressed in the book.
When Pinckney left for Spain, he hired a cousin as caretaker for his estates. When he got back not only did he owe a lot of money to people, his caretaker, who was also employed at the South Carolina treasury, was accused of embezzling treasury funds. This caretaker in turn accused Pinckney of having encouraged him to do it. The book never reaches any conclusion on whether these accusations were true or not.
This book kind of shows the difference between the first tier founders and the rest. While this individual had a lot of talent, intelligence and good ideas, it was not uniformly so. He also made some significant mistakes.
He was similar to Jefferson, in a lot of ways, actually:
- traveled to Europe on diplomatic mission
- toured the south of France
- left his post to visit Italy to study rice cultivation
- lost a wife early and took up with a slave mistress
- enslaved hundreds
- endlessly interested in politics
- mismanaged his estates
- spent heavily on luxuries
- went disastrously into debt
- had a sex scandal (being caught in an abandoned Washington house with a
"mulatto wench")
But unlike the Virginians, who tried to excuse slavery with the "wolf by the ears" analogy ("we have no way out of it"), the South Carolinians tried to justify it as a positive good.
Pinckney also seems to have had some blind spots in human relations. Even though they were on the same side, Pinckney repeatedly made a major enemy of Madison, though it was not really his fault all that much.
First, in the Continental Congress he wrote a vociferous letter against Jay's proposal to trade away the rights to navigation in the lower Mississippi. While an important issue for the southern states, his letter was over the line of decency. Monroe persuaded him not to send it, but also forwarded it to Madison back in Virginia, who saw him as an overly factious person ever after.
At the constitutional convention, Pinckney presented a plan, even before Virginia presented Madison's plan. This plan was quite close to what the conventioned ended on so that later when Pinckney wrote about this fact, Madison saw it as trying to steal his thunder.
Finally, Pinckney seems to have never understood that Madison did not like
him, yet kept writing letters asking for his help in getting a diplomatic assignment. That probably only earned him a lot more eye rolling and disdain.
Pinckney did seem to get along well with Jefferson and Monroe though, always more friendly and gregarious than Madison was.
The book does not seem particularly thorough. For example, Pinckney had a lot to do with getting his state to vote for Jefferson and Burr in 1800, but the book says almost nothing about the process of making it happen in the legislature, even though a great deal of this information is known.
It is also stated in some books that Pinckney was the one who was supposed to arrange withholding an electoral vote from Burr in 1800 so as to avoid an electoral college tie, but somehow failed to do so (and the dreadful tie happened to the disorganized Jeffersonians - in contrast, the more organized Hamiltonians always successfully withheld a vote). There is nothing about this in the book at all. Even if the author doesn't have a definitive answer, he could at least have discussed it.
The book doesn't even explain how its subject was related to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a frequent source of confusion. Yeah, it's easily looked up, but would it be so difficult to recount such a basic fact here? Maybe these complaints are a way of saying that the book is overly academic and assuming a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader.
Look, for example, at this quote from p. 111:
Perhaps Madison's own distaste for Pinckney influenced John Graham before he even began working for the South Carolinian. THis influence may in turn have led to the unflattering letters Graham wrote Madison soon after Pinckney arrived. In any event, one of the people in Washington to whom Jefferson referred in his letter to Monroe of early 1804 likely included his secretary of state. James Monroe, however, continued to support Pinckney.
This is the only reference to this Jefferson letter in the entire book. What the heck! Even if you're a professional historian, do you really know Jefferson's correspondence so well that you remember the content of a letter he wrote to Monroe in early 1804? Would it have killed to author to let the reader know what Jefferson said? By the way, Graham was Pinckney's secretary/assistant, but a Madison protege.
I tracked down Jefferson's letter, by the way, and here is what he wrote:
there is here a great sense of the inadequacy of C. Pinckney to the office he is in. his continuance is made a subject of standing reproach to myself personally, by whom the appointment was made & on a principle of distribution solely before I had collected the administration. he declared at the time that nothing would induce him to continue so as not to be here at the ensuing Presidential election. I am persuaded he expected to be proposed at it as V.P. after he got to Europe his letters asked only a continuance of two years. but he now does not drop the least hint of a voluntary return. pray, my dear Sir, avail yourself of his vanity, his expectations, his fears, and whatever will weigh with him to induce him to ask leave to return, and obtain from him to be the bearer of the letter yourself. you will render us in this the most acceptable service possible. his enemies here are perpetually dragging his character in the dirt, and charging it on the administration. he does, or ought to know this, and to feel the necessity of coming home to vindicate himself, if he looks to any thing further in the career of honor.
The footnote to this online letter states
not only was Charles Pinckney a disappointment to TJ and Madison as minister to Spain, but the Federalist press frequently abused his personal character, especially his alleged fondness for women of low repute. The Trenton Federalist went so far as to describe him as “one of the greatest libertines of the age” (Washington Federalist, 23 Feb. 1803; Baltimore Republican; or, Anti-Democrat, 11 Mch. 1803; Baltimore Federal Gazette, 8 Apr. 1803; Trenton Federalist, 11 Apr. 1803; Madison to TJ, 9 Apr. 1804).
Strangely these newspaper accusations were not addressed in the book.
When Pinckney left for Spain, he hired a cousin as caretaker for his estates. When he got back not only did he owe a lot of money to people, his caretaker, who was also employed at the South Carolina treasury, was accused of embezzling treasury funds. This caretaker in turn accused Pinckney of having encouraged him to do it. The book never reaches any conclusion on whether these accusations were true or not.
dnf-bc-life-is-too-short
September 21, 2020Another DNF for me. I read 50 pages, and then started asking myself if he was worth pursuing. Up to this point these were my notes:
Apparently he was 29 at the constitutional convention, but told everyone he was 24 so he could be counted as the youngest. The book says it could be an oversight, but apparently he kept repeating this as a fact many years later.
It's not really a hagiography, but to me it reads almost like a proud parent writing about their son. An example:
"Despite the maturity and experience of Gorham and Grayson, they allowed the junior member of their committee (Pinckney) to deliver the major address to the New Jersey Legislature" (p. 33)
He submitted a plan at the constitutional convention, which wasn't adopted, but years later (1818), at John Adams' request, he sent him what he recollected as being his plan, which basically contained many ideas in the constitution. James Madison said most of these points were not correct and that Pinckney hadn't originally mentioned them. The author states Madison had beef with him, but I'm not really convinced. (pp 42-43)
Anyway, then I read on wikipedia that he introduced the Fugitive slave clause and didn't accomplish too much else, so I figured life is too short to keep reading about his.
Apparently he was 29 at the constitutional convention, but told everyone he was 24 so he could be counted as the youngest. The book says it could be an oversight, but apparently he kept repeating this as a fact many years later.
It's not really a hagiography, but to me it reads almost like a proud parent writing about their son. An example:
"Despite the maturity and experience of Gorham and Grayson, they allowed the junior member of their committee (Pinckney) to deliver the major address to the New Jersey Legislature" (p. 33)
He submitted a plan at the constitutional convention, which wasn't adopted, but years later (1818), at John Adams' request, he sent him what he recollected as being his plan, which basically contained many ideas in the constitution. James Madison said most of these points were not correct and that Pinckney hadn't originally mentioned them. The author states Madison had beef with him, but I'm not really convinced. (pp 42-43)
Anyway, then I read on wikipedia that he introduced the Fugitive slave clause and didn't accomplish too much else, so I figured life is too short to keep reading about his.
September 19, 2025
Very well and entertainingly written. The author uses too much conjecture and suppositions to paint a positive portrait of a subject that he obviously admires. Every deficiency seems to have an (unfounded) explanation. Why not trust his contemporaries who seem to have universally disliked the man? Maybe Pinckney's entire reputation was not an unfortunate accident based on a single incident.... Maybe he was just an ass.
March 9, 2012
After a trip to Charleston recently i fell in love with place. So will admit i came away with a lot of books. This book however deeply affected me. As the life of this great man leapt out of the pages it became as if i was reading about a family member. Variously crying at his impassioned pleas for the British to free their prisoners and feeling outrage at Madison's unfair tarring of Mr Pinkney the author has taken a dry academic thesis and turned it into a window into this forgotten champion of liberty. Not glossing over the slavery issue that we rightly feel shame for, what emerges is a complex man very much of his times. A great read about a great man who suffered much from the slings and arrows of lesser men. This is a sensitive book and worth reading again and again.
January 1, 2011
I discovered in the middle of the book, that there wasn't much of a thesis except that we may or many not have forgotten him because of misinformation that clouded his reputation.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews