Q: What did you find?

A: Among many other important Wilson documents contained in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania's vaults, I found a document entitled “Continuation of the Scheme” followed by an outline of the Constitution.  This document “continues” the abruptly-truncated “We the People” beginning of another draft (yes, James Wilson was the initial author of what became our Preamble) written upside-down on the back of another draft of the Constitution.

Q: Is what I found wholly new?

A: No.  This draft was transcribed and pieced together by Yale historian Max Farrand in 1911, and printed in The Records of the Federal Convention in Volume 2, pages  150-152.  It is also available, labelled as document “V” here: 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1786&chapter=95966&layout=html&Itemid=27

Q: Was it lost?

A: I would characterize it instead as “forgotten.”  The document was safe and sound.  However, I found this piece of constitutional history, along with many of Wilson's other important political documents detailing his role in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a box ubiquitously labelled “Volume 2” among James Wilson's papers.  (I don't remember “James Wilson” being written anywhere on the box, but I'll defer to Lee Arnold of HSP here; however, it was obscure enough that no HSP employee could find it and why they allowed me into the back vaults to peruse the shelves of otherwise well-labelled boxes of Wilson documents.)  All of these important documents were uncatalogued, which means 1) HSP did not know about them (although scholars and researchers like myself knew they must be at HSP based on Farrand's documentation), and 2) no one could find them.  

Q: Should HSP be blamed for “forgetting” this document?

A: Absolutely not.  As I posted this morning on their very good online scholarly discussion (http://processandpreserve.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/what-constitutes-a-physical-copy-of-the-u-s-constitution/#comment-130), I don’t  believe that criticism here is in order. Whatever lack of filing or misfiling may have occurred, it happened long ago, sometime between 1911-1970. What HSP needs is funding, not criticism. From what I understand, 75% of their documents, and yes, I will continue to call them national treasures, are uncatalogued. This “find,” or, as I have categorized it, “(re)discovery” brings to light that much more funding is needed to unearth the many documents in their collections. Who knows what else we might find?

Q: If this draft is not new nor was it lost, what is its significance?

A: Because no one has had access to “Continuation of the Scheme” since at least 1970 if not 1911, it was impossible to determine how Farrand compiled or transcribed (the process of translating handwritten script into prose format) the documents for the Committee of Detail he included in his three-volume tomes.  Scholars took it for granted (I certainly did) that Farrand was right.  This (re)discovery demonstrates that the Committee of Detail document Farrand labelled “V” in Wilson's hand was in fact written on non-contiguous papers that were different sizes and widely different styles.  Was Farrand right in fitting them together? Were they actually, physically together at any one time?  Regardless of their physical proximity, because the documents follow the flow of the Constitution's current structure, and because one professes to “continue” another document via its title, I believe Farrand was right.  

Further, and more importantly, the way this document is written―part of it in prose, written upside-down on the back of the start of another, more elaborate draft, the rest written in a hurried, disjointed outline―is important.  Wilson was an incredibly polished man, of whom another Constitutional Convention delegate said, “No man is more clear, copious, and comprehensive than Mr. Wilson.”  He was imposing, and articulate in extemporaneous speech and in his writing.  I don't believe Wilson would write in such a disjointed, halting manner while in the company of others.  Rather, I believe Wilson worked alone.  This first, early draft was of a piece with the second. If he worked alone on the first and second drafts, certainly he worked alone on the third.  Why would he suddenly work in private and then open the final drafting up to the four other Committee of Detail members for whom he was preparing a draft?  This third and final Wilson draft, submitted to the Committee of Detail, was, in turn, and with comparatively insignificant changes, printed and submitted as the committee's report to the convention.  This report, again with many but comparatively small changes, became the U.S. Constitution.  

All of this to say that, after careful review of all relevant documents (thanks to the generosity of HSP), I believe Wilson worked alone in drafting the Constitution and might better be labelled its premier Founding patriarch.  Wilson may be to the Constitution what Jefferson was to the Declaration of Independence.  

Q: Did Wilson in fact write a third draft of the Constitution?

A: Yes.  At least I am prepared to say so.  In this, I side with Yale historian Max Farrand (1869-1945) in piecing the two very different documents together. I side with Farrand in putting them with the other Committee of Detail documents, and with the same kind of title and prominence he gives to the other drafts. I am, however, currently alone in calling these two disparate pieces a “draft.” I am not aware of any commonly-accepted historical or legal definition for labeling something a “draft.” I guess it depends on whether you characterize a bit of prose and a bit of outline as a draft or not. Jameson certainly called the document outlining resolutions as discussed by the Committee of Detail in Randolph’s hand a “draft,” even though it similarly contained portions of prose and outline. Perhaps we should be comparing the pieces in Wilson’s hand to that in Randolph’s? In any event, I define a draft as a logically-connected set of papers which evidences the thought processes of an individual in preparing a more final product, prose or not.

(This answer is again taken from the ongoing scholarly discussion at http://processandpreserve.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/what-constitutes-a-physical-copy-of-the-u-s-constitution/#comment-130)

Q: Where can I read about your research?

A: I have submitted a scholarly article where I discuss my find and its significance in-depth.  When it has been accepted for publication, I will post the link on ConSource.