Moderate Nationalists: Charles Pinckney of South Carolina

Given the state's later history, it may seem surprising that the final moderate nationalist was Charles Pinckney of South Carolina.  Yet the South did not become firmly established as a bastion of state's rights until it became clear that it would be a permanent minority region.  At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the South was undoubtedly a minority region, but it was not clear that its status would be permanent.  In the earlier stages of the Convention, when the larger states supported the more centralized Virginia Plan and the small states the less centralized New Jersey Plan, three states consistently voted along with the large states of Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania for a more centralized government -- North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.  The answer appears to be that population was growing more quickly in the South than the North, so the South expected demographics to favor it.  Besides, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland were geographically small and therefore had little room to grow.  The Deep Southern states had plenty of land to expand into.  Though not large states, they voted as aspiring large states.  The South became firmly committed to states' rights only when industrial development in the North gave it an ever-growing population advantage, making clear that these aspirations would not come about.

South Carolina had four major delegates, more than any other state.  Interestingly, although the overall delegation consistently voted for the more centralized Virginia Plan and against equality in the Senate, only Charles Pinckney* was its only delegate who truly rates in the nationalist category.  Pinckney appears to have proposed his own plan of government, but no record survives of what it was.  The one thing that is clear about the plan is that he did not believe the national legislature would be able to make good laws for the whole, so states must remain to "prevent confusion."

Like other moderate nationalists, Pinckney opposed giving all states equal representatives in the Senate, but believed the full proportionality would make the Senate too large.  Instead, he proposed having each state have one, two, or three Senators, depending on its size.  Interestingly, at least one reason he opposed full equal representation was so that the southern states could protect their interests.  Alternately, he proposed each state having half as many Senators as Representatives (odd numbers rounded up).  He did not see giving the House sole authority to originate money bills as a serious concession in return for equality in the Senate.

Pinckney also favored giving Congress the power to charter corporations; establish seminaries of learning; grant patents; create public institutions to encourage agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures; but not to regulate elections.  However, his strongest expression of nationalism was his support for a federal veto of state laws.  He considered such a rule indispensably necessary to defend the national prerogative and keep states in due subordination, and to keep them from violating federal laws and treaties, which they had done before.  Long after everyone else had abandoned the federal veto, Pinckney once again proposed it, this time by a 2/3 vote.  This proposal was met with many objections, including how it would be done.  Would all state laws be transmitted to the national legislature, would they be repealable by the national legislature, or would state executives be federally appointed, with such a veto.  "Mr. PINKNEY declared that he thought the State Executives ought to be so appointed with such a controul, & that it would be so provided if another Convention should take place."  Apparently, then he joined with Hamilton in favoring federally appointed state governors with an absolute veto, similar to royal governors of colonies.  This point never even reached the debate stage.

NEXT UP:  Moderate nationalists.