Moderates: Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

Probably the best known of the moderates is Elbridge Gerry, memorialized in the word Gerrymander.  Like other moderates, Gerry favored a government with authority over individuals and opposed giving the states equal representation in the Senate, but generally distrusted centralization.  His most nationalistic pronouncement came up during the debate on equality in the Senate:

[W]e never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty. He was a member of Congress at the time the federal articles were formed. The injustice of allowing each State an equal vote was long insisted on. He voted for it, but it was agst. his Judgment, and under the pressure of public danger, and the obstinacy of the lesser States. The present confederation he considered as dissolving. The fate of the Union will be decided by the Convention. If they do not agree on something, few delegates will probably be appointed to Congs. If they do Congs. will probably be kept up till the new System should be adopted. He lamented that instead of coming here like a band of brothers, belonging to the same family, we seemed to have brought with us the spirit of political negociators [sic].

This appears to be an endorsement of the general concepts of the Virginia Plan -- a government with authority over individuals, representing the people as individuals. Gerry served in the committee that first proposed the Great Compromise.  He grudgingly assented in its report, saying, "We were however in a peculiar situation. We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations. We ought not therefore to pursue the one or the other of these ideas too closely."  Unlike some other moderates, Gerry did see giving the House sole authority to initiate money bills as a significant concession.  If Senators voted as individuals instead of by states, he would reluctantly support the compromise, rather than risk seeing the country split apart.

Otherwise, Gerry was deeply mistrustful of the central government and outspoken in his opinions.  Already distrustful of the whole process, he called federal control of the militia, "[T]he last point remaining to be surrendered. If it be agreed to by the Convention, the plan will have as black a mark as was set on Cain." He would "as lief let the Citizens of Massachussets be disarmed, as to take the command from the States, and subject them to the Genl. Legislature. It would be regarded as a system of Despotism."  Although shaken by Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts, he was "agst. letting loose the myrmidons of the U. States on a
State without its own consent."  Unlike other moderates, Gerry wanted federal representatives to be paid by the federal government, rather than the states.  On the other hand, he opposed allowing federal authority to establish forts in states.  He opposed dividing states.

In the end, Gerry refused to sign the Constitution.  Among his objections, he listed the power of Congress to regulate elections, the danger that Congress' authority to regulate trade might include licensing monopolies, the power of the legislature to make all laws "necessary and proper," and to raise money and armies without limit.

Moderates: Charles Cotesoworth Pinckney and John Rutledge

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (South Carolina):

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, also of South Carolina, was a cousin of Charles Pinckney.  Madison distinguished them by referring to him as "General Pinckney."  When Randolph first proposed the Virginia Plan, General Pinckney questioned whether the convention had the authority to propose an entire new system and seconded a motion that instead of calling for a "national" government simply called for a "more effective" government "to carry into execution the Design of the States."  He wanted to leave "a considerable share of power in the States," and proposed to have the state legislatures elect the national legislature, saying the states would be jealous and try to thwart the national government unless given participation in it.

On the nationalist side, he appears to have opposed giving each state equal representation in the Senate, saying that giving the House sole authority to originate money bills was not significant concession, although he also opposed disbanding the Convention over the issue.  His most nationalist position was to favor federal federal regulation of the militia.  Speaking from experience in the Revolutionary War, General Pinckney said that uniformity was essential, and that states could not be counted upon to maintain proper discipline.  Furthermore, he saw no reason to distrust the general government on this issue at least, and favored federal control of the entire militia.

On the other hand, he wanted each state to be allowed to decide which ports would be ports of entry (ports involved in foreign trade), and wished to allow national representatives to hold state office, in order to increase state influence in the federal government.

John Rutledge (South Carolina):

John Rutledge did not like the vague proposal in the original Virginia Plan to give the federal government power in all area for which the states were "incompetent."  He preferred a more specific designation of what those powers should be.  He did, however, believe that the federal Congress would have enough business to require it to meet every year.

Like the rest of the South Carolina delegation, Rutledge opposed equal representation in the Senate.  Instead, he proposed giving each state one, two, or three delegates, depending on their "relative importance."  He apparently favored making representation of all states in both houses proportionate to their tax quotas.  When the convention reached its ultimate deadlock on Senate representation, he somewhat ambiguously said:

[He] could see no need of an adjournt. because he could see nochance of a compromise. The little States were fixt. They had repeatedly & solemnly declared themselves to be so. All that the large States then had to do, was to decide whether they would yield or not. For his part he conceived that altho' we could not do what we thought best, in itself, we ought to do something.

This appears to be a grudging agreement to the Great Compromise. Rutledge did not favor giving the federal government power to establish trial courts or regulate elections.