The Inscrutable South Carolina: Somewhere Between Old Democracy and Mixed Government

If the South Carolina delegation scores low on new democracy, it scores low on old democracy as well, though never endorsing anything like mixed government.  Consider its position on old democracy issues:

Intermediate length terms:  Recall that old democracy set great stock in annual elections, while true advocates of mixed government wanted a Senate that served for life, or at least a very long term and a long term for the executive. South Carolina fit somewhere in between.  South Carolina’s electoral system worked on a two-year cycle so, not too surprisingly, the South Carolinians wanted to synchronize national elections to their cycle.  Rutledge favored a two-year term for the House, and South Carolina joined with New England in opposing a three-year term.  General Pinckney favored a four-year term for the Senate as opposed to a six-year term, fearing that Senators serving a six-year term would settle in at the capital and become alienated from their constituents. None of the other South Carolinians spoke up on the subject, but South Carolina did vote against nine, seven, six  and five year terms.  Charles Pinckney favored a seven-year term for the executive or, alternately, six years with a prohibition on consecutive terms.  Rutledge favored a single seven-year term.  Butler was less clear what the executive term should be, but he opposed too-frequent elections because it was inconvenient for the distant states to send electors often.

No need to restrict money bills to the House:  South Carolina required all money bills to originate in the lower house.  This apparently caused problems because all four South Carolinians opposed requiring money bills to originate in the lower house.  Both Charles Pinckney considered the matter
of no importance.  General Pinckney said South Carolina’s restriction of money bills to the lower house had led to serious disputes between the houses and was often evaded.  Rutledge likewise said the South Carolina restriction was constantly “dividing & heating” the houses and was evaded by the Senate demanding certain changes in order to approve a bill.  Butler saw no need to forbid the Senate from originating money bills, since they were not a House of Lords.

Ambivalence about the executive:  Recall that old democracy views the executive with deep suspicion, while mixed government wants to make the President a sort of limited monarch.  Here, too, South Carolina took an intermediate view.  Three of the four South Carolinians spoke out for a single executive.  Charles Pinckney seconded Wilson’s original motion for a single executive and renewed the motion the next day, though he said the executive should not have the power of war and peace or he would become a monarch.  Rutledge said much the same, and that a single executive would feel the greatest "responsibility."   Butler said that the members of a plural executive would constantly be quarreling and that this would be particularly harmful in military matters. 

Otherwise, it was on executive power that the South Carolina delegates disagreed most.  Charles Pinckney seconded Morris’s motion for an advisory council, but believed the council should not be able to bind the President, or it would either obstruct him or shelter him.  The executive should exercise his veto alone, without joining the department heads or the judges.  He favored a two-thirds, rather than three-quarters vote to override an executive veto. He opposed making the President impeachable by the legislature, saying that making the executive impeachable by the legislature would destroy his independence and would not be necessary if his power could be limited enough. He favored legislative appointment of judges and the treasurer and ambassadors, with sole executive appointment of all other officials.  At the end of the Convention, Charles Pinckney said he was signing the Constitution even though he disapproved of the "contemptible weakness and dependence" of the executive.  

The others said less on the subject.  Rutledge opposed including judges in the executive veto.  He opposed absolute executive appointment of judges as monarchical but favored executive appointment of the treasurer.  Butler considered opposed an absolute executive veto as too much power in danger of abuse and thought the executive should suspend, rather than veto, bad laws.  He would allow the Senate to make treaties of peace without the consent of the President to prevent the President from trying prolong a war in order to aggrandize his own power.  On the other hand, advocated giving the executive the sole power to decide when to go to war, a decision that shocked Elbridge Gerry.  General Pinckney said almost nothing on the subject, except that he favored executive appointment of the treasurer.

Moderate views or opposition to legislative eligibility to executive office:  I would consider this the core, defining issue of old democracy.  The South Carolina delegation generally either favored the restriction or had moderate views. Charles Pinckney did not think legislators should be ineligible to office.  The representatives who had the people’s confidence should not be treated as suspect.  He hoped the legislature would attract talent and become a training ground for future officials.  In order prevent corruption, he proposed to make legislators ineligible to offices they create or increase in pay or requiring them to resign from the legislature upon being appointed.  Rutledge, on the other hand, wanted the national legislature to be ineligible to executive office to keep them “as pure as possible” and prevent corruption.  Butler wanted legislators to be ineligible to office to avoid the corruption that had "ruined" the British government.  Ineligibility only to offices the legislature creates or increases in pay was not sufficient.  General Pinckney did not address the issue.

Bill of Rights:  Charles Pinckney was one of the leading advocates of guarantying the rights of individuals.  He moved for what amounted to a bill of rights, calling for protecting freedom of the press, requiring legislative approval of all troops and strict civilian control of the military, no quartering of troops in people’s houses and no religious tests for office.  He also moved to forbid the suspension of habeas corpus except in emergencies and for only twelve months, to prohibit religious tests for office, to preserve freedom of the press and to guaranty jury trial in civil cases.  General Pinckney also approved of forbidding religious tests for office holding.  Rutledge wanted to declare the writ of habeas corpus inviolable, saying that he could not conceived that suspension would ever be necessary at the same time in all the states. 

Looking over this list of positions, I am inclined to say that the South Carolina delegation's ideology is best described as somewhere between old democracy and mixed government, generally rejecting new democracy.