Moderates: Hugh Williamson and Pierce Butler

Like moderate nationalists, the moderates favored the Virginia Plan over the New Jersey Plan and opposed equal representation in the Senate.  However, while moderate nationalists looked upon a stronger central government as positive and creative, the moderates saw threat as well as promise in it.  They agreed that that the central government should have authority over individuals as well as states, but they wanted to preserve more state agency in it.  In particular, moderates indignantly opposed the federal veto of state laws.  Most also believed that states should pay federal representatives.  Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (yes, he of the Gerrymander) is the best known of the moderates today.  The others came from the Deep Southern states of North Carolina or South Carolina – medium states that aspired to be large.

Hugh Williamson (North Carolina):

Like others in this category, Hugh Williamson's most significant nationalist position was that he opposed equal representation in the Senate.  Just as states give greater representation to larger counties, Congress should give greater representation to larger states.  He was willing to see the issue sent to committee, but he did not like the proposed Great Compromise, as he did not consider giving the House sole authority to originate money bills as any significant concession by small states.  On the other hand, after the Great Compromise was reached, when some delegates proposed to allow the Senate to originate money bills, he threatened to take back equality in the Senate.

In most other regards, Williamson was less of a nationalist.  Like most moderates, he believed members of Congress should be paid by states.  He considered the happiness of the people to depend on the continued existence of states and believed that if state officials were required to take an oath to uphold the federal constitution, then federal officials should be required to take an oath to uphold state constitution.  When Gouverneur Morris made the rash remarks quoted above, Williamson attempted to be conciliatory.  “He did not conceive the [Mr. Gov’r Morris] meant that the sword ought to be drawn against the smaller states.  He only pointed out the probable consequences of anarchy in the U.S.”

Pierce Butler (South Carolina):

South Carolina had four delegates who made a significant contribution to the convention, more than any other state.  One of these was Pierce Butler.  Butler had initial misgivings about the Virginia Plan.  He feared that it took too much power from the states, particularly with the vague phrase giving the National Legislature power “in all cases to which the State Legislatures were individually incompetent,” which could run into an extreme and destroy “all balance and security of interests among the States which it was necessary to preserve.”  He did, however, believe that a bicameral legislature and separations of powers would make it safer to give increased powers to the new government than the old Continental Congress.  Like other moderates, Butler opposed equal representation in the Senate and did not consider giving the House sole authority to originate money bills to be a significant concession in exchange.*   However, he did not want to base the Senate on population, but on wealth.  Population was too changeable to be a fixed standard, whereas property was the great object of government, the great cause of war and the great means of carrying it on.  Like Williamson, he favored having states pay Congressional representatives.  Butler did not think federal trial courts (as opposed to appellate courts) were necessary.

Though generally distrustful of the central government, Butler favored submitting the whole militia to the general authority, which had the care of the general defense.  That last, incidentally, is part of a general pattern by Butler that I hope to discuss later – although general distrustful of the central government, he made an exception wherever military security was at stake.

*This was a concern among most of the South Carolina delegation.  Apparently the South Carolina legislature limited money bills to the lower house, and serious problems arose as a result.

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.

Moderate Nationalists: Massachusetts

As mentioned before, moderate nationalists were mostly from the three large states.  Massachusetts did not have anyone quite as eminent as Virginia and Pennsylvania, but it did have two significant moderate nationalists.

Nathaniel Gorham. Nathaniel Gorham's most remarkable display of nationalism was his disregard for existing state lines.  Like Madison, he pointed out that if the union broke up and state became independent countries, the small states would be at the mercy of the larger ones.  Delaware would be at the mercy of Pennsylvania and really would be better off being annexed.  New Jersey would be divided between Pennsylvania and New York; really it was in New Jersey's interest to cease to exist altogether.  He did not see how the small states would be harmed by being annexed to their larger neighbors.  Many colonies were created by the consolidation of smaller colonies.  They, too, dreaded consolidation, but were not harmed by it.  As for the large states, he believed they would be divided, not so much to keep them from threatening the small states as to keep them from encroaching on the central government.  Like Madison, he believed that the stronger the central government, the more willingly states would give up territory.

On the other hand, he was not rigid on the subject of making representation proportional to population and agreed that representatives of large states might combine and have undue influence.  He proposed system like Massachusetts had, with representation on a sliding scale of population, but fully proportional.  He favored giving Congress the power to establish federal courts and regulate federal elections, and believed that it should meet every year to check the executive.  He also favored allowing federal intervention in case of a rebellion in a state.  Despite his nationalism, Gorham was pessimistic about the country's long-term prospects.  He did not see the need for truly long-term planning because he did not believe the whole country would be a single nation in 150 years.

Rufus King.  Rufus King was a delegate from Massachusetts with strong ties to New York.  (He later moved to New York). Like other moderate nationalists, King believed that the new government should operate on individuals, not on states.  He therefore saw no need for representation by states.  He also believed that the role of the upper house was not to represent states, but to check the first branch and give it more stability and wisdom.  If the states wanted to be represented, they would require a third house.  This led King to initially oppose election of the Senate by state legislatures.  Election by state legislatures would require each state to have at least one Senator, and would make the Senate too large if it were proportional.  As an alternative protection for the smaller states, he proposed sort of bill of rights for states, guaranteeing them certain protections.
Ultimately, King agreed to the Great Comproimse and joined Morris in make the final proposal.

King favored giving Congress the power to form federal courts, regulate elections to Congress, purchase forts with the consent of the states, but not to charter corporations, which could lead to monopolies.  He served on the committee that proposed to give Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.  He favored requiring the consent of the states for Congress to purchase forts on their territory.  Like Morris, he questioned whether Congress would have to meet every year, since it would have fewer objects of legislation than the states.  (And, like Morris, his concern may not have been so much states' rights as increasing the power of the executive).  King's most significant difference with other moderate nationalists was that he believed the state legislatures were competent to ratify the Constitution, although he preferred special conventions to remove all doubt about its legitimacy.  The distinction my seem unimportant today, but it was considered critically important at the time.  If the Constitution were ratified by state legislatures, people might claim that the federal government was a creature of the states.  Ratification by special conventions was meant to establish it as a government of the people.

Moderate Nationalists: Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's other important delegate was Gouverneur Morris.  While Wilson was reassuring small states that large states would be just as quick to resist undue federal encroachments, Morris was making inflammatory statements like these:

This Country must be united. If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will. He begged that [4] this consideration might have its due weight. The scenes of horror attending civil commotion can not be described, and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance. The stronger party will then make traytors (sic) of the weaker; and the Gallows & Halter will finish the work of the sword. . . . .State attachments, and State importance have been the bane of this Country. We can not annihilate; but we may perhaps take out the teeth of the serpents.

Or

"What if all the Charters & Constitutions of the States were thrown into the fire, and all their demagogues into the ocean. What would it be to the happiness of America."

Morris made these comments in opposition to small state calls for equal representation in the Senate.  On the other hand, he did not favor making the Senate proportional to population, either.  His proposed "compromise" was to have a Senate appointed by the executive and holding their offices for life!  Senators for life would probably live in several states over a lifetime and therefore not represent any one state.  On the other hand, when the Great Compromise was finally reached it was Morris (together with Rufus King of Massachusetts) who proposed to give each state an equal number of Senators provided they voted as individuals.  And at the end he even moved that no future amendment could deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.

Morris favored ratification by convention instead of by state legislatures for the same reason as other nationalists -- that states lacked authority to ratify the Constitution, and that the Framers should appeal over the states to the people.  However, he took this idea further than any other nationalist, proposing a singe national ratifying convention instead of multiple state conventions.  Morris wanted to give the federal government power to regulate elections for the House but not the Senate, to enact bankruptcy laws, to have sole authority over treason and embargoes, and to interfere in states' internal policy in at least some instances, such as to forbid paper money.  He believed the federal government should be able to suppress a insurrection against state authority without waiting for the state's request.

On the other hand, he opposed a Congressional veto of state laws as "terrible to the states," and believed that the power of federal courts to strike down state laws conflicting with federal enactments as sufficient.  He even questioned whether it would be necessary for Congress to meet every year, since the public business might not require it.  (This may have been an attempt to strengthen the power of the executive).

Moderate Nationalists: James Wilson of Pennslyvania

Moderate nationalists were mostly from the large states of Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.  The ones from Virginia having been covered, let us move on to Pennsylvania.  The leading delegate from Pennsylvania was James Wilson.  Wilson was a nationalist, but at the same time he sought to reassure states

that a strong central government would not mean the end of state governments.  So long as the states were properly restrained, there would be no danger of their being devoured.  If the general government did start encroaching on states, all, large and small, would join together in resisting the encroachment.  In order to conciliate advocates of state sovereignty, Wilson as willing to second a motion forbidding the general government form interfering with a state's internal affairs.

Wilson also supported a Congressional veto of state laws, saying that since it was not practical to define cases in which a federal veto was proper, it was safer to allow the federal government to decide when it was proper than the states.  He called the federal veto, "key-stone wanted to compleat (sic) the wide arch of Government, we are raising."

Like other large state delegates, Wilson to a states' rights view on the division of states. No state should be divided without its consent. If a majority in the state wished to divide, it should be allowed, but not if only a minority wished to divide. Allowing a political society to be "torne (sic) assunder without its consent" outraged him. He favored giving Congress the power to establish federal trial courts, cut canals, and charter corporations. Although the record is somewhat unclear, he appears to have favored federal authority to suppress insurrections against state governments.

But above all else, Wilson was the fiercest opponent of giving each state equal representation in the Senate. He believed nothing less than majority rule was at stake. Since all authority derived from the people, equal numbers of people ought to have equal numbers of representatives. "Are not the Citizens of Pena. equal those of N. Jersey? does it require 150 of the former to balance 50 of the latter?"  To the argument that all states are equal as sovereigns, he replied  that all people were equal and, in the state of nature, equally sovereign.  Just as the people gave up their sovereignty in submitting to a government, the states gave up their  sovereignty in submitting to a federation.  He even called unequal representation a "poison," contaminating every other branch of government.  Wilson's reason for opposing representation by states was that it would allow a minority to thwart the will of the majority.  To say that allowing the larger states to dominate carried the danger of aristocracy was absurd -- what danger of aristocracy could there be in government by the majority?  "Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?"  He was even ready to see the Union split over this issue, saying it could never happen on better grounds.  As a compromise, he was willing to set the ratio of Senators at 1 per 100,000 population with the guarantee that each state would have at least one Senator.  Alternately, he proposed a system  like Massachusetts of the day, which increased representation by population, but gave less than the full proportion.  He even opposed sending the matter to committee and opposed the Great Compromise when it was proposed.  Although Madison does not say, one assumes that on the day the Great Compromise was reached, Wilson was one of the irreconcilables opposed to it.

Moderate Nationalists: George Mason of Virginia

To the extent George Mason is remembered today, he is usually thought of as supporting state sovereignty because he ultimately opposed the Constitution and acted as an Anti-Federalist in the ratification debate.  However, during the Constitutional Convention, he comes across very much as a moderate nationalist.

Since the Virginians had discussed the Virginia Plan before the Convention began, Mason presumably had at least some role in preparing it.  He argued, "very cogently" that the federal government must have authority over individuals instead of just states, and for a revealing reason.  It would be unjust to punish states collectively, while authority over individuals would allow punishment of the guilty only.  He opposed the New Jersey plan for its lack of ordinary enforcement powers that left no alternative except military force:

The most jarring elements of Nature; fire & water themselves are not more incompatible that (sic) such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State to another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the Citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one Man, and shake off the Union altogether. Rebellion is the only case, in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted agst. its Citizens. In one point of view he was struck with horror at the prospect of recurring to this expedient. To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself: yet this unexampled cruelty would be mercy compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no discrimination between the innocent and the guilty.

To arguments that the people had hitherto resisted any increase in federal powers, he replied that what the people were resisting was not a stronger central government, but one under the present Continental Congress, which had no separation of executive and legislative powers, and a unicameral legislature not directly chosen by the people.  Increased centralization did not reduce the people's power; it merely transferred it from one set of agents to another.

He was skeptical of a federal veto of state laws, but not absolutely opposed.  He pointed out that the Congressional veto would mean that Congress would be constantly sitting to review state laws, while no state road or bridge could be built until Congress approved it.  Yet he said that he was not condemning the veto outright, but simply raising possible objections to it.

Mason was also the leading advocate of federal power to regulate the militia, so long as states could appoint the officers.  His reasoning was two-fold -- he wanted to avoid standing armies as much as possible, but he did not believe states would maintain their militias well enough to avoid the need for standing armies.  Fearing  that complete federal authority over militia discipline would be unpopular, he later partially backed down and proposed federal power over a tenth of the militia at a time.  He also believed the federal government must have authority to suppress rebellions against states because such rebellions might ultimately subvert the general government.  He favored giving Congress power to establish federal courts, cut canals but not charter corporations, and pass sumptuary laws, i.e., laws limiting excesses in conspicuous consumption.  (No one else took his call for sumptuary laws very seriously).

There were only a few signs at the Convention that Mason would ultimately see the Constitution as dangerously encroaching on the states.  He favored election of Senators by state legislatures, saying that states needed to be able to defend themselves against federal encroachments.  In this he differed from Madison, who thought that the only danger was state encroachments on federal power.  He also believed that states should be allowed to lay embargoes and tax imports in order to encourage domestic industry.  He served on the committee that proposed the Great Compromise and reluctantly agreed, on the condition that the House would have sole authority to enact money bills.

Yet Mason ultimately turned against the Constitution, saying that he would sooner chop off his right hand than sign it to such a defective document.  He did not specifically itemize his reasons at the Convention, but said he feared it would lead to either monarchy or aristocracy.  During the debate on the ratification Mason made his reasons for objecting to it public.  Most of these objections were to the structure of the federal government, rather than the extent of its powers.  However, he did mention fears that the federal judiciary would absorb the state judiciaries.  He also feared the "Necessary and Proper Clause" would allow Congress to grant monopolies, create new crimes, inflict severe and unusual punishments, and extent its powers so as to encroach on the states.  He ultimately feared that the Constitution would lead to a "total consolidation" that threatened to destroy the states.

Moderate Nationalists: Edmund Randolph of Virginia

Virginia produced two other moderate nationalists, Edmund Randolph and George Mason.  Both contributed substantially to the Convention, but in the end neither would agree to sign the Constitution.  It should be noted that, although George Washington presided over the Convention, he had to act as a neutral arbiter and therefore did not take part in the debates.

Edmund Randolph.  Edmund Randolph at the time of the Constitutional Convention was Governor of Virginia.  He would later serve as George Washington's Attorney General.  Although the Virginia Plan is generally believed to have been developed by Madison, it was Randolph who introduced it at the Convention, and most of the delegates assumed the plan to be Randolph's. Randolp opened the main business of the Convention, arguing that the government under the ARticles of Confederation was fatally weak.  It could not maintain peace because states could break its treaties with impunity, nor could it effectively wage war because it was depending on the states to raise an army.  Its inability to tax or regulate foreign trade deprived it of any independent source of revenue and left American trade at the mercy of foreign protectionism.  It was not even clear whether federal law was paramount to state law, at it could be considered a mere creature of state governments.  Randolph then introduced the Virginia Plan to correct these defects.  The next day he went even farther, saying that no mere federal union or treaty would be sufficient, but that a supreme national government should be formed, although he disclaimed any intent to abolish state governments.

Randolph opposed the New Jersey Plan, and even said that the "federal" New Jersey Plan was insufficient compared to the "national" Virginia Plan.  In particular, the central government needed enforcement powers over individuals, while the New Jersey Plan only offered coercion of states.  Randolph called such coercion, "impractical, expensive, cruel to individuals."  Instead, he favored giving Congress power to maintain harmony among the states, set uniform rules and regulations for trade and naturalization, crush rebellion, and the like.  For any body to be entrusted with such powers, it must be elected by the people directly and be proportional to population.  He even called the Continental Congress a body of ambassadors rather than a true legislature.  He would have given the federal government authority to form federal courts and charter corporations, but not to legislate for all "general interests."  He favored federal authority over the militia, with states appointing officers, and federal power to intervene in rebellions against state government, but only if the states requested the intervention.

Like other large state delegates, Randolph opposed giving states equal representation in the Senate.  He was the one who proposed that the Convention "adjourn" when the large and small states deadlocked on the issue, although he was quick to qualify the statement with the assurance that he meant only to adjourn for the day, not permanently.  The purpose of the adjournment, he said, was for small states to propose some form of conciliation, or, if they would not, for large states to take unspecified "necessary measures."  Like the others, Randolph eventually agreed to equal representation in the Senate, but threatened to reconsider if the Senate were allowed to originate money bills.  Unlike Madison, Randolph never spoke up for a federal veto of state laws.

Despite his general nationalism, Randolph ultimately did not sign the Constitution, although he did not commit himself to opposing its ratification.  Among his objections he listed the lack of a more definite boundary between federal and state powers and the federal government's authority to intervene in a state insurrection on the request of the state executive, instead of requiring the legislature to make the request.  During the ratification debates, Randolph planted himself firmly on the fence, refusing to come down on one side or the other until the Virginia ratifying convention, when he came out in favor of ratification.