The influence of restraint

Harry Scherer
Class of 2022

(7/2021) Of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence, one that is largely forgotten in typical historical remembrance is Edward Rutledge. Born in South Carolina, Rutledge would go on to serve his country as a voice of moderation inspired by his Oxford-trained legal mind. At the age of 26, Rutledge was the youngest signer of the Declaration.

The young aristocrat gained his position on the national political stage with one of his first legal cases. According to the South Carolina Encyclopedia, Rutledge was involved in a case in 1773 that "involved a successful habeas corpus petition that freed a printer jailed for contempt by the upper house of assembly." Rutledge’s involvement in this legal recourse regarding unlawful detention was pragmatically beneficial for his political career. The next year, he was elected to the Continental Congress.

From the perspective of historians, Rutledge is known for his intellectual development on the issue of national independence. At first, according to the state’s encyclopedia, he began his tenure hoping "to achieve a settlement with Britain that would preserve colonial rights within the British Empire." The start of the war and the more openly antagonistic relationship that was developing between the colonies and the British motivated Rutledge to become more radical on the issue.

Even after his interior assent to the profound act of eventually declaring independence, Rutledge became a voice in the Congress for careful, moderate restraint in lieu of quick, revolutionary extremes. Rutledge thought that "the colonies should first agree on a confederation and secure foreign aid" before implicating the entire people in the rebellious act. This move for moderation was overridden by the zealous impulse of the people made clear by the political trends in the Continental Congress. "For the sake of unanimity," Rutledge encouraged his Carolinian confreres to move forward with the official declaration from British rule.

This concession to the majority indicates that Rutledge was capable of putting the national interest before his own. In order to preserve the rhetorical force of the Continental Congress, Rutledge dismissed his former adherence to potentially unachievable ideals in favor of a patriotic alliance with the radical act that he knew had to take place for the civic health of his people. Critics of Rutledge might suggest that he merely took the advice of Rousseau and submitted to the general will of the Congress. While my knowledge of Rutledge is admittedly limited, I would suggest that his prudential shift from ideal to practice indicates a sort of learning curve for the maturing statesman. As a representative of his constituents, he was charged with securing the good of the colonies, not the fulfillment of his every desire.

After this indication of political maturity, Rutledge oscillated between the legislature and the battlefields. He served in the state legislature, the Congress, and as a captain in the Charleston Artillery. While serving in this military role, Rutledge found himself as a prisoner of war on parole when the British captured Charleston in 1780. That same year, Rutledge was arrested and held prisoner in St. Augustine, Florida as the result of a false accusation that he and some of his partners were planning a resistance against the British. In an unfortunate irony, his capture and time in prison was made possible in part because of the lack of foreign aid in the States before the colonies officially declared independence from the Crown. Because the moderation that Rutledge sought was not heeded, the British were more capable of gaining ground on colonial soil.

In July of 1781, Rutledge was released by exchange and worked for thirteen years in the South Carolina House of Representatives. During that time, he tirelessly worked for the economic recovery of the state and on the typical political and monetary issues relevant to those statesmen charged with building a new state and nation from the ground up.

Over the years, he became known for his ability to concede with his political opponents and for his love of the nation. George Washington asked him twice to serve on the Supreme Court and also asked that he serve as the secretary of state and as the minister to France. In all of these occasions, Rutledge’s family responsibilities precluded him from taking such an active role on the national stage. He was content with serving the people of South Carolina and confirming the sort of principles that he and his compatriots fought for in the legislature and on the battlefield. His national influence materialized through the personal relationships that he had developed over the years, gaining the trust of Carolinians and their citizens across the nation. All of these anecdotes make clear to me that Rutledge was a master of strategy and that he had a keen eye for political pragmatism.

Throughout his years in the legislature, Rutledge developed a "mistrust of unbridled republicanism," which according to the National Park Service "reinforced his conservatism and brought him into the Federalist Party." Rutledge was clear about his intellectual convictions but measured and calculated in the practical implementation of those convictions. He found in the Federalist Party a political coalition that sought to conserve some of the conservative principles that inspired the Founders and the government that they formed. It is worth noting that the more time Rutledge spent in political service, the less attentive he became to the republican impulse of the people; depending on what one tends to emphasize, this observation could serve as either a confirmation or repudiation of the democratic-republican system that was instituted by the Founders. After his alliance to this party, he was elected governor of South Carolina in 1798 and died after suffering a stroke in early 1800.

Even though his name is typically not uttered in the average elementary history class, Edward Rutledge deserves recognition as a master statesman and a skilled political thinker. While his memory has not been preserved with popular recognition, his legacy has been secured because of the impact of restraint.

Read other articles by Harry Scherer