Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're so glad you're
joining us today. Absolutely. Thanks for being
here. You know, sometimes the most straightforward,
seemingly dry historical documents can secretly
contain the most dramatic stories. Oh, completely.
You might think a simple list of names and dates
is just data, but... When you look closely, you
find this hidden narrative of ambition, ideological
tectonic shifts, and just the absolute chaos
of history unfolding in real time. Yeah, it really
is wild when you start unpacking it. Today, we're
looking at a source that perfectly embodies this.
It's the Wikipedia article detailing the list
of United States senators from South Carolina.
Right, which, I mean, it looks like a standard
reference table on the surface, just rows and
columns. But when we dig into the timeline, it
becomes this incredible... mirror reflecting
the entire American political experiment row
by row. Exactly. So our mission for this deep
dive is to look past those dry tables and extract
the turbulent, fascinating political history
of a state that has been at the absolute center
of American political evolution. For a very long
time. Yeah. We are talking about a state that
has been putting people in these seats since
it ratified the Constitution on, let me check
the exact date, May 23, 1788. That's right. But
before we get into the timeline itself, we need
to set some ground rules for how we are going
to look at this source material today. Yeah.
A mandatory disclaimer is definitely crucial
here because this historical list covers deeply
polarizing eras. Very polarizing. We are going
to be looking at multiple political parties,
massive ideological shifts involving both left
wing and right wing movements and actions that
literally tore the country apart. So I want to
be entirely clear with you. We are not endorsing
any of the viewpoints, parties or actions of
the historical figures we are going to discuss
today. Right. We're just looking at the document.
Exactly. Our goal is to impartially report the
facts exactly as they are provided in our source
material. We are simply tracing the evolution
of these two specific Senate seats to understand
the mechanics of our political history. Perfect.
So we're treating this as an architectural blueprint
of history. I want you to imagine the United
States Senate as a stage. South Carolina gets
two specific roles on this stage, known as Class
2 and Class 3. And these roles have been recast
over and over across the centuries. But looking
at the source, these two classes don't operate
on the same timeline. Why are they split up like
this? So that class system is actually a brilliant
structural rhythm built right into the Senate.
The Constitution divides senators into three
classes so that only about one third of the Senate
is up for election every two years. Oh, I see.
Yeah. It prevents the entire chamber from turning
over all at once. It ensures institutional memory.
Which means. From the perspective of a voter
in South Carolina, you are never voting for both
of your senators in the exact same year. Right.
Unless there is some sort of special election
to fill a vacancy or something. Precisely. It
forces a staggered pulse of Democratic input.
For South Carolina, the class two seat is on
an electoral cycle. That means it will next be
up for election in 2026. And the class three
seat is on a cycle that puts its next election
in 2028. So you get this continuous alternating
rhythm of elections that keeps the state constantly
engaged with the federal government. It is a
heartbeat that started all the way back in 1789.
So let's look at the very first faces to hold
these roles. Let's do it. Looking at the table
for the class two seat. The very first name is
Pierce Butler. And under the party column, it
just says pro -administration. And over the class
three seat, we have Ralph Izard, also listed
as pro -administration. Just hearing that label
tells you how new everything was. Yeah, it sounds
so formal. Well, there were no established formal
political parties yet. The entire political apparatus
was essentially categorized by whether you supported
George Washington's administration or opposed
it. It was incredibly binary. Okay, let's unpack
this. Because the early days of this list are
incredibly chaotic. Oh, completely. When you
scroll through the table for the first few decades,
it is not a list of people serving a long, predictable
six -year term. It's a barrage of rapid -fire
turnover. People are constantly stepping down,
moving around, passing away. You have to remember
the physical realities of travel, health, and
just the sheer experimental nature of the federal
government made serving in the Senate a very
different job back then. You can see it right
here in the data. In the late 1790s, Sean Hunter
gets elected to finish a term, and then he just
resigns. Right. A few years later, Charles Pinckney
is elected, serves a couple of years, and then
the notes say he resigns to become the U .S.
minister to Spain. Which is a massive deal at
the time. And then you have Johnny Calhoun, who
was elected in 1800, but tragically dies in office
by October 1802. It just feels like a high stakes
game of musical chairs. What's fascinating here
is how this constant turnover connects to the
broader picture of a young nation. We see a state.
and a country desperately trying to figure out
its political identity. Look at how the party
labels morph in the source material during this
early era. You go from pro -administration and
anti -administration to federalist, then to Democratic
-Republican, and later to Jacksonian. The visual
of this list is striking because the text in
that party column keeps changing colors and names
as the factions battle for dominance. It was
a highly experimental phase. The country was
testing out different ideological vehicles to
see what could actually govern a rapidly expanding
territory. And then we hit the 1830s and a completely
unique party label pops up in the source material.
It's a highly specific anomaly that you do not
see in modern politics. We see John C. Calhoun
and Stephen Decatur Miller listed under a party
simply called the Nullifier Party. Right. What
exactly is a nullifier in this context? This
is a perfect example of a local ideological crisis
bleeding into the federal structure. The Nullifier
Party was built around the belief that a state
had the right to nullify or invalidate any federal
law that the state deemed unconstitutional. Oh,
wow. Yeah. Specifically, in this case, they were
fighting federal tariffs that were hurting the
southern economy. Seeing that word right there
in the official Senate list is a glaring warning
sign of the regional tensions that were beginning
to boil over. And what really stands out is watching
John C. Calhoun's kind line in the class two
seat. He is elected as a nullifier to finish
a term in 1832. But by the time we get to his
later terms, ending up around 1845, his Cardi
label in the table has transitioned back to Democratic.
That transition from nullifier back to Democrat
is the physical proof on the page that regional
tensions were being temporarily swallowed back
up by the main party apparatus. Like a temporary
Band -Aid. Exactly. It shows the reactive nature
of these splinter factions, but also the deep,
unresolved fractures that were just going to
keep widening as the century progressed. Which
brings us right into the 1850s, where the instability
on this list reaches a fever pitch. It really
does. We are looking at the years leading right
up to the Civil War. And the desks just cannot
stay filled. You have figures like Andrew Butler
dying in office in 1857. Then Josiah Evans dies
in office in 1858. It leads to this frantic scramble
of appointments and special elections. The physical
toll on the senators almost mirrors the institutional
toll on the country. The stress on the political
system was immense. And you can literally count
the number of short term appointments required
just to keep South Carolina represented. And
then the source material. delivers a massive
dramatic turn. We get to James Chestnut Jr. Yes.
He's a Democrat who was elected to finish out
Josiah Evans' term. The notes in the electoral
history column are incredibly stark. It states
that he withdrew and was later officially expelled
from the Senate for his support of the Confederacy.
Right. This happens in November 1860. The phrasing
there caught my eye, withdrew and then expelled.
What is the actual difference between those two
actions? That is a crucial distinction. Withdrawal
is essentially Senator saying, I quit. I am walking
away from this body. But expulsion is entirely
different. Expulsion is the United States Senate
utilizing its supreme constitutional authority
to officially kick someone out. It requires a
two thirds majority vote. So Chestnut walks away.
But the Senate officially slams the door behind
him. Yes. And this raises an important question
about what happens to the machinery of government
when the very fabric of the nation is tearing.
The expulsion of a sitting senator is an incredibly
rare and extreme constitutional mechanism. Chestnut's
withdrawal and subsequent expulsion is the exact
moment the political tether snaps. And it creates
the most striking visual in the entire Wikipedia
list. It really is. If you are scrolling through
this chronological table, suddenly there is just
a massive multi -year blank space across both
the class two and class three seats. The rows
literally just stop. It is chilling to see it
represented as just empty table cells. In July
1861, South Carolina Senate seats were officially
declared vacant due to secession. For seven entire
years, through the entirety of the Civil War
and the early years of Reconstruction, those
two desks in the United States Senate chamber
just sat empty. No representation, no participation.
Just a void from July 1861 until July 1868. When
you look at the dates, it forces you to pause.
Think about the sheer weight. Of that missing
time, the laws passed. The history made while
a huge portion of the country simply wasn't at
the table. It is a visual representation of a
broken constitutional system. The American experiment
was essentially paused for that region. But eventually
the gap ends. The seats are filled again in July
1868 and we enter a brief, entirely new era for
the state. We do. The immediate aftermath of
the Civil War brings a complete reversal of the
previous political order in South Carolina. For
a brief window. From 1868 into the 1870s, the
seats are held by the Republican Party. This
is the Reconstruction era. The political enfranchisement
of newly freed black citizens and the temporary
disenfranchisement of former Confederates completely
flipped the electoral math. We see Thomas J.
Robertson step in to fill the vacant Class II
term. And over in Class III, Frederick A. Sawyer
and later John J. Patterson hold the seat. It's
a very specific, defined block of Republican
control right in the middle of the 19th century.
But the pendulum swings back incredibly hard.
By the late 1870s, federal troops are withdrawn,
the era of Reconstruction wanes, and the Democratic
Party regains total, absolute control of the
state's politics. Looking at the table, starting
with Matthew Butler in the Class 2 seat in 1877
and Wade Hampton III in the Class 3 seat in 1879,
we see the beginning of an unbroken streak. A
massive streak. The list just turns into a solid
wall of the word Democratic. row after row. And
this monopoly would last for nearly a century.
Think about the mathematical improbability of
that. A single political party holding on to
both Senate seats in the state for nearly 100
years without a single break. It speaks to the
absolute ideological consolidation of the solid
South during that period. Nearly a century of
just one column color. But even within that incredibly
stable one party era, there are some absolutely
fascinating exits from the Senate that are source
details. For instance, I'm looking at the entry
for James F. Burns in the 1930s. Burns is a very
interesting case study in political career trajectories.
Right. Because he's elected in 1930, easily reelected
in 1932, and then reelected again in 1930. He
is cruising along building power. But then in
July 1941, the notes say he resigns his seat.
And he does not resign because of a scandal or
poor health. He leaves the legislative branch
entirely to join a completely different branch
of government. He becomes a justice of the U
.S. Supreme Court. It is a profound reminder
that the Senate, while a pinnacle for many politicians,
is sometimes viewed as a stepping stone to other
forms of immense national influence. Moving from
a partisan legislative body to the supposedly
nonpartisan highest court in the land is a massive
leap. But there is another exit in the 1950s
that caught my attention. Looking at the table
here, there is a guy named Charles E. Daniel.
Oh, this is a great story. He is appointed in
September 1954 to finish out the term of Burnett
R. Maybank, who had passed away. So Daniel is
only going to be there for a few months. But
according to the source material, he explicitly
resigns a few days early on December 23, 1954.
Why on earth would someone give up even a week?
of being a U .S. senator. It was a brilliant,
highly calculated piece of insider political
maneuvering. He did it to grant a massive institutional
advantage to his successor, Strom Thurmond. How
does resigning a few days early help the next
guy? Imagine waiting in line for a highly anticipated
blockbuster movie. Yep. Daniel essentially held
a spot at the very front of the line. Right before
the theater doors opened, he stepped aside and
let Strom Thurmond take his exact spot, pushing
Thurmond ahead of all the other people who were
just arriving at the theater. Wow. In the Senate,
power is heavily dictated by seniority. By resigning
early, Daniel allowed Thurmond to be appointed
the seat right before the new term officially
started. Gaining even a few days of seniority
over the incoming freshman class of senators
gave Thurmond a preferential rank for committee
assignments and leadership roles. That is wild.
Just a pure calculated seniority hack. You are
literally exploiting the procedural rules of
the chamber to benefit your state's long term
influence. And it perfectly sets the stage for
what we can call the era of the modern titans.
Up until this point, we saw a lot of turnover,
a lot of partial terms and musical chairs. But
as we move into the mid -20th century, there
is a drastic shift in the data. We enter an era
where senators serve for decades at a time. You
see it vividly in the tenure links. Olin D. Johnston
held his seat from 1945 all the way to 1965.
And then you have Fritz Hollings, who took office
in 1966 and held that seat until 2005. That's
incredible. That is nearly 40 years for Hollings
alone. Think about how many presidential administrations
he worked with over four decades. It fundamentally
changes how a state wields power in Washington.
When voters return the same figures to the Capitol
term after term, those representatives spend
decades building committee chairmanships and
deep legislative relationships. The state's influence
compounds over time. But no one embodies this
phenomenon more than the successor to that seniority
hack we just discussed, Strom Thurmond. Furman's
timeline in this Wikipedia list is legendary.
He's the state's longest serving senator by a
mile. He serves from 1954 to 1956, and then from
1956 all the way to 2003. But wait, why is there
a break in 1956? He is sitting in the United
States Senate and the table shows he just resigns
in April 1956. It is a truly wild piece of electoral
history. Thurmond was originally elected as a
write -in candidate in 1954, which in itself
is incredibly rare. Yeah, you don't see that
often. But he had made a campaign pledge that
he would resign prior to the 1956 primary. He
wanted the voters to have a standard open election
for the seat rather than him relying on the massive
advantage of incumbency he gained from his write
-in victory. Okay, let's unpack. Yes. That is
a level of confidence in your political base
that is almost hard to comprehend today. It is
highly unusual, but it solidified his mandate
in a way few other politicians could claim. He
proved he didn't need a technicality to hold
the seat. However, the most consequential moment
in Thurmond's tenure is not his resignation.
No, it is not. Here's where it gets really interesting.
If you look closely at the table for Thurmond,
there is a specific date noted in the text, September
16, 1964. On that exact day, the column listing
his political party shifts from Democratic to
Republican. After almost a century of a solid
blue wall on this table, we get a sudden shift.
And that single date on this Wikipedia page serves
as a tangible marker for one of the most significant
shifts in American political history. Thumann
changing his party affiliation on September 16th,
1964, was the canary in the coal mine for the
broader political realignment of the American
South. The century -long Democratic stronghold
we talked about earlier was fracturing. Precisely.
It was fracturing over civil rights and the role
of the federal government. Thurman's switch signaled
a sea change that would eventually turn the South
solidly Republican in federal elections over
the coming decades. The data on the page captures
the exact moment the tectonic plates shifted.
It is amazing how much weight one date in the
spreadsheet can hold. And that shift brings us
all the way to the current delegation. It does.
Today is Wednesday, March 4, 2026. The two seats
are currently held by Republicans. In the class
two seat, we have Lindsey Graham. who has been
serving since 2003. He actually replaced Strom
Thurmond when Thurmond finally retired. And in
the class three seat, we have Tim Scott, who
was appointed to the seat and has been serving
since 2013. But if we look at the electoral history
notes for Senator Scott, there's a crucial detail
regarding the future. Yes, the source notes that
Tim Scott, who was just reelected a few years
ago in 2022, has stated that he is retiring at
the end of his current term. Which means the
class three seat will be entirely open in the
2028 election. For the first time in over a decade,
there will be a new occupant in that role. Another
historical shift is officially on the horizon.
The list is going to get a brand new entry and
the cycle continues. It never stops moving. Looking
back at this journey, we just tracked two single
Senate seats in one state. But doing so took
us through the chaotic birth of political parties,
the literal tearing apart of the nation resulting
in years of empty desks, the clever insider political
favors to manipulate seniority, and the massive
ideological realignments that reshaped the entire
map. If we connect this to the bigger picture,
it shows us that institutions are just vessels.
The Senate itself is just a room with desks.
It is the people occupying them and fundamentally
the changing values and anxieties of the voters
who put them there that actually shape history.
The data on the page is just the residue of human
choice. So what does this all mean for you right
now? We've spent all this time looking at party
labels in this source material, Democrat, Republican,
nullifier, Federalist. I want to leave you with
a thought to ponder on your own. What happens
to these historical tables if the two -party
system fractures? Oh, that's interesting. Imagine
a historian looking at a future Wikipedia page
100 years from now where the party column suddenly
fractures into four, five, or six different independent
labels. How would the machinery of the Senate
even function if we return to the ideological
chaos of the 1790s? That is a profound question
to walk away with. The structure of the Senate
relies on majority building. If the labels splinter
entirely, the entire mechanical rhythm we've
discussed would be tested in unprecedented ways.
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep
dive. We love taking these documents and bringing
the history inside them to the surface with you.
Until next time, keep looking past the surface
of the things you read. Have a wonderful day.