I must say, I am enjoying this conversation greatly.  Kevin Hardwick is
right -- with secession as the test we see the range of political
commitments between state and union.  But even then I would say that
those who voted against secession (whether they were soon-to-be West
Virginians or not) still regarded themselves as Virginians and would have
identified themselves that way -- John Minor Botts comes to mind: part of
the ruling elite in Virginia, but a unionist.  That the secessionists
would ostracize him as a traitor to the state, would not change that.

David Kiracofe
College of Charleston

On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 21:10:05 -0400 Kevin Hardwick wrote:

> While I agree to some degree with David Kiracofe's assertion that
> "antebellum Americans did not see holding patriotic allegiance to their
> native states as contradictory to their loyalty as Americans," I think it
> is worthy of emphasis to note that federal/state commitment depended a
> great deal on particular political circumstances.  Virginians rather
> directly faced this issue in the Virginia secession conventions of
> 1861--first in Richmond, when one group of Virginians committed themselves
> to secession, and then in Wheeling when a second group of Virginians
> committed themselves first and foremost to the union.  Since this
> conversation is focused on a particular moment in time--I think it germane
> to remark that in 1861 something in excess of 40%, and quite possibly more
> than half, of all Virginians placed allegiance to the nation ahead of
> allegiance to the state.  While the experience of the war itself certainly
> polarized opinion in the block of counties remaining in Virginia after the
> Wheeling convention, Francis Pierpont's government had some support
> even in
> 1865.  That alone tells us that there was a considerable range of
> commitment to the union vis-a-vis commitment to the state by the mid-19th
> century (as indeed there was in earlier eras as well), and that when
> circumstances forced individuals to make a hard choice, a rather
> significant number of Virginians in the Valley and trans-montane, and
> lesser numbers elsewhere, not only saw a contradiction between state and
> federal loyalties, but decided that their national identity was more
> important.
>
> All my best,
> Kevin R. Hardwick
>
> --On Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:49 PM -0400 David Kiracofe
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > My thanks to Constantine Gutzman for clarifying Henry's remark -- I am
> > indebted.  It was laziness on my part to call up the example -- it does
> > SOUND like a polar opposite from the Randolph quotation -- but of course
> > it is no reflection of Henry's allegiances, but of the constitutional
> > dilemma of the early 1770s.  Anyhow, I stand by my main point that
> > antebellum Americans did not see holding a patriotic allegiance to their
> > native states as contradictory to their loyalty as Americans -- indeed,
> > for many state identity was the lens through which they saw
> themselves as
> > Americans.
> >
> > David Kiracofe
> > College of Charleston
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:00:53 -0400 Constantine Gutzman wrote:
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:58 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Hampton (Virginia) National Cemetary: 757.723.7104
> >>
> >>
> >> > In regard to the recent discussions of state versus national
> loyalties,
> >> > the truth seems to lie somewhere between the two poles of "my country
> >> > is Virginia" (Randolph of Roanoke) and "I am not a Virginian but an
> >> > American" (Patrick Henry -- please excuse the rough paraphrasing).
> >>
> >> One must be careful in order to interpret Henry's famous statement
> >> accurately.  Henry's statement here represented one side in a debate
> >> within
> >> Virginia, that over the question what George III's constructive
> >> abdication as King of Virginia legally meant.  Some people, such as
> >> Thomas Jefferson ,
> >> insisted that the king's abdication merely opened up the possibility of
> >> naming a new governor; for them, there was no state of nature.
> >> Others, like
> >> Henry (and, unless memory fails, John Page -- it has been a while
> since I
> >> read this material), said that since every officeholder in
> Virginia, from
> >> the county courts to the House of Burgesses, held his office
> >> mediately from
> >> the king, the end of the House of Hanover in Virginia meant that no
> >> officer
> >> in Virginia held legitimate governmental power anymore.  Virginia, as
> >> Henry
> >> understood the matter, rested in a perfect Lockean state of
> nature, along
> >> with the other rebellious colonies.
> >>
> >> Seemingly, most Virginians opted for Jefferson's argument:  The
> colonial
> >> government continued to operate, insofar as it could, until the
> >> adoption of
> >> the May Convention's 1776 Virginia Constitution.  It was much easier
> >> simply
> >> to allow the militia, the county courts, etc., to continue to operate
> >> as if
> >> nothing had happened than it would have been to assume there was no law
> >> of any kind in Virginia until a representative body could be
> convened to
> >> create
> >> new, republican institutions.  Henry's statement came in the context
> >> of his
> >> insistence in the same speech that there was no law anymore in
> (formerly)
> >> British North America (Canada excepted), so there were no longer any
> >> boundaries among the colonies.  (Those boundaries, too, had all been
> >> drawn by the kings -- or, in a couple of cases, by Cromwell's
> >> Parliament.) Henry
> >> found himself in the awkward situation of being an American, not a
> >> Virginian, at a particular moment, but that was a diagnosis based
> on his
> >> political theory, not a statement reflecting the relative strengths of
> >> his affections.
> >>
> >> Constantine Gutzman
> >> Department of History
> >> Western Connecticut State University
> >>
> >> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> >> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> >
> >
> >
> > David Kiracofe
> >
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of History, MSC 2001
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg VA 22807
> Phone:  540/568-6306
> Email:  [log in to unmask]
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html