Paul ... and Jarl ... and List -
My posting to List: "The following from the diary of President Rutherford B.
Hayes is interesting in light of the current discussion on this List."
Your interpretation: "This is the first time in my career I have seen
Rutherford B. Hayes used as a source for serious constitutional theory or
political science."
My further comment: I have yet to see Rutherford B. Hayes used as a source
for serious constitutional theory or political science on this List; I have
seen his comments passed along as "interesting in light of the current
discussion." Equally interesting would be a compendium - fairly easily
assembled - of other contemporary reflections on the same subject in the
post-1865 decades.
Charles L. Dibble
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jarl K. Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 15:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Virginian and American patriotism
Hmmm.
Still, Hayes was expressing a common sentiment of his time. The idea of
reconciliation as so expressed did not do the former slave, even the South,
or indeed the nation any real good.
I referred to Lee earlier regarding his own mind, not as an expert. I wonder
if the same was meant with hayes perhaps?
---
Jarl K. Jackson
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:48:34
Paul Finkelman wrote:
>This is the first time in my career I have seen Rutherford B. Hayes used as
a
>source for serious constitutional theory or political science.
>--
>Paul Finkelman
>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>University of Tulsa College of Law
>3120 East 4th Place
>Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
>
>918-631-3706 (office)
>918-631-2194 (fax)
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>"Charles L. Dibble (MSN 914)" wrote:
>
>> The following from the diary of President Rutherford B. Hayes is
interesting
>> in light of the current discussion on this List:
>>
****************************************************************************
>> ***********************************************
>>
>> PUBLIC ESTEEM--APRIL 1891-JANUARY 1892
>>
>> APRIL 27, 1891. Monday.-Reached Steubenville to attend
>>
>> the G. A. R. State Encampment about 7:30 P. M. [...]
>>
>> May 1. Friday.- [...] During the G. A. R. Encampment the weather
was
>> simply
>>
>> perfect. The people of the town were patriotic and generous.
>>
>> The only thing to disturb was the disposition of one or two men
>>
>> to scold the South - to discuss irritating topics in an ill-
>>
>> tempered way. This is in bad taste, is bad policy, and bad on
>>
>> principle. Silence on that which breeds ill temper is the true
>>
>> course. The Southern people are our countrymen. They dis-
>>
>> played great endurance and courage, great military traits of
>>
>> character during the war. Let us now as soon as possible bring
>>
>> them into good relations with those who fought them. Let us
>>
>> become one people.
>>
>> May 2. Saturday.-At the G. A. R. [State Encampment]
>>
>> there was a little demagoguery in the way of keeping alive the
>>
>> bitterness of the war. A motion was made and carried against
>>
>> the purchase of Chickamauga battlefield, against Rebel monu-
>>
>> ments, etc., etc. The truth is, the men of the South believed in
>>
>> their theory of the Constitution. There was plausibility, per-
>>
>> haps more than plausibility, in the States' rights doctrine under
>>
>> the terms and in the history of the Constitution. Lee and Jack-
>>
>> son are not in the moral character of their deeds to be classed
>>
>> with Benedict Arnold. They fought for their convictions, for
>>
>> their country as they had been educated to regard it. Let them
>>
>> be mistaken, and treated accordingly. Their military genius and
>>
>> heroism make the glory of the Union triumph.
>>
>> --- from http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/chapterlii.html
[August
>> 31, 2001]
>>
****************************************************************************
>> **********************************
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jarl K. Jackson
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:19 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Virginian and American patriotism
>>
>> The question of state, over beside/with, or against, national patriotism
is
>> an interesting one. A man like Robert E. Lee could use his loyalty to
>> justify or rationalize - words not necessary meant to have negative
>> connotations - his chosing to follow Virginia out of the the Union. This
>> although he seems to have sincerely believed (in his own way at least -
also
>> with necessarily negative connotations) that secession was bad, the Union
>> was good, and (in some way, though perhaps not as we see it) slavery was
>> wrong as well.
>>
>> At the same time, other Virginians, other Southerners, in fact could
>> consider it loyalty to the Union certainly, and perhaps also to thier
native
>> state, to not secede when that state did. George (_?_) whose last name
>> escapes me at the moment, could find it so in staying in the US Army,
>> becoming the 'Rock of Chickamauga' and being (sadly, ungraciously)
rejected
>> by his Virginia family after that war.
>>
>> There is a letter written by John S. Mosby to a friend after the war in
>> which he explains how though opposed to slavery, he and many others could
go
>> with, and fight for Virginia. Many would condemn the likes of him for
>> "treason," and many do criticize Lee - often going too far in tearing him
>> off the old pedestal - for having thoughts and perceptions, holding views
>> best understood (if understood at all) in the context of time and place.
>>
>> This is not to absolve "sinners" of their wrongs, though the
Constitution's
>> provision on treason, as with everything else, is open to some
>> interpretation. Rather, to accept that some perspective needs to be
>> maintained. Historians and others are as likely to lose that in favor of
>> discrediting sincere and thoughtful men, as some others these days are of
>> giving them to much of perhaps the wrong kind of credit.
>>
>> For myself, I am a native-born son of Virginia currently residing in
>> Florida. I consider myself an American as I do a Virginian, and yes, I am
a
>> Floridian as well. I try be to an active, concerned citizen of the local,
>> state, and national communities of which I am a part, recognizing both
>> shared and divergent interests between and among these, and a concerned
>> child of the Old Dominion as well.
>>
>> Whether under the right circumstances I would recognize a 'state of
nature'
>> to be in effect, or a proper dissolution of the Union to have occurred is
a
>> question I cannot now, and hope to never have to answer.
>> ---
>> Jarl K. Jackson
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:49:34
>> David Kiracofe 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
>> >
>>
>> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
>> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>>
>> 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
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
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
|
