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