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
|
