It can be very difficult to refer to and discuss the opinions of period individuals that many present-day persons at least believe they disagree with (so far as they think they understand them - the individuals and the opinions both). I know that I have experienced that, especially in terms of antebellum, bellum, postbellum thinking. There are some 'old-fashioned' ideas to which I adhere, but serious discussion of historical creeds, ideaologies, etc. can get convuluted when some mistake the seriousness with which others take them for acceptance - adherance.
That is as bad a sin as presentism in interpreting matters historical.
---
Jarl K. Jackson
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:44:07
Charles L. Dibble (BLS 1338.733) wrote:
>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
>
>
>
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
|
