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