I must say, I am enjoying this conversation greatly. Kevin Hardwick is right -- with secession as the test we see the range of political commitments between state and union. But even then I would say that those who voted against secession (whether they were soon-to-be West Virginians or not) still regarded themselves as Virginians and would have identified themselves that way -- John Minor Botts comes to mind: part of the ruling elite in Virginia, but a unionist. That the secessionists would ostracize him as a traitor to the state, would not change that. David Kiracofe College of Charleston On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 21:10:05 -0400 Kevin Hardwick wrote: > 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 To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html