GDG- Fighting for your state
Robert Lawrence
lawrence at rwlcpa.com
Fri Sep 8 19:12:16 CDT 2006
Roll on
<<-----Original Message-----
<<From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
<<[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Laurence
<<D. Schiller
<<Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:10 PM
<<To: GDG
<<Subject: GDG- Fighting for your state
<<
<<Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
<<
<<
<<Hi Charlie - as long as Robert lets the ball go on, I'm
<<willing to keep dancing! I've changed the subject line so as
<<not to confuse folks...
<<
<<
<<>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
<<>
<<>
<<>Hi, Laurie we are way off topic here but I can't help but
<<add a response.
<<>
<<>
<<>I can't say I agree with you here. Contrary to what some
<<would have us
<<>believe, the 13 colonies were never separate sovereign governments.
<<>[Char & Charlie ]
<<>Each colony had its own government. Included a governor such as
<<>Hutchinson in Massachusetts and Dunsmore in Virginia
<<appointed by the
<<>Crown. Each colony had a Legislature or court as Burgess in
<<Virginia
<<>and Councils similar to the Senate today. And many colonies had
<<>representation in England such as Ben Franklin who lived in
<<England for
<<>18 years before returning in 1775. There were many attempts to get
<<>colonies to agree beginning in 1754 as the colonies met in
<<Albany NY to
<<>discuss how to meet the French Indian threat and Franklin's
<<ideas put
<<>into what was called the Albany Plan. Much of this plan formed the
<<>foundation to the Declaration of Independence as did the Suffolk
<<>Resolves and the Virginia Resolves. But interests differed
<<regionally
<<>and there was little interest in uniting or being anything
<<other than a colony of Britain.
<<
<<All true - yet you misconstrue my point. They were all under
<<British sovereignty. When they threw that off, they formed
<<another national government. My point is not how united they
<<were but that they NEVER acted as independent entities, only
<<as states under another sovereignty. But the old argument is
<<that the states were sovereign and formed a compact which
<<anyone could pull out of when they wanted to. This is false.
<<
<<>
<<> In 1774, before they even contemplated actual independence from
<<>Britain, who governed all of them, they formed a Continental
<<Congress
<<>to which, eventually, was delegated such powers as the right
<<to raise a
<<>Continental army and treat with foreign powers, as well as
<<the English
<<>Government itself.
<<>[Char & Charlie ]
<<>The first Continental congress did not accomplish much other that to
<<>agree to boycott English goods because of the closing of
<<Boston harbor
<<>by the Crown and to agree that if Massachusetts militia was
<<attacked by
<<>the British all the colonies would support them. It was dominated by
<<>Samuel Adams who wanted to change the system of being ruled
<<by a small
<<>number of elite wealthy minority. The second CC in 1775 did
<<establish
<<>Washington as CIC after Concord and sent him to Boston but
<<little else
<<>with individual colonies militias providing the bulk of the
<<army. And
<<>Washington would beg and plead for the next eight years for
<<money from
<<>the congress to pay for the army. The desertion rates
<<rivaled those in
<<>the CW. By the way I consider the RW as the first civil war
<<in the US.
<<>The loyalist and those that did not chose Independence
<<exceeded those
<<>that did. The population of Boston changed by what military
<<controlled the town.
<<
<<Ok, but this doesn't change my point.
<<
<<>
<<>
<<> At no time did any
<<>state send its own representatives to London or Paris, etc.
<<After 1776,
<<>the Continental Congress, while not strong, nonetheless
<<operated as a
<<>Federal government. When the British gave up their supreme
<<power over
<<>the colonies in 1783, the Articles of Confederation were passed to
<<>replace British sovereignty. In that document it stated that
<<'The Union
<<>is perpetual'. That is pretty definite language. The
<<Articles were too
<<>weak, so 'In order to form a more perfect Union' the
<<Constitution was
<<>created and passed to strengthen the Federal government.
<<>[Char & Charlie ]
<<>The Articles did indeed leave much to the states. And with a large
<<>debt from the war it was evident that the states were not
<<going to pay
<<>off the debt and the US could not get anywhere as a nation
<<without the
<<>ability to pay off that debt. The issues of commerce,
<<expansion west,
<<>money could not be resolved without a central government and the
<<>Articles did not provide but for central control of common issues.
<<>Washington, Madison, Hamilton and other recognized that and lead the
<<>effort for a Constitution providing for a central government.
<<>
<<>Certainly, this was not perfect
<<>and the slavery issue was not resolved until the ACW, but a
<<Union was
<<>most definitely in place. However, it is one thing to
<<declare a country
<<>and another to make it into a nation. That takes time. I think that
<<>before the ACW you will find plenty of instances where citizens of
<<>every state, north and south, put state before Federal
<<government - but
<<>this slowly changed as people began to identify with the
<<national state
<<>as Americans.
<<> But there is another thing here as well. I truly
<<believe that the idea
<<>of identification with a specific state is overstated.
<<>[Char & Charlie ]
<<>Yes, but how many professional soldiers went with their
<<state and not
<<>with the federal government. I think you are right that slavery was
<<>used by a region to shout States rights as the governments
<<attempted to
<<>rid our country of the institution.
<<
<<They went with their region and family - and how many more,
<<in fact, didn't go with their states? The Federal government
<<also leaves much to the states, but that doesn't make them
<<sovereign. That is all I am saying here.
<<
<<Best,
<<
<<Laurie
<<
<<>
<<>By
<<>1860 there were 34 states, an increase of 21, and if we examine the
<<>muster rolls of both sides, you will note how many of those folks in
<<>the western states were born elsewhere. Lee had strong family and
<<>social ties to Virginia, but what of those many Americans who had
<<>migrated to Alabama, Illinois, Texas, Kansas, and so forth.
<<Can we say
<<>they really identified with their state as a primary
<<loyalty, or do we
<<>really see a sectional loyalty here - Slave vs free. Indeed,
<<the ties
<<>were quite murky as we see so many Southerners supporting
<<the Federal
<<>government and, at the same time, many border state folks
<<going south
<<>even though their state stayed with the Union. I see people talking
<<>about loyalty to family, section, way of life, and even to the
<<>Confederacy, but few saying "I'm going to fight for Alabama".
<<> Finally, there was always a minority, a la Calhoun, who
<<felt that the
<<>states SHOULD overrule the Federal government, but they were in the
<<>minority when the Constitution was ratified and never had any legal
<<>basis for their contention, as James Madison and Andy
<<Jackson clearly
<<>pointed out in 1832.
<<>
<<>Best,
<<>
<<>Laurie Schiller
<<>
<<
<<--
<<Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller Civil War First Person
<<Impressions
<<Maitre d'Armes William
<<Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
<<Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
<<Department of History
<<Northwestern University
<<Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference Midwest VP, US
<<Fencing Coaches' Association Vice-Chair USFA Illinois
<<Division Lds307 at northwestern.edu
<<847-491-4654
<<FAX 847-467-1406
<<Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/ Student web
<<site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/
<<
<<----------------------------------------------------------------
<<You may unsubscribe by going to
<<http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
<<
<<You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
<<http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
<<
<<View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
<<http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
<<
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list