GDG- States Rights and Union

[Smith David]

It's a little late, but I want to weigh in on the discussion between
Laurie and Charlie about states' rights and the nature of the Union...

There's truth to both sides.  As trivia, it is interesting to note,
however, even with the Union, that the United States were generally
referred to in the plural before the Civil War, and singular after ("The
United States are..." vs. "The United States is...")

Yes, there was a strong desire by the Founders to create a strong,
lasting republic.  But from early on, there were tugs against it,
particularly from places like South Carolina and sometimes Georgia -
states that threatened not to support the Declaration of Independence
unless the references to slavery were taken out.  These multiple streams
kind of proceed in tension until a bloody war resolves the questions,
and the slavery issue.

A number of Southerners, especially Virginians, including Madison and
notably George Mason, fought against an inclusion of slavery in the
Constitution.  But the Deep South states were more committed (Madison's
Notes are wonderful, and were actually hailed by abolitionists when they
were first published in the 1830s, I believe, because of Madison's lack
of enthusiasm for slavery, and his revelations about the convention in
that regard).

Jefferson's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions argued for a right by
states to nullify federal laws (1798).  They weren't passed or
implemented, but they were referred to by states' rightists, especially
South Carolinians, ever after until the Civil War.

Even Northerners were somewhat confused about the roles and interaction
between the state and federal government until the Civil War.  Northern
"personal liberty laws" to protect free blacks and, in some cases,
obstruct the fugitive slave law essentially argued that states could
regulate or interfere with the operation of federal law in their
jurisdictions.  This was most marked in the "nullification"
controversies in Wisconsin and Vermont, but almost all Northern states
had some version of the laws, and there were notable disputes in Ohio,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania as well.  

During the 1830s, even some Northern political figures - like Thaddeus
Stevens - argued "states rights" as a reason Northern states and
individuals should resist the "Gag Rule" and the restriction of
abolitionist mail to the South.

Years ago, Staughton Lynd - who is primarily a colonial historian -
wrote a very interesting piece on the 1780s and 1790s in Congress, in
which he argues sectional issues arose immediately and on almost every
major issue, even back then, there was an acriminious North-South split
in Congressional debates and voting.  (The issues were primarily topics
like the Northwest territories, the Old Southwest (AL, MI, etc.) and the
fugitive slave law.  It's in an old antislavery collection, I can get
you the reference if you want - I think it is a very good, little known
piece. 

So I can see where, unlike today, some Southerners might have felt a
primary loyalty to their state first and the U.S. nation second.  I
think Lee did, and I don't think it is necessarily any aspersion on his
character to say so.  He was very upfront about his motivations from the
moment he resigned his U.S. commission.  By the way, I think you see
this in some North Carolina soldier's letters during the war - a
willingness to fight in Virginia to defend Virginia and North Carolina,
but more reluctance to invade the North, an objective they saw as less
connected to the defense of North Carolina.  I hope to explore this with
some research sometime.

David G. Smith