Replies

I think we might be overlooking the federalist vs state perspective, and Lee, like most men at the time, we very much a defender of states rights.

You see, his loyalty was to the US but he was a Virginian—first—and states were respected back then because everyone understood we are a collection of sovereign states, a group of “united states.” And this is the central issue, I think, when it comes to understanding Lee and his loyalties.

Consider: I was reading the 22 Jan 1897, Congressional Directory, 2nd Session, 54th Congress, published by the GPO and came across the following:

In the section on “Department Duties, The Department of State, Secretary of State,” that section states the Sec State “is charged under the direction of the President, with the duties appertaining to correspondence with the public minsters and the consuls of the United States, and with the representatives of foreign powers accredited to the United States; and to negotiations of whatever character relating to the foreign affairs of the United States”

No big surprise there, but the next sentence struck me:

“He is also the medium of correspondence between the President and the chief executives of the several states of the United States;”

Wow.

That sentence clearly demonstrates that at one time in our history the federal government respected state sovereignty so much so that the President would communicate with state governors in that same manner that he would when dealing with foreign heads of state, via the Sec State.

By treating the governors of the states with the same amount of dignity and respect afforded to foreign heads of states clearly shows that back then the federal government understood its limitations.

Extraordinary. And Lee stood for states rights, state loyalty. . .and apparently the US government did too, when convenient.

Today we see no such respect, no such divide that would indicate the federal government (President) respects federalism and its limits.

Lee was more in line with the founding fathers than most know.

IMHO.

Cheers.

Thanks Hulka. I did some research and learned Lincoln thought highly of Lee and your point is right which is also why the Founders gave state senates the power to elect Senators.

That sentence clearly demonstrates that at one time in our history the federal government respected state sovereignty so much so that the President would communicate with state governors in that same manner that he would when dealing with foreign heads of state, via the Sec State.

I think you overstate the case, or that the document you cite simplifies it. If you actually read the 1789 act of Congress establishing the duties of the secretary of state, you find this:

Chap. ⅩⅣ.—An Act to provide for the safe-keeping of the Acts, Records and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved and signed by the President of the United States... the said Secretary shall, as soon as conveniently may be, after he shall receive the same, cause every such law, order, resolution, and vote, to be published in at least three of the public newspapers printed within the United States, and shall also cause one printed copy to be delivered to each Senator and Representative of the United States, and two printed copies duly authenticated to be sent to the Executive authority of each State;Act of March 2, 1799, ch. 30, sec. 1. and he shall carefully preserve the originals, and shall cause the same to be recorded in books to be provided for the purpose.

So what it appears is that as part of his role as the keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, the Secretary of State has the job of making sure that the laws passed by congress are published and propertly distributed, included to the state governments. It doesn't mean that he's sending ambassadors to each state capital, or treating them as individual foreign powers. It just means they're on his mailing list.