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.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.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.
Not at all.
No conflict between that act and the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record talks about the president communicating with the states and that process acknowledges separation between the states and the federal government. No mention of ambassadors as none were necessary, as the Sec State was the conduit of communication between the president and the states.
Cheers.