“Rebellion against the government is treason.”
That’s exactly what King George III said as he sent the Redcoats to quash the rebels.
“There is one exception: if you win. “
Your argument has the merit of doing away with legal and philosophical reasoning.
“That pretense was founded on a lie, to justify their treason.”
Now wait minute, you just said that rebellion is fine if you win. Now you’re saying it is based on a lie. So when Geo Washington and company rebelled from Great Britain, at what point did their rebellion cease being based on “a lie to justify their treason” and become instead a virtue?
“The pretense of the rebels was that unilateral secession at pleasure was legal”
You mean like at the Hartford Convention? Where the New England Federalists advocated secession in 1814? Where the secession minded New Englanders cited the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, the same justification used in 1860?
“The admiration if Eisenhower et al. for Lee was for some of his military achievements, not for his politics.”
And you know this how, exactly? Where is the apposite quote of Eisenhower and Marshall to instruct you on what their interest in Lee was?
Still haven’t figured it out?
Keep beclowning yourself.
If Eisenhower admired Lee for his politics, Lee would have to have a political position for which to be admired.
Lee never did have a political position. At West Point Lee’s battles are studied. His politics, mostly either excused, or ignored.
Secession is the pretense that breaking the union would be legal under specific circumstances. Rebellion is the attempt to break the union outside the law, which may be justified by morality, as in 1776, or not as in 1860-61.
The union of the colonies was with the British Crown, rather like the union of the island of Jersey with England. England had no representation in their parliament from the colonies, just as they have no representation from the island of Jersey.
In 1776, England, with the king, had repeatedly attempted to tax the colonies, where they had no authority, and from which they had no representation. (The colonies had their own representation, and enacted their own taxes.) The English Parliament and the King had sent out soldiers and officers to enforce that taxation, effectively making war on the colonies. That war, begun by the Crown, justified the rebellion, despite pretended laws passed by England.
By contrast, the southern states had representation with the federal government, and far from being attacked by the federal government, the southern rebels attacked US government soldiers and seized US government bases and property.
The Union had preceded the states, and it was the concerted efforts of the United Colonies that created the states, with the states being later recognized by treaty with Britain.
So the lie of the rebels were as follows (incomplete list)
1. the pretense by southern rebels that secession was legal,
2. the pretense that the states had created the Union
3. the pretense that citizens of the states owed service to their states, even when a state legislature exceeded its authority, and pretended secession from the Union.
4. the pretense that the failure of northern state governments to support and obey slave state laws justified secession.
The success of those lies were uneven. Some states were able to delude most of their people owing to their people’s lack of education. Other states were not able, and relied on force (such as Texas, where Sam Houston as governor was removed because he would not take unconstitutional action.) In no rebellious state of 1860-1861 was rebellion justified, as no state was denied representation to the US Congress. Tennessee in particular retained its representation in the Senate even after their state pretended secession. For every less competent general such as Lee or Hood, trained by the Union, there was a more competent general such as Grant or Thomas, also trained by the Union.
Glad I could help you with that. Gosh, your education must be even more wanting than I previously appreciated.