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.
That’s okay, donny, just because you can’t find any statement of Ike’s about why he admired Lee it doesn’t mean that you’re wrong. It just means you that can’t buttress your opinion with a reference.
That’s an interesting distinction you’re making between ‘secession’ and ‘rebellion’- too bad dictionaries don’t make that same distinction that you’re claiming.
Your definitions are what is known as “special pleading”, or an “appeal to” fallacy, where you are simply inventing a ‘definition’ convenient to your argument, but unsupported by any reference other than your own imagination.
Your precis of English history leading up to the war is amusing, considering that you have England starting the war through its intention to collect taxes, which of course was the role of Fort Sumter as the tariff collection facility in Charleston harbor. The logic of that argument probably won’t work out the way that you intend it to.
“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.”
Well that of course is exactly backwards. The individual colonies/states drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1776 and then voted to establish the United States of America a year later by ratifying those Articles. In similar fashion the states replaced the Articles with the Constitution by ratifying it.
If the Union had preceded the states, as per your claim, then the colonies/states would not have had the power to ratify anything concerning the Union, since they would have been mere subordinate structures. But they did ratify the Articles, creating the union, and they ratified the Constitution, changing the structure and defining the powers of the national government.
As for the rest of your post, it’s tendentious nonsense. You need some basic history, as well as something like Copi’s Logic in order to learn how to put together an argument without the ad hominems and other logical fallacies that adorn your writing.