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.
Sorry, you have it wrong.
Secession is the legal separation from the union. That is your neo-reb argument: Secession would be legal for the states, and your argument is that it was legal as practiced in 1860. If it was not legal in 1860, then the rebels were traitors when they made war against the US.
Neo-Rebs need to conflate the 1776 colonies that were (with royal charters and with royal governors) with the states (with elected governors and new constitutions) that they became to support the pretense that the states created the Union. So, when were these independent states independent? Name the year. Rather, it was an act of the union that published the Declaration of Independence. The colonies were not independent of the British Crown prior to that. Despite not being independent, the British Crown sent soldiers to occupy Boston in response to the Boston Tea party. English parliament had what they thought was a good scheme: They would collect the tax in England, and then the British tea company would sell the tea in the colonies at a price that was cheaper than the competition. Due to the unfairness of the tax, in most ports, the tea was not unloaded. In most ports, the tea was not unloaded, or was not distributed after unloading. Only in Boston was the tea destroyed. In response to the destruction of the tea, the British Crown sent soldiers, and Gage used them to hold Boston hostage until compensation was collected. When compensation was not forthcoming, Gage sent those soldiers on an extended raid to seize weapons not owned by the Crown, but rather by the local militia. Such military operations turned into a battle, and into a war. Further military operations occurred at Bunker Hill/Breed’s Hill. The Declaration of Independence was written in response to that war begun by the British crown.
It may be we both agree that secession could be legal. I hold legal secession could be possible by constitutional amendment, and might be legal by successful federal court case or perhaps even by federal law. Such legal secession would not be rebellion, being agreed to by the Union. None of those legal means were attempted by the rebels of 1860, as they recognized that they would fail. It was the rebels of 1860 that appealed to the sword, and they lost utterly.
Successful rebellion would also be theoretically possible, but in my lifetime, with the federal government deploying nuclear weapons, I see that as unlikely. Your mileage may differ.
That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented. Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.
I will point out that the key dates are 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was passed by the Union, as represented by the Continental Congress, and the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. In response to the Declaration of Independence, the local governments removed royal governors, wrote constitutions to replace royal charters, and held elections, becoming states subordinate to the Union.
“Dear Mr. President:
“At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
“I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
“The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.
“Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours, “Leon W. Scott”
Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower