The pretense of the rebels was that unilateral secession at pleasure was legal. That pretense was founded on a lie, to justify their treason.
Rebellion against the government is treason. There is one exception: if you win. That high standard was not met by the rebels of 1861.
The admiration if Eisenhower et al. for Lee was for some of his military achievements, not for his politics. In like manner one can respect and even admire Eric von Manstein/Lewinski’s military achievements without supporting his sad devotion to horrible political masters and corresponding war crimes.
“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?