As I stated , "I have great respect for Lee" .
cisco1,
I cannot remember when I was not an iconoclast.
I luv jokes and humor with a "hook".
When I started this thread, I did so somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
On Monday, most folks if you asked, would have referenced MLK.
In good cheer, I thought I'd reference REL.
Like you I hold the man in high regard. However as I mentioned before, I deify no man, and follow none blindly.
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one and most of them smell.
It is my opinion that secession was understood to be the right of a "sovereign state"
ON SECESSION AND SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE
The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called 'un-American?'
When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This state of affairs received confirmation by both the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Thus Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.
The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding exactly how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates from the States met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. These delegates were not given authority by the people of their States to make any binding agreements; rather, they were only to discuss proposed amendments (just as our current Constitution has been amended from time to time) to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles might become effective only if they were ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.
The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U. S. Constitution. Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists opposed as they accurately predicted that it would result in an out of control and corrupt central government. Nonetheless, the Articles of Confederation were overturned. But the wisdom of that measure is a story for another day.
The U.S. Constitution did not become binding until nine of the thirteen States had ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and thus these nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other. By doing so, they created the political union known as the United States. The four States that remained outside of this union for a time were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States united under the Constitution.
For our purposes, it is important to note here that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by the same means by which they had acceded to it, and that is by a convention of the citizens or their representatives.
Nowhere in the Constitution is it forbidden for a State to secede from this voluntary union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.
http://dixienet.org/rights/2012/secession_southern_independence.php It is also my opinion that men such as Lee and his contemporaries viewed their first allegiance to their "sovereign" state. Not to the "Union" or federal government which was a "federation" of the original 13 colonies.......
......................
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, was a document signed amongst the thirteen original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_ConfederationBut as you know, opinions vary. At this point in history, it is moot.
I do believe history has been kind to REL. Lee was fallible and had foibles and frailties as does any other human being. However, I believe him to have been honorable, and a man of integrity.
Best,
GWB
