You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason.
Maybe not. Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, taken directly from the Declaration Of Independence. 7mm
"Preserving the Constitution, fighting off the nibblers and chippers, even nibblers and chippers with good intentions, was once regarded by conservatives as the first duty of the citizen. It still is." � Wesley Pruden
You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Where is it stated in the Constitution that keeping the Union intact is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government?
Quoting Lee’s thoughts on secession at that time being treasonous, as it relates to 1808 implies only his position. My thoughts were directed towards the inconsistency of his conclusion.
Lee makes it hard justify his ultiłmate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason.
Maybe not. Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, taken directly from the Declaration Of Independence. 7mm
You continue to see history from primarily a 21st century windshield. I suspect you may believe in global warming.
The question was even argued back then. Jefferson was a people’s rights proponent. Hamilton advocated big government.
Both signed their names on the Declaration.
Lee with “What can it be now?” Seemed to have answered the question in his own mind.
You didn't have to highlight anything. I posted it in its entirety for the very purpose of clarity. Really we get all that, as far as Lee's and the Confederacies thoughts on States rights.
However, Lee makes it hard justify his ultimate conclusion, in that while he stands on the principle of States rights, he also considers secession to be treason. "What can it be now?" Odd reasoning from such an intelligent individual.
Not really. Lee may have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
My thoughts were directed towards the inconsistency of his conclusion.
He was put into a terrible position by the times in which he lived.....his being an intelligent man only made it worse. He could either fight the Union or fight his friends, neighbors, and family which I suppose he decided was the "dishonor" that he could not abide. I suppose he could have resigned from the army and NOT fought for either side, making his name mud with both.
"Treason" is only treason if you lose. George Washington, the Sons of Liberty, the signers of the Declaration were no more or less treasonous than the Confederates......but they won and until recent times were nearly deified. Had they lost, their executions would be footnotes in British history.
As for today, if the country eventually votes in communism with all that goes along with it like confiscation of property and guns, if any of us raises our hands against it, guess what......we'll be traitors if we lose.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
Should Lee and some others been hung? I don’t think so. However, one was, and that would have been the poor fellow running Andersonville. Neither side was good at it, and it was the North that discontinued prisoner exchange. Whoever signed of on that may have also deserved a hanging.
Ok, I can agree on that being his personal conclusion.
Was Lee always right? Some agree, some don’t. Was Lee infallible? Obviously not.
Sure, he was one hundred percent right. The primary check of the old constitution was swept away by the war and now the balance is skewed with the federal government having all the power. The only power the states have is what the federal government allows them to have. And certainly we have been far more aggressive abroad than we used to be. And does anyone really even want to argue that we don’t have a level of despotism today in this country that would have had our forefathers taking up arms 50 years ago?
Not really. Lee May have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
It isn’t rocket science.
As far as prophesy, he also advocated no CW monuments should be erected and battlefields should not be commemorated. That it would be in the countries best interest to ensure the CW did not become a future division. Where do you stand with that prophesy?
You are so quick to agree with anything Lee, but show a limited knowledge of who he was. Either that or you choose to ignore the whole of him.
Little doubt, given the chance he would give you a proper education.
Not really. Lee May have considered it treason to leave, but he considered it the greater crime to keep it together by force. And afterwards, he realized that keeping it together by force had destroyed the original nature of the constitutional government by removing the check and balance of state power and he pretty succinctly prophesied our troubles in the future as a result.
It isn’t rocket science.
As far as prophesy, he also advocated no CW monuments should be erected and battlefields should not be commemorated. That it would be in the countries best interest to ensure the CW did not become a future division. Where do you stand with that prophesy?
He might have been right, but they were. So should they be torn down creating more resentment division or be left alone?
