While you might argue, and obvously have, that there was a false assumption in General Ike's conclusion, that certainly doesn't preclude his having using several correct assumptions as well. One bad assumption does not necessarily a decision make. Ike didn't wind up with five stars on his shoulders making bad assumptions.
Good point. It's also entirely possible that Ike just plain misspoke. Lee did believe unswervingly in the right of Virginia to secede and his duty to follow. And Ike clearly believed that the Constitutionality of secession was an arguable issue in 1861. So I can't see Ike ripping Lee's portrait off the wall and painting horns on his head just because he expressed some doubts about it.
Im not sure I agree, when he wrote about secession to his son he didn't say except for Virginia, myself I believe he thought secession was wrong, but would follow Virginia in which ever direction it took irregardless of his own opinion on the matter.
No doubt Lee thought secession was a bad idea, but he still believed it was a "reserved right", and he fought for that right. Kind of like those today who are willing to fight for the right of others to burn the flag, even though they themselves might think it's a deplorable act.
Very nice, but that is not what Lee wrote in his letter to his son. If he did think of it as a reserved right, he mispoke or was lying in the letter..
What does one statement even have to do with the other? Do you see them as contradicting one another in some way?Which is more likely to be a correct represemtation of Lee's 'unswerving belief in the Constitutional validity of his cause. surprised you did not know that.
And why would you think he would be a whiffet less devoted to the US than Lee was to Virginia?
Well, what Lee said was that as a citizen of Virginia, "her laws and her acts were binding on me." Would not Thomas consider U.S. laws and acts to be binding on him?We have Lee specifically stating that he would (paraphrased) "follow Virginia anywhere". Even if Virginia is doing something he considers wrong, he feels bound to follow. No exceptions.
In absence of such a statement from Thomas on the US, I am assuming the best - that if the US was some kind of monstrous tyranny he would not consider it worthy of his sword.
My new favorite word. In Three Roads to the Alamo, some little guy was described as "a mere whiffet of a man."And what is a whiffet anyway?
Well, what Lee said was that as a citizen of Virginia, "her laws and her acts were binding on me." Would not Thomas consider U.S. laws and acts to be binding on him?
Ah. It is a nifty word. Useful, too.My new favorite word. In Three Roads to the Alamo, some little guy was described as "a mere whiffet of a man."
|★ Dwight, William Jr.||Biographies of the Civil War||3|
|★ Terry, Henry Dwight||Biographies of the Civil War||0|
|A||Secession and the CS constitution||Additional Discussion on Secession||19|
|A||Letcher and Va. secession||Additional Discussion on Secession||0|
|G||Prelude to Secession- the Schism of a Church||Additional Discussion on Secession||1|