Lee rejected America so saying he was a fine honorable American is like saying Benedict Arnold was a fine honorable American.
Benedict Arnold adhered to a foreign monarch a vast difference from a people who attempted to leave the Union by lawful process. No person was ever tried and convicted of treason who adhered to the CSA. The fanatics that ran the Federal government after the Civil war knew they could never get treason convictions so they passed the 14th amendment.
Lastly, the winners define who is a traitor. If King George had won the Revolutionary war all the signers of the Declaration of independence would have been hung. They said so themselves. Lee was a noble man even General Grant said so. A democratic fanatics can never understand the idea of the noble enemy.
Lee didn’t reject America, America asked him to take arms against Virginia. He refused. If you don’t understand what that means then you are beyond help.
You might try being more like Lee. You would be a better person and a better American. You would also temper your comments on subject of which you are ignorant.
Be like Lee.
Lee did not "reject America" but refused to take up arms against Virginia, his state. This is a key distinction. At that time there was no such thing as a generic US citizen, as an American was a citizen of his respective state. It was the outcome of the war that destroyed federalism and shaped the modern concept of an omnipotent central government.
I think we might be overlooking the federalist vs state perspective, and Lee, like most men at the time, we very much a defender of states rights.
You see, his loyalty was to the US but he was a Virginian—first—and states were respected back then because everyone understood we are a collection of sovereign states, a group of “united states.” And this is the central issue, I think, when it comes to understanding Lee and his loyalties.
Consider: I was reading the 22 Jan 1897, Congressional Directory, 2nd Session, 54th Congress, published by the GPO and came across the following:
In the section on “Department Duties, The Department of State, Secretary of State,” that section states the Sec State “is charged under the direction of the President, with the duties appertaining to correspondence with the public minsters and the consuls of the United States, and with the representatives of foreign powers accredited to the United States; and to negotiations of whatever character relating to the foreign affairs of the United States”
No big surprise there, but the next sentence struck me:
“He is also the medium of correspondence between the President and the chief executives of the several states of the United States;”
Wow.
That sentence clearly demonstrates that at one time in our history the federal government respected state sovereignty so much so that the President would communicate with state governors in that same manner that he would when dealing with foreign heads of state, via the Sec State.
By treating the governors of the states with the same amount of dignity and respect afforded to foreign heads of states clearly shows that back then the federal government understood its limitations.
Extraordinary. And Lee stood for states rights, state loyalty. . .and apparently the US government did too, when convenient.
Today we see no such respect, no such divide that would indicate the federal government (President) respects federalism and its limits.
Lee was more in line with the founding fathers than most know.
IMHO.
Cheers.
To compare Lee to Benedict Arnold only shows your lack of class.