[agrandis]

Can the latter be reconciled with an honest account of what Lee was saying in 1861?

Absolutely. But not for someone who makes statements like, "Socilaism and nationalism are opposites, by definition." Or, "Robert E. Lee was a bum."

LOL! I can't get over it! I can just see you, sitting at your ketboard like a toadstool, desperately needing a scrub, typing that out with your grubby little fingers! LOL! It's too much! Life is better than fiction!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Can the latter be reconciled with an honest account of what Lee was saying in 1861?

Absolutely.

That must be a typo. You mean "absolutely not."

If the government of the framers had been followed, as Lee indicated was the goal in 1866, it would not have been legal or moral to overthrow it, as it was meant by the framers to be "perpetual."

You don't like me, fine.

But don't spit on the plain record just because it doesn't suit your prejudices.

Walt