It is history that James Madison, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson all regarded the quasi-secessionist Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 as treasonous.
Robert E. Lee; whose father was one of Washington’s generals and who was married to Martha Washington’s granddaughter, opposed Virginia’s secession in 1861, pointing out that Southern statesmen had always considered secession treason.
MY God, man, get your history right.
The Hartford Convention simply said that New England had a right to challenge actions it thought were unconstitutional (the New England states were opposed to the War of 1812 because of the impact it was having with its trade with England), and it thought the prosecution of the war and its affect on New England were infringements on the sovereignty of the New England states. That position by New England was almost exactly on point with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 offered by Jefferson and Madison (which were in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts). What Jefferson and Madison really opposed with the Hartford Convention was that convention’s direct insult to Virginia in propounding the resolution that the US presidency could not be held consecutively by men from the same state.
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were fully supportive of state’s rights. In fact, they were the precursor to the nullification acts a few years later, which held that the United States was a contract between the individual states and the federal government, and that the federal government had only limited powers, and that if the federal government sought to exceed those limited powers, those powers would be nullified.
So, you are now arguing that the two champions of states’ rights (Jefferson and Madison) suddenly switched gears and opposed New England’s assertion of states’ rights?
As for Robert E. Lee, he did not oppose secession, he just wished it would not have to come to that.