Much like my support your own right to free speech (no matter how little I care for what you have to say.)
I can't be held personally responsible for how you choose to exercise that right.
Exactly!
The alternative to this would imply that a state has only those rights that you would agree with? how principled would that be?
This seems to be pretty close to the idea that I would defend to the death YOUR right to espouse wrong ideas. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend your right to be wrong.
"And yet he led his men to slaughter fighting for a state's right to determine something that he did not agree with. How principled! What a true hero!"
What a newby! You ... are a quack. Not only a quack, but a politically correctivist, leftist leaning historical revisionist moron.
Robert E. Lee did what he felt was his duty! Something you would know nothing about. He was a moral and principled man (which you are not), he felt that "duty" was a higher calling from God. He knew that duty was not always easy, but to do one's duty was right and just. He felt his duty was to his home state of Virginia, his allegiance was to the Old Dominion. He was saddened by the Secession of the South, but knew that his duty lay with his state.
I quote from the 'Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography' - 'Lee's skill as a general rested on his ability to analyze a situation swiftly and accurately, his knack for anticipating an enemy's movements, and his abilities as improvisation and extemporization; these skills were matched by a great strength of character, a high sense of duty, and genuine humility, and selflessness; one of the great generals.'
You would do well to study the actual truth about this great man. But I see you would rather run around sounding like an unprincipled PC hack. Your kind aren't welcomed too kindly here!