Allen Guelzo on Robert E. Lee (Lincoln Log Podcast) 

So, if one is loyal to home he’s loyal to his “state.” But if he’s loyal to his nation he’s loyal to the “federal government?” Really? I suggest that you’re conflating one’s “nation“ with the “federal government.” Clearly they are not the same.

@@scottamichie I agree that the nation is not reducible to the national government, but the controversy here was with the power of the national government with its military. But even so, one's loyalty to the family, then the community, then the state, then the region then the nation reflects the principle of subsidiarity especially in a country that is a composite of smaller nations. The same would be so in Spain or the U.K. and even more so in the U.S. with its distinct regions that really are different nations.

@@christophergraves6725 1860 US military virtually nonexistent. Some 16k uniformed soldiers. Mostly in Indian territory. It was the Deep South that had been militarized since 1850 “compromise.” Every Federal Fort and harbor and post office fell to the newly formed confederacy within days of Fort Sumter. Secession came in 1860 after decades of deep south plantation class oligarchs insisting on the expansion of slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean and into the southern Americas and Caribbean. And with candidate Lincoln pledging to leave slavery alone where it legally existed-in the mid- and deep south: but to oppose its expansion beyond its historical boundaries. Not interested in a back n forth with you . Bye bye.

@@scottamichie Well, we are mixing a number of issues together. I was addressing the line of loyalty a person owes to various levels of polity. I was not addressing either slavery or secession. I am certainly opposed to slavery as were many Southerners prior to the 1840's. There were more abolitionist societies in the South during the 1830's than in the North. See the link below. The radical abolitionist movement viciously attacked anything Southern in the decades leading up to the war offending Southerners' honor, which is a big deal to us then and now. That crude fanaticism drove a lot of people in the South away from the abolitionist cause. A lot of people in the North including Lincoln who opposed slavery were wary of the Abolitionist movement that had gone radical. The other point that you are mixing in is secession. I completely agree with you on the irrationality of secession at that time. It was not justified and unwise to say the least. Remember that Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and even Nathan Bedford Forrest opposed secession before it occurred. They believed however that they must remain loyal to their respective states and their region in light of the way things were sorting out including Lincoln raising an army after the first few states went out. That move by Lincoln antagonized the remaining Southern states and so they seceded. If Virginia had not followed suit, then Lee and Jackson would have fought for the Union. For them, the key issue was loyalty to their state.

And another perspective is were the Founding Fathers traitors to England? Yes they were. This would all be a moot point if the South had won the Civil War.

Well be more specific and point out these half truths. Or did he speak truth about the loss causers demigod Lee.

That's because this person is an absolute CLOWN. I have spoke with him & he claims to be a Christian.

I totally agree any man who owns another man or woman has Slaves is an unworthy man. Even though in the south it was legalised, the man was a so-called man of faith, and believes, in the teachings of bible and teachings Jesus