While both artifacts from the Civil War are very compelling, I think that Lincoln's speech has a more engaging voice within it. Lee's letter is intriguing, but in the end, Lee ends up supporting a position that he knows is against the nature of the Constitution. Lee's fundamental objection to secession is that it violates the principles of the Constitution and the intent of the framers who assembled it. However, Lee ends up captaining a position throughout the war that he knows is wrong. I don't find this as engaging as Lincoln's premise. Lincoln's purpose was to maintain the Union and in his speech, he "puts the music" to this idea. For Lincoln, the preservation of the Union is to support a principle of government that has been present since the dawning of the nation. Lincon's voice is more engaging because he is able to link the actions of the North with the consistency of the Constitution. Lee's voice is lacking here because he supports a position that he knows violates the spirit of the Constitution. Lincoln's voice is in support of this and for this reason, I would think that his voice is more engaging than the position that Lee takes in his letter to his son.