If someone leads an army that fights against the US, that person is the very definition of a traitor, right? Maybe he should be called a revolutionary leader, or perhaps an insurrectionist, right? But “traitor” seems to be the overarching category. Am I missing something?
So let’s entertain a hypothetical scenario: let’s say a group of states disagrees with other states. Shots are fired, and one group of states votes to peel off and start a whole new country, with a new president, new currency, a new constitution, etc. That group of states puts an army together and then fights against the mother country… and appoints a general to lead that army. Against the mother country.
Am I missing something, or is it obvious that said general, who leads an army that fights against and kills soldiers in the opposing army, is a traitor?
Good. I thought so.
With all the talk around Robert E. Lee these days, about how he was an honorable man who did great things for our country, I thought maybe I was missing something.