A tiny rant

I’m confused.

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.