>>>Those marchers had one thing in common - they were protesting the removal of a statue of one of the most ignominious traitors in the history of this country.
>>>Can't say Lee was ignorant of the facts - he was a top grad from West Point.
>>>This was no country boy looking to have some fun killing Yankees.
>>>He consciously chose to betray the oath he had sworn and instead support the slave owners in his home state.
>>>His decision was directly responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and countless wounded - on both sides.
>>>If there was ever a definition of treason, that's it.
>
>Fair enough. But all of this treason stuff hinges on secession. Lee was a citizen of Virginia which, when it seceded, called for loyalty from its sons and daughters. To call it treason to respond to this call requires that a soldier's federal oath expunges their state obligations. Which might be easier to answer today, but in those days you were US citizen only by virtue of your citizenship of State- which had just seceded. Seems to me that honorable men could conclude that federal obligations were expunged by secession, with loyalty to state taking precedence.

Right. And they call that treason.
>
> Right now, I expect (in fact I know) that they feel as if their rights and preferences are trampled.
Yes. And they felt that way in 1864, 1964 and will probably feel that way in 2064.
Sorry, guys.
That's what happens when you lose a war. You have to do what the other guy says.
March all you want and carry your torches, but that statue stays down.