George Washington was of course a British subject who took up arms against the King.
Using DManA’s criteria Washington would be a man without honor, Washington having taken an oath to defend the Crown when he was a colonial officer. But South-haters are notorious for employing a double standard when describing the rebellions of 1776 and 1861 so we won’t be hearing any similar charges against GW.
Interesting. You mention extremists and look who shows up LOL.
I think GW’s position, from the point of view of honoring an oath of allegiance, is less defensible than that of Lee.
Lee stayed firmly loyal to the government to which he had sworn allegiance until his State withdrew from it, then sadly tendered his resignation.
Washington was one of the leaders of the rebellion, and indeed took command of the traitorous (from the British POV) forces a year before the colonies declared themselves independent. For that year even GW would have agreed he still owed allegiance to the King he was fighting.
All of which is not intended to say GW acted dishonorably, only that not every man who violated a previous oath was therefore proven dishonorable.
Now I happen to believe the State of Virginia acted dishonorably when it waged war for a month or more on a Union to which it still technically belonged. But that’s a whole other story.