It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
There is nothing in that quote that contradicts my point. It’s just arguing that actually taking up arms is not a requirement.
In fact.
Actually supports my point because this was part of no war.
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
Show me in common law where war is interpreted in a way that would include this insurrection.
And, again, your quote isn’t about the definition of war or even force, but that one doesn’t need to take up arms in order to be guilty of treason.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
And it’s easier to find interpretations of the term by modern judges than to dig through English case law, so here’s one: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a8e8add7b04934706331