If you can mangle the meaning of the word honorably to cover Lee then the word has no meaning.
Obviously we’re going to disagree on this point.
But it seems to me a man given no choice except to violate one of his two allegiances can act honorably whichever he chooses.
There were, of course, men on both sides who chose sides for opportunistic or other dishonorable reasons, but there is zero evidence that Lee was among them.
In fact, I believe there is good evidence he fully understood the South was likely to lose. This is evidenced by, among other evidence, his understanding that the only way for the South to win, once foreign intervention became impossible, was to go forth and conquer a peace. Defensive strategy could lead, in the end, to nothing but a delayed defeat.
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.