While Marius debates the integrity of the rebellion and his part in it, since history would consider it a civil war, he realizes that he is fighting for liberty, regardless of the familiarity of the opposing side. The narrator then uses logos to argue the nonexistence of civil war in the first place:
Civil war—what does that mean? Is there a foreign war? Is not all war between men, war between brothers? War is qualified only by its object. There is no such thing as foreign or civil war; there is only just and unjust war. […] War does not become a disgrace, the sword does not become a disgrace, except when it is used for assassinating the right, progress, reason, civilization, truth. Then war, whether foreign or civil, is iniquitous; it is called crime. Outside the pale of that holy thing, justice, by what right does one form of man despise another?
The narrator here uses logos to argue the injustice of the term “civil war,” starting with the fact that war is defined by what the sides are fighting for or against. War, however, is a term used only by the sides of history to explain their pursuits of progress, reason, and civilization. When pursuits are in opposition to these ideals, society dubs war a crime. The only fallacy in this argument is regarding who determines what is “right” or what the “truth” is. If the opposing sides both believe that what they are fighting for is justice, who can determine what is unjust? By this argument, there is only "just" war and crime, and even these categories are determined entirely through bias and nationalism.