Actually, it’s very relevant. For if you acknowledge Johnson’s unpopularity,
Please cite the statute that shows that President’s popularity affects his uncontested legal ability to pardon.
Etymologically, describing the actions of the Confederates as “treasonous” is very much in keeping with the definition of treason.
This is the unsettled area to which I spoke. IF (a) you admit (which you must) that the Constitution does not address the matter of secession one way or the other, AND (b) you admit the validity of the 10th Amendment, THEN (c ) you have no choice but admit that secession had a strong legal argument in its favor at the time South Carolina decided to secede.
AND, if you admit that, then the subsequent actions of South Carolina were the actions of one sovereign nation engaging in an act of war against another. And hence, the “not treason” interpretation was a quite valid one at the time.
Excellent. Then you should also concur (or, at least acknowledge) that such symbols of treasonous foes can also be problematic and divisive for this Appalachian, West Virginian, and Jew.
I have no problem with acknowledgement. However, the larger issue is relevance. I am not aware that there was ever any slavery of Appalachian West Virginian Jews, so that particular identity group (the number of which I suspect barely reaches four digits) would not have any dogs in this particular hunt.