You are smarter than to play word games. “Legally” is not the same as “historically”.
Obviously. It’s not a “word game” to insist upon the rule of law. What challenges that rule of law are notions that popularity of an individual who makes the law or issues a ruling using their Constitutional statutory authority somehow affects the amount of consideration we must account to that law or ruling.
The popularity of a politician matters only at one point: the ballot box. Once elected, their popularity does not affect their statutory authority. To believe otherwise is to disregard the rule of law on which the Republic is based.
One connot be pardoned from a charge without being charged first. Plus, there were exclusions to Johnson’s pardon. So, yes, they were guilty of treason. That is history.
What’s triggering this discussion for me is people throwing the word “treason” around like it was a fait accompli, AND THEN stating that that has some sort of relevance to whether or not a statue is removed from a particular place or not. There is nothing wrong with having a monument to a scoundrel, in order to remind us to not be scoundrels.
My view is that that decision should be made on matters such as the divisiveness of the monument and its presentation, and determined not by mobs, but by the vote of the people.
Evidently some people prefer the mobs. This doesn’ t end well, historically.