Edited.Not being convicted of anything makes one a God? We have alot of gods then.
In our legal system one is innocent until proven guilty, so as far as our legal system is concerned he is innocent, If one respects our legal values he also would considered innocent.
How about the cases where a person was found guilty of something they did clearly not do.
(be that in the south or in a dictatorship somewhere at some point in history)
Should we still call them criminals if it is clear that it was a deliberate Miscarriage of justice?
I fully agree that a person should be considered innocent until proved guilty.
But we as (amateur) historians also have the right to try judge if a person actually did something or not based on the historical evidence. Especially in a situation where a fair and unbiased trail was impossible.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
Lee clearly levied war on the USA... So any defense would point to the core question is -
Was he a US citizen when he did that or not when he did it?
And to answer that we need a ruling on the legality of the Virginia session.