Was Louis Riel guilty or not?

Louis Riel was clearly guilty of treason because he
unquestionably led an armed uprising against the government of his country.  There is no
way to argue that he did not do this.  Therefore, he was
factually guilty of
treason.

However, there are reasons to believe that his
trial was in some ways unfair or that it did not end up with the most just result. 
Three things to consider are:

• Riel's possible
  insanity.  There was strong evidence that Riel was no completely sane.  If the court had
  agreed, he could have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.  However, it is
  partly his own fault that the court did not rule this way.  After all, Riel rejected the
  idea that he was insane quite passionately.


• The
  composition of the jury.  All of the members of the jury were white Anglo-Saxon
  Protestants while Riel was a Metis and a Catholic.  The prosecution seems to have
  deliberately worked to have such a jury, which would be seen today as an unjust thing to
  do.


• Finally, there is the fact that the jury asked for
  mercy for Riel because the government's dealings with Indians and Metis were less than
  fair.

Taken altogether, these factors do not
indicate that Riel wasn't guilty.  However, they do indicate that his trial and the
punishment handed down was less than just.