You couldn't recognize a fact if you tripped over it. You breezed right past this part explaining their business: "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States." So that explains what they are there for. Not to negotiate. Not to discuss or treat. To demand recognition of confederate sovereignty and the legitimacy of their actions. Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on? And again there's that qualifier, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations." Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy? Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
Friendly relations is much better than war, eh? You don't appear to be taking the whole letter into consideration. Negotiate, discuss, and treat, are in the letter. The three gentlemen named in this letter have the authority to do each of these. There are no conditions placed on negotiation, discussion, or treating, in this letter. Your opinion appears to be that conditions must be met, however, this letter contains no such conditions.
Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on?
There was PEACE to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate'.
And again there's that qualifier, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations." Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy?
I believe those, "matters and subjects interesting to both nations," are discussed in the resolution behind this letter, no?
Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
No. Secession was not illegal.
If their intentions were to 'demand' recognition of Confederate sovereignty it would have been in the document.
Since it wasn't in the document, your insistence that they intended to 'demand' sovereignty recognition is just absurdly wild speculation on your part.
and the legitimacy of their actions.
Secession was not/is not illegal.
Unless Lincoln agreed to that requirement, and completely caved in to rebel demands, then what was there to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' on?
Wildly fanatical speculations of a grossly delusional madman.
Why should we believe that paying for the debt that they repudiated or the property that they stole would be of interest to the confederacy?
First, no property was stolen.
Second, history would have proven the Confederacy's honorable intentions if Linkln hadn't insisted on invading us.
Because wouldn't agreeing to pay for property stolen or debt repudiated be an admission that their actions were illegal in the first place?
Again, there was no stolen property involved, at least not south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Furthermore, since when does acting honorably and straightforward become admissions of some sort of guilt? A yankee trait, perhaps?
Playing the victim has become totally ingrained in you.