Massachusetts actually sent three commissioners to Washington, D.C. to negotiate these terms. Which was done weeks after the Conference published its report, and even then, the treaty had just been ratified.
Of course, if this is the position that you're taking, I suppose you should also criticize Andrew Jackson for fighting the Battle of New Orleans after the treaty he didn't know about had been signed.
I do appreciate that you cut and pasted the part about the Hartford Conference's flirtation with the idea of secession being considered treason, "especially in the south."
So the representative, republican governments of the States THEMSELVES are now actually "combinations" of rebellious individuals within the states obstructing their laws?
In a word, yes.
Note that Buchanan had already looked at the Act...
Buchanan would have found some reason to do nothing, to pass it on to the next guy.
Funny enough, the Act also raised militia by (drumroll...) conscription of 6 months (3 per the 1795 act, extended to 6 several years later), so there goes that argument too.
Calling forth the militia for 90 days (which is what Lincoln did in his April 15 decree) is not the same as conscription.
Oh well, who's needs restraints anyway?
I'm sorry. Did I miss the part of the MIlitia Act that calls for the president to convene congress immediately?
And you continue to justify illegal actions with packed-court decisions passed AFTER they occurred, as if somehow they somehow traverse space and time.
And you continue to somehow expect the court to speak to the legality of actions that haven't occurred yet, as if they somehow traverse time and space. And Lincoln didn't pack the court. That refers to adding members to the court in order to dilute an opposing bloc, as FDR threatened. Lincoln did not add members to the court that decided the case--he replaced three justices who died and one who resigned.
By your logic, despite months of declared cease fire and a signed treaty, the fact that the British violated those agreements several times meant that
Americans weren't aware of them? Following that logic, was anyone in America aware that the "war was over" while they continued to fight the British ally Sauks right through 1818? I guess it takes months to get word across the Atlantic, and several years to hit the mid-west. See, you do a fine job educating us here, because I bet you no one knew that!
I happy you appreciate that the mere "flirtations" (as you dismiss them) became
synonymous with disunion, secession, and treason, especially in the South. However I'm disappointed that you think
especially somehow equates to
exclusively. Since the stigma of the convention was significant enough to all but immediately destroy the party of Washington - which was almost exclusively
Northern - it's one more curious step in your mountain of infallible logic.
The rest of your post, well, speaks for itself. Thanks for clearing up your position for us, and please let us know if you'd like an extra Lincoln, FDR or Stalin poster for your bedroom walls.