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.
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? And by your logic, the delegates of the Hartford Convention should have been telepathically aware of the Treaty of Ghent before word of it actually reached the United States. The Treaty was concluded in Ghent on December 24. On January 2, Henry Carroll, Henry Clay's personal secretary, boarded a ship in London carrying a copy of the treaty. It was bound for Chesapeake Bay, but bad weather forced it land in New York. It arrived there on February 11. Five more days brought it to Washington and ratification.
Now, exactly at what point do you think that the Hartford delegates should have learned of it?
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?
As for your claim that there had been "months of ceasefire," all I can say is that this appears to be yet another case of you having a different definition than anyone else. When exactly was this ceasefire agreed upon? The British burned Washington in August 1814. They bombarded Ft. McHenry in September. They invaded Louisiana in December. So again I ask, "What ceasefire?"
However I'm disappointed that you think especially somehow equates to exclusively.
Again you seem to think I said things I never said. But I do find it ironic that secession was considered akin to treason when northern states considered it, but that it was the highest form of political expression when the south wanted to do it.