[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

[phi11yguy19]

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.

The ignorance is beautiful in its brevity.

I made the case the Northern states pushed for secession just as hard as the South as an example of it's legitimacy and its precedent. That they didn't go through with it was because their biggest grievance all but disappeared by the time the presented their case (the war), and their public humiliation dissolved their party.

The South had no such good fortune to alleviate their concerns, as the antithesis to their grievances made itself known during an inauguration speech. Their concern was validated upon Lincoln's attack at which point their cause grew in support by 4 more states (technically 4, but theoretically 6).

Going for the "treason" angle might be a case where you you seem to think I said things I never said.