Is there now? But no agenda behind your claims I assume.
February was when the treaty was formally ratified by Congress.
February was also when word reached the U.S. that the treaty had been signed. Regardless, it was signed on December 30, 1814 and not before the Hartford Convention began as you claimed earlier.
That change in the US position happened with the consent of the US government and was publicly known before the Hartford convention began.
Was it now? But the war was continuing. The burning of Washington, the bombardment of Fort McHenry, the Battle of Plattsburg, the Battle of New Orleans all occurred after the beginning of negotiations. Why should the representatives in Hartford believe that peace was imminent?
I have no need to invent something that doesn't exist, a prohibition against secession, nor to pretend that no one ever seriously considered secession before South Carolina.
Hartford wasn't even the first New England flirtation with secession. See Essex Junto.
it was signed on December 30, 1814
December 24th.
The burning of Washington, the bombardment of Fort McHenry, the Battle of Plattsburg, the Battle of New Orleans all occurred after the beginning of negotiations.
Washington was burned August 24th. The Battle of Plattsburg happened September 11th. The bombardment of Fort McHenry was September 13th and 14th. The British military failures at Plattsburg and Baltimore prompted them to drop their insistence on an Indian buffer state. Then the American decision to give up their positions on Canada, neutral shipping, and the wartime propaganda (read fake) issue of impressment sealed the deal. The American negotiating position was public knowledge as were the British defeats. And since Britain had defeated Napoleon and could now commit unlimited resources against the US if they chose to do so, it was clear the British peace overtures meant the war was ending. We had no means of invading them after all. It was only a matter of terms.