The claim was made that the negotiation of secession was in conjunction with the demands made in the Declaration. It would obviously be silly to demand changes to the Constitution while seceding...but either intentionally or not, you seem to like to evade such simple logic in your replies. I say this not in belligerence, but as the impression I get from your tactics.
The negotiators were to negotiate secession if they couldn't get demands met. The war ended, making the whole thing irrelevant.
You're arguing a straw man, though...because the fact is that it is well known there was serious talk of secession, if not for the efforts of moderates to attempt a two-pronged approach of demands and negotiation first.
If it seems that I fail to see the logic in your arguements it may be because I often fail to see any facts that back them up. There were no negotiations because there were no negotiators. The Hartford Convention did issue a declaration, which was read into the record of the House and Senate, but there was no delegation making demands of the Administration and there were no threats made to secede. And if you have any evidence to the contrary then by all means bring it out.
You're arguing a straw man, though...because the fact is that it is well known there was serious talk of secession, if not for the efforts of moderates to attempt a two-pronged approach of demands and negotiation first.
And from what I've read of the convention, talk of secession was voted down very early on as premature. No threats of secession are apparent in the declaration itself. Again, if you have any information to the contrary then by all means trot it out.