That's ludicrous and you know it. Any leader would consider a heavily armed and supplied force at their doorstep an act of aggression because there's no real expectation that they're just going to sit there. You don't ship weapons and supplies to soldiers so they can just sit there.
You're being intentionally obtuse because you want the north to be in the right.
Then would you agree that a well supplied military regiment with warships occupying a fort within a border with port access after they agreed to leave is an act of aggression?
Then how is it shameful that they fired first? Should they have waited for the subjugation to commence? Do US citizens need to be shot before they can exercise the second amendment?
That's ludicrous and you know it. Any leader would consider a heavily armed and supplied force at their doorstep an act of aggression because there's no real expectation that they're just going to sit there. You don't ship weapons and supplies to soldiers so they can just sit there.
You're being intentionally obtuse because you want the north to be in the right.
That's just an absurd and childish claim.
Then would you agree that a well supplied military regiment with warships occupying a fort within a border with port access after they agreed to leave is an act of aggression?
Of course that's how traps work. You don't bait a trap with food the mouse ain't going to eat.
Then how is it shameful that they fired first? Should they have waited for the subjugation to commence? Do US citizens need to be shot before they can exercise the second amendment?