So statutes can't be repealed by the body that made them?
The agreement said nothing about title being in affect until the legislature decided otherwise.
Lots of laws say nothing about being repealed and in fact some of them even say that they can't be repealed. But in legislative terms that means virtually nothing as all it takes to repeal one statute is another voiding it.
You have demonstrated nothing except that both, I repeat, both letters clearly and unequivocally state that the primary purpose of the expedition was the peaceful resupply of Sumter, and that force would be used only if the resupply was opposed.
If you believe that then you are either fibbing or you do not understand the intricacies of the English language. One said force WILL be used right then and there if they weren't allowed entrance. The other said force WILL NOT be used if that expedition were permitted to proceed, but said not a word about when or how it would be used if the expedition was denied.
You can hold it upside down, play it backwards, look for hidden meanings all you want but you cannot change plain English.
Take that one to the mirror and repeat.
No, it's more like having given up all claim to a piece of property then they can't unilaterally change their mind.
If you believe that then you are either fibbing or you do not understand the intricacies of the English language.
And both said that first and foremost the purpose of the expedition was the peaceful landing of supplies, and that force was to be used only if the landing was opposed. You keep ignoring that fact in your attempt to twist the meaning into something it wasn't.