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.
Sure they can. All it takes is repealing the statute just like they passed it in the first place. Like it or not, non-seq, laws may be repealed - even those that claim to be unrepealable.
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.
Wrong. One actively said that force WILL be used right then and there if the landing is opposed, the other passively said that force WILL NOT be used if the landing is permitted while giving not the slightest indication of when, where, how or if force would be used if entry was denied. YOU keep ignoring that fact in your attempt to twist the meaning into something it wasn't.