[x]

Well, let’s say we were neighbors and I was letting you use my lawnmower but we had a falling out. Yet one day you come over to take the mower because I had let you use it before, and I stopped you. You may call that a mugging but I would call it protecting my property. But of course I use common sense. You would use something other than common sense and I would attack you. Then you would whine about how we had an agreement — unless you were dead.

That makes no sense. The federal government was in possession of the fort and had title to it. The South Carolinians or Confederates were in the position of those coming over to "use" or "borrow" the fort, as for example, Castro would be if he wanted Guantanamo back and tried to take it. Your analogy isn't reasonable or sensible so you fall back on simple self-assertion and violence.

[Lee'sGhost]

“Your analogy isn’t reasonable or sensible so you fall back on simple self-assertion and violence.”

It’s an analogy. It’s not meant to be perfect but to illustrate.

What makes no sense is your comment above. Neither I nor the CSA “fell back on self-assertion (simple or otherwise) and violence” because of my analogy — as your comment states.

If you want to criticize someone I would suggest that your criticism make sense or else you’ll come off looking like an ass. But that's just me.