[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Referring to the man that kept a fort occupied in a state that no longer wanted to be part of his government, instead of peacefully evacuating it as his people had misled others to believe would happen."

After the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, and despite treaty promises, Brits maintained dozens of forts & trading posts from Vermont & New York to Ohio & Michigan.
Our Founders never considered these British forts & posts to be casus bellis, but did send their best, most patient negotiator (John Jay) to London and in 1795 Jay negotiated a treaty which peacefully removed Brits from those forts & posts in 1796, 13 years after promised.

In dealing with such forts our Founders were very wise, 1861 secessionists not so much.

[DiogenesLamp]

Our Founders never considered these British forts & posts to be casus bellis, but did send their best, most patient negotiator (John Jay) to London and in 1795 Jay negotiated a treaty which peacefully removed Brits from those forts & posts in 1796, 13 years after promised.

In dealing with such forts our Founders were very wise, 1861 secessionists not so much.

Were any of those forts, which were continuously occupied by the British, in New York, Boston or Philadelphia harbors? You know, so that they could threaten European Shipping into the Country?

I kinda think continued British Occupation of a New York (City) fort would be a deal breaker for the founders.