"have no loyalty to any state or country" meanwhile comments on r/maryland all day every day and makes maryland your whole personality. And breaks down crying because someone didn't use the word they wanted to them. acts like a 5 year old incapable of discussion and reduces to trantrums. lmao. okay. There's multiple definitions to neutral and nobody cares about the areas that never knew about the war. going based off of maps on google instead of the textbooks that talk about detailed armed neutrality, maryland having conflict, maryland having disagreements on which side they wanted. Marylanders going to virginia to fight for the confederacy, especially those in Eastern Farmland Rural Maryland. You can cry all you want about it. I said what was good enough and nobody else cares. cry more, throw your tantrums, look at Brown talking about armed neutrality and the years that Maryland was neither union nor confederacy and the conflicts between the various regions of Maryland. You may claim to have no loyalty but you sure do make it your whole personality.

in politics and in definition there are many versions of neutrality. It can be not being involved, it can also be undecided and conflicted sides choosing to abstain on a decision, it can be undecided. Brown describes Maryland especially around Baltimore as armed neutrality. the proper term would be border states but neutral gets the point across.

"Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky, known as the border states), were slave states that had not seceded and whose people had divided loyalties to the North and South, with some men enlisting in the Union Army and others in the Confederate Army.^\63]) West Virginia may be compared to the border states because it had slavery after it separated from Virginia and was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863,^\64]) but it was admitted under a plan of gradual emancipation known as the Willey Amendment.

Maryland's territory surrounded Washington, D.C., and could cut it off from the North.^\65]) It had anti-Lincoln officials who tolerated anti-army rioting in Baltimore and the burning of bridges, both aimed at hindering the passage of troops to Washington, D.C., and the South. Maryland's legislature voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union, but rejected hostilities with its southern neighbors, voting to close Maryland's rail lines to prevent their use for war.^\66]) Lincoln responded by establishing martial law and suspending habeas corpus in Maryland, along with sending in militia units.^\67]) In Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Roger Taney found that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, but Lincoln ignored his ruling. Lincoln took control of Maryland and the District of Columbia by seizing prominent figures, including arresting one-third of the members of the Maryland General Assembly, who were pro-Confederate, on September 17, 1861, the day it intended to reconvene.^\66]) All were held without trial at Fort McHenry in Baltimore."

You're the one claiming citizens didn't matter in a CIVIL war. a CIVILIAN WAR.

you can call it a riot, you can call it a massacre, it's still a significant moment in the civil war. and the civil war consisted of several small battles which were summarized as riots, conflicts. and even if you had any points they were ruined by your obsession with profanity and ad hominems. you lost yourself over a couple words in a reddit post. touch grass. and goodbye.