Interestingly, you're also leaving out a couple of rather important events that took place that year before either date. The CSA formally declared war on the USA on May 15, and Virginia formally joined the CSA on May 23. When a nation formally declares war on another (that is what the CSA claimed it was doing, whether the USA recognized it as such or not), it pretty much loses the right to act all shocked and innocent when the other country chooses to fight.
And Virginians could not be overly shocked about being "invaded" when they had voluntarily joined a country that had already declared war on the people just across the river.
http://www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/union_or_secession/unit/10/referendum_on_secession
http://www.oldplaces.org/Colleton/civilwar.htm
None of this explains why they bypassed Maryland on their way to invade Virginia. What was the difference between Slave owning Maryland and Slave owning Virginia?
That one had declared and waged war on the USA and the other had not? (With exception of some pretty nasty riots in Baltimore, burning of bridges, etc.) But those were acts of individuals, not formal acts of the state.
Also, why exactly do you think the USA should have invaded MD?
Interestingly, Virginia initiated acts of war, by any definition, against the Union well before any acts of war by the USA against VA. VA troops were marching on Harpers Ferry and Fort Monroe shortly after, or possibly before, the convention voted for secession, and well over a month before VA, even in theory, withdrew from the Union by its referendum on May 23.
Despite VA having violated any reasonable expectation of its obligations as a State, the USA nevertheless did not "invade" until after VA had formally seceded.
Tell me again why VA had some "right" to not be invaded when it was already waging war on the USA.
You keep coming back, like you're stuck, to implying that I'm trying to say the Union had identical war aims in May 61 to those it had in May 63 or 64. I've never said any such thing.
In April 61 abolitionists went about in most of the North in considerable risk of violent attack. A year later their leaders were publicly welcomed to the Congress and cheered in the streets.
Wars have a way of changing people's attitudes and minds.
Look at Ben Butler, for example. He had supported Jefferson Davis for the Democratic nomination for president in 1860. A year or two later, he was the darling of the radical Republicans.
To be sure, BB was pretty much a despicable, though extremely clever, opportunist. But many other men made a similar journey of opinion. They had been in favor of compromise and conciliation to bring peace. When the CSA chose to throw peace out the window, they decided on war to the hilt. Which fairly obviously included war on the institution that had caused the war.
But...but...but...but SLAVERY!!!! Remember that? That was why they were invading!!! Or at least that is what most people would have us believe.
From what was going on at the time, it's pretty apparent that Lincoln decided to go to war, and the declaration of war on the part of the Southern states was no more than an acknowledgement of the defacto status of the Union forces set to invade.
Whereas, the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States;
Also, why exactly do you think the USA should have invaded MD?
Because SLAVERY! It' pretty much the only d@mned argument I ever see to explain why the Union invaded the South. It's been drilled into everyone's head that the Union invaded the South to stamp out the evil slavery, but this notion is designed to distract from the fact that Union was really about Preserving it's authority over people who didn't want it, and nothing else.
The fact that they ignored Maryland (until much later) and that Lincoln was willing to keep slavery in late 1862 pretty much puts the lie to the argument that the North invaded to abolish slavery. It didn't. It invaded to maintain control over this area and prevent it from becoming an independent nation. Same as old George III.
You keep coming back, like you're stuck, to implying that I'm trying to say the Union had identical war aims in May 61 to those it had in May 63 or 64. I've never said any such thing.
I keep coming back to it because it is constantly being offered as the only reason (not necessarily by you) the North invaded. The main aim of the war in May 61 was still the main aim of the war in 63, and that aim was to prevent Independence for the Southern states. The only thing that got tacked on was that after it looked like they were going to win, they added the goal of abolishing slavery.
Their initial reasons for invading were immoral, and contrary to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. They added the moral goal of abolishing slavery after the fact.
Wars have a way of changing people's attitudes and minds.
Yes they do. Especially when Lincoln and crew were in the habit of jailing people who didn't agree with them. Not till Woodrow Wilson did we see anything like it.
They had been in favor of compromise and conciliation to bring peace.
So long as that peace meant the Southern states couldn't leave. That was pretty much the sticking point throughout the entire war. Everything was negotiable except for that.
Why do I argue about this? Why is this such a sticking point? Because the events of 150 years ago are still causing problems today. We are facing a horrible and out of control Federal leviathan that is eating everything in sight, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are not going to be able to stop it.
At this point, I wish the sane states could break away and leave this disaster in the making. Let the Liberal states have this behemoth and let it bankrupt and ruin them.
The problem is, too many people have now got it in their head that leaving is illegal, and simply refuse to recognize that people ought to have the right of self determination. They ought to be able to leave if they wish without the fear that armies will come marching into their communities to force them back under the control of Fedzilla at the point of a gun.
Like I said, the damage done to this fundamental principle by the civil war is still being felt today.