Color me confused.
My reference to the "USA's invasion of the USA" was an oxymoron designed to remind another poster that the South remained part of the USA despite the fact that some people in the South pretended to "secede" from the USA. There was never any such thing as a "secession" from the USA. That was just a theory concocted by some folks who wanted to give their actions the appearance of legality.
As many prominent Southerners later acknowledged, what we call the Civil War was actually a rebellion. There have been other rebellions in our history, beginning with the Whiskey Rebellion during the presidency of George Washington.
Your confusion was understandable. The so-called "secessionists" did all that they could to distort the Constitutional principles that bind us together as "One nation, under God, indivisible." Since the adoption of our Constitution, we have been a country created by "We the People of the United States of America" and a relatively small group of slaveholders had no power to change that reality. But, that's what the rebellion was all about.
Well, it sure looked like secession (or succession as the original writer wrote) to me! I guess my old history professor was wrong, wrong, wrong.
My point simply was what is good for the goose is good for the gander since some folks here were expressing shock and awe that Lee invaded the north. Of course he did! He wanted to win the war and that was a necessary step in the right direction. That he failed is another story.
“My reference to the “USA’s invasion of the USA” was an oxymoron designed to remind another poster that the South remained part of the USA despite the fact that some people in the South pretended to “secede” from the USA. “
He’s making the same argument that the Crown used for waging war against the British Colonials to force them to remain in the Empire- the Colonies remained a part of the United Kingdom and only “pretended” to secede and become independent.