Replies

Too early to remember, but did Lincoln use the word invasion in the call for 75,000 men?

No he did not. Link

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't remember if the government call for volunteers contained the word invasion, or if that was something that stemmed from newspaper editorials. One thing was sure - at that point both parties were on the march toward an unstoppable war.

I think I'm gonna shower, get some churchin' done, then watch my Viqueens loose horribly to Vick & Co down in Atlanta. Here's hoping you've got better plans for the day.

Lincoln wrote,'Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law...'

Regardless of the verbage used by Lincoln, it was illegal. I also find it insane that Lincoln complains and resorts to military force when judicial proceedings or Marshalls are ineffective, yet it was Lincoln that interfered with such repeatedly - refusing to abide by decisions, jailing or placing in house arrest justices and even their wives.

When three northen states refused to supply troops in the War of 1812 as demanded by Madison, the US did not invade the states. When SC nullified the tariff of 1832, no army mached into the the state to force compliance. When the state of Georgia refused to appear in court (Chisholm v. Georgia) in 1792, and ruled that any officer in Georgia attempting to comply with the decision would be put to death, no miltitary force invaded the state. Over the years, when 10 northern states refused to return slaves or fugitives from justice, no army invaded the states. When the State of Wisconsin made it clear that she would never abide by Constitutional requirements, no military was called forth.

Per the US Supreme Court, if the US disagreed with the acts of a state, it was up to the US Government to seek redress in a court of law:

[C]ontroversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled, with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see, that if such an arbiter had not been provided, in our complicated system of government, internal tranquillity could not have been preserved; and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Government, State and National, would soon cease to be Governments of laws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of courts of justice and judicial decisions.
Chief Justice Taney, Ableman v Booth, 62 How. 506, 521(1858)[unanimous opinion]