The  words  "  coercion  "  and  "  invasion  "  are  much  used  in  these
days,  and  often  with  some  temper  and  hot  blood.  Let  us  make
sure,  if  we  can,  that  we  do  not  misunderstand  the  meaning  of
those  who  use  them.  Let  us  get  the  exact  definitions  of  these
words,  not  from  dictionaries,  but  from  the  men  themselves,  who
certainly  deprecate  the  things  they  would  represent  by  the  use
of  the  words.
What,  then,  is  coercion?  What  is  invasion?  Would  the
marching  of  an  army  into  South  Carolina,  without  the  consent
of  her  people,  and  with  hostile  intent  toward  them,  be  inva-
sion ?  I  certainly  think  it  would,  and  it  would  be  coercion  also,
if  the  South  Carolinians  were  forced  to  submit.  But  if  the
United  States  should  merely  hold  and  retake  its  own  forts  and
other  property,  and  collect  the  duties  on  foreign  importations,
or  even  withhold  the  mails  from  places  where  they  were  habit-
ually violated,  would  any  or  all  of  these  things  be  invasion  or
coercion?  Do  our  professed  lovers  of  the  Union,  who  spite-
fully resolve  that  they  will  resist  coercion  and  invasion,  under-
stand that  such  things  as  these,  on  the  part  of  the  United
States,  would  be  coercion  or  invasion  of  a  State  ?  If  so,  their
idea  of  means  to  preserve  the  object  of  their  great  affection
would  seem  to  be  exceedingly  thin  and  airy.  If  sick,  the  little
pills  of  the  homeopathist  would  be  much  too  large  for  it  to
swallow.  In  their  view,  the  Union,  as  a  family  relation,  would
seem  to  be  no  regular  marriage,  but  rather  a  sort  of  "free-love  "
arrangement,  to  be  maintained  on  passional  attraction.
