OK, let's start here.
Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus...
Lincoln's actions were not illegal because you say they were. The Supreme Court never ruled on the legality or illegality.
... launched a military invasion without consent of Congress...
Nonsense. Invasions are launched against other countries not rebellious sections of your own. Lincoln had all the authority he needed under the militia act.
...blockaded Southern ports without declaring war...
Again, you declare war against other countries, not parts of your own.
...created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states...
Kansas was admitted before Lincoln was inaugurated. As for West Virginia and Nevada exactly what formal consent are you looking for?
...deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior...
Former member of Congress, and after his conviction by a military court.
...confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...
Some specifics please?
...ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln...
Oh please.
Lincoln further arrested legislatures of Maryland who opposed the war and apponted their replacements...
Members who supported the ongoing southern rebellion. What was he supposed to do with them?
When the Chief Justus of the Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional Lincoln ordered him arrested too.
Utterly false.
Not exactly. I'm afraid that the verdict is still out on that matter of history. As it stands today there are at least two known corroborating accounts that claim a plot was hatched to arrest Taney but was soon aborted. The first is Ward Hill Lamon, a close Lincoln friend and the federal marshall who it is said to have been responsible for making the arrest. The second is George William Brown, the mayor of Baltimore who learned of the plot and went to Taney's courtroom to warn him of it.
Lincoln sure didn't think so.
"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words - not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them - what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
Oh, and by all means feel free to quote the rest of that speech. In no place does he ever negate his definition of invasion as some have erroniously alleged.