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.
Oh, I will.
"But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion?"
Lincoln tried to hold on to federal property and tried to enforece the laws. Lincoln didn't invade South Carolina or any other southren state. He took no hostile actions against any southern state prior to the southern initiation of hostilities at Sumter. His actions were not 'coercion' or 'invasion' except, of course, to those who were out for a war in the first place.