"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. But if the government, for instance, but simply insists on 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? Do the lovers of the Union contend that they will resist coercion or invasion of any state, understanding that any or all of these would be coercing or invading a state? If they do, then it occurs to me that the means for preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a very thin and airy character."
President Lincoln did not consider his actions coercion or invasion. Neither do I.
Quote what you like. It does not change the definitions Lincoln gave for coercion and invasion. Sure, he may not have considered retaking the forts etc. to be either. But as you are no doubt aware, Lincoln did much more than simply try to retake the forts or collect the tariffs. He raised an army and invaded, then used that invading army to coerce. Look at the heart of his quote:
"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."
One could easily switch out the states and say Virginia instead of California with no change in the implications of that quote. Thus it could read:
"Would the marching of an army into Virginia, 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."
Now tell me. Did Lincoln march an army into Virginia? Yes.
Did Lincoln do so without the consent of Virginia's people? Yes.
Did Lincoln's army exert hostility against those same people? Yes.
Were the people of Virginia forced to submit to that army? Yes.
Every characteristic of Lincoln's definition is met in what he did to Virginia, thus he invaded and coerced them by his own definition.