No he did not. Look at the quote in it's entirity:
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 the preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a very thin and airy character."
Lincoln clearly did not consider his actions as invasion, he believed the second half of the quote, merely moving troops from one part of the United States to another. He did not view it as coercion, you did. He did not believe it was invasion, you do. He was not sending an army to make them submit, he was sending a few hundred men to make a point, that Sumter was and would remain a federal fort.
You continue to make an issue of tariffs as if they were the sole purpose behind Lincoln's actions. The federal government realized fraction of one percent of its total revenue from Charleston's imports, less that 5% or 6% from the entire south. It wasn't the money, it was the message. Outside of federal courts and the military, tariff collection and the mail were about all the federal government did. If the tariff was collected and the mail went through and the forts were maintained then it proved to the world that the United States was in control of all its territory, regardless of what the mob in Montgomery claimed.
It isn't my fault if the man fibs about his actions as according to his own definition what he did was coercion and invasion.
He did not view it as coercion, you did. He did not believe it was invasion, you do.
Tell me - do the actions of the yankees during the war constitute invasion as specifically defined by Lincoln? His definition was "marching of an army into" an area "without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them." In that light the war was a clear cut case of invasion.
Whether Lincoln purports it to be something else or not does not change this and at most only demonstrates sophistry and dishonesty on Lincoln's part.
You continue to make an issue of tariffs as if they were the sole purpose behind Lincoln's actions.
Nonsense. I have long recognized them as an issue but never the sole issue as to do so would be as ignorant as persons such as McPherson who purport slavery to be the sole issue. My contention with tariffs is simply that they were a prominent and major issue occupying a central place among the controversies that led to the war.
The federal government realized fraction of one percent of its total revenue from Charleston's imports, less that 5% or 6% from the entire south.
Even if your stats were right you are missing the entire point of protectionist tariffs. Raising money is only a side benefit of tariffs. The real issue, as any person with even the slightest background in economics will tell you, is controlling competition. The north made their products competitive on the market by forcing the prices of european substitutes higher. Hence it is called "protectionism," as in protecting the home industry from being undercut by the competition from abroad. Outside of federal courts and the military, tariff collection and the mail were about all the federal government did.
Nonsense. Though it is nothing like today, the federal government at the time was becoming increasingly meddlesome in industry by way of subside and economic intervention. A few of the biggies included the railroad and steamship industries. I'll dig up specifics on both if you are interested.