Apparently not. What rule of law transferred title of Sumter from its lawful owners to the Confederacy? It's a pretty simple question that should, hopefully, require a simple answer.
No, they are responsible for some of it, but it is dishonest to place all the blame on one side. Had Lincoln evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. It's also Northern Pride and stubbornness that is to blame.
Yes, had Lincoln arbitrarily surrendered immediately after Davis started his war then the deaths would not have occurred. But when faced with aggression surrender usually leads to further aggression. So Lincoln can hardly be blamed for fighting the war the Confederacy forced on him.
The Issue of Slavery was the dominant issue which motivated them to secede. I'm not sure where you count the start of "Rebellion" at the point where they seceded, or at the point where they fired on Fort Sumter.
It's simpler than that. Take away every other cause you care to mention and leave slavery and the South still rebels. Take away slavery and leave all the other causes and the South does not. It's really just that simple.
So you don't count the secession as part of the "Rebellion"? Only the bombardment? Fine, the war was over revenge, not "Preserving the Union" or "Slavery", it was revenge, plain and simple.
(*sigh*) I might as well have written nothing since you clearly do not understand anything I wrote. The South started the war and it was to further their secession, which was motivated by slavery. Therefore, clearly, for the South the war was over slavery. For the North, it was fighting the war forced upon them.
I stand corrected. Do you have a link?
March 6, 1861 - Confederate Congress passed act for establishment of a army of 100,000 men for 12 months service. Link
How is it accurate to keep linking Fort Sumter with Slavery? How? How do you even believe stuff like that?
Because you cannot divorce the Confederate cause from the war that they started.
If your position is that secession is illegal, and it is your duty to stop it, and it is required that you use deadly force to do so, then yes, the War should have started immediately.
That's like saying that if you believe hostage taking is illegal and it is the duty of the police to stop it then rather that negotiate with the hostage taker you should bring in a tank and blow their location away.
This is pure comedy.