Though I doubt that you possess the ability to comprehend any of what I am about to say, I will note it for the record anyway. Your argument is a non-sequitur, hence what it professes to be "clear" is not so. Its conclusion (that the war was a necessary result of Southern action) does not follow from the premise you allege to be the necessary cause of that result (Fort Sumter). The law of causality dictates that no necessary connection exists requiring the invasion of the south, including what were at the time non-seceded states, as a result of the Fort Sumter seige. In order for a causal relationship to be necessary, B must happen if A, which causes B, happens. Invasion did not -have- to happen because Sumter happened. Thus that invasion, which was itself the direct precipitant of the product known as the civil war, did not have any necessary causality in Sumter - only a proximate one. The only direct and necessary cause of that invasion was the decision to carry it out, and that decision was made by Abe Lincoln. He therefore bears direct responsibility for the war. And no - blaming God for Lincoln's sins won't absolve him now any more than it did when he tried to do that himself back in 1865.