The south rebelled against the results of an election that signaled a national sea-change in attitude toward slavery. They lost an election and had a temper tantrum.
Slavery was being phased out amongst the civilized nations of the world but the southron slavocrisy reacted much like Øbongo does - instead of adapting to the changing circumstances, they doubled-down on their unholy investment.
The north reacted in self-defense. None of the rest of what you wrote has any relevance.
The days before Lincoln was sworn in the House and Senate passed a Constitutional amendment to ban constitutional amendments to ban slavery, Buchanan signed it the day before Lincoln was sworn in (same day it passed the Senate)... Lincoln said he wouldn’t fight it.
Only 3 states ratified it.
Money and power. That’s what wars are always fought over. If you want to believe otherwise, feel free.
Self defense to what?
2/21/1861 The U. S. Congress authorized the funding of 7 modern steam powered screw sloops of War. During the debate, congressional members openly discussed the need of these vessels for the upcoming war with the South.
Self defense? The Confederacy had no navy.
3/29/1861 Two weeks after the newspapers in the North caught on to the low tariff issue now being instituted in Southern ports, they began to inflame militant war fever with their aggressive editorials, and calling for war.
Self defense? Yes, economic self defense via the United States military.
That same day, Lincoln called another meeting of his cabinet. He asked them again for their views on sending a naval force to reinforce Fort Sumter. Again, all except one were certain it would initiate the war that they all wanted to avoid.
Self defense?
Lincoln introduced Gustavus Fox, still a civilian, who presented his Fort Sumter re-supply plan to the Cabinet. Under the plan, tugboats would pull troop and supply ships into the harbor. It was anticipated that Confederate gunners would resist and fire upon the fleet and therefore the US flag. This would mean that unarmed tugboats would be hit first, a strong political advantage.
Not seeking political advantages, Lincoln's cabinet pointed out that the fort had no value now with secession, and it wasn't worth starting a war over a useless fort.
Lincoln saw it differently. From his expedient perspective of military coercion of the South, Sumter was a prize to be maintained, and it could cripple and shut down the major Atlantic port of entry to the Confederacy. Rather than being of no value, as the secretaries maintained, in Lincoln's mind it was of value beyond measure.
By use of military coercion in Charleston Harbor, a success would lead to holding this vital harbor. If the naval venture failed, it would likely be due to Confederate fire on the flag of the United States. This would give the President the authority to invade the South.
Self defense?
He had seen a war intentionally instigated once before. As a Whig congressman during the Mexican War, he had seen President Polk send an armed force to the Rio Grande to provoke the Mexicans into a shooting war that Polk could blame on the Mexicans. Also, in conducting the war, President Polk ignored the Constitution and assumed some of the powers of Congress. And Polk did all this without getting impeached.
Lincoln likely realized that he could do the same sorts of things and get away with it.
After the meeting on this same day, Lincoln sent notes to the Secretaries of War and Navy: “I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April…”
These orders were all marked private. These instructions had been written the day before by ex-navy captain Fox who was acting under Lincoln, and without any legal authority.
Lincoln was also bypassing the chain of command, and the Constitution of the United States because he had instructed Seward to secretly take money from his office at the Department of State and to give the money to Fox to pay for the quasi-military invasion of Charleston and Pensacola harbors in April of 1861.
Some of our posting neighbors here like to cloud the issue by feigning historical revisionism bias. But they cannot refute that all of the historians cannot deny these points because they are well documented and commonly known.