Again opinion masquerading as fact. But if you want facts then here:
Fact: Sumter was the property of the U.S. government and the South had no legal claim to it.
Fact: the garrison at Sumter took no hostile actions against the Confederacy until they started the bombardment. This in spite of at least two prior occurrences of rebel batteries firing on ships and in the face of the rebel attempt to starve them into surrender.
Fact: Lincoln made his intentions clear to Governor Pickens before the resupply effort sailed. Only food and supplies would be landed and no men and munitions unless the resupply was opposed.
Fact: when faced with a continuation of the status quo, Davis chose to start a war.
All of the colonies were the property of U.K. government and the Colonists had no legal claim to it.
See how this works? We have to be consistent in how we apply whatever principle it is that we are applying.
What was the standard that Abraham Lincoln advocated?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
If you thought he was unclear about this point, he reiterated it again in 1852.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
So in other words, he was "for it before he was against it", which is about what you would expect from a Race Obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois.
Fact: the garrison at Sumter took no hostile actions against the Confederacy until they started the bombardment.
Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them, then in the middle of the night, spiking all the cannon and burning all their carriages while creeping in the dark to the never before garrisoned fort and taking it over.
The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy. This was an overt acknowledgement that the Confederates were at that time viewed as enemies of the US Army. The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.
The officers of the Union army also discussed turning Sumter's cannons on Charleston.
This in spite of at least two prior occurrences of rebel batteries firing on ships and in the face of the rebel attempt to starve them into surrender.
It wasn't "batteries", it was a bunch of Kids with a single cannon at the Citadel on the one occasion, and on the other occasion, it also wasn't "batteries", and those responsible were redressed for it. Some of the blame for that needs to fall on the stupid captain of the "Rhoda H. Shannon."
Fact: Lincoln made his intentions clear to Governor Pickens before the resupply effort sailed.
The Harriet Lane sailed at 10:00 on the morning of April the 8th. The letter to Governor Pickens was delivered after 6:00 PM on April the 8th.
Your "fact" is incorrect.
Only food and supplies would be landed and no men and munitions unless the resupply was opposed.
But they were taking along six ships armed with cannons, at least 200 riflemen, Mortars, powder, shot, rifles, and various other reinforcements of men and material. (According to one source, it amounted to "two hundred eighty-five guns and two thousand four hundred men".)
Winfield Scott's order explicitly states that the mission will be to reinforce Sumter.
Since the Confederates had been lied to/misled about the disposition of Ft. Sumter, why should they trust anything the Lincoln government said?