Star of West vs. Sumter reaction

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Hi list,
I've been wondering something for a while and would like your input..Why was the reaction of the Northern community so vastly different in their reactions between the attack on the Star of the West and the firing on Ft. Sumter.. Was it because the fort was more in the news and ended up being a symbol of the struggle between the demands of the South and the North not conceding anymore to them? Or is there more to it..Here you have a ship carrying men and supplies flying the American flag being fired on by multiple batteries and yet there is hardly a reaction in the North to it.. Or was it that there were so many rumors and gossip flying around that this just seemed to be another one and the public was numb to them..The South seemed to be proud that they fired the first shot at an American ship, but in the North hardly a whisper.Any ideas?
 
Buchanan just wanted to kick the can down the road till after he got out of office and let Lincoln deal with the problem. I would assume that Buchanan downplayed the incident as much as possible, which was only possible because it was the ship that was fired on, not the fort. Perhaps Texas Senator Louis Wigfall described it best:

The inaction on the part of Buchanan allowed Wigfall, on the floor of the Senate, to mercilessly criticize the lack of action and taunt the North into war. He began by ridiculing Secretary of War Holt and General Scott and how "the Star of the West swaggered into Charleston Harbor, received a blow planted full in the face, and staggered out. Your flag has been insulted; redress it if you dare. You have submitted to it for two months, and you will submit to it for ever." He went on to state, "this Federal Government is dead," and that if the northern senators "can get the backbone put into their President elect," maybe there will be a war, and he accused Buchanan of being in an "artificial panic," and that "Napoleon Bonaparte once said that he trusted in Providence, but he said that he found that Providence always took sides with the artillery. We have taken the forts and guns because we think Providence again will take sides with the artillery; and we have been acquiring a good deal of it."

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri_ekF5uhAEC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134
 
It might have something to do with the fact that Buchanan was still the President when the Star of the West was fired on while Lincoln was president when Fort Sumter fell.

I'm interested in your point of view, why would a change in administrations cause a change in the public reaction... Would the public think the attack on Sumter symbolized an attack on the new President?
 
The even happened rather early in a growing escalation of events(provocations). As noted by many on this board, it was just one of many acts of lawlessness, that could have been viewed as acts of war or at least insurrection and./or revolt, had the Federal gov't and its President had chosen to do so.
The basic problem was that many of not most northerners(Lincoln included, at that particular time) could not bring themselves to believe that the south was 'really' serious about seceding and many of those(not including Lincoln) were uncertain that secession was not legal.(although, there was no consensus among them about its exact process)
Later as the crisis evolved, choices began to be made and attitudes began to harden, reflected in the voting patterns in the election of Lincoln. Eventually, although not exactly united on the issue of secession itself, the process by which it might be accomplished loomed larger as time grew.
As the crisis advanced, what the people would accept in Dec, was unacceptable in April i.e. if the Star of West had been fired upon in April instead of earlier, it would probably have been considered an act of war, because by that time, northern attitudes had hardened in certain matters concerning secession(and war).
 
So do you think that by the time April rolled around that the North was ready for war and was waiting for something they could use to stand up to the South...Im thinking of the change in reactions of NYC as well, they go from talking about making itself a free city to enlisting thousands into the Union army..Was three months of Southern threats and intimadation the cause of this change in thinking and reaction to an attack on the flag?
 
So do you think that by the time April rolled around that the North was ready for war and was waiting for something they could use to stand up to the South...Im thinking of the change in reactions of NYC as well, they go from talking about making itself a free city to enlisting thousands into the Union army..Was three months of Southern threats and postering the cause of this change in thinking and reaction to an attack on the flag?
The "na na na na boo boo!" explanation seems pretty valid.
 
Two things, 1) the crisis over slavery(and secession) had been increasing since the debates leading to the 1850 compromise; people on both sides were becoming increasingly tired of it and wanted to end it, one way or another. 2) In the recent election of Lincoln, many in the north assumed their, and their opponents, votes had settled the issue over slavery "...that the country would cease to be divided..." and slavery would be put on the road to extinction. This coupled with their belief that the south were bluffing about secession and would abide by the law in the end, made the attack appear to be treacherous i.e. that the south never intended to live by the law if slavery were not protected.
 
Hi list,
I've been wondering something for a while and would like your input..Why was the reaction of the Northern community so vastly different in their reactions between the attack on the Star of the West and the firing on Ft. Sumter.. Was it because the fort was more in the news and ended up being a symbol of the struggle between the demands of the South and the North not conceding anymore to them? Or is there more to it..Here you have a ship carrying men and supplies flying the American flag being fired on by multiple batteries and yet there is hardly a reaction in the North to it.. Or was it that there were so many rumors and gossip flying around that this just seemed to be another one and the public was numb to them..The South seemed to be proud that they fired the first shot at an American ship, but in the North hardly a whisper.Any ideas?

I'll echo the reason that Buchanan was president rather than Lincoln as one reason. But more importantly, it's one thing to fire at a ship and turn it back. It's quite another to bombard a fort for 36 hours trying to kill every soldier in it.
 
I'll echo the reason that Buchanan was president rather than Lincoln as one reason. But more importantly, it's one thing to fire at a ship and turn it back. It's quite another to bombard a fort for 36 hours trying to kill every soldier in it.

Exactly. Firing a couple shots at a ship can be downplayed. It can even be passed off as random shots from trigger-happy renegades. But firing thousands of rounds at a United States fort cannot be downplayed.

I have no doubt that Buchanan wanted to downplay the Star of the West incident. I'm reminded of an incident I witnessed when I was in high school. On the way out from an assembly in the high school gym, I saw a particularly unpopular kid with spit all over the back of his jacket. Obviously the kids sitting behind him at the assembly had spent the entire hour spitting all over him. On the way out somebody asked him about it, and he pretended not to know what they were talking about. So he avoided a fight, but at what cost? (I think his name was Buck. :hmmm:smile:
 
It was a long simmering feud over slavery that was bound to erupt eventually, but in my humble opinion once they fired on the Star of the West You have to return fire immediately.

Mulejack
 
Exactly. Firing a couple shots at a ship can be downplayed. It can even be passed off as random shots from trigger-happy renegades. But firing thousands of rounds at a United States fort cannot be downplayed.

I have no doubt that Buchanan wanted to downplay the Star of the West incident. I'm reminded of an incident I witnessed when I was in high school. On the way out from an assembly in the high school gym, I saw a particularly unpopular kid with spit all over the back of his jacket. Obviously the kids sitting behind him at the assembly had spent the entire hour spitting all over him. On the way out somebody asked him about it, and he pretended not to know what they were talking about. So he avoided a fight, but at what cost? (I think his name was Buck. :hmmm:smile:

Good points but was the Buchanan administration behind the attack being downplayed or other interests in the North? In South Carolina it made the headlines while in the North it wasn't really considered front page news... I know the remaining members of the Cotton 7 were trying to get S. Carolina to slow down in its aggressivenss, could they have had a hand in downplaying this incident?
 
I'm interested in your point of view, why would a change in administrations cause a change in the public reaction... Would the public think the attack on Sumter symbolized an attack on the new President?

Alright. Well the way I persieve it is that Buchanan was a mess, he didn't know what he was doing or what was going on and with the country litterally falling apart around him he wouldn't want to make a big deal about a failed attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter. Lincoln coming in, however, inherrited a mess and didn't want to be remembered as the man who let the Union fall apart, he was determined to keep it together even if it meant war. Lincoln was a man who knew what was going on and what he was going to do about it, Buchanan was a man out of his depth who just wanted to maintain some respectability after a term as President which was viewed in a rather poor light. So Buchanan was predispoed to sweep the incident under the rug while Lincoln was predisposed to face it head on.
 
Good points but was the Buchanan administration behind the attack being downplayed or other interests in the North? In South Carolina it made the headlines while in the North it wasn't really considered front page news... I know the remaining members of the Cotton 7 were trying to get S. Carolina to slow down in its aggressivenss, could they have had a hand in downplaying this incident?

All excellent questions, for which I have no answer. I have no doubt that Buchanan would have wanted to downplay the incident, and I assume that's a large part of why it was downplayed. But I have no idea if there were others who wanted to downplay it too. Were there Northern reporters on the scene at the time? If not, the Northern papers would have had to get most of their information from the Buchanan Administration.
 
But heres what I'm thinking did the administrations sweep it under the rug or did the newspapers.. How could Presidents at that time control the publics reaction to a incident..If the newspapers wanted to create a public outcry over the "Star of the West" they could have but didn't, was this from pressure from Washington or other places..


edit: Sorry Brass posted same time as you lol
 
The newspapers after Sumter didn't really need any prodding from Washinton to create the headlines about the Nation under attack, yet they were strangely quiet and peaceful after the Star incident...

No, but Lincoln calling for volunteers to forcably bring back the seceeding states certainly made the incident a lot more sensational than Buchanan's "to hell with it" approach.
 
No, but Lincoln calling for volunteers to forcably bring back the seceeding states certainly made the incident a lot more sensational than Buchanan's "to hell with it" approach.

But I think Lincoln's call for volunteers was after the fact. The bombardment of Fort Sumter began on April 12th. Lincoln didn't call for volunteers until April 15th. I'm guessing the Northern papers were beating the war drum before then. I'll see if I can find some examples.
 
Back
Top