Why Was Fort Sumter a 'Big Deal'?

Lincoln and the Republican Congress are the ones who "made" Fort Sumter a "big deal". No one got killed from enemy fire, simply the South just wanted the North out of their territory. Other than some lost pride, it should have just been another incident.
Edited.

Correction: they wanted the Union out of what they claimed was their territory. There was a counterclaim, and deciding the matter by an all-out bombardment was a sure fire way to start a war. If Davis & Co. didn’t realize that, that would be because they had whipped themselves up into a belligerent state of arrogance. And if Lincoln and the Republicans made the Battle of Fort Sumter a big deal, they had a lot of help from many Northern Democrats (you know, the guys who had long been the faithful political allies of Southern slavery proponents). Which is to say, Davis & Co. made Sumter a big deal. Fallacious theories intended to shift blame on “the North” just ain’t going to work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, what you are talking about above has been gone over many, many times here on the forums and rather than getting into a back and forth thing here, let's just refer back to those threads.

But I would like to add that the South did not just have "an all-out bombardment" on Fort Sumter. They very politely asked them to leave and very patiently waited, but the North would just not comply. The smartest thing the North should have done is just leave (there wasn't much there anyway), and then just see what would happen next.
 
Last edited:
Well, what you are talking about above has been gone over many, many times here on the forums and rather than getting into a back and forth thing here, let's just refer back to those threads.

But I would like to add that the South did not just have "an all-out bombardment" on Fort Sumter. They very politely asked them to leave and very patiently waited, but the North would just not comply. The smartest thing the North should have done is just leave (there wasn't much there anyway), and then just see what would happen next.

What I'm talking about is the same thing you brought up in your post, though you were making certain one-sided assumptions, and still are.

Lincoln stated his policy, very politely, in his first inaugural, and politely notified them he would only deliver food and other essential nonmilitary supplies, unless the Confederates resisted that by force. Not to mention the fact Lincoln had offered to let Sumter go if Virginia would adjourn its convention sine die.

And you go on to "add" more one-sided arguments (in addition, I did not say they JUST had an all-out bombardment). You're STILL completely ignoring the fact that the North had a counter claim. You - the Confederates wanted the fort; me - so did the Union, you - but the Confederates wanted the fort. The South "would just not comply" anymore than the North "would just not comply." If there "wasn't much there anyway," then why did the Confederates attack and start a war over it? Because everything was at these forts. The vitally important issue of sovereignty for BOTH sides was at these forts.

"The smartest thing the [South] should have done" is let them deliver food. And before that, just cease and desist their unprovoked armed threats and actions. And before that, just approach secession as a mutual matter.

"Then just see what would happen next?" Like a Confederate attack on Fort Pickens, the other fort they both wanted, the other one the Confederates surrounded with a tremendous military force, and that the Confederate Congress had included in their February 22 resolution to take the forts, by "negotiation" (give me or else) or force, and authorizing Davis to make "all necessary military preparations" to do so.

The fact is, the forts were vital to both sides, and neither could just let them go.
 
The difference is, that these forts were located in "Confederate" territory. I believe that's the part you don't like. When you stated "If there "wasn't much there anyway," then why did the Confederates attack and start a war over it?" The Confederates, again, just wanted them out of their territory. Now when you say "start a war", my idea of starting a war is marching thousands of troops with guns drawn into another's territory. Just like Lincoln did.
 
The difference is, that these forts were located in "Confederate" territory. I believe that's the part you don't like. When you stated "If there "wasn't much there anyway," then why did the Confederates attack and start a war over it?" The Confederates, again, just wanted them out of their territory. Now when you say "start a war", my idea of starting a war is marching thousands of troops with guns drawn into another's territory. Just like Lincoln did.

Governor Pickens of South Carolina disagrees with you, two days before Lincoln called for troops, after the attack on Fort Sumter started

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...31&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.3.740
----
Received your despatch. It is true that Fort Sumter was bombarded all day yesterday, after refusing to evacuate, and four vessels were off the bar with troops and supplies waiting for the tide to come in, and the Fort was in signal with them.

President Lincoln sent a special messenger, and informed me in writing that supplies would be put in, but asked no reply. Not a man at our batteries was hurt even. The Fort was furious in its fire on us. Our iron battery did great damage to the Fort in the south wall. Our shells fall freely in the Fort; it is not known exactly with what effect, but supposed to be serious, as they are not firing this morning. Our Enfield battery dismounted three of the large Columbiads. We will take the Fort and can keep sixteen ten-inch mortars all the time on it, besides heavy guns which will give no peace, night or day. We can sink the fleet if they attempt to enter the channel. If they land elsewhere we can whip them. I have here, now, nearly seven thousand of the best troops in the world, and a reserve of ten thousand on our railroads. The war is commenced, and we will triumph or perish. This is my answer to you. Please let me know what Virginia will do, as I telegraph to you candidly. F. W. PICKENS.

----

I'll take his word over yours, no offense, on what they perceived initiated the war.
 
A couple of things here. Was the Governor the spokesman for the whole Confederacy at the time? Also, the letter was sent to Virginia, not to the US Government. Even if in one man's words it was "war", that doesn't mean that the US Government has to accept it as one.

Now when Lincoln called out for 75,000 Troops to march into the Confederacy, even that wasn't war in my opinion. But when he "did" march them in, there was no doubt about it, the war was on.
 
A couple of things here. Was the Governor the spokesman for the whole Confederacy at the time? Also, the letter was sent to Virginia, not to the US Government. Even if in one man's words it was "war", that doesn't mean that the US Government has to accept it as one.

Now when Lincoln called out for 75,000 Troops to march into the Confederacy, even that wasn't war in my opinion. But when he "did" march them in, there was no doubt about it, the war was on.

Pickens seemed to leave no doubt 2 days prior to that. Again I'll trust his perspective on events over yours (or mine, or anyones here), he did have a better view.
 
But I would like to add that the South did not just have "an all-out bombardment" on Fort Sumter. They very politely asked them to leave and very patiently waited, but the North would just not comply. The smartest thing the North should have done is just leave (there wasn't much there anyway), and then just see what would happen next.
The CSA could have politely waited a few more days for the garrison to run out of food. something they knew.
They knew this would escalate the crisis... and did it to to get Virginia and the other border states to join up.

The difference is, that these forts were located in "Confederate" territory. .
No By both CSA and SC law fort Sumter was not in South Carolina.

Now when Lincoln called out for 75,000 Troops to march into the Confederacy, even that wasn't war in my opinion.
He didn't. He called for men to help uphold the US Constitution and US laws in an area that was legally part of the the United states.

Or if we accept secession.
A foreign power had just attacked a US fort on US soil. That is an act of war. And it is the duty of the president to defend the country.

And before you start claiming that the CSA just wanted to be left alone... there where plenty of loud voices calling for the occupation of Washington and Maryland.
(and in mid April 1861, the US army did not have one single company of infantry east of the Mississippi and the CSA had been mobilizing for a month...)
 
Last edited:
A couple of things here. Was the Governor the spokesman for the whole Confederacy at the time? Also, the letter was sent to Virginia, not to the US Government. Even if in one man's words it was "war", that doesn't mean that the US Government has to accept it as one.

Now when Lincoln called out for 75,000 Troops to march into the Confederacy, even that wasn't war in my opinion. But when he "did" march them in, there was no doubt about it, the war was on.

Federal forces weren't "marched" in to Confederate territory until May 24, 1861 when U.S. forces seized the city of Alexandria, Virginia. Prior to that, Virginia state forces had attacked and seized the Federal properties of Harper's Ferry and the Gosport Navy base in Norfolk.
 
Up until April 7, the men in the fort had access to supplies from Charleston, which one assumes would include food. So up until that point, the Confederates were making no effort to "starve them out".

Colonel L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

COLONEL: I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guardboats last night than has been done for some time. Three of them remained, at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continue to let us have our mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,

Major, First Artillery, Commanding.



HEADQUARTERS OF THE PROVISIONAL ARMY, C. S., Charleston, S. C., April 7, 1861.

Major ROBERT ANDERSON,

Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, S. C.:

SIR: In compliance with orders from the Confederate Government at Montgomery, I have the honor to inform you that, in consequence of the delays and apparent vacillations of the United States Government at Washington relative to the evacuation of Fort Sumter, no further communications for the purposes of supply with this city from the fort and with the fort from this city will be permitted from and after this day. The mails, however, will continue to be transmitted as heretofore, until further instructions from the Confederate Government.

I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

G. T. BEAUREGARD,


Anderson's March 1 report on supplies: http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mal/mal1/076/0766400/001.jpg

"It will be seen, by the above, that there is flour and hard bread on hand, sufficient to sustain the whole command twenty eight days. "
 
Last edited:
exactly. The garrison was competently dependent on the city for its food. So the CSA knew very well that the moment they stopped delivering food, the garrison would soon be forced to surrender

And Anderson even told them about the supply situation a few days later.

HEADQUARTERS PROVISIONAL ARMY, C. S. A.,
Charleston, S.C., April 11, 1861.

MAJOR: In consequence of the verbal observation made by you to my aides, Messrs. Chesnut and Lee, in relation to the condition of your supplies, and that you would in a few days be starved out if our guns did not batter you to pieces, or words to that effect, and desiring no useless effusion of blood, I communicated both the verbal observations and your written answer to my communications to my Government.
If you will state the time at which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree that in the mean time you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you. Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee are authorized by me to enter into such an agreement with you. You are, therefore, requested to communicate to them an open answer.

I remain, major, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General, Commanding
----------------------

The day after Anderson agreed to evacuate the fort by the 15th of April...


Fort SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861.
GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt by Colonel Chesnut of your second communication of the 11th instant, and to state in reply that, cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon on the 15th instant, and that I will not in the mean time open my fires upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the flag of my Government by the forces under your command, or by some portion of them, or by the perpetration of some act showing a hostile intention on your part against this fort or the flag it bears, should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding
------------

Fort Sumter was a big deal because the CSA government decided to bombard the fort on the 12th of April...
Instead of allowing Anderson to leave the fort peacefully on the 15th of April.

The CSA first offered Anderson an Honorable way to evacuate the fort. Asking him for date.
Then when he gave one, the changed their minds and decided to take the fort by force.

The CSA clearly wanted the crisis escalated... otherwise this decision makes no sense at all.
 
And yet again you are just proving my point.

They could have starved him out at any point... but they did not.

Why?
For much of the winter they wanted the situation to be calm so they had time to bring in as many of the slave states as possible. And yes they also tried talking with Washington.
(But even Buchanan knew that he had no authority to accept secession.)

Then when it became clear than no more states was joining up... the CSA first escalated by cutting off the food supplies, then they refused to allow Anderson to evacuate and finally they bombarded the fort.

That is in no way the actions of someone who are trying to solve the issue peacefully.

They could have waited for 3 days more, saved a lot of powder and not damaged the fort. And had a much weaker reaction in the north.

The CSA wanted an escalation to get more states to join, especially Virginia and North Carolina... and in this they had success.
 
I've yet to see solid proof that they provoked a crisis to bring more states into the fold.

They could have waited for 3 days more, saved a lot of powder and not damaged the fort. And had a much weaker reaction in the north.

No, they could not have waited three more days. The relief ships arrived during the bombardment, so had the CS authorities waited, the fort would have been resupplied.
 
Both located in Confederate territory...

So besides firing on a United States fort, the rebels also attacked and seized a Federal arsenal and a Naval facility well before Federal troops "marched in" to rebel territory. Sounds like the rebel forces made war upon the United States and not the other way around.
 
And yet again you are just proving my point.

They could have starved him out at any point... but they did not.

Why?
For much of the winter they wanted the situation to be calm so they had time to bring in as many of the slave states as possible. And yes they also tried talking with Washington.
(But even Buchanan knew that he had no authority to accept secession.)

Then when it became clear than no more states was joining up... the CSA first escalated by cutting off the food supplies, then they refused to allow Anderson to evacuate and finally they bombarded the fort.

That is in no way the actions of someone who are trying to solve the issue peacefully.

They could have waited for 3 days more, saved a lot of powder and not damaged the fort. And had a much weaker reaction in the north.

The CSA wanted an escalation to get more states to join, especially Virginia and North Carolina... and in this they had success.
Ridiculous made up Baloney.
 
Impressive argumentation.

The CSA knew the supply situation.
They offered Anderson the option of leaving with arms and private property.

When he said he would do so on a specific date, they then changed their minds and decided to bombard the fort before this date.

That is facts that have already been proven by primary sources in this topic.

What have you added to the topic?
 
Back
Top