Fort Sumter: The Civil War Begins
Nearly a century of discord between North and South finally exploded in April 1861 with the bombardment of Fort Sumter
- By Fergus M. Bordewich
- Photographs by Vincent Musi
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2011, Subscribe
On the afternoon of April 11, 1861, a small open boat flying a white flag pushed off from the tip of the narrow peninsula surrounding the city of Charleston. The vessel carried three envoys representing the Confederate States government, established in Montgomery, Alabama, two months before. Slaves rowed the passengers the nearly three and a half miles across the harbor to the looming hulk of Fort Sumter, where Lt. Jefferson C. Davis of the U.S. Army—no relation to the newly installed president of the Confederacy—met the arriving delegation. Davis led the envoys to the fort’s commander, Maj. Robert Anderson, who had been holed up there since just after Christmas with a tiny garrison of 87 officers and enlisted men—the last precarious symbol of federal power in passionately secessionist South Carolina.
The Confederates demanded immediate evacuation of the fort. However, they promised safe transport out of Charleston for Anderson and his men, who would be permitted to carry their weapons and personal property and to salute the Stars and Stripes, which, the Confederates acknowledged, “You have upheld so long...under the most trying circumstances.” Anderson thanked them for such “fair, manly, and courteous terms.” Yet he stated, “It is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligation to my Government, prevent my compliance.” Anderson added grimly that he would be starved out in a few days—if the Confederate cannonthat ringed the harbor didn’t batter him to pieces first. As the envoys departed and the sound of their oars faded away across the gunmetal-gray water, Anderson knew that civil war was probably only hours away.
One hundred and fifty years later, that war’s profound implications still reverberate within American hearts, heads and politics, from the lingering consequences of slavery for African-Americans to renewed debates over states’ rights and calls for the “nullification” of federal laws. Many in the South have viewed secession a matter of honor and the desire to protect a cherished way of life.
But the war was unarguably about the survival of the United States as a nation. Many believed that if secession succeeded, it would enable other sections of the country to break from the Union for any reason. “The Civil War proved that a republic could survive,” says historian Allen Guelzo of Gettysburg College. “Europe’s despots had long asserted that republics were automatically fated either to succumb to external attack or to disintegrate from within. The Revolution had proved that we could defend ourselves against outside attack. Then we proved, in the creation of the Constitution, that we could write rules for ourselves. Now the third test had come: whether a republic could defend itself against internal collapse.”
Generations of historians have argued over the cause of the war. “Everyone knew at the time that the war was ultimately about slavery,” says Orville Vernon Burton, a native South Carolinian and author of The Age of Lincoln. “After the war, some began saying that it was really about states’ rights, or a clash of two different cultures, or about the tariff, or about the industrializing North versus the agrarian South. All these interpretations came together to portray the Civil War as a collision of two noble civilizations from which black slaves had been airbrushed out.” African-American historians from W.E.B. Du Bois to John Hope Franklin begged to differ with the revisionist view, but they were overwhelmed by white historians, both Southern and Northern, who, during the long era of Jim Crow, largely ignored the importance of slavery in shaping the politics of secession.
Fifty years ago, the question of slavery was so loaded, says Harold Holzer, author of Lincoln President-Elect and other works on the 16th president, that the issue virtually paralyzed the federal commission charged with organizing events commemorating the war’s centennial in 1961, from which African-Americans were virtually excluded. (Arrangements for the sesquicentennial have been left to individual states.) At the time, some Southern members reacted with hostility to any emphasis on slavery, for fear that it would embolden the then-burgeoning civil rights movement. Only later were African-American views of the war and its origins finally heard, and scholarly opinion began to shift. Says Holzer, “Only in recent years have we returned to the obvious—that it was about slavery.”
As Emory Thomas, author of The Confederate Nation 1861-1865 and a retired professor of history at the University of Georgia, puts it, “The heart and soul of the secession argument was slavery and race. Most white Southerners favored racial subordination, and they wanted to protect the status quo. They were concerned that the Lincoln administration would restrict slavery, and they were right.”
Of course, in the spring of 1861, no one could foresee either the four-year-long war’s numbing human cost, or its outcome. Many Southerners assumed that secession could be accomplished peacefully, while many Northerners thought that a little saber rattling would be sufficient to bring the rebels to their senses. Both sides, of course, were fatally wrong. “The war would produce a new nation, very different in 1865 from what it had been in 1860,” says Thomas. The war was a conflict of epic dimensions that cost 620,000 American lives, and brought about a racial and economic revolution, fundamentally altering the South’s cotton economy and transforming four million slaves from chattel into soldiers, citizens and eventually national leaders.
The road to secession had begun with the nation’s founding, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which attempted to square the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution with the fact that human beings were held in bondage. Over time, the Southern states would grow increasingly determined to protect their slave-based economies. The founding fathers agreed to accommodate slavery by granting slave states additional representation in Congress, based on a formula that counted three-fifths of their enslaved population. Optimists believed that slavery, a practice that was becoming increasingly costly, would disappear naturally, and with it electoral distortion. Instead, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 spurred production of the crop and with it, slavery. There were nearly 900,000 enslaved Americans in 1800. By 1860, there were four million—and the number of slave states increased accordingly, fueling a sense of impending national crisis over the South’s “peculiar institution.”
A crisis had occurred in 1819, when Southerners had threatened secession to protect slavery. The Missouri Compromise the next year, however, calmed the waters. Under its provisions, Missouri would be admitted to the Union as a slave state, while Maine would be admitted as a free state. And, it was agreed, future territories north of a boundary line within land acquired by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 would be free of slavery. The South was guaranteed parity in the U.S. Senate—even as population growth in the free states had eroded the South’s advantages in the House of Representatives. In 1850, when the admission of gold-rich California finally tipped the balance of free states in the Senate in the North’s favor, Congress, as a concession to the South, passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which required citizens of Northern states to collaborate with slave hunters in capturing fugitive slaves. But it had already become clear to many Southern leaders that secession in defense of slavery was only a matter of time.
Sectional strife accelerated through the 1850s. In the North, the Fugitive Slave Law radicalized even apathetic Yankees. “Northerners didn’t want anything to do with slavery,” says historian Bernard Powers of the College of Charleston. “The law shocked them when they realized that they could be compelled to arrest fugitive slaves in their own states, that they were being dragged kicking and screaming into entanglement with slavery.” In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act further jolted Northerners by opening to slavery western territories that they had expected would remain forever free.
By late the next year, the Kansas Territory erupted into guerrilla warfare between pro-slavery and antislavery forces; the violence would leave more than 50 dead. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision of 1857 further inflamed Northerners by declaring, in effect, that free-state laws barring slavery from their own soil were essentially superseded. The decision threatened to make slavery a national institution. John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, in October 1859, seemed to vindicate slave owners’ long-standing fear that abolitionists intended to invade the South and liberate their slaves by force. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, declaring his candidacy for the Senate, succinctly characterized the dilemma: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.”
For the South, the last straw was Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860, with only 39.8 percent of the vote. In a four-way contest against Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, Constitutional Unionist John Bell and the South’s favorite son, Kentucky Democrat John Breckenridge, Lincoln received not a single electoral vote south of the Mason-Dixon line. In her diary, Charleston socialite Mary Boykin Chesnut recounted the reaction she had overheard on a train when news of Lincoln’s election was announced. One passenger, she recalled, had exclaimed: “Now that...radical Republicans have the power I suppose they will [John] Brown us all.”Although Lincoln hated slavery, he was far from an abolitionist; he believed freed blacks should be sent to Africa or Central America, and declared explicitly that he would not tamper with slavery where it already existed. (He did make clear that he would oppose the expansion of slavery into new territories.)
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (31)
+ View All Comments
Ithink that the battle of Fort Sumter helped all Americans out win or lost in the battle good luck to all of us
Posted by Sara on April 17,2013 | 02:28 PM
My favorite subject is history, so I look up a lot of things on the interne. and if I do this is the only website I search my things on.
Posted by Rebekah on March 27,2013 | 04:46 PM
this is a great website to look up great information about our past generation
Posted by Alexus on March 5,2013 | 10:25 AM
i think this article is well written and it gives alot info:) like i said love hstory so much;0
Posted by cakita feliz on January 29,2013 | 02:32 PM
this information really helped me:) I LOVE HISTORY SO MUCH LIKE I LOVE MY MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by cakita feliz on January 29,2013 | 02:28 PM
these videos sink they dont gine you any info
Posted by sierra cleveland on October 15,2012 | 05:22 PM
Thank you soo much for the help. This information helped me on my 8th grade honors NHD Project!:))
Posted by Caitlin on October 9,2012 | 10:06 PM
this is to long can you just make it like to where it is not so long because it is to long i almost went to sleep! but it is enteresting.
Posted by taniyah on September 19,2012 | 11:41 AM
THIS HELP MY 10th GRADE CIVIL WAR PROJECT SOOOOOOOO MUCH!Big big thanks to you!!!
Posted by Edna DoVuage on May 28,2012 | 09:33 PM
I love history.Its knowledge to your mind.
Posted by lild on October 13,2011 | 09:51 PM
For sure slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and the philosophy of labor at essentially its lowest cost continues to drive policies of the south today, to the point that it is a major factor in current national politics. Some historians and sociologists point to the "southernization" of the United States that grips our nation, as they address the future.
Posted by GLI on May 27,2011 | 01:57 PM
By February 1861 seven states had seceded from the Union. Five of them appointed commissioners whose mission it was to spread the gospel of secession to the other slave states. Regarding the election of Abraham Lincoln, the commissioner S. F. Hale from Alabama in a letter to the Governor of Kentucky wrote “He stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all constitutional barriers, ignores the obligation of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down sovereignty and equality of the states, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma—the equality of the races white and black."
A higher law is natural law as expounded upon in The Declaration of Independence and is the principle upon which this nation was founded. "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Slavery in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” was a gross contradiction and great injustice. It’s clear to me that only way it would end was the American Civil War. Perhaps it was God’s judgment for violating higher law.
For those interested I recommend reading Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles B. Dew
SNW
Posted by SNW on May 24,2011 | 04:04 AM
It is unfortunate that myths surrounding the origin of hostilities in 1861 are endorsed in the article “Opening Salvo.” There is no justification for the use of uninformed phrases like “clash between founding ideals and slavery” or the leitmotif that war between the states was inevitable. The taking of Fort Sumter, a Union bastion in a state not part of the Union, and war itself were far from inevitable, and, constitutionally, there was no clash between founding ideals and slavery. Differences between the states had always been resolved through negotiation and bargaining – the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc. Sectional economics, competing interpretations of federalism and northern expansionism provided a volatile background, but only that. The war’s trigger was the election of a President incapable of personifying a national consensus – Lincoln carried only 16 northern states plus California and Oregon and not a single southern state. Even after his election with less than 40% of the popular vote, there were opportunities for compromise (an obvious one was withdrawing Union troops from Fort Sumter), but Lincoln missed them all and set in motion events that led to a war that implemented northern aggression.
Posted by Carlos Valrand on May 14,2011 | 02:39 PM
I must take issue with the statement by Mr. Bordewich that the Civil War was over slavery alone. Perhaps that is his view. The average Southerner of 1861 was a dirt farmer or merchant or both, whose only dealings with slavery would have been through his richer neighbors as a rule. This Southerner went to fight not over slavery, but because someone was taxing his land too much or inhibited his business through added taxes, or because he believed in States` Rights. The latter had a strong following in the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Tennessee. His grievances could not or would not be heard by Congress, as the Northern states had 183 votes, the South when unanimous, 120. ( The Lost Cause, E. A. Pollard, p. 80).
Just as the American Revolution was fought for no taxation without representation, freedom from oppression, liberty, freedom from the King, or any number of other excellent reasons, to say the Civil War was fought for one reason by all Southerners is ludicrous.
Posted by John E. Truitt on May 11,2011 | 01:04 AM
+ View All Comments