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
(Page 2 of 5)
However, the so-called Fire-eaters, the most radical Southern nationalists who dominated Southern politics, were no longer interested in compromise. “South Carolina will secede from the Union as surely as that night succeeds the day, and nothing can now prevent or delay it but a revolution at the North,” South Carolinian William Trenholm wrote to a friend. “The...Republican party, inflamed by fanaticism and blinded by arrogance, have leapt into the pit which a just Providence prepared for them.” In Charleston, cannon were fired, martial music was played, flags were waved in every street. Men young and old flocked to join militia companies. Even children delivered “resistance speeches” to their playmates and strutted the lanes with homemade banners.
In December 1860, a little more than a month after Lincoln’s election, South Carolina’s secession convention, held in Charleston, called on the South to join “a great Slaveholding Confederacy, stretching its arms over a territory larger than any power in Europe possesses.” While most Southerners did not own slaves, slave owners wielded power far beyond their numbers: more than 90 percent of the secessionist conventioneers were slaveholders. In breaking up the Union, the South Carolinians claimed, they were but following the founding fathers, who had established the United States as a “union of slaveholding States.” They added that a government dominated by the North must sooner or later lead to emancipation, no matter what the North claimed. Delegates flooded into the streets, shouting, “We are afloat!” as church bells rang, bonfires roared and fireworks shot through the sky.
By 1861, Charleston had witnessed economic decline for decades. Renowned for its residents’ genteel manners and its gracious architecture, the city was rather like a “distressed elderly gentlewoman....a little gone down in the world, yet remembering still its former dignity,” as one visitor put it. It was a cosmopolitan city, with significant minorities of French, Jews, Irish, Germans—and some 17,000 blacks (82 percent of them slaves), who made up 43 percent of the total population. Charleston had been a center of the slave trade since colonial times, and some 40 slave traders operated within a two-square-block area. Even as white Charlestonians boasted publicly of their slaves’ loyalty, they lived in fear of an uprising that would slaughter them in their beds. “People talk before [slaves] as if they were chairs and tables,” Mary Chesnut wrote in her diary. “They make no sign. Are they stolidly stupid? or wiser than we are; silent and strong, biding their time?”
According to historian Douglas R. Egerton, author of Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War, “To win over the yeoman farmers—who would wind up doing nearly all the fighting—the Fire-eaters relentlessly played on race, warning them that, unless they supported secession, within ten years or less their children would be the slaves of Negroes.”
Despite its decline, Charleston remained the Confederacy’s most important port on the Southeast coast. The spectacular harbor was defended by three federal forts: Sumter; tiny Castle Pinckney, one mile off the city’s Battery; and heavily armed Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan’s Island, where Major Anderson’s command was based but where its guns pointed out to sea, making it defenseless from land.
On December 27, a week after South Carolina’s declaration of secession, Charlestonians awoke to discover that Anderson and his men had slipped away from Fort Moultrie to the more defensible Fort Sumter. For secessionists, Anderson’s move “was like casting a spark into a magazine,” wrote one Charlestonian, T. W. Moore, to a friend. Although a military setback for Confederates, who had expected to muscle the federal troops out of Moultrie, Anderson’s move enabled the Fire-eaters to blame Washington for “defying” South Carolina’s peaceable efforts to secede.
Fort Sumter had been planned in the 1820s as a bastion of coastal defense, with its five sides, an interior large enough to house 650 defenders and 135 guns commanding the shipping channels to Charleston Harbor. Construction, however, had never been completed. Only 15 cannon had been mounted; the interior of the fort was a construction site, with guns, carriages, stone and other materials stacked about. Its five-foot-thick brick walls had been designed to withstand any cannonballs that might be hurled—by the navies of the 1820s, according to Rick Hatcher, the National Park Service historian at the fort. Although no one knew it at the time, Fort Sumter was already obsolete. Even conventional guns pointed at the fort could lob cannonballs that would destroy brick and mortar with repeated pounding.
Anderson’s men hailed from Ireland, Germany, England, Denmark and Sweden. His force included native-born Americans as well. The garrison was secure against infantry attack but almost totally isolated from the outside world. Conditions were bleak. Food, mattresses and blankets were in short supply. From their thick-walled casements, the gunners could see Charleston’s steeples and the ring of islands where gangs of slaves and soldiers were already erecting bastions to protect the Southern artillery.
Militiamen itching for a fight flooded into Charleston from the surrounding countryside. There would soon be more than 3,000 of them facing Fort Sumter, commanded by the preening and punctilious Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, who had resigned his position as West Point’s superintendent to offer his services to the Confederacy.
“To prove it was a country, the South had to prove that it had sovereignty over its territory,” says historian Allen Guelzo. “Otherwise no one, especially the Europeans, would take them seriously. Sumter was like a huge flag in the middle of Charleston Harbor that declared, in effect, ‘You don’t have the sovereignty that you claim.’ ”
With communications from his superiors reaching him only sporadically, Anderson was entrusted with heavy responsibilities. Although Kentucky born and bred, his loyalty to the Union was unshakeable. In the months to come, his second-in-command, Capt. Abner Doubleday—a New York abolitionist, and the man who was long credited, incorrectly, with inventing baseball—would express frustration at Anderson’s “inaction.” “I have no doubt he thought he was rendering a real service to the country,” Doubleday later wrote. “He knew the first shot fired by us would light the flames of a civil war that would convulse the world, and tried to put off the evil day as long as possible. Yet a better analysis of the situation might have taught him that the contest had already commenced and could no longer be avoided.” But Anderson was a good choice for the role that befell him. “He was both a seasoned soldier and a diplomat,” says Hatcher. “He would do just about anything he could to avoid war. He showed tremendous restraint.”
Anderson’s distant commander in chief was the lame-duck president, Democrat James Buchanan, who passively maintained that while he believed secession to be illegal, there was nothing he could do about it. A Northerner with Southern sympathies, Buchanan had spent his long career accommodating the South, even to the point of allowing South Carolina to seize all the other federal properties in the state. For months, as the crisis deepened, Buchanan had vacillated. Finally, in January, he dispatched a paddle wheel steamer, Star of the West, carrying a cargo of provisions and 200 reinforcements for the Sumter garrison. But when Confederate batteries fired on her at the entrance to Charleston Harbor, the ship’s skipper turned the ship around and fled north, leaving Anderson’s men to their fate. This ignominious expedition represented Buchanan’s only attempt to assert federal power in the waters off Charleston.
Some were convinced the Union was finished. The British vice-consul in Charleston, H. Pinckney Walker, saw the government’s failure to resupply Fort Sumter as proof of its impotence. He predicted the North would splinter into two or three more republics, putting an end to the United States forever. The Confederacy, he wrote, formed what he called “a very nice little plantation” that could look forward to “a career of prosperity such as the world has not before known.” Popular sentiment in Charleston was reflected in the ardently secessionist Charleston Mercury, which scoffed that federal power was “a wretched humbug—a scarecrow—a dirty bundle of red rags and old clothes” and Yankee soldiers just “poor hirelings” who would never fight. The paper dismissed Lincoln as a “vain, ignorant, low fellow.”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (28)
+ View All Comments
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
Why was Ft Sumter fired on? Ft. Sunter is in the middle of Charleston Harbor. Was it because the North was blockading the South from shipping their cotton to Europe for a better price? The North had been imposing a tariff on southern cotton for years. This tariff and a blockade to prevent the shipping of cotton to a better market would affect all cotton growers, and not just the slave owning farmers. Most of the men fighting for the South did not own slaves. They would not fight about slavery but they would fight for the right to sell their cotton at the best price. This is something to think about.
Posted by Ned Russell on April 27,2011 | 01:34 AM
Another piece of the puzzle regarding Lincoln's early views on slavery comes from an early Illinois court case.
My great-great grandfather, Orlando B. Ficklin, a Democrat, had served with Lincoln in the Illinois House of Representatives in the mid 1830's. In 1847 (three years before passage of the Fugitive Slave Law), they found themselves on opposing sides in the Matson Slave Trial in Charleston, Illinois. Ironically, Lincoln represented Kentucky slave owner Robert Matson, who sued to force slaves Jane Bryant and her four children to return to Kentucky after Matson had brought them to Coles County to work temporarily on a tract of land he owned there.
Orlando B. Ficklin (whose wife, Lizzie, was a daughter of Georgia Senator, Walter T. Colquitt, and sister of future Confederate General, Alfred H. Colquitt), was retained by local abolitionists to represent Jane and her children. The case was decided in favor of the slaves and the Bryant family later emigrated to Liberia.
Posted by Deborah Parks on April 20,2011 | 06:21 PM
We both really enjoyed the depth the article went into to present the mood leading up to the war in Charleston. More specifically the quotes of then Captain Truman Seymour at Fort Sumter were a pleasant surprise. We live in the house on Broad St. in Charleston, that housed captured Genral Truman Seymour, along with four other Genrals Wessells, Scammon, Heckman, and Shaler in hopes to curtail the constant shelling on the City in the later years of the war. In retaliation, President Lincoln put 600, confederate soldiers, (the immortal 600), under their own fire.
Posted by douglas a. mayoras on April 18,2011 | 03:21 PM
+ View All Comments