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 4 of 5)
Anderson roused his men, informing them an attack was imminent. At 4:30 a.m., the heavy thud of a mortar broke the stillness. A single shell from Fort Johnson on James Island rose high into the still-starry sky, curved downward and burst directly over Fort Sumter. Confederate batteries on Morris Island opened up, then others from Sullivan’s Island, until Sumter was surrounded by a ring of fire. As geysers of brick and mortar spumed up where balls hit the ramparts, shouts of triumph rang from the rebel emplacements. In Charleston, families by the thousands rushed to rooftops, balconies and down to the waterfront to witness what the Charleston Mercury would describe as a “Splendid Pyrotechnic Exhibition.”
To conserve powder cartridges, the garrison endured the bombardment without reply for two and a half hours. At 7 a.m., Anderson directed Doubleday to return fire from about 20 guns, roughly one half as many as the Confederates. The Union volley sent vast flocks of water birds rocketing skyward from the surrounding marsh.
At about 10 a.m., Capt. Truman Seymour replaced Doubleday’s exhausted crew with a fresh detachment.
“Doubleday, what in the world is the matter here, and what is all this uproar about?” Seymour inquired dryly.
“There is a trifling difference of opinion between us and our neighbors opposite, and we are trying to settle it,” the New Yorker replied.
“Very well,” said Seymour, with mock graciousness. “Do you wish me to take a hand?”
“Yes,” Doubleday responded. “I would like to have you go in.”
At Fort Moultrie, now occupied by the Confederates, federal shots hit bales of cotton that rebel gunners were using as bulwarks. At each detonation, the rebels gleefully shouted, “Cotton is falling!” And when a shot exploded the kitchen, blowing loaves of bread into the air, they cried, “Breadstuffs are rising!”
Humor was less on display in the aristocratic homes of Charleston, where the roar of artillery began to rattle even the most devout secessionists. “Some of the anxious hearts lie on their beds and moan in solitary misery,” trying to reassure themselves that God was really on the Confederate side, recorded Chesnut.
At the height of the bombardment, Fox’s relief flotilla at last hove into sight from the north. To the federals’ dismay, however, Fox’s ships continued to wait off the coast, beyond range of rebel guns: their captains hadn’t bargained on finding themselves in the middle of an artillery duel. The sight of reinforcements so tantalizingly close was maddening to those on Sumter. But even Doubleday admitted that had the ships tried to enter the harbor, “this course would probably have resulted in the sinking of every vessel.”
The bombardment slackened during the rainy night but kept on at 15-minute intervals, and began again in earnest at 4 a.m. on the 13th. Roaring flames, dense masses of swirling smoke, exploding shells and the sound of falling masonry “made the fort a pandemonium,” recalled Doubleday. Wind drove smoke into the already claustrophobic casements, where Anderson’s gunners nearly suffocated. “Some lay down close to the ground, with handkerchiefs over their mouths, and others posted themselves near the embrasures, where the smoke was somewhat lessened by the draught of air,” recalled Doubleday. “Everyone suffered severely.”
At 1:30 p.m., the fort’s flagstaff was shot away, although the flag itself was soon reattached to a short spar and raised on the parapet, much to the disappointment of rebel marksmen. As fires crept toward the powder magazine, soldiers raced to remove hundreds of barrels of powder that threatened to blow the garrison into the cloudless sky. As the supply of cartridges steadily shrank, Sumter’s guns fell silent one by one.
Soon after the flagpole fell, Louis Wigfall, husband of Charlotte Wigfall and a former U.S. senator from Texas now serving under Beauregard, had himself rowed to the fort under a white flag to call again for Anderson’s surrender. The grandstanding Wigfall had no formal authority to negotiate, but he offered Anderson the same terms that Beauregard had offered a few days earlier: Anderson would be allowed to evacuate his command with dignity, arms in hand, and be given unimpeded transport to the North and permission to salute the Stars and Stripes.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (31)
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
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
Anybody that thinks slavery was not the cause of the American civil war has something missing between his or her ears. The union fought to preserve the union and eventually end slavery. The confederates fought to preserve their slave based economy, although the majority of their soldiers didn't know it. because the slaveholders controlled the propaganda.
Posted by John G Rovira on April 13,2011 | 10:01 AM
The author correctly states that Inauguration Day was not switched to January 20 until 1933. The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, which changed the terms of the president, was ratified on January 23, 1933. Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to be sworn in on the new date when he began his second term in 1937.
Posted by L. Garrity on April 12,2011 | 02:39 PM
On this, the 150th. anniversary of the beginning of the U. S. Civil War, we should stop and remember Ted Strawinski, an eighteen year old Polish student, who was the first recorded victim of the war, having perished during the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederate army (The first Union officer to fall on the field of battle was captain Constantine Biedowski on May 10, 1861).
Posted by R. Duslak on April 12,2011 | 02:17 PM
Odd that this article and one in Parade by Jon Meacham of Random House appear at the same time. Both try to convince the reader that the war was necessary to get rid of slavery. Few would doubt that the cotter pin of the war was slavery, but many would question if the war was inevitable and the ends worth the cost.
Most Southern soldiers were not slaveholders. Why did they fight? The answer is simple and well described in "Cold Mountain." They wanted Northerners to stay in the North. Perhaps that is where "Yankee Go Home" comes from.
My formative years were spent during WWII. I never questioned that my country and its value were worth fighting for. Vietnam changed that. Now I wonder about all our wars. Outside of the war in the Pacific, I can't think of one that could not have been avoided.
Posted by james o. clifford,sr. on April 11,2011 | 01:01 PM
Correction: Inauguration Day was moved up to January 20 in the year 1937.
Posted by dmrgl on April 11,2011 | 11:12 AM
The author makes a factual error in the article. He states that Inauguration Day was moved up to January 20 in 1933. Wrong. The actual year was 1945.
Posted by dmargl on April 11,2011 | 11:03 AM
I found this bit of information very informative and concise. It tied all the ordinary questions one would immediately think of and then some. It sets before me the events that took place before the Civil War that lead to this inevitable battle to hold our nation together. Thank you. Ed Lopez
Posted by Ed Lopez on April 10,2011 | 06:22 PM
Certainly the cause of the war was slavery, but in its more elemental form, the cause was "cheap labor" for the agrarian South, no matter the hardship and poverty it imposed on those providing it. Individual state legislatures of the Confederacy could be more easily manipulated to serve the wills of the plantation owners (a minority, even in the South) so they could enjoy the fruits of cheap labor to maintain their pretentious and elegant lifestyles.
Of course, since an army had to defend this rebellion, slavery as such could not be the plantation owner's (and cotton broker's, merchant's depending on such, etc.) recruiting tool. Instead, they resorted to the "states rights" slogan to demonize the Federal Union. Telling the poor, white, non-slave owning farmers that some rich Yankees in Washington were trying to tell them how to run their lives was a sure-fire way to fill the ranks. The skin color and behavior of the illiterate slaves might have helped some recruiting efforts, but it is doubtful that it was used much because many of those same non-slave owners probably identified with the slaves and their pitiful conditions.
To an erudite observer, such circumstances might be seen today in U.S. society. Just replace "plantation owners" with "Wall St. bankers", "slaves" with "Hispanics (legal or illegal)", "states rights" with "gun-owner's rights" or "consumer rights", etc. Well, you get the picture.
Posted by Ron Blackburn on April 9,2011 | 10:35 AM
q) Why would southerners, most not slave owners, leave their homes and go to war?
a) Because the aristocrats were slave owners, and controlled the newspapers.
South Carolina's articles of secession say it all.
q) Why did Lincoln not free the slaves immediately?
a) Because Lincoln was, by oath, required to uphold the Constitution of the United States -- a Constitution which gave slaveholders great rights (which the Taney Court correctly interpreted as allowing slavery even in Free States).
The South had won the slavery war, but they didn't know it. The Federal Government was constrained by its Constitution not to interfere with slavery. Then insurrection occurred (thank you, South Carolina!), and the Constitution allowed the Federal Government great leeway in dealing with same. Indeed, Lincoln used the concept of slaves as property in promulgating the Emancipation Proclamation -- because slaves were valuable war materiel and their liberation from their Southern owners would greatly damage the South. Sadly, places not in rebellion against the North could not so easily be stripped of their "property". It took the purchase of the slaves of Washington DC -- and the later 13th Amendment -- to do that.
The British, not having a Constitution, got rid of slavery far earlier than we did -- it merely took the passage of a law in Parliament.
We had to change our Constitution to do so -- and the South made that change easy.
Posted by unclesmrgol on April 5,2011 | 03:17 AM
Since the beginning of the Sesquicentennial in January there has been an obvious urgency on the part of the politically correct caucus to reiterate the age old myths about the great american conflict in an effort to "patch"the enlarging cracks in the perpetuated myths,especially that the war was fought over slavery.In my part of the country "The South" By God,the great conflict has always been and still is one of the most studied periods of American History and there are experts on every corner.Therein lies the problem for people like Mr.Bordewich.These historians can easily produce facts,quotes,and easy documentation to destroy those perpetuated myths and they do so daily.Your article was shared by a study group today and roundly repudiated,even laughed at,especially the part where the author said he had Grown up listening to stories about the War in NEW YORK.hahaha.Our people lived it.Your great liberators came South to free one race then went West to annihilate another.Give us a break.
Posted by Joel T.Foster on April 4,2011 | 09:44 AM
This is great revisionist history! No one has every been able to rationally explain why most of the Confederate soldiers, who were not slave owners, would leave their homes, risk injury and death, to fight for a cause such as slavery. The "cause" had to be much greater. This is a common sense issue which most liberals cannot or will not accept.
This article made a hero of Lincoln which is nonsensense. The North was getting their butts kicked severely in the early battles and Lioncoln used the cry of slavery, freedom and emancipation to rally the North. Go back and look at Lincolon's views on slavery prior to the war.
The war was fought over control, not morals.
Posted by Bill Atwood on April 4,2011 | 08:24 AM
Yesteday's Fire-eaters = today's tea party?
Posted by Jay Ellar on April 3,2011 | 06:46 PM
Currently @ work on an ambitious book project of historic fiction re: the CW, I belive your article and pictures on the beginning conflagration is wonderful. I'd like to subscribe to your magazine, but for now am MOST grateful to have access to your on-line info.
Posted by Linda Evans on March 30,2011 | 04:35 PM
This is a fine article and highlights President Lincoln's reluctance to initiate military action at Fort Sumter. His reluctance inevitably meant the slave South would fire the first shot, and suffer the moral onus of beginning the Civil War. At the time, though, many in the Free North criticized Mr. Lincoln's hesitancy as indecisive and weak.
However, as a presidential candidate in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was not only antislavery, but also antiwar. In his authorized campaign biography, for which I served as the new editor, Mr. Lincoln relates pacifist Quaker ancestry; nonviolent service as a young Army recruit; and passionate protests against the U.S. invasion of Mexico. (He secretly coauthored the biography. The book has been restored and reissued as “Vote Lincoln!”)
Fearing violent resistance from the slave South, Mr. Lincoln also made surprising concessions. His book not only promises noninterference with existing slavery in the South, but also to continue returning escaped slaves to captivity. He only bars slavery's expansion into the frontier West and hopes the South will someday voluntarily end slavery. He repeated these offers in his inaugural address. Many antislavery activists, e.g., Frederick Douglass, were appalled and accused Mr. Lincoln of betrayal.
Even after the Civil War began, President Lincoln refused to forcibly free slaves and deferred military decisions to his generals. With much controversy,he claimed the war was about preserving the Union, not to abolish slavery. His commanders, though, wandered into a series of calamitous defeats. As the war neared being lost, Mr. Lincoln made a great transformation. In a spiritual and emotional process still not fully understood, President Lincoln traversed the great distance between his pacifist biography and the life-and-death necessity of military victory. He became all that he believed he could never be: a determined commander-in-chief and the great emancipator of slaves.
Posted by D. Bradford on March 24,2011 | 10:37 PM