The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-17-2006, 07:50 PM
handsomeharry handsomeharry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Did Lincoln help provoke the attack on Ft. Sumter?

I recall hearing a professor at the college where I worked state that Lincoln had gunboats going up and down some rivers, coasts, etc... shelling "Confederate" positions before Ft. Sumter, and that this was what led to Ft. Sumter being attacked- because the South was quite fed up by this time, and they saw this as being as good a time as any to start the fireworks.
Is there any proof of this?
Thanks,
hh
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-17-2006, 08:11 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I am not a historian and you can take what I say with a grain of salt. What I was told was that Lincoln went to some effort to avoid provocation. That he warned the south that he was going to resupply Fort Sumter, but that there would be no belligerence on the part of the union soldiers. But the southern hotheads decided they couldn't allow this resupply and attacked.

What I cannot tell you is the tenor of the times. Maybe Lincoln knew that this resupply would be considered an act of war. I guess if you read 100 histories you would get 200 views.

Living as I have in Quebec for the last 3/8 of a century, I have often wondered how separation would go. Presumably the gov't of a sovereign Quebec would politely (or otherwise) ask the Canadian gov't to vacate the army bases and the Federal gov't would refuse. Then the bases would need food and fuel for the winter and the Feds would airlift supplies. Now what? Well, Fort Sumter must have been something like that.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-17-2006, 08:38 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 32,976
And Lincoln made no military attacks on any Confederate soils. The Confederates themselves were proud to have fired the first shot in the war and honored the person who did it. (It may not have been technically the first, but Ft. Sumter meant the war began in earnest.)
__________________
"One never knows, do one?"
Provider of quality fantasy and science fiction since 1982.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-17-2006, 08:51 PM
ombre3 ombre3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Firing on Fort Sumter of course was a dumb mistake by South Carolina.---------Gave that anal retentive dingbat Lincoln just what he needed to invade the South.

Fort Sumter was of course just symbolic. Bloodless conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-17-2006, 09:36 PM
Freddy the Pig Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by handsomeharry
Is there any proof of this?
No, it's completely incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-17-2006, 11:17 PM
Hypnagogic Jerk Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon
Living as I have in Quebec for the last 3/8 of a century, I have often wondered how separation would go. Presumably the gov't of a sovereign Quebec would politely (or otherwise) ask the Canadian gov't to vacate the army bases and the Federal gov't would refuse. Then the bases would need food and fuel for the winter and the Feds would airlift supplies. Now what? Well, Fort Sumter must have been something like that.
Well, that depends on how amicable separation would be, but given Canadian political culture, I would assume that it wouldn't get to this. I believe the Quebec and Canadian governments would agree on some schedule for vacating the military bases, and this schedule could very well go a few years in the future. My understanding of the American Civil War is that the two sides were going to go to war with each other sooner or later, with the federal government refusing to recognize separation and the Confederates intent on pursuing it to the end. So the war was going to start, on any issue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-18-2006, 09:37 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck
The Confederates themselves were proud to have fired the first shot in the war and honored the person who did it.
Said person would be Edmund Ruffin, according to contemporary accounts (of admittedly questionable veracity).

Sailboat
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-18-2006, 09:43 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Diogenes Club
Posts: 38,584
Absolutely false. Tempers were running high enough in South Carolina that even the act of resupplying Ft. Sumter's small garrison with rations was regarded as intolerable by the Confederate "fire eaters." Lincoln, still learning on the job and being given very contradictory advice by his Cabinet, was determined to maintain control of Federal facilities below the Mason-Dixon Line. He kept the governor of S.C. apprised of his intentions, and the rebel batteries fired upon the resupply ship (the Star of the West, IIRC), driving it off, before opening fire on Ft. Sumter on April 12, 1861.

Of course it suited Lincoln's political purposes that the Confederates begin the war - the North was outraged and men rallied to the colors all across the country - but the rebels in Charleston harbor were only too glad to oblige.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-18-2006, 11:33 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 11,640
Yes, The Star of the West. It is worth noting that the US Navy ship Powatan, the most powerful in the fleet was sent down to Sumpter, but the orders were confused and she sailed to Fort Donaldson (?) in Florida instead. Had she arrived to back up the supply ship we could have said Lincoln provoked the rebels. In the event he did not.

(Where the heck would the tiny US Navy get a bunch of gunboats anyway?)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-18-2006, 11:54 AM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 32,976
Remember, too, that Lincoln was still working to keep Virginia in the Union (it didn't secede until after Ft. Sumter). Attacking any of the Confederate states would have immediately put Virginia solidly in their camp.

As it was, Virginia seceded due to Sumter, as did three other states. But Lincoln would have much preferred keeping it in the Union (if, for nothing else than the fact that Robert E. Lee had indicated he's fight for whatever side his home state was on).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-18-2006, 12:55 PM
saoirse saoirse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck
Remember, too, that Lincoln was still working to keep Virginia in the Union (it didn't secede until after Ft. Sumter). Attacking any of the Confederate states would have immediately put Virginia solidly in their camp.

As it was, Virginia seceded due to Sumter, as did three other states. But Lincoln would have much preferred keeping it in the Union (if, for nothing else than the fact that Robert E. Lee had indicated he's fight for whatever side his home state was on).
And he did keep Kentucky from seceding, which would have been disastrous.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-18-2006, 01:13 PM
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Obamangeles
Posts: 4,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck
As it was, Virginia seceded due to Sumter, as did three other states. But Lincoln would have much preferred keeping it in the Union (if, for nothing else than the fact that Robert E. Lee had indicated he's fight for whatever side his home state was on).
That'd make an interesting what-if.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-18-2006, 02:05 PM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi
Yes, The Star of the West. It is worth noting that the US Navy ship Powatan, the most powerful in the fleet was sent down to Sumpter, but the orders were confused and she sailed to Fort Donaldson (?) in Florida instead. Had she arrived to back up the supply ship we could have said Lincoln provoked the rebels. In the event he did not.
I don't think we could say it even then. Ft. Sumter was a federal facility, and even granting any claim of offshore islands it would be quite needlessly aggressive to shoot at federal soldiers.

Quote:
(Where the heck would the tiny US Navy get a bunch of gunboats anyway?)
And what would they shoot at? Cornfields?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-18-2006, 06:44 PM
Freddy the Pig Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Two Fort Sumter events are being confused in this thread: the Star of the West resupply effort, which took place while Buchanan was President, and the April 1861 resupply which was forestalled by the Confederate capture of the fort.

The Star of the West was in some ways the more aggressive attempt. The Star herself was a chartered merchantman, but had been stocked with food, ammunition, and troop reenforcements. She was to land backed by a single warship, the Brooklyn, which however was separated from the Star en route.

Cadets from the Citadel fired on the Star on the night of January 9-10, 1861, causing damage but no casualties. With Brooklyn unavailable to help, and with Anderson (having received no instructions, and very uncertain about what to do) declining to offer supporting fire from Fort Sumter itself, the Star chose to turn around and leave.

In April 1861, Lincoln sent another merchantman, the Baltic, backed by three warships (it would have been four but for the Powhatan mishap mentioned by Paul in Saudi). He notified the Governor of South Carolina that this attempt would supply only food, not arms or reenforcements.

Nevertheless, the Confederates could not allow this, and before the fleet arrived (it was delayed by a gale outside the harbor) they opened fire on and captured the fort.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-18-2006, 10:03 PM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 11,640
The confused Powatan ended up at Fort Pickens, in Florida. Not Fort Donaldson, in the midwest. That came to me last night in my sleep. Funny how the mind works, and when.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-18-2006, 10:35 PM
Freddy the Pig Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
I believe you mean Fort Donelson, the hastily erected works on the Cumberland River in northern Tennessee which surrendered to US Grant in February 1862.

To add to the confusion, the Governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, shared his name with Fort Pickens in Florida. Maybe that was why the Powhatan got lost--they sent it down to hassle Pickens, but they meant the Governor, not the Fort!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.