The decision making process of the Confederacy bombarding Fort Sumter

[Jim's Son]

Now that we are observing the 150th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War, how exactly was the decision made by the Confederacy to start the war? Looking at the wiki entry of Jefferson Davis it says "he approved the cabinet decision to bombard Fort Sumter". Did any of the cabinet members point out that Fort Sumter was not finished, that the North had a small garrison and was running out of food? Did they really think that Lincoln and the North would take being fired upon without retaliating? Did they feel that since there were only seven states, that showing they were serious about secession would convince the border states like Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and others to join them (four did and Lincoln used some heavy handed actions to keep others in line)? Did any think of maybe supplying Major Anderson and the Fort Sumter with food, invite them to the mainland for Sunday church and get his second in command Abner Doubleday to teach that new fangled game of baseball that he invented 20 years earlier at Cooperstown (okay, I know Abner didn't and his many writings never claim that he did).

While we know that ultimately the North's manpower and industrial strength would win, could one have made a reasonable assumption that a rebellion would succeed? Did any British and French military people at the time give the Confederacy a chance because of its size and the difficulty of pacifying such an area?


Granted with 150 years of hindsight, it looks like the South made the worst possible decision they could (actually it could have been worse. They did treat the garrison with respect when they surrendered). I suppose you could argue they almost won if McClellan hadn't stumbled across Lee's orders before Antietam, if Lincoln had proven to be an incompetent dodo like Dubya and Obama, if the 1864 election was before Sherman took Atlanta, Farragut took Mobile and while Grant was still bogged down in the Virginia wilderness with blood letting disasters like Cold Harbor.


Any good books on the rush to starting the war?

[Paul in Qatar]

Groupthink and peer pressure, the same reason most wars start. Lots of testosterone clouding clear thinking.

If they did not bombard Fort Sumpter, the US would run in supplies and reinforcements on the Star of the West, so if they did not strike before the relief expedition arrived, the job would be much tougher.

[SeldomSeen]

John Jakes historical novel North and South is set mostly in Charleston South Carolina in the period leading up to the Civil War. Admittedly it is a work of fiction, but a well-researched one. It gives some interesting insights to the dynamics at work during that period. Some interesting points; Although South Carolina was at the forefront of the sucession movement the populace was not particularly keen on joining the confederacy - they felt that their state had been short-changed in terms of representation to the Confederate government. There was even a strong movement to form an independent state and apply for admission into the British Commonwealth. By most accounts the British did not particularly want them, having no appetite for yet another set-to with the U.S.

The Union fortifications in Charleston harbor were largely cut off, but the Carolinians made no effort to starve them out. They allowed detachments from the fort access to the city for purposes of purchasing food and supplies, and when the Union troops did pull out they were allowed to leave unmolested.

The mood of the day in the Southern states seems to have been one of intense autoharmonious patriotism coupled, as Paul in Qatar has stated, with large amounts of testosterone. Southern people, for the most part, despised the Northerners and the Federal Government, but their loyalty was to the individual state, not to the "Confederacy" as a whole. The decision to open fire on Fort Sumter was probably made with the consideration that it was the most vulnerable of Union establishments. Charleston was arguably the most expedient port for reciept of supplies from Europe and therefore control of the port was extremely important to the South.
SS

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Jim's Son

While we know that ultimately the North's manpower and industrial strength would win, could one have made a reasonable assumption that a rebellion would succeed?

Both sides misread the other. The north felt that there was a unionist majority in the south with just a layer of secessionist extremists in office. They felt time was on their side because this unionist majority would assert itself and throw the secessionists out of office and voluntarily rejoin the United States.

But that was only one mistake. The Confederates were making several mistakes. First, like their union counterparts they misread public opinion in the north - they felt that most northerners did not have any strong opposition to secession. Second, they felt that southern troops had an advantage in quality that would easily compensate for the northern troops' advantage in quantity. Third, they felt that controlling cotton sales gave them an irresistible economic hold over England and France. And finally, they got too wrapped up in their notions of honor which often blinded them to uncomfortable realities.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Jim's Son

Did any of the cabinet members point out that Fort Sumter was not finished, that the North had a small garrison and was running out of food?

Yes, everyone knew the garrison was running out of food. Major Anderson had said so. They also knew that a relief expedition was on its way from Washington. When the relief expedition arrived, they would have to either fire upon it--which would start a war just as certainly as firing upon the fort--or accept a foreign military base on their soil for an indefinite period.

The latter option was completely unacceptable. Local public opinion had been howling at the Confederate government to kick the Yankees out of Fort Sumter from the moment the government was formed. Nobody takes an independence movement seriously if it can't clear a small, token enemy garrison off of its soil.

The locals assumed they would easily win the resulting war, since they were (they believed) more martial, far more motivated, and fighting on their home turf.

[WhyWhyWhy]

It all boils down to Schnapps.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...al-cartman-lee

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

There was even a strong movement to form an independent state and apply for admission into the British Commonwealth.

I make no claims on expertise regarding American history, but I find this very hard to believe.

There was no such thing in 1861 as "the British Commonwealth". Any state wanting to associate itself with the British Empire would have had to accept at the very minimum a subordination to the British Crown. Besides the symbolic element, they could not have been an independent state; at best they would have been a self-governing colony. Given that (as I understand it) Southern secessionists saw themselves as upholding the spirit of the American Revolution, I can't see how this makes any sort of sense either as a matter of practical politics or (perhaps more importantly) in terms of emotion, psychology, or ideology.

And of course the British had abolished slavery throughout the Empire thirty-odd years previously!

[gonzomax]

Both sides thought it would be a very short war. The first victory would be very important.

[Jim's Son]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

Yes, everyone knew the garrison was running out of food. Major Anderson had said so. They also knew that a relief expedition was on its way from Washington. When the relief expedition arrived, they would have to either fire upon it--which would start a war just as certainly as firing upon the fort--or accept a foreign military base on their soil for an indefinite period.

The latter option was completely unacceptable. Local public opinion had been howling at the Confederate government to kick the Yankees out of Fort Sumter from the moment the government was formed. Nobody takes an independence movement seriously if it can't clear a small, token enemy garrison off of its soil.

The locals assumed they would easily win the resulting war, since they were (they believed) more martial, far more motivated, and fighting on their home turf.

You probably hit on the truth. But I wonder if anyone in the Confederacy ever thought about making the North strike first. The main book I've read on the Civil War is James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". In talking about Lincoln sending a relief force by sea, he says Lincoln showed what would be a common trait of his: put you opponent in a "heads I win, tails you lose". I wonder if anyone in the South sought to do the same.

One probable the Confederacy had was its President, Jefferson Davis, didn't want to be President. He wanted to command the Army since he was a West Point graduate, hero of the Mexican War and former Secretary of the Army (apparently pretty good, although he did feud with General Winfield Scott, who stayed loyal to the union and was quoted as saying any organization with Jeff Davis in control was doomed to fail). He proved to be inflexible and a control freak as President although I sometimes wonder if Lincoln had be CSA President, would he have succeeded.

I guess there was a lot of testerone on both sides. William Sherman was one of the few who thought it would be long and bloody and people thought he was crazy. Winfield Scott thought it would be long but not particularly bloody as his so-called "Anaconda" plan relied a lot on a naval blockade and some army action on the Mississippi. He didn't want a lot of military action in Virginia but the politicians insisted. Of course since Scott was calling for a mostly defensive war when he had a record of conquering Mexico with 12,000 men, some wondered whether he was still loyal to Virginia.

[SeldomSeen]

Originally Posted by A. Gwilliam

I make no claims on expertise regarding American history, but I find this very hard to believe.

There was no such thing in 1861 as "the British Commonwealth". Any state wanting to associate itself with the British Empire would have had to accept at the very minimum a subordination to the British Crown. Besides the symbolic element, they could not have been an independent state; at best they would have been a self-governing colony. Given that (as I understand it) Southern secessionists saw themselves as upholding the spirit of the American Revolution, I can't see how this makes any sort of sense either as a matter of practical politics or (perhaps more importantly) in terms of emotion, psychology, or ideology.

You are correct that the Commonwealth did not exist at that time. The term I was looking for was "British Protectorate"

I've been looking for a cite regarding the movement, and have come up empty, except for North and South, which is not a reliable historical source. I did run across several inferences that, had the Confederacy won its independence it would most likely have become a British protectorate, self governing but economically dependent, due to its lack of manufacturing base and long-term sustainability.

[barbitu8]

At first, there was no confederacy. SC seceded from the union, but it took awhile for several other states to secede and form a confederacy. Ft. Sumter was in SC and SC considered itself a sovereign state. It could not allow a foreign government to occupy it and still claim sovereignty. SC did not allow the garrison at Ft. Sumter onto land to obtain goods. The Star of the West was sent to supply materiel for Ft. Sumter, but it was fired on before reaching the fort and refused to fulfill its mission. General Beauregard, the commander of the troops in Charleston advised Major Anderson to leave, and then gave him 24 hours to leave otherwise he would commence firing, which he did. Beauregard and Anderson knew each other as both were cadets at West Point. Anderson, following orders, did not leave until after the bombardment began, as he had no other choice. He held out as long as he could honorably do so. Beauregard saw no reason to imprison the garrison at the fort. There was no actual shooting war until the shots at Ft. Sumnter, although the Star of the West was shot at a few days earlier. Two soldiers at the Fort were killed when instituting a 20-gun salute upon departure. The fight itself resulted in no deaths.

Great Britain almost recognized the CSA. One of her top officials wanted to do so, but the PM did not.

The CSA had no delusions of "winning a war." She intended only for the North to accept her sovereignty and secession from the Union. After several years of intense fighting with untold casualties, the North was ready to do so. Several things prevented this recognition: the North victory at Gettysburg was a major factor, but in addition, when the news of the atrocities at the Andersonville prison got out, the North was in no mood for compromise.

It has been argued that Lincoln induced the South to fire the first shot. He wanted a united nation, but did not want to instigate hostilities. Hence, he ordered the garrison at Ft. Sumter to defend the fort at all costs. It was not the CSA who wanted the North to fire the first shot, but it was Lincoln who wanted the CSA to fire the first shot, which she did (but the actual first shots were at the Star of the West, a few days earlier).

Freddy the Pig:

They also knew that a relief expedition was on its way from Washington. When the relief expedition arrived, they would have to either fire upon it--which would start a war just as certainly as firing upon the fort--or accept a foreign military base on their soil for an indefinite period.

There was no relief expedition, but the Star of the West was to deliver materiel for the fort's survival, and it was fired upon several days before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. You could argue that was the actual start of the war, and not the firing on Ft. Sumter.
Little Nemo:

The Confederates were making several mistakes. First, like their union counterparts they misread public opinion in the north - they felt that most northerners did not have any strong opposition to secession. Second, they felt that southern troops had an advantage in quality that would easily compensate for the northern troops' advantage in quantity. Third, they felt that controlling cotton sales gave them an irresistible economic hold over England and France. And finally, they got too wrapped up in their notions of honor which often blinded them to uncomfortable realities.

As I mentioned before, the South had no delusions of winning the war, but they hoped that the North would give up and recognize the sovereignty of the CSA, which it almost did as casualties were amassing at alarming rates.
SeldomSeen:

Some interesting points; Although South Carolina was at the forefront of the sucession movement the populace was not particularly keen on joining the confederacy - they felt that their state had been short-changed in terms of representation to the Confederate government. There was even a strong movement to form an independent state and apply for admission into the British Commonwealth. By most accounts the British did not particularly want them, having no appetite for yet another set-to with the U.S.

The Union fortifications in Charleston harbor were largely cut off, but the Carolinians made no effort to starve them out. They allowed detachments from the fort access to the city for purposes of purchasing food and supplies, and when the Union troops did pull out they were allowed to leave unmolested.

There was no confederacy when SC seceded. It was the first state to do so. Only about 3% of the populace of SC owned slaves, but the slaves were rented out to others. SC did make an effort to starve them into vacating the fort. They did not allow the detachments access to the city and they fired upon the Star of the West, which was sent to the fort to replenish supplies. They were allowed to leave as Gen. Beauregard saw no reason then to do otherwise. He, in effect, said to Anderson get out of here and don't come back. The garrison at the fort was initially at Ft. Moultrie on the mainland. Realizing that Ft. Moultrie, being on the mainland, was in an untenable position, by darkness of night, he moved all his men to Ft. Sumter.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

There was no relief expedition, but the Star of the West was to deliver materiel for the fort's survival, and it was fired upon several days before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. You could argue that was the actual start of the war, and not the firing on Ft. Sumter.

According to the wikipage on the battle, the Union sent a navel squadron to relieve the fort. They were actually standing off the harbor during the battle, but a combination of the enemy guns and bad weather prevented them from making it to the fort.

Also, it was a lot longer then several days between the Star of the West incident and the Battle of Ft Sumter. The first happened in January, the second in April.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

Freddy the Pig:
There was no relief expedition, but the Star of the West was to deliver materiel for the fort's survival, and it was fired upon several days before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. You could argue that was the actual start of the war, and not the firing on Ft. Sumter.

Yes, there was a relief expedition, three months after the Star of the West, as any book about the Civil War will tell you. Lincoln ordered it organized on April 4, 1861, and it arrived at Charleston on April 12, only to find that the fight had already begun.

The relief expedition, if not opposed, would have landed provisions at Fort Sumter and then left. Lincoln told this to the Confederates in advance. The resupply ship was accompanied by warships, to lend support if the landing was opposed and war broke out.

The Southerners had three choices--attack before the expedition arrived, fire on the expedition after it arrived, or allow resupply and continue the status quo.

The second option made no sense--if you're going to fire the first shot anyway, why wait for warships to arrive? The third option was impossible given Southern public opinion. See Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 272-3, for a great sampling of pre-April 12 Southern editorials on the issue, too lengthy for me to quote here. So the CSA cabinet chose the first option.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

The CSA had no delusions of "winning a war." She intended only for the North to accept her sovereignty and secession from the Union.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You say the CSA had no delusions about winning the war but then you say it expected to be recognized as a sovereign independent nation. That was the main goal of the CSA - if the United States recognized its independence it would have won the war.

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

You are correct that the Commonwealth did not exist at that time. The term I was looking for was "British Protectorate"

You're not using the term "protectorate" in a way that I understand, so I'm a bit lost here!

I've been looking for a cite regarding the movement, and have come up empty, except for North and South, which is not a reliable historical source. I did run across several inferences that, had the Confederacy won its independence it would most likely have become a British protectorate, self governing but economically dependent, due to its lack of manufacturing base and long-term sustainability.

Hm... I can see what you're getting at if what you have in mind is something like the British relation with certain Latin American countries in the nineteenth century; what's known as "informal empire".

On the other hand, if the Confederacy succeeded in getting the US to acknowledge its independence, then surely it wouldn't take too long for trade between North and South to be resumed. And that trade would weaken CSA dependence on the British.

[barbitu8]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

Yes, there was a relief expedition, three months after the Star of the West, as any book about the Civil War will tell you. Lincoln ordered it organized on April 4, 1861, and it arrived at Charleston on April 12, only to find that the fight had already begun.

The relief expedition, if not opposed, would have landed provisions at Fort Sumter and then left. Lincoln told this to the Confederates in advance. The resupply ship was accompanied by warships, to lend support if the landing was opposed and war broke out.

This is not what I would call a "relief expedition," which, to me, means people to relieve the garrison. This was a resupply expedition, to get provisions into the fort, which was fast running out. But we are quibbling about words here. But you are right in that it arrived as the fort was under attack and decided not to intervene.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by A. Gwilliam

On the other hand, if the Confederacy succeeded in getting the US to acknowledge its independence, then surely it wouldn't take too long for trade between North and South to be resumed. And that trade would weaken CSA dependence on the British.

Maybe. But one of the things Confederates did was repudiate all debts they owed to northerners. Under those circumstances, they might have found it difficult to arrange new contracts.

[BMalion]

Freedom!

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Maybe. But one of the things Confederates did was repudiate all debts they owed to northerners. Under those circumstances, they might have found it difficult to arrange new contracts.

I'll admit that I had in mind a peace treaty, but didn't say so!

Repudiation of debts would also be a discentive to British investment. If you can do it to A, you can do it to B, after all. Still, this is all supposition based on a what-if...!

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

At first, there was no confederacy. SC seceded from the union, but it took awhile for several other states to secede and form a confederacy. Ft. Sumter was in SC and SC considered itself a sovereign state. It could not allow a foreign government to occupy it and still claim sovereignty. SC did not allow the garrison at Ft. Sumter onto land to obtain goods. The Star of the West was sent to supply materiel for Ft. Sumter, but it was fired on before reaching the fort and refused to fulfill its mission. General Beauregard, the commander of the troops in Charleston advised Major Anderson to leave, and then gave him 24 hours to leave otherwise he would commence firing, which he did. Beauregard and Anderson knew each other as both were cadets at West Point. Anderson, following orders, did not leave until after the bombardment began, as he had no other choice. He held out as long as he could honorably do so. Beauregard saw no reason to imprison the garrison at the fort. There was no actual shooting war until the shots at Ft. Sumnter, although the Star of the West was shot at a few days earlier. Two soldiers at the Fort were killed when instituting a 20-gun salute upon departure. The fight itself resulted in no deaths.

The Confederacy was formed in February 1861, months before Fort Sumter (although Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia did not join until after Fort Sumter). It was Jefferson Davis, not the Governor of South Carolina, who gave the order for the fort to be taken.

There was no confederacy when SC seceded. It was the first state to do so. Only about 3% of the populace of SC owned slaves, but the slaves were rented out to others.

About 3% of the total population of South Carolina were slave owners, but that is the ratio of slave owners to everyone--women, children, and the slaves themselves. The last is not a trivial correction, since 57% of the South Carolina population in 1860 were slaves, who of course did not own each other.

The ratio of slave owners to the electorate--that is, white males over the age of 21--was substantially greater than the "3%" raw number suggests. Slave holders were not a majority, but were certainly an important voting block of the South Carolina electorate, and the fact that the state was over half slave meant that all whites would have considered themselves to have a very vital interest in questions of abolition regardless of whether or not they owned any slaves.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

About 3% of the total population of South Carolina were slave owners, but that is the ratio of slave owners to everyone--women, children, and the slaves themselves. The last is not a trivial correction, since 57% of the South Carolina population in 1860 were slaves, who of course did not own each other.

The ratio of slave owners to the electorate--that is, white males over the age of 21--was substantially greater than the "3%" raw number suggests. Slave holders were not a majority, but were certainly an important voting block of the South Carolina electorate, and the fact that the state was over half slave meant that all whites would have considered themselves to have a very vital interest in questions of abolition regardless of whether or not they owned any slaves.

The US Census Publication "A Century of Population Growth" published in 1909 said that as of 1850, the "proportion of the white population connected with slave ownership" in South Carolina was 53.1%, the largest percentage of any state, and the only slate where slaveholders were a majority. (The lowest was New Jersey, at 0.2%, which had started gradual abolition in 1804, but which, due to a loophole in the law, had a small number of "apprentices", who were in effect slaves).

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

The lowest was New Jersey, at 0.2%, which had started gradual abolition in 1804, but which, due to a loophole in the law, had a small number of "apprentices", who were in effect slaves.

The percentage was lower than that. According to the 1850 census, New Jersey had a total population of 489,555 people, of whom 236 were slaves. That's a percentage of .048%.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The percentage was lower than that. According to the 1850 census, New Jersey had a total population of 489,555 people, of whom 236 were slaves. That's a percentage of .048%.

Maybe, but the question isn't the percentage of the population that was slaves, but the number of persons in white slaveholding families, which they list as 1,140. 1,140 out of 489,555 is .23%. That would suggest, if every family that owned slaves only owned one slaves, an average of 4.8 members per slaveholding family, which doesn't seem abnormally high to me. That's a husband, wife and 3 kids.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Maybe, but the question isn't the percentage of the population that was slaves, but the number of persons in white slaveholding families, which they list as 1,140. 1,140 out of 489,555 is .23%. That would suggest, if every family that owned slaves only owned one slaves, an average of 4.8 members per slaveholding family, which doesn't seem abnormally high to me. That's a husband, wife and 3 kids.

Okay, I see the point you're making. But doesn't it seem like playing with statistics to count slaveholders instead of slaves? Especially if you count every person in a household as a slaveholder.

Let's face it, a statistical model that has 1140 slave owners and only 236 slaves is obviously a little distorted.

[Captain Amazing]

I don't think so, because all the members of the household get the use of the slave. I'm currently staying at my parents right now, and my dad subscribes to cable internet, which I'm using to write this post. He may be the only one who owns the cable internet, but my mom, my grandmother, and myself all use it as well. If you're trying to find out what percentage of people have internet, it wouldn't make sense to only count him and not the rest of us. Likewise, if you're trying to find out what percentage of people have slaves, it doesn't make sense to only count the legal owner and not the rest of his household.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I don't think so, because all the members of the household get the use of the slave. I'm currently staying at my parents right now, and my dad subscribes to cable internet, which I'm using to write this post. He may be the only one who owns the cable internet, but my mom, my grandmother, and myself all use it as well. If you're trying to find out what percentage of people have internet, it wouldn't make sense to only count him and not the rest of us. Likewise, if you're trying to find out what percentage of people have slaves, it doesn't make sense to only count the legal owner and not the rest of his household.

But let's apply it to ownership. Suppose I told you two people owned red houses on East Avenue and six people owned red houses on West Avenue. If you then drove down the two streets and found there was only one red house on West Avenue and two on East Avenue, wouldn't you feel my answer had not really been reflective of that?

[Captain Amazing]

Sure, but I just don't think it's a good analogy. If you want to know the effect that slavery had on the secession, you have to look at families, because if you just look at raw numbers of slaveowners, you're underestimating the role that slavery played in the society. And partly you're doing it because you're including people who can't legally own anything; children and married women.

[brix11]

Another opportunity to plug The New York Times Disunion blog.

From this post:

President Lincoln and his advisers had debated long and laboriously before deciding how to respond to the crisis at Sumter. By contrast, Jefferson Davis, his cabinet and his generals had held only a perfunctory discussion before deciding to shell the fort. They captured two acres of federal real estate and, in the process, unified and energized the entire North. As Lincoln later told a confidant: “They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.”

And this post also has some insight on Davis' cabinet and their decision:

Only Robert Toombs, the Confederacy’s secretary of state and one of the prime architects of secession, argued against the response. The South must ignore the provocation, he told Davis in a memo, “The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen … You will lose us every friend in the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest, which extends from mountains to ocean. Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.”