April 12, 1861: The Civil War Begins

Fold3 ^ | April 1, 2021 | Jenny Ashcraft

[gattaca]

On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired the opening shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. This month marks the 160th anniversary of the beginning of the war, the deadliest conflict ever fought on American soil. The Civil War lasted four years and resulted in an estimated 620,000 deaths and 1.5 million casualties. Approximately one in four soldiers that went to war never came back home. This impacted families, communities, and the entire country for generations to come.

Historical photograph of Fort Sumter The years leading up to the beginning of the Civil War were filled with increasing tensions between northern and southern states. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president by a strictly northern vote. The election was the impetus for southern states, who were already wrangling with the North on issues like slavery, states’ rights, and westward expansion, to begin the process of secession. Four days after the election, South Carolina Senator James Chesnut resigned his Senate seat and began drafting secession documents. Before long, six more states joined South Carolina to form the Confederate States of America on February 8, 1861. That number increased to 11 states after the fall of Fort Sumter. Four border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) held enslaved persons but remained loyal to the Union.

Exterior view of Fort Sumter Fort Sumter, originally built as a coastal garrison, was located at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Confederate General P. G. T. Beauregard, from the newly formed Confederate States Army, demanded federal officials turn over the fort. He claimed the fort was located in Confederate territory and thus belonged to the South. President Lincoln refused and made attempts to send a ship to resupply the fort. The ship was turned away by Confederate guns.

Tensions grew, and Beauregard finally sent US officials an ultimatum – abandon the fort or face destruction. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12th, some 500 soldiers from the South Carolina Militia opened fire on 80 Federal soldiers inside the fort. The bombardment continued for 34 hours until the afternoon of April 13th, when the garrison commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered the fort. Though there were no fatalities on either side during the Battle of Fort Sumter, the conflict marked the beginning of more than 10,000 military engagements that occurred between 1861-1865.

Interior View of Fort Sumter Fold3® has an extensive collection of Civil War records including:

Brady Civil War Photos: The Civil War is considered the first major conflict to be photographed extensively. Mathew Brady led a photography team that captured images of the war using a mobile studio and darkroom. Civil War Maps: This collection of 2,000 detailed battle maps provides insight into Civil War engagements. Some maps show the placement of regiments and the movement of troops. Civil War “Widows Pensions” Files: Only 20% of Civil War pension files are digitized, but if you are lucky enough to find the pension file for your ancestor, you’ll uncover a treasure trove of information. Civil War Service Records: We have service records for both Union and Confederate troops. These records are organized by state. Service Records for US Colored Troops: Approximately 179,000 Black men served in the US Army and another 19,000 in the US Navy. Despite facing racism and discrimination, the US Colored Troops served with valor and honor. These records are organized by regiment. Southern Claims Approved: After the war, the US government established the Southern Claims Commission. This office accepted petitions for compensation for items taken by Union troops during the war. In addition to these collections, Fold3 has more than 150 additional collections that contain 43 million Civil War records. Start searching our Civil War collection today on Fold3®.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham (post #55): ""Probably not a coincidence that OG commie Karl Marx was an ardent supporter of the 1860 episode."

Pelham (post #238): "I have no idea where you got that.
Reading problems? "

I was responding to your remark about "the 1860 episode", which I took you to mean the actions of Democrats to destroy the United States.
I disagree if you think Marx supported those.

Pelham: "Marx is all yours.
Marx supported Lincoln.
Marx was a featured columnist in the main Whig/GOP newspaper for a dozen years."

It looks like Marx wrote weekly columns for Horace Greeley's New York Tribune from 1852 until 1862.
Marx's contact was Tribune editor Charles Dana and when Dana left in 1868 to start the New York Sun, Marx began again to contribute.
I take that to mean Dana was the more "progressive" and so unhappy or forced out by Republican Greeley.

Here is a listing of Marx's articles.
So far as I can tell, only one, this one, from October 1, 1861, discusses anything American and it deals with Civil War politics in England:

"Mrs. Beecher Stowe’s letter to Lord Shaftesbury, whatever its intrinsic merit may be, has done a great deal of good, by forcing the anti-Northern organs of the London press to speak out and lay before the general public the ostensible reasons for their hostile tone against the North, and their ill-concealed sympathies with the South, which looks rather strange on the part of people affecting an utter horror of Slavery.
Their first and main grievance is that the present American war is “not one for the abolition of Slavery,” and that, therefore, the high-minded Britisher, used to undertake wars of his own, and interest himself in other people’s wars only on the basis of “broad humanitarian principles,” cannot be expected to feel any sympathy with his Northern cousins."

Marx continued:

"Now, in the first instance, the premiss must be conceded.
The war has not been undertaken with a view to put down Slavery, and the United States authorities themselves have taken the greatest pains to protest against any such idea.
But then, it ought to be remembered that it was not the North, but the South, which undertook this war; the former acting only on the defense.
If it be true that the North, after long hesitations, and an exhibition of forbearance unknown in the annals of European history, drew at last the sword, not for crushing Slavery, but for saving the Union, the South, on its part, inaugurated the war by loudly proclaiming “the peculiar institution” as the only and main end of the rebellion.
It confessed to fight for the liberty of enslaving other people, a liberty which, despite the Northern protests, it asserted to be put in danger by the victory of the Republican party and the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidential chair.
The Confederate Congress boasted that its new-fangled constitution, as distinguished from the Constitution of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Adams’s, had recognized for the first time Slavery as a thing good in itself, a bulwark of civilization, and a divine institution.
If the North professed to fight but for the Union, the South gloried in rebellion for the supremacy of Slavery.
If Anti-Slavery and idealistic England felt not attracted by the profession of the North, how came it to pass that it was not violently repulsed by the cynical confessions of the South?"

So far, I've seen nothing in these New York Tribune words to resemble more famous Marx slogans like:

• "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution."
• "The proletarians have nothing to lose, but their chains. .
• "Workers of the world unite!"

But maybe if I read Marx's words backwards (like a John Lennon record) I can find where he's inciting our proletariat to rise up against their ruling classes?

[x]

I hate to be persistent, but at what point did the North become indifferent to the worldwide problem of slavery?

The US banned the slave trade in 1807 and our navy, like the British, did a lot to put the remaining slavers out of business. Whatever illegal slave trading was going on out of Northern or Southern ports was rather small scale. Given that Africa was still largely unexplored, there was nothing that we could do about slavery in Africa (or in Asia or Arabia). Nor would anyone then have expected us too.

And yet, I'm not sure that "The North" did become "indifferent to the worldwide problem of slavery." There were abolitionist and colonization organizations and activities. And certainly there was more concern about putting slavery behind us in the North than in the South. Beyond stopping slave ships at sea, we weren't going to have human rights interventions around the world, but more people in the North were trying to set our house in order when it came to slavery than in the South.

If you're persistent, it's in ducking the question that slavery was the South's problem to deal with in mid-century America. Southern elites failed to deal with it. They failed to hold on to their power over the country. They failed to make their separation from the country work. It's not that they lost the war. It's that they failed to achieve their goals without war, and pushed the country into civil war.

So stop being a pissant and deal with that. Why this failure to cope with what everyone could see was an explosive situation?

[x]

theOlLine Rebel: "In fact I’ve noticed that southerners tend to only hate the US of the CW, while Dems (yes, now) only LOVE the US without qualifier during theCW."

The left has a lot of criticism of Lincoln and the Republicans for not being woke and anti-racist enough. Historically, too, there was much criticism of Lincoln and his party for being capitalists.

For a long time, Democrats felt much attachment for Jefferson, Jackson, and the Southern roots of their party. They don't anymore, but much of what they say about Lincoln is an effort to appeal to Northerners who grew up thinking highly of Lincoln. There's always been at least a little ambivalence about Lincoln, his party and his army, though. So no, it's not approval without qualification.

I don't know about today's Southerners hating the US of the Civil War period either. Not everybody is as in to the Civil War as people on this thread are, and a lot has changed in recent decades.

[x]

Only 18 so old slaves in New Jersey in 1860 and 13 by the end of the war.

Connecticut passed a law for gradual emancipation of slaves in 1784. Slaves born then would become free at the age of 25. Final abolition came in 1848 and freed the last 50 or so slaves. By 1850, there were no slaves in the state.

So "the North" wasn't perfect. But contrast these numbers to those of the 7 Southern states that had over 300,000 slaves.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "This is just more of your pathetic obsession."

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Way too much.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham on D'Souza: "He’s dealing in polemics and he’s indifferent to facts..."

My impression is that Pelham here inadvertently describes himself, and too many others on these threads.

[DiogenesLamp]

Stop your lying Lampster. Between 1774 and 1804 the North abolished slavery.

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the message to which you responded. The North did not invade the South because "between 1774 and 1804 the North abolished slavery." (Which is factually incorrect as well. Slavery persisted in the "North" till 1865.)

You provide this "answer" to a question which wasn't asked, and completely skipped over answering the question which was asked. (Why was the North invading the South?)

No matter how many times you get your head handed to you, you come back for more.

And this is where you and I are reading two entirely different exchanges. Mine is in the real world, and yours is in some sort of fantasy land where you think you are right.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If you are correct that Lincoln and the North were fighting to violently overthrow slavery then Lincoln and the North were fighting to violently overthrow the provisions of the United States Constitution."

The truth, and jeffersondem well knows the truth but just loves, loves toying with people, truth is just a bit... "complicated".
What President Lincoln and Congress had full legal authority to do was seize "contraband of war" in states under rebellion.
So he did, and set the "contraband" free.
But Lincoln did not have legal authority to seize "contraband of war" in loyal Union states, so he didn't.

Two Union slave-states, Missouri & Maryland, passed their own abolition laws.
The other two, Kentucky & Delaware, refused to ratify the 13th Amendment which constitutionally freed their slaves in December 1865.

All of which jeffersondem completely understands, but just can't resist confusing people about it at any opportunity.

[DiogenesLamp]

Northern Democrats were the segregationists, not Republicans. Southern segregationists were far more numerous thorough out the South for decades after the war , created Jim Crow and created the Ku Klux Klan.

And what percentage of the black population was in the North? I know Illinois and other Northern states had laws explicitly keeping blacks out. In Illinois, it was legal to sell undocumented blacks into slavery.

So let's see. Small black populations because they were driven out and terrorized by racist Northerners, and so yes, there would be less segregation because there were less opportunities for segregation.

The Northerners were more racist than the Southerners, but because they deliberately kept their black populations so small, there was less opportunities for them to demonstrate how racist they were.

Of course the New York riots give a pretty good example of how racist they were.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Brother Joe, that answers my next question too."

[DiogenesLamp]

The map is wrong anyway. New Jersey still had slavery in 1860. They just called it by a different name. Also several other Northern states still had slaves long after they were listed there as being “free”. They got rid of it only very slowly and through grandfather clauses....eg Connecticut didn’t ban slavery until 1854.

Wikipedia always let the liberals edit things to reflect a "progressive" narrative. The Northern states did not give up their slavery until December of 1865, but advocates for the "War to end Slavery" don't want to look at that fact.

It undercuts what they wish to believe.

[FLT-bird]

Methinks thou doth obsess too much.

[FLT-bird]

New Jersey had “apprentices for life” who were not free to leave in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa to jeffersondem: "Never have I seen more long winded bs in all my life.
None of the Souths intentions were to over throw the Federal government."

FRiend, you'll need to learn to appreciate & beware of jeffersondem's...ah...humor.

He loves, loves nothing more than confusing anyone willing to take him on.
It's easy to get...ah... tripped up.

[DiogenesLamp]

The part where you say the amendment would have “preserved slavery indefinitely”.

That is exactly correct. So long as any state wanted to have slavery, Slavery in the United States would have continued to be legal.

Do you not know what the word "indefinitely" means? It means of no known definite time.

That is exactly what the Lincoln/Corwin amendment would have done.

it was a last ditch effort by the North to give the South no reason to leave and one final attempt to preserve the Union.

Why would they possibly want to preserve a Union with all those nasty slaveholders in it? What possible reason would they have to force people they hate to remain in their Union?

Now I keep pointing out that the slaveholders were putting 200 Million dollars per year of European money into the US economy, and this was paying about 73% of all the taxes in the nation, but you people would rather believe they had some *OTHER* reason for wanting to keep the Southern states in their Union.

What was that reason again?

To say it would have preserved Slavery indefinitely is a terrible judgement by you on the Southern States. Not to mention that you are contradicting yourself, as you have told us (in other threads) that Slavery was surely going to die out on its own.

Both are true. "Indefinitely" means of "no defined time." (look it up.)

Slavery would have gone away on it's own, and one only need look at the progress of the states since 1776 in giving it up. It was tougher to give it up in states that had more economic benefit from it, but this would wane over time and eventually they would have all given it up voluntarily.

There was no reason to kill 750,000 people and establish a Washington DC supremacy over the states.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's not that they lost the war. It's that they failed to achieve their goals without war, and pushed the country into civil war.

The trouble with avoiding war is that the enemy gets a vote too, and Lincoln voted that he would have a war. This is what happens when you send a fleet of warships to subjugate people who do not want to be subjugated. They tend to get shooty.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I’m not speaking of FR only. I’m speaking all my life living in a Dem stronghold how much the regular Dems love Lincoln. That ambivalence is literally like the last year, as BLM realized no white is good enough. I don’t count the last year, I count what I saw over decades living with commies who worship him while despising and ignoring Washington; history books, historians and politicians opining on documentaries. That is my Gods honest observation.

[DiogenesLamp]

But you can't claim to have eliminated slavery when you do in fact still have slavery.

There is this "mote in thy brother's eye" thing going on here.

[BroJoeK]

x: "In a strange way the extremists on both sides attack Lincoln and the North as racists.
What BLM types say is seen by some neo-Confederates as a justification for the Confederacy, strange as that may be.
That's how I see it, anyway."

Right, but it still fits into my rubric of: Democrats doing what Democrats naturally do.
Many Democrats in the 1860s taught their children to hate the United States, just as many Democrats do today.
Out of power, Democrats resist, rebel, insurrect & commit violence against us.
Once in power, Democrats work like crazy to "transform" us into something they might like better -- such as obedient slaves to them.

Now our FRiend, rockrr, doesn't like when I call them "GD Democrats", am pretty certain he thinks that's way too strong a term.
On the other hand, what would you call the damage to our nation and the Constitution done by Democrats these past centuries?

[BroJoeK]

x (post #189): "By the mid 19th century, slavery was largely a Southern problem . . ."

jeffersondem (post #245): "Can you say which year slavery stopped being a significant worldwide problem?"

x (responding #251): ". . . by and large, slavery was the South’s problem to deal with by the mid century.”"

jeffersondem (#254): "I hate to be persistent, but at what point did the North become indifferent to the worldwide problem of slavery?"

We should notice, first, that in this particular exchange jeffersondem has actually asked two separate questions, not the same question twice.

The first time, in post #245 he inquires, in effect, when did slavery stop being a worldwide problem and became just a Southern problem?
Of course, FRiend "x" implied no such thing, was discussing only the United States, North vs. South, and the fact that by mid-1800s Northern states had abolished slavery, making it "largely a Southern problem".

As for a direct answer to jeffersondem's first question: "slavery" broadly defined is still a huge worldwide problem.
And even beyond such obvious issues as child-slavery and sex-trafficking, our Bible condemns all forms of "slavery", including slavery to sin!
So, which of us is entirely free of such slavery?
In that sense, jeffersondem's point is well taken, or would be had our FRiend "x" been discussing "slavery" in some larger sense, which he wasn't.

The second time (#254), jeffersondem, apparently thinking his first pointed question wasn't pointed enough, modified it to ask, not when did worldwide slavery stop being significant, but rather when did Northerners stop caring about worldwide slavery?
FRiend "x" answers: it was US law & policy to oppose worldwide slave trading, sending US ships to stop slave-ships as early as 1808.

So the direct answer is: certainly after 1808, never.