April 12, 1861: The Civil War Begins

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®.

And this applied to the British too?

The shooting had started before we declared independence. Before that, yes, the British had a voice in what would happen. After war was on, the political process had already broken down.

No different from an abusive husband deciding for the wife that she will not be allowed to leave him.

By 1860, slaveowners had controlled the country for most of its history. If Northerners thought in your terms, they'd see the slaveowners as the abusive husband, for slaveowners had dominated antebellum politics. Now the free states had elected a president, and if the slave states didn't like it, they at least owed our country allegiance until a solution could be worked out.

Plus, it's for the courts to decide which spouse is abusive. Couples always disagree about that. If you start emptying out the house and closing out the checking account before a settlement is reached, you are at fault and liable to legal action

That beaten wife rhetoric is typical of the attitude that gave us the Civil War. It's the same sort of victim mentality so common today. If you think of yourself as responsible adults who are in a relationship with other responsible adults, it's easier to resolve problems than if you alway complain about being a victim.

It seems like Washington DC was too attached to slavery and the money it brought in.

Northerners weren't attached to slavery. They could foresee it coming to an end. The hope was that eventually slavery would go away if it were restricted from expanding.

If you think everything is about money, you probably won't recognize patriotism and national pride as motivations, but if you think everything was about money, you can't deny that the South was terrified that the slave system which had made Southern elites quite rich would eventually be overturned if their states remained in the union.

I am not a Marxist or a monocausalist (if that's a word), so I recognize Southerners they were also terrified for their lives if the slaves somehow gained their freedom. Both motives were stronger than any desire Northerners had for Southern wealth.

Also, isn't keeping people against their will the very essence of slavery?

If you are already keeping slaves, what's the objection to that? The use of rhetoric like yours, plus the idea that one is of necessity either a slaveowner or a slave were a large part of the problem in the mid-19th century South.

Now that we know that none of this is serious for you and that it's all a little game, I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

x: "If you want to avoid war, don't think of your fellow countrymen as the enemy and recognize that they have a vote and a say in what happens to the country too."

Diogeneslamp: "And this applied to the British too?
Seems as though the defining rule is the boundaries of states, not the entire collective."

Well over a year before the 1776 Declaration of Independence the Brits had declared Americans in Rebellion and began to wage war against us.
That's why one reason listed in the Declaration was:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Nothing remotely resembling existed in 1860.

x: "Lincoln's "vote" wasn't for war.
It was for the continuation of the union."

Diogeneslamp: "No different from an abusive husband deciding for the wife that she will not be allowed to leave him.
What if she doesn't want to remain in the Union?"

But in 1860 there was nothing "abusive" about the Union because the South had ruled over it almost continuously since the election of 1800.
So the Union in 1860 was just what the South wanted it to be.
Fire Eaters in 1860 didn't declare secession because of "abuse" -- there was none -- they seceded for one reason only: because they lost the 1860 election and thus were afraid of what Republicans might do in the future to harm their "domestic institution" of slavery.

Diogeneslamp: "It seems like Washington DC was too attached to slavery and the money it brought in.
Why again was it important or necessary to keep states everyone hated in the Union, when those states didn't want to remain in the Union?"

"The South" didn't hate the Union, they loved it, they just wanted to continue ruling over it, as they had since 1801.
Northerners didn't hate the South, but they did hate slavery and didn't want to see it expanded into western territories or into their own states via SCOTUS Dred Scott-type decisions.
Most Northerners in 1860 were happy to let slavery continue in the South, and some even understood the critical role it played in the nation's prosperity.
There's no need to exaggerate that role, but it was important.

Diogeneslamp: "We let Cuba go.
We let the Philippines go.
We didn't keep Mexico.
So why was it necessary to keep those states that wanted out?"

None of those were ever states, or considered likely candidates for statehood.
But we kept territories like Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico which seemed more promising, also smaller islands like Guam, Samoa, Marianas & Virgin Islands, not to mention nine unpopulated islands and even some disputed islands.

And of course, Confederate states didn't just "want out", they also wanted to take what wasn't theirs, including dozens of Federal forts, ships, arsenals & mints, Confederates liked threatening Federal officials, firing on Union ships and demanding Union troops surrender -- none of which won them the hearts & minds of Northern citizens.

But when Confederates started war at Fort Sumter and formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861, then their fate was sealed.

Diogeneslamp: "Also, isn't keeping people against their will the very essence of slavery?"

Says our lawyer in defense of the Southern slaveocracy.
This same lawyer reminds us on occasion that only about 5% of Southerners actually owned slaves, but then forgets that when you add together the interests of those slaves with those of huge numbers of non-slaveholding whites who were loyal Unionists, then it turns out the vast majority of Southerners actually wanted to remain part of the United States.

But none of that matters to lawyer DiogenesLamp, he's simply looking for some technicality, anything which might get his client (the Confederacy) freed of all charges.
So, if one argument doesn't work, he'll just move-on to the next.

By 1860, slaveowners had controlled the country for most of its history.

And what did they do with it? Did they tax the North at 73% with clever laws and then spend most of the money building railroads and canals in the South? You also ignore the fact that the nation started out as a slave owning country with all the states being slave owning states, so it isn't surprising that it took a few decades to flip that balance.

Even then, the slave owning states didn't go about haranguing the other states and treating them like they were horrible people. What the Northern states did was akin to today's modern cancel and "woke" culture where everyone who doesn't agree with them is evil, and they keep making up new rules as they go along.

Now the free states had elected a president, and if the slave states didn't like it, they at least owed our country allegiance until a solution could be worked out.

I'm thinking they hadn't liked the situation since the 1830s and electing a Liberal tax and spend President heavily involved with Northern corporate interests was the last straw. They had given their allegiance for the previous 30 years in a situation they didn't like.

There are no courts between peoples. Also the situation is more akin to stopping the one party from continuing to raid the joint checking account, because the South was producing the vast majority of all federal revenue.

Northerners weren't attached to slavery. They could foresee it coming to an end. The hope was that eventually slavery would go away if it were restricted from expanding.

I have always considered you reasonable, and what you are saying here is something I always used to believe until a few years ago when I started taking a serious look at it. I suddenly noticed that "Hey! This "expansion of slavery" thing keeps the Southern states from obtaining more representation in Congress! Is this really about "expanding slavery", or is it really about the Northern coalition of states keeping control of power in congress"?

I noticed this argument had the consequence of insuring the class that was currently in power, would remain in power, not unlike this current effort to pass legislation to keep vote fraud viable.

So I wondered if there was any way to verify whether or not this was about morality, or control of congress. The thought occurred to me that the number one usage of slaves was plantation farming, and so could plantation farming be "expanded" into the territories?

No. It couldn't. And then when you look at the primary organization opposed to expansion of slavery in the territories, you find it is located in New York City rather than IN the territories. This whole argument begins to smell like astroturf to me. (Fake "grassroots" serving the interests of the elite rather than a real body of people who feel this way.)

So now I find the "expansion of slavery" argument suspect.

I ran the numbers. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of the states. With the 11 states that joined the confederacy it would require 33 states to vote in favor of such an amendment, and this would require a nation of 44 states. This could not have occurred at all until 1896 with the addition of Utah as what would have been the 44th, but because of secession became the 45th.

Now if you add the five Union slave states, this makes the number of slave states 16, which would require a Union of 64 states to pass such an amendment, and so if all those states held fast, we still couldn't outlaw slavery.

Slavery was going to go away anyways, but it would have done so more slowly, and without all the death, destruction and poverty which followed the path that was taken.

The threat posed by Southern independence was not a consequence of the loss of Southern wealth. It was the prospect of the Confederacy flooding the existing US markets with more inexpensive European goods through the vast watershed of the Mississippi and the porous border between the Union and Confederate states which would be impossible to control.

Wealthy New England manufacturers would see their business' go broke because their Midwestern customers would be taken from them by cheaper European imports.

And they had the ear of a particular Liberal corporate lawyer who had risen to power with their support.

So the loss from Southern independence wouldn't just be the 200 million per year of export value the South produced, it would be closer to a billion dollars lost to European competition flowing through their customer base because the protectionists tariffs had been circumvented.

And everyone of them were smart enough to see this coming.

If you are already keeping slaves, what's the objection to that?

We are talking about the North, which was supposedly operating on the principle that slavery is bad. This makes keeping people against their will a form of hypocrisy for the North. They are doing the very thing they claim is bad.

Did they tax the North at 73% with clever laws and then spend most of the money building railroads and canals in the South?

Literally nothing is true in the sentence. Taxes were on imports and the North imported more than the South. Canal building was done with state and private funds. Big railroad subsidies came later. The first talk of major federal railroad subsidies was for a transcontinental line, and Southerners like Jefferson Davis were as greedy for those as any Northerner. There was some talk of federal subsidies for road-building. I don't know how far it got, but the West and the Border states between North and South would have benefited. Dredging Southern ports and building coastal forts in the South were also big items in the small federal budgets of the day.

You also ignore the fact that the nation started out as a slave owning country with all the states being slave owning states, so it isn't surprising that it took a few decades to flip that balance.

Virginia was the dominant power in the early republic. Southerners continued to hold power greater power than their numbers would have warranted. Add to them the Northerners who sympathized with the South and they controlled the government.

Really? Slaveowners hated abolitionists and saw them as the ultimate evil. There was much talk about how Northerners were horrible people, atheists, barbarians, and radicals. Censoring the mails to ban abolitionist material, driving out dissenters -- the antebellum South had its own forms of cancel culture. And "the rules" certainly changed when cotton became king and ideas of getting beyond slavery died out.

The "situation" that they didn't like was the rise of abolitionist and free soil sentiment. On he whole, they were quite happy with what was going on in Washington DC, since abolitionists had no power and free soilers had very little power there until the mid 1850s. And what they were most upset about with Lincoln was his opposition to the expansion of slavery. They were also upset about his ability to appoint Republicans to posts in the slave states and build a Republican party there. Worry about "Northern corporate interests" was very little on their minds.

Congress and the courts were the "courts" between Americans. That is were the matter should have been discussed and decided by representatives of the people. And, no, the South did not pay most of the taxes. Slave states were ransacking federal arsenals and seizing federal property even before secession. That equates to "emptying the family checking account" more than anything Congress or the president was doing.

The thought occurred to me that the number one usage of slaves was plantation farming, and so could plantation farming be "expanded" into the territories? No. It couldn't.

Slavery has been a remarkably adaptable institution in world history. Africa, Arabia, parts of Asia, parts of Europe with serfdom -- none of them were very amenable to plantation agriculture, but all of them had slavery. Do not underestimate the ability slave societies have to apply slave labor to a variety of endeavors.

And then when you look at the primary organization opposed to expansion of slavery in the territories, you find it is located in New York City rather than IN the territories.

If you are talking about the Free Soil party, I'm not aware that it had any headquarters. It was founded in upstate New York and had its conventions there. First, because upstate had been a hotbed of religious and reform movements. Second, because many people there had moved there from the East and were moving on to the West and had relatives who had already moved. Third, because there were factional fights in the state Democratic party that made some New York Democrats, as well as Whigs, amenable to a new party. We discussed all this before and you have forgotten all of it.

So now I find the "expansion of slavery" argument suspect.

You probably found "expansion of Communism" arguments suspect, too. Sometimes they weren't valid, but the balance of power is important. If a tyrannical system takes over in neighboring countries and grows in power, your own freedom can eventually be taken away. So, too, the more slave states there were, the more likely that they could impose their system on other states. Such was the Northern fear, and the Dred Scott case showed that it was more than just a fear.

The fear was that Lincoln would use patronage to create a Republican party in the Border States and then in the Upper South. Eventually support for slavery would weaken. It would be abolished in some states. The prices of slaves would fall. Public opinion would become more hostile to slavery. There would be more runaways and even slave rebellions. If the Western territories kept slavery out and became states, slavery could have been abolished with a constitutional amendment, but the secessionists were more worried about what would happen in the meantime. We discussed all that as well, but none of it got through to you.

It was the prospect of the Confederacy flooding the existing US markets with more inexpensive European goods through the vast watershed of the Mississippi and the porous border between the Union and Confederate states which would be impossible to control.

That is your own pet theory. It has many flaws which you are probably aware of but not willing to admit. First, the shipping costs could be greater to New Orleans would be greater than those to New York. Second, those goods would have to pay Confederate tariffs. If they were imported legally, they would have to pay US tariffs on top of that.

Third, if they were imported illegally, they would have to broken down into smaller quantities to avoid being found and seized. They would also have to be broken down because there were no trucks, railroad cars were not hard to find and search, and boats would have to be small. Smuggling is very profitable if the goods are of high value, like narcotics, but if you are carrying a load of hoes and shovels or fabric and clothes in a horse cart across a border at night, you aren't going to realize much of a profit.

Fourth, who is to say that the goods would necessarily be cheaper? Or better? You seem to be assuming that British industry was more modern, skilled, and efficient than it really was. And have you heard of "dumping"? It's when Japan took advantage of our low tariffs to export goods from their tariff and trade barrier protected goods to us for sale at low prices. Companies make a profit on the domestic market because of tariffs and trade barriers so they can afford to charge less on sales in foreign countries -- like American drug companies are doing today.

Fifth, a porous border would also allow for movement of runaway slaves -- something the secessionists should have taken into account. It's also not out of the question that more American goods protected under US tariffs would be going across the border to the Confederacy, legally and illegally, than European goods would be coming the other way. People starting up industries in the Middle West would be more able to meet the needs of their neighbors across the border than Europeans would. The Confederacy might have to raise its own tariffs to keep out Northern goods.

Finally, who is to say the border would be that porous? It would be fortified. There would be runaway slaves. There would be skirmishes, raiders, insurgents, bandits, ruffians from both sides. It might not be the best place in the world to be a smuggler, or if it was a smuggler's paradise, the smuggling would of necessity be small-scale and dangerous.

And they had the ear of a particular Liberal corporate lawyer who had risen to power with their support.

One of the reasons why Washington and Lincoln have had such appeal to Americans is that they can't be easily pigeonholed as "liberal" or "conservative." They were more complex than those who fit too neatly into those categories. Lincoln was as much a conservative as a liberal figure, Washington as much a liberal as a conservative figure.

Actually, weren't we talking about the South and what the secessionists and slaveowners thought and felt? To go back to your marriage metaphor: you might think being married is slavery, but you are still married until you and your spouse and the courts can arrange a divorce. Having to wait for a legal separation or divorce doesn't make you a slave.

x: "By 1860, slaveowners had controlled the country for most of its history."

DiogenesLamp: "And what did they do with it?
Did they tax the North at 73% with clever laws and then spend most of the money building railroads and canals in the South?"

First, your "73%" is not accurate, will never be anything but a falsehood.

This corrected report from 1960 (page 605) shows 1860 US exports at ~$400 million total (including specie), of which Deep South cotton was ~$200 million, or 50%, according to:
This older post-civil war summary shows $192 million in raw cotton exports, plus about $10 million in manufactured cotton products, but of that $10m, $8 million continued in 1861, suggesting they were not produced in the Confederacy.
The same is true of nearly everything else classified as "Southern Products".
Since those exports continued into 1861 then they were products of the Union, not the Confederacy.
The older post-war report shows total US 1860 exports at $373 million, including specie, but that still would, if true, only increase raw cotton exports to 51% of the US total, not 73%.
Yes, you can get it up to ~73% by first not counting 1860 specie exports of ~$66 million and then counting all 1860 "Southern Products" as being produced in Confederate states & regions.
In reality, except for raw cotton, as shown by 1861 exports, virtually all "Southern Products" were actually made in Union states.
Further, in those years California gold added over 15% per year to US exports.

DiogenesLamp: "...and then spend most of the money building railroads and canals in the South?"

In fact, thousands of miles of railroads were built all across the South using Federal grants, including some near Jefferson Davis' home in Mississippi.

As for the total value of Federal expenditures from the 1830s to 1860, this report shows the numbers, summarized as:

Forts: $33 million spent, 66% in Southern states.
Internal improvements: $9 million spent, 41% in Southern states.
Light Houses: $8 million spent, 41% in Southern states.
Hospitalization: $2 million spent, 49% in Southern states.
Totals: $52 million spent, 57% in Southern states.

Now, if we consider that cotton totaled about 50% of US exports and southern states received about 57% of Federal spending, the overall seems roughly "fair".

DiogenesLamp: "You also ignore the fact that the nation started out as a slave owning country with all the states being slave owning states, so it isn't surprising that it took a few decades to flip that balance."

Under British law slavery was legal in all 13 colonies, but soon after the 1776 Declaration, Northern states began to abolish slavery.
By the 1787 Constitutional Convention, five Northern states (of 13 states, meaning still 8 slave states) had begun abolition, and two more would soon, along with Congress outlawing slavery in the Northwest Territories and the Atlantic slave trade.
In those days every Founder, North and South, expressed their wish to see slavery eventually abolished.

And yet, South of the Mason-Dixon line, it never happened.

DiogenesLamp: "Even then, the slave owning states didn't go about haranguing the other states and treating them like they were horrible people.
What the Northern states did was akin to today's modern cancel and "woke" culture where everyone who doesn't agree with them is evil, and they keep making up new rules as they go along."

From 1801 until secession in 1861 the center of Washington political power was held by Southern Democrats.
In all but two of those 60 years Southern Democrats controlled Congress.
Of 11 elected Presidents, seven were slaveholders and two more Northern Doughfaced Democrat slavery supporters.
Of 27 Supreme Court justices appointed, 16 came from slave-states, including Chief Justice Crazy Roger Taney, such that the critical 1857 Dred Scott decision was 7-2 for slavery.

The fact is that Southerners controlled Washington and they imposed gag-rules to prevent discussion of slavery in Congress, prevented abolition materials from being mailed to Southern states, and worked constantly to expand the realm of slavery beyond its Southeastern core.
By 1857, with support from Doughfaced Northern Democrat President Buchanan, Crazy Roger Taney's Dred Scott ruling put the US Supreme Court just one step away from declaring abolition "unconstitutional".
As Abraham Lincoln said at the time:

"We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation."

That's what ignited the Republican revolt, which put serious fear into the hearts of Southern slaveholders.

DiogenesLamp: "I'm thinking they hadn't liked the situation since the 1830s and electing a Liberal tax and spend President heavily involved with Northern corporate interests was the last straw.
They had given their allegiance for the previous 30 years in a situation they didn't like."

You're thinking wrong, because they were Democrats, which means they liked it fine so long as they themselves were in charge.
But, being Democrats, they just couldn't tolerate letting others administer the laws they themselves had first imposed.
With Democrats, it's always "rule or ruin" -- if they can't rule over you, they'll work to ruin you.

x: "There are no courts between peoples.
Also the situation is more akin to stopping the one party from continuing to raid the joint checking account, because the South was producing the vast majority of all federal revenue."

There was both Congress and Supreme Court, neither of which Confederates appealed to.
As for their "joint checking account" cotton produced about half of US total exports and the South received about half of Federal spending.

DiogenesLamp: "So now I find the "expansion of slavery" argument suspect."

But you don't disagree that "expansion of slavery" meant increasing the voting powers in Congress of slaveholding states.
So you're only wishing to draw a lawyer's distinction between slavery itself and the slavers' political powers.
You'd love to pretend that "nobody cared about slavery", but rather New Yorkers really, truly, seriously cared only about squashing Southern slavers' political powers in Washington, DC.

But the truth is, it's a distinction without a difference because slavery can only openly exist where politicians write laws to protect & defend it.
So, the act of opposing slavery also opposes those politicians who'd write & enforce the laws necessary to make it happen.

DiogenesLamp: "Slavery was going to go away anyways, but it would have done so more slowly, and without all the death, destruction and poverty which followed the path that was taken."

A victorious Confederacy would have no more reason to abolish slavery in, say, 1900 or 1960, than it did in 1860.
And it would have found both ideological support and great military allies in expanding slavery over the world's "untermenschen" -- subhumans.

DiogenesLamp: "The threat posed by Southern independence was not a consequence of the loss of Southern wealth.
It was the prospect of the Confederacy flooding the existing US markets with more inexpensive European goods through the vast watershed of the Mississippi and the porous border between the Union and Confederate states which would be impossible to control."

That is pure fantasy!
The fact is Confederates desperately needed tariff revenues, because they had nothing else, and there was no way they would let shippers send products through New Orleans, up the Mississippi duty free.
Nor would the Union ever allow such shipments to land in, say, St. Louis or Cincinnati duty free.
Instead, merchants would soon be paying duties twice and that would eliminate all such trade.
But DiogenesLamp just loves, loves to fantasize anti-historical scenarios in order to avoid, at all costs, facing the real truth.

DiogenesLamp: "We are talking about the North, which was supposedly operating on the principle that slavery is bad.
This makes keeping people against their will a form of hypocrisy for the North.
They are doing the very thing they claim is bad."

But if slaves should be freed and granted suffrage, then their political opinions on Union vs. Confederacy matter, especially when combined with huge numbers of Southern Unionists, they make the vast majority Unionists in every Confederate state.

That's what it was all about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.