Sumter, The First Day of the Civil War. By Robert Hendrickson. (New York: Promontory Press, 1990).

 

Robert Hendrickson provides a farcical portrayal of the conflict at Fort Sumter in, Sumter, The First Day of the Civil War.  According to Hendrickson, “the opening battle of [the Civil War], exciting as it would be, was in fact a preposterous preclude to the tragedy that followed.  Fort Sumter might be called the last romantic battle of the old wars, although it ushered in the first of the new or total wars . . . Though it did contain many of the seeds for further horrors, Sumter was as absurdly romantic as any battle could be”(Hendrickson, 19).  The author uses newspaper accounts, diaries, and officers’ reports in order to narrate the epic struggle that thrust the United States into Civil War. 

            The author begins with a brief survey of the famous “fire eaters.”  Southern nationalists such as Barnwell Rhett and Edmund Ruffin exacerbated sectional tensions that ultimately led to the outbreak of war in 1861.  Next, Hendrickson describes the city opposite Sumter: Charleston, South Carolina.  He portrays the city as a lavish metropolis second only to New Orleans in southern wealth, prosperity, and beauty.  But, Charlestonians built their splendor harvesting and trading rice, cotton, and indigo; crops that rested upon the immoral foundation of chattel slavery.  In short, Hendrickson believes that slavery and the antics of the fire eaters created the situation that ultimately ended with the firing on Fort Sumter.

            This pro-Union author goes on to describe how the fort became the scene of sectional first blood.  Charleston Harbor contained three federal forts in 1861: Pickney, Moultire, and Sumter.  The Union garrison in the cove initially occupied Moultrie whose guns faced seaward towards the Atlantic in order to deter foreign threats.  But, engineers designed this fort with foreign aggressors in mind neglecting to secure its landward side.  Thus, the federal garrison remained virtually exposed to fire from the South Carolina shore.  Major Robert Anderson, the officer in charge of Moultrie’s garrison, decided to occupy the stone pentagonal Fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded from the Union and hostilities appeared imminent.  Hendrickson astutely notes that Anderson acted within the bounds of federal law when he decided to move national troops from one piece of federal real estate to the other (Hendrickson, 86).  Nevertheless, the Union officer’s actions elicited Confederate outrage and the rebels proceeded to lay siege to Sumter. 

            The situation continued to worsen.  President Buchanan, lacking audacity, continuously deferred responsibility for Sumter’s fate to his subordinates. Major Robert Anderson ranked among those left to decide the nation’s fate and continued to hold the fort without firing upon the Confederates.  Abraham Lincoln inherited the untenable situation when he entered the White House in 1861.  According to Hendrickson, “Fort Sumter . . . had become of immense emotional significance, a symbol of the Union” (Hendrickson, 170).  Yet, a decision with regards to Sumter needed to be made as Anderson’s tiny garrison began to run out of supplies.  The Illinois politician turned President faced a delicate decision.  On the one hand, Southerners might interpret reinforcing Sumter as federal aggression and a declaration of war.  Conversely, abandoning the fort would discredit the Union and make the inexperienced president look weak.  Lincoln rectified this position devising an ingenious plan with Captain Gustavus Fox.  He would send a relief expedition carrying only foodstuffs to Sumter in order to assuage the suffering garrison.  Ergo, should the Confederates fire upon this peaceful convoy, public opinion would turn against the Carolinians and they would emerge as the hostile party threatening to tear the nation apart.  But, a series of unfortunate events delayed the relief party and Anderson’s besieged garrison capitulated once supplies dwindled. 

            Hendrickson believes that the story of Fort Sumter contains several significant elements.  First, the events that transpired off the coast of Charleston initiated the War Between the States.  While it becomes nearly impossible to ascertain who fired the opening salvos at Sumter, hostilities commenced when the Confederates shelled federal property.  Next, and most importantly, the fight at Fort Sumter united the North against the Confederacy.  Prior to Sumter, northern opinion varied with regards to slavery and a divided country.  This changed with Confederate hostility in South Carolina.  For example, the famous editor Horace Greeley, who decried war after secession, became an advocate of forcing the Confederacy back into the Union.  On the whole, “Most Northerners were ‘at the point of war’ (Hendrickson, 223).  Although Hendrickson fails to draw larger conclusions from this observation, it becomes crucial to note that Sumter caused a unique brand of war euphoria that allowed Lincoln to raise an army capable of challenging southern secession.  Finally, the chivalrous behavior on both sides at Sumter, and the resulting low casualty figure, lulled Americans into a misconception that the war would be relatively short and bloodless.  The war, however, would last four more years and claim the lives of approximately 700,000 Union and Confederate soldiers (Hendrickson, 232).

            Both historians and novices should read Hendrickson’s book.  The former may appreciate his array of facts while the latter will find the book lucid and accessible. 

 

Justin S. Solonick

Texas Christian University