First Blood

W.A. Swanberg. First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957. 373 pps.

W.A. Swanberg’s 1957 First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter is a classic account of the fateful situation that catapulted Charleston harbor’s uncompleted island bastion into the crescendo of the Civil War’s first battle ground. As Swanberg demonstrates in his spellbinding narrative, the immediate situation of April 12 and 13, 1861 was representative of the ultimate causes of secession and of the impending Civil War itself. As Confederate forces began their bombardment of the fort on April 12 inaugurating the War Between the States, Americans North and South alike realized that the Federal forces occupying Charleston harbor “had assumed an enormous importance all out of proportion to their value or numbers. They had become a symbol, a principle, above all a challenge. To the North they represented the preservation of the Union… To the South they represented a tyrannous threat to peaceable secession. (63)” The decisions of characters on both sides of the fort’s walls leading to the battle would not only inaugurate the nation into the violence of the next four years, but it would represent the resolute determination of Americans perpetuating the great American conflict.

The situation of the winter of 1860 in Charleston, South Carolina was becoming increasingly tense, as residents became ever more filled with the spirit of secession at the prospect of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the Presidency. They directed their energy toward the sixty-one man garrison defending the handful of small forts and the federal arsenal at Charleston harbor. As southern sympathizers increasingly demanded control of the forts from the Federal force there, the ineffective commander of the garrison Colonel Gardener, Secretary of War John Floyd and even U.S. President Buchanan himself refused to deal with the rapidly deteriorating situation. The arrival of a new garrison commander, Major Robert Anderson, inflamed the situation when Anderson decided to abandon Federal fortifications except the incomplete stone fortress on a man-made island in the harbor’s center – Fort Sumter. Anderson’s decision to move his troops to Fort Sumter, despite Southern secession and the increasing demands of Carolina citizens and officials that the Federal troops leave Charleston, “brought apoplexy to the South Carolina [peace] commissioners, created hysteria in the nation’s newspapers, sent a thrill of exultation into the hearts of millions of Northerners, (131)” and would demand the response of the recently-sovereign Confederacy. Buchanan’s attempt to send aid to the fort by way of the ship Star of the West was foiled, as the small garrison remained resolute in its possession of Fort Sumter. The situation remained tense for nearly four months of siege until Confederate troops were authorized to fire upon the fort on April 12, after C.S.A. president Jefferson Davis received word from U.S. President Abraham Lincoln of his own intention to retain Federal property and resupply Federal troops in Charleston harbor. The result of the months of political maneuvering was the battle that would end in the surrender of the fort and would usher in the Civil War. The masterful narrative ends with the story of Anderson himself returning to Fort Sumter to hoist once again the Union colors, four years after he and his garrison left the fort on April 14, 1861.

Swanberg’s narrative provides a detailed account of the event in question and the months of tense political maneuvering leading up to it. The author commits many details to word, using letters and journals of participants, as well as the Official Records as chief sources. The narrative style of the work is often referred to as representative of dated historiography, yet it still preserves a striking and memorable memory of the conflict surrounding Fort Sumter some five decades after its publication. However, the narrative also holds larger significance in that a proper reading of it reveals poignantly the spirits of the northern and southern players involved in the larger game of secession afoot around them. In the decisions of Federal commander Major Anderson to occupy Fort Sumter and abandon the various other untenable harbor fortifications in a desperate gambit to retain Federal control over Charleston, the reader gains of understanding of the staunch Unionism and determination to resist Southern agitation which was exhibited so many times later in the war by many Federals. In the decisions of such Confederate agitators as Edmund Ruffin, and sympathetic politicians such as South Carolina Governor Pickens, Secretary of War Floyd, and even President Buchanan himself, the reader gains an understanding of not only the Southern fanaticism that underlay the decision to fire upon the fort, but the blatant Southern sympathies exhibited by so many formerly Federal officials leading up to the war. First Blood represents more than a simple narrative of the Civil War’s first battle; it instead exhibits the characteristics of both Southerners brashly determined to defend their sovereignty as well as the hardened resolutions of Northerners to defend their beloved Union that not only led to the Battle of Fort Sumter, but to violence of the Civil War itself. In the eyes of Georgia Senator Robert Tombs, the cause of Charleston was the cause of the South (117), while in the minds of northerners Major Anderson and his company represented the mighty will of the Union to defend the peace of the United States. Fort Sumter thus represented more than the control of Charleston Harbor, but the last crucible of peace before the United States would plunge into the Civil War.

First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter. By W.A. Swanberg. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957.

In this narrative about the critical events and people surrounding the capture of Fort Sumter, W. A. Swanberg effectively conveys the viewpoints of both Northerners and Southerners on the subject of secession. The author covers extensively the negotiations that took place prior to the first shot being fired on April 12, 1861. Not only was Fort Sumter significant because of its location in Charleston harbor, but the fort was even more important as a symbol. Swanberg demonstrates that to Northerners the fort represented federal authority and unity. To Southerners, it was an icon for federal oppression and governmental interference with states’ rights. Since the fort meant vastly different things to those in the North and South, the protection and garrisoning of Fort Sumter was a tricky issue, to say the least. The protection of Fort Sumter would fall to Major Robert Anderson, who took over for Colonel John Gardner. Gardner had failed in the eyes of Secretary of War Floyd, yet Anderson would face the same problems Gardner did. Both men were faced with defending under garrisoned and ill-equipped forts, without much assistance from Washington. Throughout this book, Swanberg discusses at length the personality of Robert Anderson, as well as the actions he took in defending the Fort. Anderson was in a precarious position, as Secretary Floyd constantly refused his requests for reinforcements, yet Anderson’s mission was still to hold the fort. Anderson is portrayed a man with great patience and resolve, yet by the end of this debacle, he is a broken man. His strength and health greatly waiver by the time the fort is captured, as he never received the necessary amount of aid he requested. Floyd was hesitant to reinforce Anderson, as he thought additional troops and supplies would only strengthen Southern resolve to secede. He was fairly accurate in this assessment, as many Southerners did foresee any further federal involvement as an infringement on their states’ rights. Yet many northerners believed that reinforcing the troops at Fort Sumter would show federal strength, and that the secessionists could not bully the government. Not only was the nation divided on the issue of slavery and secession, but the government itself was also fragmented, as Swanberg portrays. This division amongst the government was one of the main reasons that Anderson had such trouble in obtaining reinforcements and supplies.

While Anderson had trouble in obtaining help from Washington, Southern secessionists had less trouble in garnering support for their cause. As 1860 drew to a close, more and more Southerners, particularly Carolinians became more radical about their stance on slavery and secession. Despite this radicalism, many Southerners, like Northerners did not wish for a civil war. Swanberg conveys that neither side wanted war at the time, and that both wanted to accomplish their respective goals in a peaceful fashion. While both sides did not want a Civil War, it eventually came about. Consequently, Charleston and Fort Sumter were at the center of the beginning of this war, which is why Swanberg’s narrative on these events is critical. Throughout this account, he effectively analyzes both the Northern and Southern point of view in regards to secession, and the taking or holding of Fort Sumter. While Anderson is analyzed at a greater depth as opposed to other participants in this event, the author also conveys the importance of such men like Floyd, Buchanon, Lincoln, and Edmund Ruffin. While Swanberg is fairly impartial in his telling of Fort Sumter, he seems to have a quiet admiration for Colonel Anderson, who never got the help or aid he needed. In the eyes of the author, Anderson had no chance at holding the fort, as the federal government was too slow in sending him aid. What aid he did receive was too late and too little, as the Civil War was about to begin.

Albert Cox Texas Christian University

First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter. By W.A. Swanberg. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957. Pp. 373. Cloth.

Few events of such historical magnitude are as overshadowed by myth and legend as the first shots of the American Civil War, and few events of such enormous consequence are as forgotten as the nearly five-month long siege and political crisis that preceded those infamous shots in Charleston harbor. W. A. Swanberg’s First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter is an examination of the often overlooked and distinctly tragic series of events that began with South Carolina’s irrational dreams of an independent republic and culminated in the secession of eleven states and the bloodiest war in American history.

In his research, Swanberg relies heavily upon primary sources such as the Official Records, letters and diaries, newspaper accounts, and firsthand recollections of those present, although there are a few secondary sources cited as well. The book, written in a dynamic narrative structure, details the dramatic political chaos that overwhelmed the nation from the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 to Major Robert Anderson’s surrender of Fort Sumter on April 13, 1861. The historiographical context of the book is a traditional military history of the battle, and unfortunately Swanberg includes a few apocryphal legends of crisis in Carolina, including the myth that Captain Abner Doubleday invented baseball. The author does not enlarge his analysis to include race, class, or gender studies, but instead focuses his efforts on the larger symbolic meaning the fort assumed and maintained throughout the war, and indeed, still retains to this day.

In his account Swanberg gives a balanced, objective analysis of events, aptly criticizing the gross incompetence and failure of the lame-duck Buchanan administration to create a coherent policy regarding the secession crisis and the blatant corruption, if not outright treason, of then Secretary of War John Floyd in his suspicious financial dealings and attempts to peacefully hand over federal property in the South and his stubborn refusal to adequately garrison or even supply the controversial forts. Swanberg also notes the successes and failures of the secessionists, who were politically out-maneuvered into firing the first shots of the war only to gain a heavily damaged fort that had reached the point of starvation and would have most likely voluntarily surrendered only a few days later, futile efforts which Swanberg likens to having “no more purpose than a man setting fire to his own house” (323). That rash attack cost the infant Confederacy immensely, by politically uniting the diverse population of the North and permanently destroying any hopes of peaceful separation of the South. The incoming Lincoln administration does not escape unblemished either, and the insubordinate intrigues of Secretary of State William Seward are particularly condemned. Lincoln’s mistaken trust in Seward was an early and costly mistake that prevented the re-supply and reinforcement of the fort, which could have had a decisive impact upon future events. The incredible fiasco of the rescue convoy is almost humorous, were it not the precursor to catastrophic destruction. In addition to the Sumter debacle, Swanberg also recognizes the largely forgotten and successful Federal efforts to control other forts they retained the Deep South, most notably Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida, but his narrative relates directly to Sumter and how it, rather than other forts, become the center of the secessionist storm in 1860-61. The work ends with the victorious return of Major Anderson to the fort to hoist the same flag he had surrendered four years earlier in a triumphal celebration, a fitting conclusion for the saga of Sumter.

Despite the somewhat ironic title (very little blood was actually shed during the battle, and the only fatalities occurred after the fort had surrendered), Swanberg’s work is an entertaining, worthwhile read that any Civil War scholar or student would enjoy.

First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter. By W.A. Swanberg. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957. Pp. 373. Cloth.

At 4:30 a.m. on 12 April 1861, Confederate Brigadier General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard initiated a thirty-three hour bombardment of Union Major Robert Anderson’s position at Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. After a fifteen-week stand off over Anderson’s occupancy of the fort, the cannonade marked the official commencement of open hostilities between North and South and sparked a civil war that left 623,026 Americans dead, thousands more physically scarred and psychologically traumatized, and a large portion of the country in ruins. W.A. Swanberg, winner of the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Henry Robinson Luce, relates the political and military events surrounding the crisis at Fort Sumter in First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter.

Swanberg’s narrative begins with the arrival of Union Assistant Surgeon Samuel Wylie Crawford to his post at Fort Moultrie in Charleston Harbor in September 1860. Through the experiences of Crawford, Swanberg introduces readers to the politically-charged atmosphere that pervaded Charleston as a result of the coming presidential elections and presents the setting where much of his story takes place—Charleston Harbor and the forts protecting it. “The four forts in Charleston harbor in the fall of 1860 were splendid examples of government complacency and neglect” (p. 6). Castle Pinckney was a small fortress on Shute’s Folly Island occupied by an ordnance sergeant and his family; Fort Johnson was an abandoned Revolutionary War relic on James Island; Fort Moultrie, the only garrisoned position in the harbor, was on Sullivan Island and in desperate need of repair; and Fort Sumter was a promising citadel that had been under construction since 1829.

With his stage set, Swanberg recounts the events that affected the crisis at Fort Sumter between September 1860 and April 1861. In the final months of 1860, politicians and citizens in Charleston kept vigilant watch on events in the harbor while the Buchanan administration sought to avoid aggravating the situation. South Carolina eventually seceded on 20 December, and a week later, Major Anderson moved his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter and thrust the bastion onto the national stage. The United States could not afford to abandon the fort, for to do so would be to recognize South Carolina’s right to secede and destroy the Union’s international image. Moreover, President James Buchanan had already asserted his right to hold and defend federal property in his annual address to Congress. For South Carolina and the Confederacy, Anderson’s presence in Charleston harbor represented a direct threat to its assertion of independence. Both sides needed Fort Sumter.

The remainder of First Blood details the political events and diplomatic proceedings that occurred between Anderson’s occupation of Fort Sumter and the relatively bloodless artillery battle that took place on 12 April 1861. While there were individuals on both sides who wanted war, most politicians, North and South, hoped that the crisis at Fort Sumter would end peacefully. Despite the desire for a nonviolent solution, South Carolina continued to increase its defenses in Charleston harbor, and the North persisted in its efforts to reinforce Anderson’s position. Ultimately, President Abraham Lincoln, who believed a “backdown on Sumter would be not only a humiliating defeat for the new administration but also a cruel blow to the prestige of the Union in the eyes of the nation and of the whole world,” maintained his predecessor’s vow to hold and defend federal property (p. 232). Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina that he intended to resupply Anderson, but before the Union supplies reached the garrison, Confederate President Jefferson Davis authorized an attack on Fort Sumter. Attempts to end the conflict peacefully had failed, and the nation braced itself for war.

First Blood is a model of well-done research and a paragon of excellent writing. A literary craftsman, Swanberg depicts the agonizing vacillation of President James Buchanan, the political carelessness of South Carolina Governor Francis Wilkinson Pickens, and the manipulative machinations of Secretary of State William Henry Seward in remarkably well-written prose. He also captures the heroic tragedy that consumed Major Anderson, a man who valiantly struggled to maintain peace while battling a conflicted sense of loyalty between his Southern sympathies and his obligations to the Union. Employing the skills of a master storyteller, Swanberg transports readers into the nineteenth century and compels them to empathize with the character and motivations of the individuals involved in the crisis at Fort Sumter. Although he occasionally indulges in counterfactual speculation, readers should forgive this minor transgression. What fun would history be if one was forbidden to contemplate how things might have been different? While historians will continue to debate the legalities and consequences of the events surrounding Fort Sumter, Swansberg’s First Blood will remain the standard history of the crisis unless new information is discovered that refutes this monumental narrative.