What if the North had fired the first shot?

As a longtime lurker on this forum (3years and up), i finally decided to ask a question.

Similar to the post "WI No Fort Sumter?", what if on the event which is regarded as the outbreak of the American Civil War the fire would have been started by the US?

This way, the US would be seen internally as well as on the internation level as the aggressor, making it truly a war of northern aggression.

Internally, I could see that more of the Border States side with the Confederacy (see the post WI Larger Confederacy?), like Maryland, Missouri or Kentucky.

Internationally likewise maybe more open support for the Confederacy as well, but I doubt that it changes a lot in the end.

Any thoughts, anyone?
 

jahenders

Banned
I think there's quite a bit of truth there. The South did the US a favor by firing the first shot. If they had not done so and, instead, just stopped sending taxes, smaller scale judicial defiance, etc it would likely have taken a while for the US to develop a plan of action and get moving.

As you note, if the US fired first in a big way, it could have changed the character somewhat, though it depends on the action. If, for example, the South seized some fort and the US just attacked that, it might not be problematic since it would be putting down an insurrection. However, if the US had decided to invade a confederate state house or some such, that would generate some opposition.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
This requires Lincoln et al to grab the idiot ball, however...

This requires Lincoln et al to grab the idiot ball, however... and since they were extremely careful during the secession winter not to at Sumter or Pickens, it raises the immediate question of what has changed.

And, of course, where said first shot is fired.

And how. And by who. etc.

And even then, unless the US forces under Scott et al suddenly decide to go full roman on foreign nationals somewhere just for the evilness, it's not like the rest of the world isn't just going to see whatever happens as "hey, rebels get what they deserve."

It's not like the British were particularly gentle in how they handled the Indians in '57, for example.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Don't forget, Lincoln didn't even ask for the 75,000 3-month

I think there's quite a bit of truth there. The South did the US a favor by firing the first shot. If they had not done so and, instead, just stopped sending taxes, smaller scale judicial defiance, etc it would likely have taken a while for the US to develop a plan of action and get moving.

As you note, if the US fired first in a big way, it could have changed the character somewhat, though it depends on the action. If, for example, the South seized some fort and the US just attacked that, it might not be problematic since it would be putting down an insurrection. However, if the US had decided to invade a confederate state house or some such, that would generate some opposition.

Don't forget, Lincoln didn't even ask for the 75,000 3-month volunteers until AFTER Sumter...and that request, of course, is what the upper south seized upon as an excuse for their secession votes.

Anything before then would be, at most, a small relief expedition to Sumter or Pickens, mostly USN ... which is, basically, exactly what led to the rebels firing on Sumter in the first place.

Anyplace else (Texas?) its at most, a small US garrison defending itself against - at best - insurrectionists and more likely irregulars who shade into bushwackers pretty quickly.

The reality is the ambit of federal power in the south, for the most part, amounted to a US attorney, marshal, and district court in the largest cities and a postmater elsewhere. Not exactly a garrison state.

Best,
 
Top