WI/PC: Fort Sumter Never Fired Upon

I'm actually startled that the argument here is where one side says

"What if the Union was the one to fire first?"

And the other is

"They wouldn't be."

Is it not possible that some hotheaded Union officer kicks things off by firing on a "Reb"?

Actually the OP is the following

Without a direct attack on federal facilities and troops, would there have been a sufficient public mandate in the North to declare war on the secessionists?

If so, what would have been the implications of a Civil War in which the Union fires first? If not, how would that have played out?

The answer to the bolded part is actually quite simple. Without a direct attack on federal facilities, they are massively resupplied and reinforced, worsening the rebel's position dramatically. Moreover, the inability and apparent total lack of desire by the rebels to clear their territory of military installations that are extremely dangerous to them, and willingness to let these installation be reinforced as potential staging points for attacks into the heart of their "nation", kills any chance of foreign recognition, the only way the rebels are ever going to win the civil war. Foreign powers are not going to side with a "nation" that shows no desire to defend itself. In short, not taking those forts ends any chance of the rebel successfully prosecuting their war, no matter who eventually fires the first shot.
 
Without a direct attack on federal facilities, they are massively resupplied and reinforced

To do what? Bombard nearby forts, or try to sink confederate warships passing by? or, even better, sinking unarmed civilian ships or carpet bombing Charleston? any of these cowboy actions is a get-a-free-indipendence card for the confederacy.

Moreover, the inability and apparent total lack of desire by the rebels to clear their territory of military installations that are extremely dangerous to them

Just one word: Gibraltar. Never heard of anybody questioning the sovreignity of Spain because the highly militarized base of Gibraltar exists.
 
according to one book I have, Anderson threatened to use his guns to close shipping in the harbor if the governor of SC didn't apologize for firing at the Star of the West. The governor didn't, and Anderson didn't (probably because he realized that the rebels had more than enough capacity to flatten Sumter), but if Anderson had let his temper get the better of him, there's a scenario for the Union firing first...
 
The concept of 'States Rights' including the right of secession was strongly ingrained even in the North. The North would have accepted southern secession because they knew it would fail and the South would eventually return voluntarily.

Even if Fort Sumter were completed, fully armed and manned, the Union would not have forced war because peace was in their long term advantage. In the event of war Fort Sumter was irrelevant to the outcome. The US Navy was the threat to CSA shipping both mercantile and naval and that would not change.

Lack of British involvement was because GB and USA had the same interests. Peace was to the advantage of both. If Britain became directly involved it would have exposed their extensive worldwide shipping to attack by American raiders.

Britain was already developing cotton plantations in Egypt and India. The embargo of CSA cotton merely accelerated their development. Britain would much rather depend on internal sources of raw materials than on unstable foreign sources. Besides the profits would be internal and enhance their trade balance instead of creating trade balance deficits.

In the absence of war USA vs. CSA the industrial development of the USA would have been delayed. The War was a great industrial, technological, and economic stimulus for the North just as has happened to the USA in all of its major wars.

Eventually mechanization of agriculture would have led to the collapse of slavery with or without a war.

Mexico had no interest in alliance with CSA. Remember Mexico's problems with USA stemmed originally from the secession of Texas which became a member of the CSA.. Do we really expect Texas and CSA to reverse that and return Texas to Mexico? There is no way either CSA or Mexico could reverse the outcome of 1848 War nor was there much incentive. Most of the land lost was unsuited to slavery and plantation agriculture and that was located where Union dominance of the seas would have made its incorporation impractical. Besides Mexico itself was anti-slavery.

We should also remember that the defeat of Mexico was largely effected by southern officers and troops. Why should Mexico trust these same leaders to treat them any differently in the future. Since 1848 there had been many efforts by southern politicians and military leaders to seize territory in Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, and the Caribbean including a plot to seize all of Cuba. Even the Mexicans were not stupid enough to invite a scorpion to share their bed.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The issue there is that in April, 1861, the rebellion

Perhaps, but I think the possibility of foreign recognition was paramount at the time. The secessionists wanted to convince the British and the French that the Confederacy was serious about going it alone as a nation and, for that to happen, the federal forts had to come under Confederate control and the resupply missions had to be prevented. Davis used force because he thought the resupply mission would occur if he did not. He would have been happy if Anderson had simply surrendered without a shot fired.

The issue there is that in April, 1861, the rebellion had yet to make it out of the deep south cotton belt; and yet, absent the Upper South, it was doomed. When Richmond and Nashville were both still in the US, and New Orleans was the closest thing to a metropolis in the "rebellion," it makes the economic, industrial, and demographic imbalance even greater...

Hell, absent the Upper South AND the Border States, the rebellion was doomed.

Davis used force because war was the only forge for nationhood in the south; without it, the Upper South and Border States were out of play, and even the Trans-Mississippi was doubtful. No war means the USN is free to steam the length of the Mississippi - kind of difficult to cement Arkansas and western Louisiana and Texas into the confederacy absent control of the river.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What in the world are you trying to say here?

With the Yanks openly sending additional forces to Sumter in violation of their sworn word to not do so, the South can take whatever measures they want (like firing on any Federal ships bringing forces to the fort) in response and not be seen as the aggressor.

What in the world are you trying to say here? What "sworn word"?

The US had every right to reinforce US garrisons whenever and wherever it chose; and you really think any European power is going to suggest that right depends on the opinions of the locals?

Hello, Gibraltar...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
What in the world are you trying to say here? What "sworn word"?

The US had every right to reinforce US garrisons whenever and wherever it chose; and you really think any European power is going to suggest that right depends on the opinions of the locals?

Hello, Gibraltar...
"an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."
 

TFSmith121

Banned
DR already answered that one:

"an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."

DR already answered that one:

This is not a promise to never reinforce the fort, merely a promise to not reinforce the fort without further notice (i.e. secretly under the cover of darkness).

Interesting to find such dedication to the Lost Cause in this day and age.

Best,
 
Davis used force because war was the only forge for nationhood in the south;
Is there any way he could have goaded the Union into firing the first shot?

It's quite a problem, you need war but it would really help you if the other side started it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Doubtful, IMHO...

Is there any way he could have goaded the Union into firing the first shot? It's quite a problem, you need war but it would really help you if the other side started it.

Doubtful, IMHO...

Considering the record amassed by each man (Davis and Lincoln, I mean), seems pretty clear which one was the deeper and more sucessful strategic thinker.

It was not Jefferson Davis, obviously.;)

The rebellion was fragile; the fault lines within the seceded states (deep south vs Upper South, southeast vs transmississippi, tidewater vs piedmont vs appalachia) even among whites were huge; add the reality that fully one-third of the rebel states' population were enslaved, and of largely African ancestry, and it makes (for example) the USSR look homogenous; remove the nationalism inherent in being part of the United States (as opposed to the Latin American republics, much less Europe), and instead try and frame the nation state and national identity as some sort of elusive "southerness" that, in reality, consisted of nothing more than white supremacy designed to sustain slavery (and vice-versa) and the brittleness of the rebellion is apparent.

Trying to create a functioning, consolidated nation state in the middle of a supposed war of independence from a dozen fractious polities, whose reason for secession was allegedly the supremacy of the "state" over the "nation," but whose only identity was truly that of "members" of the "previous" federal nation was an impossible task, as it made clear by the history of the confederacy...

"Died of a theory," is an oversimplification, but not by much.;)

Best,
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting POD and I for one would read a fleshed out TL, or at least plausible speculation on how it would affect the Civil War. Unfortunately the discussion in this thread seems to say more about how the modern US views the Civil War than about POD itself.
 
according to one book I have, Anderson threatened to use his guns to close shipping in the harbor if the governor of SC didn't apologize for firing at the Star of the West. The governor didn't, and Anderson didn't (probably because he realized that the rebels had more than enough capacity to flatten Sumter), but if Anderson had let his temper get the better of him, there's a scenario for the Union firing first...

This seems to be the most plausible way- or some other hot-headed Northern officer who objects to the cheek of these damn rebels.

Even though Lincoln hasn't ordered it, with the South demanding apologies, he can't really back down- can he?
 
There is a very simple solution for the Fort Sumter issue (already shot down by the usual suspects):

1860-12-20 afternoon: South Carolina declares secession
1860-12-25/26 night: major Anderson moves into fort Sumter

In between those two events, for 5 long full days (21, 22, 23, 24, 25) the fort was manned by civilian South Carolina workers and a single US Army sergeant, working as lighthouse keeper.

So...

...sometime in those days, the workers overpower the sergeant and bring him to Charleston. South Carolina authorities are informed and a detachment of South Carolina national guard moves in to "restore order". No official action on part of South Carolina government, just a spontaneous action of some citizens. Major Anderson sees South Carolina banner on Fort Sumter and on the 24/25th packs and returns north. Not much different from what happend in the many other federal facilities in the south.

This solution is even less "invasive" than the previously mentionned attack upon the resupply ship, which did not trigger any northern action.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
An incremental short of war situation could resolve the issue of

There is a very simple solution for the Fort Sumter issue (already shot down by the usual suspects):

1860-12-20 afternoon: South Carolina declares secession
1860-12-25/26 night: major Anderson moves into fort Sumter

In between those two events, for 5 long full days (21, 22, 23, 24, 25) the fort was manned by civilian South Carolina workers and a single US Army sergeant, working as lighthouse keeper.

So...

...sometime in those days, the workers overpower the sergeant and bring him to Charleston. South Carolina authorities are informed and a detachment of South Carolina national guard moves in to "restore order". No official action on part of South Carolina government, just a spontaneous action of some citizens. Major Anderson sees South Carolina banner on Fort Sumter and on the 24/25th packs and returns north. Not much different from what happend in the many other federal facilities in the south.

This solution is even less "invasive" than the previously mentionned attack upon the resupply ship, which did not trigger any northern action.

An incremental short of war situation could resolve the issue of Sumter; but that still leaves Forts Pickens, Jefferson, Taylor, and Key West in US hands.

And, of course, it still leaves the Upper South (North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas) among the loyal states, much less Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the Indian territory.

New Orleans is the largest, most industrialized "rebel" city...

This is not a recipe for success for Davis and company.;)

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, the problem there is

Success for Davis and Co. is to wait, wait, wait, wait, and... wait more until somebody in a blue uniform pulls the trigger (something that will inevitably happen sooner or later).


Yeah, the problem there is expecting the fire eaters to play the long game is roughly as likely as expecting the IJA and IJN to avoid overly complex operational plans that require their enemies to do exactly what is expected...

Best,
 
How long would it take though?

How much normal interaction did the Federal government have with the states back then?

If the Union stops doing those things they've basically recognized the Confederacy is another country.

If the Union tries to keep business as usually they'd eventually have to resort to force.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Federal government controlled the port collectors, the mails,

How long would it take though?

How much normal interaction did the Federal government have with the states back then?

If the Union stops doing those things they've basically recognized the Confederacy is another country.

If the Union tries to keep business as usually they'd eventually have to resort to force.

Federal government controlled the port collectors, the mails, federal installations, foriegn affairs, etc.

The rebels had no navy worth the name in 1861, so the moment the US places the blockade in place (whether they call it, in a bow to legal niceties, is pretty close to immaterial), the rebellion has lost a significant source of revenue.

The rebellion, despite its conservatism, was a revolutionary movement; these tend not to be able to stand pat - there is always a faction that wants more of something, whether power, land, organization, what have you.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the problem there is expecting the fire eaters to play the long game is roughly as likely as expecting the IJA and IJN to avoid overly complex operational plans that require their enemies to do exactly what is expected...

Best,

So you mean banking on it is gonna work for at least the first half year or so? ;)
 
Top