I know that I'm going to take a beating on this one, but grandmas do anything for their grandchildren -- especially for one who loves history (his mother doesn't!).

My 7th grade grandson will be entering his school's National History Day contest soon. This year's theme is Turning Points in History, and he has chosen the fall of Ft. Sumter and the title of The Shots that Changed America. He wants to end it with the ironic conclusion that the Fort was reclaimed with the official flag raising on the same day that another shot occurred that affected the country - the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

That said, I was discussing some of the points with him as he started his outline and mentioned the theory that some historians have suggested that Lincoln forced the Confederacy into firing the first shots in order to precipitate the beginnings of the war.

I have thought this over and over and read several online essays and book excerpts on it and can't make up my mind. My grandson, however, blabbed to his teacher that, "My grandma said....." His teacher told him he would have a hard time documenting that. He has taken it as a challenge - I have taken it as a sidebar to be suggested, but not used as the full project.

Therefore, I am throwing the subject into this arena to get your feelings on whether or not Lincoln intended to trick the Confederacy into firing the first shots at Sumter -- or anywhere else for that matter. I will download your comments and hand them over to him to analyze. Please remember that he's a twelve-year-old 7th grader, however.

Laurie,

James G. Randall once wrote "To say that Lincoln meant that the first shot would be fired by the other side if a first shot was fired is not to say that he maneuvered to have the first shot fired."

To believe that Lincoln did this purposefully would require two things. First, to believe that Lincoln hungered for a war with the southern states and second, that everything Lincoln said up to the point when Sumter was fired upon was a lie. So far, the only consistent supporters of either claim have an unmistakable southern bias. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence for this. Your grandson's teacher is right.

No beating from me. Just cold, hard reason. As I once read, You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.

Laurie, in an attempt to look at all sides of this question, I was curious what Thomas DiLorenzo included in his book, and here's a portion of his section on this question:

---------------------------------------------

The historian Bruce Catton explains how Lincoln maneuvered Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot:

Lincoln had been plainly warned by his military advisors that a ship taking provisions to Fort Sumter would be fired on. Now he was sending the ship, with advance notice to the men who had the guns. He was sending war ships and soldiers as well...If there was going to be war it would begin over a boat load of salt pork and crackers... Not for nothing did Captain Fox remark afterward that it seemed very important to Lincoln that South Carolina "should stand before the civilized world as having fired upon bread."

Shelby Foote, author of the The Civil War, concurred, writing "Lincoln had maneuvered the Confederates into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war. What was worse, in the eyes of the world, that first shot would be fired from the immediate purpose of keeping food from hungry men."

Author Richard Current in his Lincoln and the First Shot had this to say:

"Biographers of Davis and historians of the Confederacy have evaded or obscured their hero's role in the Sumter affair. They have digressed to levy accusations or innuendoes at Lincoln. If they have any concern for historical objectivity, however, they should face frankly the question of Davis's responsibility for the coming of the war. Upon them, upon his partisans, should rest the burden of proof. It should not have to be borne forever, as it has for too many years, by Lincoln's champions. After all, Lincoln did not order the guns to fire. Davis did."

Laurie,

Go with Norton's materials. Lincoln was a more clever aggressor than Davis.

For all practical purposes the war had started before Lincoln took office. Seizing of the state arsenals by the governors was an act of war. Fort Sumter was under siege warfare, also a recognized act of war.

Lincoln's initial strategy was to do nothing that would provoke a conflict nor recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. He hoped that the opposition within the states toward secession would eventually reach critical mass. The key was Virginia.

If Virginia stayed in the Union there was a good chance this strategy would succeed. This is why Lincoln offered a "fort for a state" deal, which went nowhere.

Lincoln sent the supply ship to relieve the siege. Davis attacked the fort because if he didn't S.C. would have attacked the ships on their own just as they had done when Buchanan was president. Davis hoped that by taking the initiative he would 'strike a blow' that would force Va (and other border states) into the Confederacy.

Davis won the battle but eventually lost the war.

It's an interesting world where re-provisioning a fort owned by the United States can be seen as an act of aggression.

Best
Rob

Thanks for all the input everyone. Let me know if you think of anything else.

Quite a while ago, I seem to remember reading (from a source that I can't remember) that Confederate authorities and the city of Charleston had agreed to allow Major Anderson to send men into the city to buy food and provisions - therefore, the supply ships that the Union sent were actually not a necessity. Does anyone know anything about this? If true, that would seem to put the onus on Lincoln for sending the ships.

If you can remember the source, I'd be interested to know it. I could better frame a response.

Best
Rob

The purchase of fresh meat and vegetables in Charleston is in Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, 102-103. It came at the end of Buchanan's term.

Any delivery of supplies from outside by Lincoln would be against the current status quo or modus vivendi. Sorry

Thank you, Bill, for that source. It's nice to know that one is not imagining things.

Could someone explain also why the Union abandoned Fort Moultrie and moved to Sumter, which was closer to the city and would seem to be an impending threat to the secession-minded populace? As I have said before, I tend to shy away from military and political strategies - I consider myself more into social and cultural history of the war.

I have read, Sumter was easier to defend than Ft Moultrie

Laurie,
According to Abner Doubleday's reminisces. They were given permission to purchase supplies in the city but Charleston was such a hotbed that merchants refused to sell to them for fear of crowd retribution.

Anderson left Fort Moultrie for Sumter on Christmas night. Moultrie was indefensible from the land and decided to move to Sumter to avoid being attacked.

Funny how history repeats itself. The Libyan ambassador fled to his safe house too only it was not as safe as Sumter.

From the outset, whether Anderson could get supplies from Charleston is moot. The fort was a United States installation and South Carolina was still a part of the United States. Lincoln had every right to provision whatever property he wished. Once South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, it committed an act of treason against the government. How is this not simple?

Best
Rob

(10-10-2012 04:27 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  From the outset, whether Anderson could get supplies from Charleston is moot. The fort was a United States installation and South Carolina was still a part of the United States. Lincoln had every right to provision whatever property he wished. Once South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, it committed an act of treason against the government. How is this not simple?

Best
Rob

Because South Carolina pulled itself out of the Union and declared that they had the sovereign rights to any installations or property within its borders.