CSA doesn't fire on Ft. Sumter

oudi14

Suppose Jeff Davis and his cabinet decide that they will be in a stronger position diplomatically if they don't fire the first shot, and give the order that, under no circumstances are confederate forces are to shoot except in self defense? So that no matter how aggrevating the situation vis-a-vis Ft. Sumter is, they just leave the garrison alone. How can Lincoln make things happen on the ground to force the rebellious states to come to heel without using deadly force? If he has to send union troops through states who have not yet seceeded, in order to get at the 7 CSA states, he risks incidents such as what happened in Baltimore in OTL, except probably on a bigger scale, since a large portion of the population south of the Mason-Dixon line was in sympathy with the confederacy. [including many in DC] What steps can the Union take, so as not to be seen as 'taking the low road'?
If and when the north does have to fire first, I presume the 4 states who seceeded after Sumter in OTL now do so. Would either MD, MO or KY do so in this TL? Would WV still do its thing, or stay with Virginia. [I can't really see DE seceeding in any event] How does a belligerent north vs a seemingly peace-desiring south affect US relations with Britain and France?
 

pternagy

Would Lincoln have been able to fire first? The Congress of 1861 was not the Radical Republican Congress of Reconstruction. I am not sure they would have allowed Lincoln much leeway to wage a war that he started, and I think Lincoln would have known that. As far as I understand things, I would conclude that the North firing the first shots of the war would be a political impossibility unless and then until negotiations of any sort were seen as useless.

The fact that the U.S. Army maintained two posts on Confederate soil (Fort Sumter and a fort down in Florida) would get under the skin of either the C.S. government or state troops long before Lincoln could amass both the political capital and the actual military force to start a war. Lincoln could claim at least a moral victory as long as he could keep Fort Sumter supplied with Charleston under its guns.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
The CSA had already fired the first shots in January against the Star of the West trying to resupply the fort

Even if Jefferson Davis does not authorize P.G.T. Beauregard to attack the fort Governor Francis Pickens of South Carolina will tell him to attack anyways, and if Beauregard does not listen to Pickens, Pickens will damn well find someone who will fire on that fort

Or if Beauregard stalls long enough someone will start shooting at Fort Pickens in Florida

Lincoln would never fire the fist shot, he did not need to, time was on his side
 

oudi14

Keeping the hotheads from opening fire on Sumter, or Ft Pickens in Pensacola Bay would not be easy for the Davis Administration. They would have to threaten to court martial any officer or NCO who allowed shots to be fired at the forts. Obviously, in OTL, there were hotheads in the CSA govt, who blew a golden opportunity by firing first.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
oudi14 said:
Keeping the hotheads from opening fire on Sumter, or Ft Pickens in Pensacola Bay would not be easy for the Davis Administration. They would have to threaten to court martial any officer or NCO who allowed shots to be fired at the forts. Obviously, in OTL, there were hotheads in the CSA govt, who blew a golden opportunity by firing first.
Click to expand...
Given how the CSA worked they'd have to court marshal members of the state militias acting under direct orders of their state governors and I'm not sure that would go over well with the extreme states rights crowd

Lots of people wanted to fire on those forts and whoever does it would be heroes to the local population and will have the support of the state governments of Florida and South Carolina
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

One has to think of the longevity of the Confederate States in such a situation where it and the US do not go to war, or that war is delayed. I fully admit I'm mostly an idiot here, but AH.com and modern people tend to view this as the USA vs the CSA, with both as legitimate countries and each going to last forever until they were conquered or otherwise destroyed. The way it was to the people of the North at that time was that this was a crisis situation, that these were states were legitimately part of the United States and were in rebellion, and that the people of the CSA, its soldiers, and its politicians were not another legitimate country or part of another country, they were rebels and the Confederate States was not an actual entity. From that, you get the feeling that there wasn't a view that the CSA would be long lasting.

On the knowledge I do have, I've come to get the feeling the CSA was really not much of a nation or ever would be. I've come to think that the CSA was pretty much just a hurrah protest that was destined to be a lost cause, there was no way it could stand as an independent nation forever or for very long, it was always going to be reabsorbed back into the United States, and any alternate reality where it didn't collapse and lasted (or is a world power or super power) is an aberration rather than the rule. This is a region ruled by a wealthy gentry which seceded from the Union based on the ire of that gentry rather than the poor whites (who mostly were for remaining in the Union), which is largely hoplessly backwards and agrarian with a population dwarfed by the rest of the United States and with many areas where enslaved blacks outnumber whites, which is extremely lacking in industry or industrial capability. Each state declared their independence in protest of Lincoln's victory and the possibility of an end to slavery (despite Lincoln's position at that time being slavery where it existed, but not expanded into the territories and areas where it didn't), and united as one nation disgusted by their legal government in the United States. There was limited semblance of unity and the states of the Confederacy always squabbled and put their interests first which damned national cooperation and group effort, and its existence as a slavotocracy alienated it from those many people in the world who were against slavery and whose nations had abolished slavery, hurting its chances of receiving international recognition or European intervention on its behalf.

Keep in mind as well, before Fort Sumter only 7 states had seceded. Four more would secede after: Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. Without those 7, you have a rump Confederacy of Deep Southern states even less capable for itself and its cause than the Confederacy of the OTL 11 states. You've also removed General Robert E. Lee, a Virginian, from the Confederate cause which hurts them militarily should any conflict erupt.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
Anaxagoras said:
I don't think time was on Lincoln's side. The more time passes without hostilities taking place, the more established the Confederacy becomes.
Click to expand...
Lincoln has the advantage with time, he is the legitimate government, either the CSA stops him from doing something by force and fire the first shot, or he can gradually restore order using his legitimacy and taking advantage of the divided nature of the areas considering secession
 

Turek

After Sumter, Lincoln called for militias to put down the rebellion - which is the point at which Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina decided to secede.

If you can somehow avoid angering those states while still putting down the rebellion, you're good as gold. No Virginia? You lose the wealthiest, most populated slave-holding state as well as the brilliance of Robert E. Lee. The Confederacy's practically dead.

What you need is a bunch of Confederates to do a massacre of some sort, which gets the divided public opinion in the North into one state of mind: Stop the rebellions.
 
highwayhoss

highwayhoss

I recently picked up Bill Fawcett's How to Lose the Civil War which had a number of articles about how the mistakes both sides made. One article titled "Christmas in April" discusses this topic.
For Lincoln, the problem was that the North was deeply divided over how to react to the crisis of secession. There was a lot of sympathy for the Southern states, so any decision to go to war to restore the Union would be very controversial, and likely not getting a lot of support.
Davis had his own problems however; when Lincoln refused to receive delegates from the CSA, Davis let the states handle negotiation regarding transfer of Federal properties in their territory. This is where problems develop; with the hotheaded Governor Pickens involved, the authorities got aggressive believing the Union were a bunch of cowards who would fold. The Confederates firing on Ft Sumter united the North behind Lincoln and destroyed any hope of a peaceful settlement between the sections.
If Davis want to prevent the SC militias from firing on Ft Sumter, he has got to somehow assert control over the situation, which unfortunately the nature of the Confederate government prevents him from doing, with its emphasis on State Rights.
 

sloreck

The CSA can't really allow the Union to reinforce Sumter, other coastal forts that the CSA has not yet occupied. Even though the forts were not designed to resist attack from the landward side in a big way in many cases, as long as they are occupied by Union troops & supplied by sea the CSA has to attack them to take them over even if only with a small force. As long as they remain in existence they control a lot of the key harbors, and can prevent most if not all ship traffic. Legally the "legitimate" government can declare the ports closed. This will be even more effective at this point in time than the blockade was OTL.

IMHO time is on the side of Lincoln here, the CSA will eventually have to take over these forts and the game is on. Also, remember that without Virginia the south has no industry, the only major iron works was in Richmond...
 

Captain Jack

One option that I haven't seen mentioned yet would be for Lincoln to force the confederates into firing first. Say by marching troops through confederate territory or sailing supply ships for the fort so close to the confederate positions that they would have to fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top