What if the Confederacy had not attacked Fort Sumter in 1861?

Question

On 12 April 1861, Confederate militia lay siege and bombarded the Union military base of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. This was in response to President Lincoln's attempt to re-supply the fort with provisions, prompting the South to attack before the supply ship arrived. Most historians tend to believe that Lincoln was forcing the issue in order to create an excuse to form an army by which the Union could use force to reign in the secessionist states. What if the Confederacy did not bite and allowed the fort to be re-supplied?

I’m looking for answer that would give a plausible series of events that would follow given the change in history provided. Details would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your answers.

What I'm interested in would be if war would eventually happen, and if so, how would it have started, and what would likely happen after either situation above.

Answer 1

I know the war didn't really start at his point in some people's reason but there is a possibility here.

There would have been time for political debate and prehaps reasoning which would have never worked given the stance had been taken. The occupation of the fort would have caused the same concern throughout the South which in turn would have resulted in about the same number of states leaving the Union. All along the world would watch the uprising in great concern.

Two keys here are more time to build and supply a much needed army and the chance to lure other countries into the war on the South's side.

The North would have made the same mistakes in the choice of commanders. The South would have reasonably made the same choices also, so from the point of battle the match up would not change.

There would have been a war by no doubt in anyone's mind. The Union could not survive without the South given it was key in ports, farms, and population.


The next thing would be who would fire the first shot. Lincoln had the power to keep up a stare down while the South could not. It would have prompted the South to take the first step.

If France or England would have helped (given the change in policy) the South would have won. The northern commanders were just not that great. Lincoln would have been seen more as a dictator if he had to keep up a blockade when noone had fired a shot.

If the war was over quickly and easily, it would have left us hanging in knowledge of warfare. Advances in technique and weapons are the key things we brought out of the war. We might have lost those lessons and paid dearly for them later.

Prehaps a interesting and really a great thing that could have happened was the chance that Robert E. Lee could have been President of the CSA. I think he would have fought to heal the wounds between North and South,

Answer 2

If the fort had been reprovisioned, ships would not have been able to enter Charleston harbor and carry on trade with the secessionists. Charleston harbor was one of 3 or 4 major ports. If that had occurred, the south would not have been able to trade for goods, and would have slowly starved, probably. At some point, war was inevitable. Perhaps, although unlikely, the CSA could have made treaties with England and/or France and/or Spain, in an attempt to broaden the scope of the war and put pressure on the north to end it, or suffer serious attacks from Canada and invasion from the sea. It would also have been a different war if the South had attacked the Northern states immediately instead of fighting a defensive war.

Answer 3

Setting aside some of the rude answers, I think the situation that faced Lincoln was "fight or lose." Stated differently: If the South had not fired the first shot, they may have won because the North would have had to occupy all of the Southern territory to break up the Confederacy. Without an occupation by the Union Army, there was nothing the North could to to prevent the Confederacy from standing.

Answer 4

You seem to be assuming, as most people do, incorrectly, that the Civil War began with the firing on Ft. Sumter. But the nation was already deeply divided prior to the Southern treason, and at arms as early as 1855, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1855 led to shooting in the two territories. This is when the Civil War actually began, with the military action only making it more intense.

If the Confederate attack on Ft. Sumter had not occurred--on to your question--the fighting would have exploded into full-scale war somewhere else, because Ft. Sumter was only a minor event, brought about by President Lincoln's decision to reinforce the Union troops. I think the rebels sense of honour, demanded that they fire, because they had already threatened to resist reinforcement efforts. If they hadn't fired, they must have felt, their "cause" would not be taken seriously; they might as well give up as not resist.

Anyway, the effective declaration of war came with Lincoln's order of the blockade of Southern ports, a move prompted by Sumter, but one which the President was bound to make regardless.

Answer 5

The war was inevitable. If it had not started with the shots a Ft. Sumter, it would have began somewhere else. Consider that the first shot fired came from Edwin Ruffin, a civilian. If I remember correctly, Ft. Sumter was actually a fall-back position and that the supplies we headed for the fort closer to town. Major Anderson, a southerner, in charge of the Union forces, pulled back to Sumter to save lives. Gen. Beauregard was reluctant to get the matter started because of his association with Anderson at West Point.

The armies we already formed, both in the North and in the South, the regulars from western posts were on their way east. The war was going to happen. The issues surrounding the war had been brewing since before 1812 and maybe since we declared our independence.

The war had to happen somewhere. We have a form of government like no other on this earth. From April 1861 to April 1865, our form of government was put to the test and we won, we as a people won, not Northerners or Southerners, but all of us and our form of government survived.

Answer 6

There were two other federal forts under seige in a similiar situation as Fort Sumter. But even if these forts were allowed to be provisioned the war would still have eventually occured. The underlying cause was slavery and states rights, and Southerns had to be forced to change their position on those areas.

Wow, spacejohn my hat is off to you, what an incredible answer!!

Answer 7

The key point in the Civil war is not in 1861 in my opinion. I would have to say that regardless of the bate that the Confederacy bit into they still had a chance to win. As a matter of a fact they won a majority of skirmishes all the way up to a good amount of famous battles in truth. But what cost them was not so much one distinct battle per say and they could have won. They had a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln at the time in the works. But General Lee gave more trust to his commanders to control their own troop movements than he should have and that is were I think the flaw was.

Answer 8

There are too many "ifs" when projecting such a question as this. Nevertheless, if the Civil War hadn't started at Fort Sumter as prophesied by Joseph Smith on 25 December 1832, he would have been declared a non-prophet (pardon the pun on words).

Answer 9

Time was on the side of the Confederates. Ft Sumter was USA property. The CSA would have been strengthened by waiting. Eventually the CSA would have been established as a fact. Perhaps the CSA would have endured.

Answer 10

You can do the research, but the war was inevitable.

Lincoln was committed to it.
You might be interested to know that Lincoln suspended "The Writ of Habeous Corpus" in that war. He was overruled by the Supreme court, but Lincoln told them he had to protect the country. His decision stood.