In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

68 grady mcwhiney The Confederacy’s First shot Grady McWhiney Thirty years ago Charles W. ramsdell charged that abraham lincoln, “having decided that there was no otherway than war for the salvation of his administration, his party, and the Union, maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot in order that they, rather than he, should take the blame of beginning bloodshed.”1 The ensuing uproar, especiallyamong lincoln scholars,was predictable. Many distinguished historians joined the debate; some supported the ramsdell thesis, but most attacked it. In works published in the early 1940s, James G. randall and david M. Potter claimed lincoln sought peace rather than war. a few years later Kenneth M. stampp concluded: “one cannot indict lincoln for [sending relief to Fort sumter] . . . unless one challenges the universal standards of ‘practical’ statesmen and the whole concept of ‘national interest.’ This was a thing worth fighting for! If lincoln was no pacifist, neitherwere his contemporaries, north and south. southern leaders must share with him the responsibility for a resort to force.”2 68 E Civil War History, Vol. XIV no. 1 © 1968 The Kent state University Press 1.CharlesW. ramsdell,“lincoln and Fortsumter,”Journal of southern history, III (1937), 259–88. 2. JamesG. randall,“WhenWarCame in 1861,”abraham lincolnQuarterly, I (1940), 3–42;lincoln the President: spring field to Gettysburg (new York, 1945), I, 311–50; lincoln the liberal statesman (new York, 1947), 88–117; david M. Potter, lincoln and his Party in the secession Crisis (new Haven, 1942), 315–375; Kenneth M. stampp, “lincoln and the strategy of defense in the Crisis of 1861,” Journal of southern history, XI (1945), 297–323; and the war Came: The North and the secession Crisis, 1860–1861 (baton rouge, 1950), 263–86. the confederacy’s first shot 69 3. allan nevins, The war for the Union: The improvised war, 1861–1862 (new York, 1959), 12–74; richard n. Current, “The Confederates and the First shot,” Civil war history, VII (1961), 357–69; lincoln and the First shot (Philadelphia, 1963) , passim, but especially 201. 4. In addition to the works already cited, see John s. Tilley, lincoln Takes Command (Chapel Hill, 1941);Kenneth P. Williams, lincoln Finds a General:a Military study of the Civil war (newYork, 1949–1959), I, 16–59;W. a. swanberg, First Blood:The storyof Fort sumter (newYork, 1957);david r. barbee, “The line of blood—lincoln and the Coming of the War,” Tennessee historical Quarterly, XVI(1957),3–54;ludwell H. Johnson,“FortsumterandConfederatediplomacy,”Journalof southern history, XXVI (1960), 441–77 ; bruce Catton, The Coming Fury (new York, 1961), 271–313; and ari Hoogenboom, “Gustavus Fox and the relief of Fort sumter,” Civil war history, IX (1963), 383–98. recent scholarship also contends that Jefferson davis was as responsible as lincoln, if not more so, forthe outbreak of hostilities.“The firing on sumterwas an act of rash emotionalism,” stated allan nevins in 1959. “The astute alexander H. stephens,counseling delay, showed more statesmanship than Jefferson davis.” and in 1963, richard n. Current suggested that “the ramsdell thesis, turned inside out, could be applied to davis with as much justice as it had been applied to lincoln. one could argue that political and not military necessity led davis to order the firing of the first shot. The very life of the Confederacy, the growth upon which that life depended, was at stake. so were the pride, the prestige, and the position of davis.” “biographers of davis and historians of the Confederacy have evaded or obscured their hero’s role in the sumter affair,” charged Current. “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’ responsibility for the coming of the war.” “after all,” Current concluded, “lincoln did not order the guns to fire. davis did.”3 ThosewhoconsidertheConfederatesaggressors haveastrongcase,and,asCurrentclaimed , southern historians and davis biographers have evaded orobscured whattheConfederate Presidentand his associates actuallydid to bringonwar. but so have northern historians; they have been too engrossed in defending lincoln against ramsdell’s charges to give much attention to davis and the Confederates. Too few scholars have mined beyond the most obvious printed sources on the Confederate side, orlooked beyond sumter.The lincoln-sumterstory, explained inelaboratedetail bynumeroushistorians,4istoowell knowntoberecounted here. It probably has been overtold already. What has been neglected—what historians have missed—is how events at Fort sumter were determined by what happened and by what failed to happen at Fort...

Share