Fort Sumter- April 12, 1861

The Civil War…what a large topic to research and write about. I found researching for a primary source during the time of the Civil War incredibly hard, because so many of them sparked an interest with me. However, I was able to narrow it down-and finally chose one to blog about. The source I chose was a newspaper article, written in 1865, from the New York Times discussing Fort Sumter, South Carolina. What a random source to choose, right? Well, no not exactly. Every year, I visit Charleston for vacation, and just about every year I take that short boat ride to Fort Sumter. I walk around and take in all the history that was made there. We discussed Fort Sumter a bit in class, but after finding this source- I just had to expand on it. I really do find it to be a remarkable place; however this source shines Fort Sumter in quite a different light than different documents from the South-which I had been exposed to.

The article was written on April 14, 1865-four years after Fort Sumter had occurred. The article begins by informing the readers of the structure of Fort Sumter. The fort is described as one of the strongest works of the republic. It cost the nation nearly a $1,000,000 to construct. It had a huge advantage with its inaccessible position. Fort Sumter was built upon an artificial island in the harbor of which it was built to protect. Built…sixty feet of pentagonal walls of brick and concrete this fort was ready for attack. However, only four sides of the Fort were protected, leaving the fifth unarmed-but facing home. A strong structure yes, although not nearly strong enough for the attack it was about to endure.

 

The article then reviews the first notification of bombardment on Fort Sumter. It was received by Major Anderson at 3:20am, April 12th, and found him quite helpless; there was little food at the Fort, somewhat of a large supple of gunpowder, but only seven hundred cartridges. He called his officers and men together and informed them of the warned attack. He then divided them into three reliefs, and waited for the bombardment.

This article was very descriptive in the beginning of the battle, but of course it was the first gun fire of the Civil War. It states, “…the hand of Edmund Ruffin, a hoary-headed, hard-hearted Virginian…fired the first gun of the Civil War, which discharged a well-aimed shot at the doomed fort. I find it obvious that this piece was written by a northern newspaper- just from the words of that last statement. Northern Edmund Ruffin fired a “well-aimed” shot; the Southern Fort was “doomed,” clearly the North had written this article. The firing goes on repeatedly for two hours before Major Anderson (at the Fort) gives the order to reply to the attack. Captain Doubleday fired the first gun from Fort Sumter; he was the second in command there. However there was already great damage done to the Fort; the article describes the damages as disastrous. The second day only allowed these damages grew more. The opposing firing resulted in the fort catching on fire in different sections, some of which were the magazine, and barracks. The damaging second day ended with the opposing Major and General making their appearances and stating the terms of surrendering. The third day consisted of Major Anderson and his troops withdrawing. This ended the battle at Fort Sumter.

This article was specifically captivating to me, because I have always learned about Fort Sumter from a so called “South’s” perspective. It is intriguing to read about this topic from a northern newspaper. I found it particularly interesting on how many different outlooks and perspectives there are on just one battle. The langue that is used, the different word choice… can define the stance of an article, and in this case I believe it did. 

 

“Fort Sumter 1861.” New York Times, April 14, 1865, (New York).

McMaster, John Bach. A School History of the United States. New York: American Book Company, 1897.