Talk:Battle of Fort Sumter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article states that Lincoln ran on the idea of "free-soil" which is true yet free soil did not mean free slaves. This was the term that referred to the disadvantage of farmers who did not use slaves vs. farmers that did. Lincoln did not run on the idea of Emancipation. He only supported this idea later in the war when it was both militarily and politically advantageous for him to do so.

Perhaps, but to Lincoln's credit, he never supported slavery, and personally believed the institution should have been abolished. The only reason he condoned it was to get elected. Politicians have always done this. One seeking public office must always make a compromise on their stances to earn the public's trust despite their own personal beliefs. To support this George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves (whether personally or through their families), but came to the eventual conclusion that it was morally wrong. GW wrote in his personal diary that he strongly believed that the institution should be abolished, but knew that the fledgling nation at the time could not be divided by the issue (which it eventually did in 1860). --Acefox 22:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also "free-soil" meant that new territory was closed to slavery so your interpretation is a bit misleading. The way I view the ninteenth century support of free-soil, as I believe is the consensus, is that it was a compromise position for those opposed to slavery (for whatever reason) to greatly limit it. This in itself was a controversial issue at the time, as legislation leading up to the Civil War was a continuous argument of whether to allow new territories under the US to be open to slavery. Compare it with the issue of gun-control today. Many supporters of gun-control would like to see an eventual ban on guns altogether, but support gun limitation bills simply because it has a chance of getting passed whereas an extreme stance would not.--Acefox 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So we have one person that says LoserLincoln did not run on the idea of emancipation, and that he only supported it when it was in his best interest. The other person, says that he believed in emancipation from the beginning, though how they would know that I have no idea, since it is quite hard to get into a dead mans thoughts, and states that all politicians will water down their beliefs, and/or lie to get elected. This does not make it all right for Lincoln to do this, and the very statement is a broad generalization. Which of these ideas should be in the article. My opinion is the first's, but I am but one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.164.149 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

typo?

"in the autumn of 1861 work was nearly complete" really? but the the battle was in April!

It says "autumn of 1860."

I've also read that the battle was from april 12th-14th not 12th-13th.

This is a matter of interpretation, I guess. A truce was called on April 13, so there was no fighting on April 14, the day the fort was evacuated. Hal Jespersen 15:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

340-hour?

I'm just wondering, it says 340 hour bombardment.......is that true? sounds ridiculously long so I'm a little doubtful it was that long. [anonymous user posting]

That was vandalism, just cleaned up. Thanks for noticing. Hal Jespersen 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article upgrade

I'm making an intermittent effort to get the article up to, hopefully, FA status. The French Article is already at that point, so I'm liberally stealing ideas from them, with my limited Francophone abilities. The French article lifted several images from the National Park Service websites. I confirmed by email today that all images there, unless otherwise noted, are public domain, so if anyone has any suggestions for prettying-up the article, we have resources. DCB4W 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

nothing happened the union won and no onw died only one fed horse died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.18 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonds of

restore bonds of what? In the first section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Machina (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were no casualties

The two who were killed, were killed after the surrender and are not considered part of the battle casualties. There was an accidental powder explosion during a gun salute.it sound a little wired but it is vary true.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties ≠ Mortalities. There were in fact wounded men during the battle. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but then why would there be a seperate number for wounded in the info box?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a separate number. Any figures listed are part of the casualties which include killed, wounded, & missing...that is an itemization of casualties.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual number of killed or wounded on the Union side during the battle were zero. Every casualty that occured in the fort happened after the surrender. Even the 5 wounded, which one died a few days later.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for that?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, where to begin? First Blood:The Story of Fort Sumter. by W.A. Swanberg. pg 322.

The only fatality of the battle was a horse killed on Morris Island.

Page 328.

This page describes the surrender, and the 100 gun salute that went wrong. A bit of loose powder was exploded and killed Pvt. Daniel Hough instantly. Five others were wounded and one of those five died a few days later.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

<==So you conveniently left out the part that describes the 4 that were wounded at Ft. Sumter during the battle on the same page (322) and directly preceding the sentence you quoted "by flying brick or pieces of shell, none of them seriously." Obviously, not zero as you claim...Swanberg is indeed a source for the 4 Union casualties during the battle. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Ok, I wasn't arguing wounded, only deaths, but if you want to include minor scrapes and bruises in the injury count, I don't care. And are you accusing me of Bad faith because your tone has turned hostile all of a sudden. I thought we were having a nice discusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the horse was Confederate. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if it was on Morris Island.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hostile? Bad faith?..er, no. Where does that come from? But I do see the problem..you are here to make an argument about no deaths during the battle...I haven't seen anyone arguing with you about that. You incorrectly labeled this section with a devout declaration that there were no casualties. Realizing that you didn't know what the word meant, I made a comment to help you out as well as any other reader who might be following along. But you persisted with this by declaring "The actual number of killed or wounded on the Union side during the battle were zero." Since the infobox has some wounded and the source has wounded listed that is clearly wrong. You omitted the preceding sentence which was kinda important and hard to miss. I think we are Apples/Oranges here..with my point being that there were wounded declared and that is what the sources say. Clearly, I'm not upset or I wouldn't have made the horse joke.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, no harm no foul. I usually consider casualties as deaths, and wounded as injuries, but you are correct on the terminology. So do we agree that there were zero deaths and four wounded?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except the horse!...(yes, I think we agree) Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the term "causualty" can include either wounded or dead, but the fact that there were no deaths at all during the battle should be made clear in the infobox. When I started to read it I immediately thought "11 dead, and 2 more killed after the battle." The simple inclusion of "wounded" after the number would clear that up, erase the impression of contradiction with the parts of the article describing no deaths and give a better sense of the event. The Cap'n (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

Assertions in this article contradict the Fort Sumter article - particularly regarding casualties. There are also less details in this article about the events just before the battle than there are in the fort article --JimWae (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro to this article is terrible. Who started the fight? Who won it? I don't have any time to work on this right now. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Effect on the fort building

Judging by the photo, the fort appears to have been utterly destroyed. Can anyone confirm this, and perhaps add a sentence to that effect in the article? --Doradus (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Which photo are you referring to? No, it wasn't destroyed in this battle. Later in 1863, it will be damaged far more in the Second Battle of Fort Sumter.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The barracks, officers' quarters and other wooden buildings were destroyed, but the walls of the fort suffered little damage, evidence that Anderson might have held longer had it not been for the wood, and presaging the later struggle of its Confederate defenders against month after month of Federal bombardment."

From

• Ripley, Warren (1992). “Confederate Artillery Shells Sumter”. In Wilcox, Arthur M. & Ripley, Warren, The Civil War at Charleston, pp. 17–18. Sixteenth Ed. Evening-Post Publishing Co.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FortSumter1865.jpg

Our caption claims it's from 1863 for some reason. --Doradus (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I've removed it and placed a retouched version in Second Battle of Fort Sumter.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. It was destroyed ("reduced to a pile of rubble") in the second battle. Thanks! --Doradus (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

the beging of this is horribel and lots of the info is wrong but i dont have time to editit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkshade123 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Brothers at War

Hello, folks. Some of you may have read about the special project underway called Operation Brothers at War. It is under the umbrella of WikiProject Military History and represents an effort to get articles on major battles (and leaders) of the Civil War up to FA class in time for their 150th anniversary. Naturally, it would be ideal to kick off the project with this article on the main page on April 12, 2011. The time approaches. I think this article looks very good (my congratulations to the editors who have worked on it over the years) and I think it's nearly ready. I'd be willing to usher it through a peer review by WikiProject Military History and the FA review and work on necessary changes. I thought I'd start by posting here and seeing if any of the past editors might want to do that...don't want to step on any toes. Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

Was going to say this ont he F, but... didn't get there in time. You could do FAR better than the images in this article. Take the lead image. You could use that tiny, bad scan, but if you know where to look, it's easy to find images like this: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19520/ - that TIFF should be at least 1000px wide, probably more, and the colour fidelity is much better.

The Library of Congress has 192 images related to Fort Sumter. While not all will be useful, I suspect you could make a much better-illustrated article. For example, this would be a wonderful inclusion, or you could use this to set the scene. There's also various images of the interior, some during the battle.

Oh, in case you don't know: always download the TIFF, then convert to JPEG or PNG for upload (preferably both: JPEG is lossy, but PNG is lossless and thus can be edited easily, for example, to get you a featured picture to go with your article - but large PNGs can fail to display because five years later, noone at mediawiki can be arsed to put in the new PNG code that's been made for dealing with large PNGs... I'm ranting.). Anyway! The JPEGs that the LoC offer are always much smaller than the full-resolution TIFFs, so use the TIFF. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to use PNG but I know I ran across where they tell you to convert to JPG...can't remember where at the moment (here it is). As long as the image doesn't go over 3500 pixels on a side, it should be okay. I do download the TIFF and then do any cropping, rescaling, rotating, etc. while it is in that format before converting. I'm using GIMP and occasionally ImageMagick. Gimp converts the largest 16 channel TIFFs to 8 channel.

Many of the photos should not be uploaded as presented by LOC. They need to be cropped and possibly refinished. Compare this vs. my rendering. That took a while to do.

Most of the images for Fort Sumter are after the damages of 1863. Many of the plates are broken and scratched. Some aren't very pertinent. I love this one...look at the small gray phantom just above the little girl's head...that is Fort Sumter. That said, I don't mind getting whatever the editors here want for the article. Unless it exceeds 3500px dimension, they will probably be PNG.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Visiting your suggested images. The image in the infobox is in the same set of images (3rd thumbnail down) as the first you suggest (1st thumbnail)...I don't see your point about better color resolution with the first over the third. Perhaps the third could be uploaded in higher res. The second image you suggest shouldn't be used in this article at all but perhaps in the Second Battle of Fort Sumter article...notice that Confederate flag flying over the fort, this is a depiction from the 1863 siege. The third image you suggest is from 1901 and is accurate to that time...the fort didn't look like this at all in 1861. The top two levels have been demolished and most of the embrasures are sealed off. That lighthouse & house didn't exist during the Civil War...it is a very nice print, however.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal Issue

I think SOME of the following paragraph IS relevant to the article, since the battle took place because the CSA claimed the land had become theirs (and some claim SC never ceded title to the land)--JimWae (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fort Sumter, by contrast, was built on a shoal in the middle of the entrance to the harbor. Interestingly, during construction, one Major William Laval claimed that he owned the land on which the new fort was being built—even though the "land" was under water—and construction stopped. Anxious to have the fort built, the South Carolina legislature ceded "to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory" in 1836, reserving only the right to serve and execute legal process. As a result, Fort Sumter did not belong to South Carolina.

Perhaps so, but it needs a more thoughtful presentation and set of references than the text I deleted. The book length references about Fort Sumter that are currently in the article do not mention this as an issue. The citation was to a Civil War website article signed by an unknown author, which does not conform to the kinds of references we usually use for these articles. One of the NPS websites in the references list mentions Laval's suit and the construction delays, but renders no judgment about whether the legal title was still valid. This, of course, is more of a diplomatic matter than a legal one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The day BEFORE Sumpter Was Shelled

The day before Sumpter was shelled, the Charleston tax collector (I’ve forgotten his name) was threatened with tar and feathering (for all the funniness of the term, it was a very serious death threat at the time). He attempted to flee to Sumpter, and his pursuers followed him out into the harbor; The fort fired “warning shots” (I do not know what the nature of the shots were, only that they have been referred to as “warning shots”). The pursuers broke off, only to return the next day to finish the “discussion.”
The article should include this event.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking through Google Books to find a source for this but haven't come up with one (This search). Do you happen to know of a source? Was this supposed to be a SC tax collector or federal tax collector?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh… I don’t actually know the answer to that. Because he was headed to Fort Sumter, I ASSUMED (that’s a bad word for me, along the lines of that old joke), but I don’t know for sure… As to sources: My dad has the book (it’s part of his collection). Give me a few days. In the interim, Time-Life produced a book series on the Civil War, and it may have been mentioned there. (The books are grey covered, usually has a pic that would have been made at the time of the war. Look for references Sumter, the start of the war, or perhaps HARRIET LANE, an RCS Cutter that was involved in the battle.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallway or Galloway?

With regards to the surrender ceremony, is it "Private Edward Gallway" or "Galloway"? The latter form is used in the German-language entry. There appear to be decent sources for both spellings, albeit the variant with o seems more common (which, though, obviously doesn't have to equal "correct"). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another WP article has it spelled Edward Galloway. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is No Mention of the Breach of the Constitution by The Federal Force Refusing to Leave

Read the VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION 6-16-1788 http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they >>>"NEVER" had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>"it" (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC) will secure Congress against insults. "What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state.

It is answered that the CONSENT of the STATE MUST be "REQUIRED", or else they CANNOT have such a district, "OR" places for the erecting of FORTS..."

Note: the Civil War was begun by the federal government exceeding this limitation of federal power in attempting to refuse a state's Constitutional Right of "power of consent" to allow or disallow federal forces to keep or occupy a fort within their state - FORT SUMTER

Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution, (N)or to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union >>>AT LARGE. But it gives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>>PLACE" (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the >>>"fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>THAT district. What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>"PLACE" and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall BE this is the >>>"fair construction"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.26 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources to perform original research. Do you happen to know of any modern, scholarly reliable sources which hold this view?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

well South Carolina did NOT consider itself a state of the US in spring 1861 and made no request. It rejected any allegiance to the US Constitution, and indeed it had given all control over its foreign affairs to the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do believe… That the legitimacy of this position was one of the issues the war was supposed to address. You may or may not agree with the fairness, accuracy, or legal gravitas of the final verdict, but it the end it was Union Blue that won the argument, not Confederate Grey. (FWIW- I put my OWN feelings on this matter aside when this issue is brought up, because BOTH sides did enough lying for themselves to cover both in a pile of ‘manure’ three feet thick.) A. J. REDDSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Actually that only applies to the construction of new forts not to pre-existing forts it was a federal fort 98.250.4.115 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

and also the Virginia ratifying convention is not the constitution and has no bearing on how it should be interpreted98.250.4.115 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

The "battle" ended when the terms of "surrender" were agreed upon. Any deaths or injuries that happened after that moment are not part of the official casualty count. The info box is for official counts, not counts before or after the battle, and I don't even see a source for the 4 confederate wounded. Four Union soldiers received "minor" injuries (scratches) when there position was hit. Most would't even consider those casualties. If we include the deaths after the battle, then why not the Confederate deaths before the battle? The deaths that took place preparing the defenses. Its a slippery slope. The info box should only include battle deaths and wounded, and not anything that occurred before or after. The sources that are being used for this, do not confirm all that is being presented.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That is one point of view, which I would consider acceptable. However, the edit I reversed only went halfway. By citing the NPS website, you can get to zero casualties on both sides, but the edit merely reduced the number of casualties in a way that could not be justified. Minor injuries or scratches are not supposed to be included in casualty lists. The notion of a casualty is something that makes a soldier unavailable for battle--death, serious wounds, or capture. The alternative point of view is that this battle had special significance for the war in that it was the very first, and therefore the issue of who were the first men injured or killed during the war comes up. As far as I know, every secondary source on this battle says some variant of "no casualties, BUT ..." and that is what infobox is trying to portray here. I could go either way, but the result needs to be consistent. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is however clear. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise we are bordering on original research. If sources say that there were zero casualties, then that's what the article should say. The four Union casualties are from the artillery hit, but all those injuries were minor and are included in the Detzer book, although not exactly in the page number cited. In fact neither of the two cited references for the "casualties" even hints at any Confederate casualties, but they are given as citations to say that there were four wounded. Those citations clearly do not back up the claim of four Confederate casualties. As far as the Union casualties are concerned, yes the info box does make a distinction that the deaths occurred "after" the battle, but no like distinction among the wounded. It says "9 wounded" without making a distinction among how many were wounded before or after the battle. Infoboxes should always be a concise as possible and should not be used as a repository for as much information as we can cram into them. The "surrender" deaths are covered in the body of the article, and that should be sufficient for the needs of the article and its info box.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I consider that point of view (zero casualties, cited to the NPS) acceptable. Although I wrote the bulk of this article, I have not had time to keep up with all of the tinkering by others in the infobox (which, frankly, is as far as some readers seem to get in articles). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The NPS is not the only reliable source that quotes zero casualties. The citations being currently used do not confirm the casualties in the info box. Better for now to relay what the sources actually say, than to use original research on the casualty count.JOJ ^Hutton 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Death of Private Daniel Hough

The WP article on Private Daniel Hough has him being wounded and then dying in a slightly different way. Which is correct? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the description in this article to be a bit more accurate. I cannot speak for the sources used in the Hough article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who started it?

It is stated in the article that: (Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m) about Anderson's reply. Does it means that he alone decided to reply to Anderson without the approval of Beauregard?

Because I kinda find that strange. I mean, there was also this in the article: (At 1 a.m. on April 12, the aides brought Anderson a message from Beauregard: "If you will state the time which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree in the meantime that you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you." After consulting with his senior officers, Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies.)

To me it seems that Col. Chesnut decided to attack on his own by making it seem that Beauregard was giving the order.

Please, anybody can clarify? Thank you.99.199.237.60 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Chesnut was acting for Beauregard, who did not sail out to the fort in person. There is nothing in the literature that suggests Beauregard did not approve of Chesnut's action on his behalf. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Events Leading Up to the War -- additions?

I've just finished watching the PBS documentary The Abolitionists, which functions as a prelude to the war and catalogs the major events and figures that ultimately brought the country to the brink. While Uncle Tom's Cabin is listed under the heading "Events leading to the American Civil War," The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is not. Neither is American Slavery As It Is, which, according to its Wiki page, is after Uncle Tom's Cabin, "the second most influential piece of anti-slavery literature of the time period" and was Beecher Stowe's primary source. I think the primary editors of this page should consider including these two other seminal works of Abolitionism, a movement without which it is unlikely the country would've been moved to war. The film pays particular attention to these works and those who wrote them and presents a narrative wherein they played a major part. Perhaps it's too general, but it may also be pertinent to list the Abolitionist movement itself as a precursor to war, which it certainly was. Joeletaylor (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dates of Lincoln's electoral victory and inauguration

I added the dates of Lincoln's inauguration (March 4, 1861) and electoral victory (November 6, 1860). This is because we have just heard of President Buchanan's attempt to resupply Fort Sumter in early January. The date is still before modern Inauguration Day, but I think it may be worthwhile to remind readers of when Lincoln won the election and when he took the oath of office. If others disagree, of course, the dates can be removed. Roches (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Fort Sumter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504232631/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/hh/12/hh12b.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/12/hh12b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183450/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/12/hh12d.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/12/hh12d.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/12/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

Please change B007MDK1P2 to 9780307960887 for the ISBN of the reference We Have the War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, November 1860-April 1861 since it is invalid. 47.148.79.80 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Andy W. (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Our Banner in the Sky by Frederic Edwin Church.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Battle" vs. "Siege"

Shouldn't this engagement be more properly called "The Siege of Fort Sumter", rather than the "Battle of Fort Sumter"? Tresmegistus (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's no "p" in it as you have written. As for battle vs. siege, it doesn't look that way.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinking of term

The word declaration on the first paragraph of the intruduction should include a link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.158.24 (talk • contribs) 20:37 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Shearonink (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

There is a typo very early in the article: "having seceded from the United Ststes" Tkrysto (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like the issue was already taken care of by another editor. TimSmit (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction in introduction

The introductory text reads:

"The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not yet exist), and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the United States Army, that started the American Civil War.

...

"During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort, growing increasingly dire due to shortages of men, food, and supplies, deteriorated as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns."

(Emphasis added.)

The 2 phrases in bold are contradictory. If the Confederate Army did not exist in April 12/13, then how was P. G. T. Beauregard a general officer in the CSA in March? Does anyone have the correct information at hand? I suspect the situation was that the CSA was in the process of organizing and so the South Carolina militia was primarily responsible, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find out if nobody has a quick answer. --Llakais 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article about the Confederate States Army, "By March 1861, the Provisional Confederate Congress expanded the provisional forces and established a more permanent Confederate States Army." That seems to indicate the Confederate Army DID exist when the bombardment took place. 216.81.81.84 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was about to fix the sentence-within-a-sentence in the first sentence, but the page for the Confederate Army said the army has already been established by this date. Not finding text to back the statement up in the citation given, I have deleted it. Deisenbe added these statements in these revisions. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Firing on Fort Sumter

So why did South Carolina attack and defeat Fort Sumter? Was it because they wanted to keep slaves? Was it just to be destructive? The real reason is never discussed in the biased history, glorifying the Northern invasion and demonizing the Confederacy. The reason South Carolina attacked the federal fort is because it was stopping shipping coming into Charleston to extract import taxes from them. A tax called the Morrill tax had just been passed into law raising the import duties from 20% to 40%. Lincoln vowed in his inaugural address that he would not invade the south over slavery, but he promised to do so if necessary to continue collecting taxes.

Ohhhhh! But the North invaded the South to free the slaves! But you can not provide one shred of evidence that the Northern battle cry invading the South was to free slaves. Warwhis (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Suggestion

I think that the 'battle of Ft. Sumter' would be a good redirect. BlueBaritone21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)