First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter

by W.A. Swanberg

The Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Luce and His Empire examines in detail the events that exploded into the Civil War, under the eyes of festive picknickers who lined Charleston's shore to cheer the rebel gunners shelling the hated fort and its Federal defenders. First Blood is historical writing at its finest.

Genres: Civil War, History, Nonfiction, American Civil War, War

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

A graduate of the University of Minnesota, William Andrew Swanberg worked as a journalist for newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and as an editor for Dell Publishing. After serving in the Office of War Information during World War II, Swanberg worked as a freelance writer and an author of a number of scholarly biographies.

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read Swanberg's biography of Norman Thomas and having liked it, I purchased two copies of his history of the contested Ft. Sumter, giving one to a friend interested in such things and kept the other for myself. He got to his first apparently, spoke well of it, so I picked it up after finishing a relatively weighty psychology tome.

I was pleasantly surprised that the events leading up to the Civil War concerning Charleston and its forts were as well documented as Swanberg makes them appear to be in this almost day-by-day account. The whole is framed neatly and unobtrusively by his representation of what Americans, north and south, thought succession entailed--a sad picture in that few seemed to expect the four-year bloody conflict that ensued upon the first shot against Sumter. Interestingly, except for a very few radical Republicans, only one of whom was present at the fort (while many were southerners), slavery is barely mentioned except insofar as slaves were used in building the gun emplacements ranged against the artificial island fortress. Interesting as well is the fact that no one died during the siege, just a Carolina horse. Like many tightly focused histories this one has caused me to revision the start of the war between the states.

First Blood did not change my life--a factor normally required for a five star rating. It did, however, change a little bit my thinking. Besides, the writing was so good, so moving on occasion, that I make for it exception.

[Thrillers R Us · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bearing the name of Braxton Bragg, an American army officer fighting both the Native Americans in Florida and Mexico in the then disputed and Mexico owned territory of Texas and later a general in the Confederate army during the American Civil War, Fort Bragg is home to 50,000+ personnel in North Carolina, among which are the US Army Special Forces. Soon to be renamed to "Fort Liberty", Bragg is the cauldron where US Special Operations Forces are forged, churning out quiet professionals since 1952. Some of the more well known (fictional) Green Berets have been portrayed by John Wayne, Schwarzenegger, Tom Laughlin, and Sylvester Stallone. 2022 may belong to David Morrell's FIRST BLOOD, as it's been 50 years since it was first published in 1972 and 40 years since the film version finally hit theaters in 1982, starring the inimitable Sylvester Stallone as the title character. But in 1957, 15 years before David Morrell appropriated the name FIRST BLOOD for his thriller and ushered in the Rambo era, FIRST BLOOD chronicled the plight of a piece of real estate in South Carolina that would be integral in the hostilities and would eventually start the American Civil War. From Fort Bragg to Fort Sumter, a difference of 58 years and 228 miles, but what the literature reflects is that it wasn't them who 'drew FIRST BLOOD'.

The steaming heat of South Carolina's metropolis Charleston, in and of itself a putrid rumor factory, in the middle of September 1860 was entirely appropriate for the hottest political spot in the nation. Since secession'd been brewing for 30 years, the Union was a sore point, especially contending with the slavery question, the tariff, fight for the territories, the endless fugitive-slave quarrels. Among talk of secession, President Buchanan's military advisers opined that nine United States forts were in danger of being seized, one of them being Sumter. Fort Sumter, if possessed, gave perfect command of Charleston harbor, dominating the area if the US Army can staff it, mount the guns and actually hold it, should it come to a fight. The state of the Union was such that the four forts in Charleston harbor in the fall of 1860 were splendid examples of government complacency and neglect. The most important of which, Sumter, was built over ten years (from 1829) and it cost more than a million dollars to construct an artificial island of north eastern granite leavings. After 31 years, it was not yet finished and still had construction debris all over it and nary a gun mounted. Yet Sumter was the key to South Carolina's safety.

FIRST BLOOD is as much a bibliography of President Buchanan's last year in office as a record of the how, why, what, who, when, and where of Fort Sumter. Buchanan, not a fan of war, had handed over the responsibility of starting the war with the Southern States to a major in the Army, making the declaration of war synonymous with the commander of Fort Sumter asking for resupply/reinforcements and triggering the frail sentiments of South Carolina and her secessionary sister states. Major Robert Anderson, the Galahad of the North, of course, would only do so in extreme necessity, despite all the other now Carolinian occupied forts being refurbished and readied for war. President Buchanan's bane has never been indecision, but a solid policy of being undecided. He was hamstrung by military weakness and a return to caution. The 1860 appropriation for the army was the smallest in five years. Even military men thought that an appeal to arms and brute force was unbecoming the age in which they lived. However, if there was barely enough to keep the Cherokees & Sioux in check, what to do about an artillerized Palmetto Republic? Buchanan's kit-glove treatment of South Carolina would not hold the peace, for the the Washington administration was so honeycombed with Southern sympathizers that secrecy was a myth, and trouble inevitable.

In the North there was talk, in the South there was action. The forts in the harbor meant preservation of the Union to the North and a tyrannous threat to peaceful secession to the South. One side would have to budge or there would be war. When the Palmetto Republic had had enough, the firing upon the vessel 'Star of the West' was seen as an act of war--real or imagined/fabricated like the Golf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam War 104 years later. Starting a war, for all intents and purposes was perceived by the secessionistas to produce limitless freedom, glory, and prosperity in the South. The commencement of hostilities also started hostile attitudes; South Carolina started treating those in the employ of and with loyalties to the United States government as foreigners, in essence PNGs. When that first blow was struck between South Carolina and the government of the United States, it ignited over half a century of scorn and outrage, thirty years of steam building up, and the Yankees not abandoning Fort Sumter basically yelling across the ramparts the magical words of COMMANDO's Colonel Matrix: 'let off some steam..." But it would be a while before the North gave the Palmetto boys a real taste of Yankee metal. After fifteen weeks of suffering siege-like conditions, 173 besieged souls at Fort Sumter endured 33 hours of bombardment, and then it was all over. 33 hours of throwing iron, 3341 cannon shot and shell later, the outcome produced was equal to a man setting fire to his own house. Thence, the horrors of a fratricidal war were all but inevitable, rising from Fort Sumter--the ultimate test case in the government's ability to maintain itself. Mostly a political failure, the outgoing SecState thought he could "run" President Lincoln, but was ultimately wrong. The backwoods attorney and newcomer to Washington, the rail splitter, would not bend.

Honest Abe had a tough time from the get-go and inherited a sinkhole of trouble from Buchanan. For starters, there was an announced insurrection for Jan 13, 1861 with rebels planning on seizing the Capital when electoral votes were to confirm the president-elect, and a cancelled military parade through Washington D.C. For events occurring 160 years ago just prior to the American Civil War, they seem rather relevant and current for what America recently experienced. FIRST BLOOD is all about letting the reader get a feel for the mid 1800s, where dis-union was the word du jour, giving a taste of the times via Hoop skirts, dram, games of whist, grogshops, viva voce vote, secession manifesto, swivet, Popinjays, and expressions like make bricks without straw, shilly-shallying, and tomfoolery. Running the gauntlet of a fifteen week siege, you'll glean more fort/castle combat knowledge than you'll ever need, including flying fougasse, machicoulis, columbiads, cheval-de-frise, Gorge wall, Hot shot, mortars, Dahlgrens, and the often celebrated Sam Colt, Yankee gun maker, who was shipping boatloads of guns South in the middle of hostilities, building a huge mansion from the profits of the American version of Cain vs Abel. Chronicling a lot of people involved in the Fort Sumter debacle, it's quite interesting that FIRST BLOOD details people's fates farther down the road and years hence, along the lines of RUN LOLA RUN and DEEP STATE by Chris Hauty. Firmly planting itself among the harrowing and infamous names of the American Civil War like Gettysburg, Shiloh, Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Cold Harbor, Fort Sumter has the distinction of being the locale where FIRST BLOOD was drawn. From Penobscot's waters to San Francisco's bay, FIRST BLOOD is a book that should be read by every American and anyone who wants to know more of the cultural, military, and political ramp-up to the most brutal and bloody war on American soil and in US history.

[Greg Parrott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow... this is the first book that I have read that really goes into the beginnings of the Civil War. Written in the 1950s, this books ending is the first few days of the bombardment of Fort Sumter. The preceding parts of the books covers the political landscape long before that. I was totally unaware of the involvement of the administration's (Buchanan) involvement in the mess prior to Lincoln gaining office.

This book makes it easy to be an arm-chair quarterback for things that could have been done to cease the escalation or maybe have prevented it altogether. Good read if you are interested in the Civil War.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter. By W. A. SWANBERG. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957. x, 373 p. Illustrations, bibliography, index. $5-95-)

The centennial anniversary of the Civil War is being heralded by a new abundance of popular literature that bids fair to probe many a dark corner of those turbulent years and uncover many an unsung hero. Let us hope that most of it is as scholarly and as free of bias as W. A. Swanberg's interesting contribution, First Blood.

This book has as its protagonist little-known Major Robert Anderson, who commanded Fort Sumter when the opening guns of the war were fired. The author tells us much about this Kentucky-born West Pointer of distinctly Southern heritage and how he discharged his responsibilities as a United States army office when faced with the risk of starting a civil war. Over and beyond that, however, First Blood is almost a day-by-day account of events, north and south, that bore on the fate of the Federally held bastion in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter is seen standing as a challenge to disunionism. In that respect Mr. Swanberg's narrative is informingly descriptive of the final, irreconcilable issue between the North and the South.

Faithfully the author recites the fateful events that led to violence at Charleston. Dramatically he interprets their impact on the various individuals at the center of things. It is not a pretty picture of a great moment in history, viewed from either side. But, then, fratricide or the contemplation of it could hardly be otherwise. There could be none of the glory of the Alamo in the fall of Fort Sumter when the enemy was your brother.

The procrastination of the United States government, its in decision on policy, its bungling of relief for the beleaguered garrison, all were caused not so much by the changing administration at Washington as by crosscurrents of disloyalty to the Union in high places. Much of this disloyalty sprang from honest states rightism, but some was the product of political skulduggery and malfeasance that might better be classed as treason for profit. On the Southern side, Mr. Swanberg has painted an equally distressing picture of Charleston hotheads, encouraged by power-hungry politicians in other parts of the South, clamoring for the reduction of Fort Sumter as an affair of honor. It would appear, too, that they were being abetted to some extent by those in their midst who were willing to risk a bloody civil war to remove the Yankee threat to the commercial supremacy of their port, that is, to halt the diversion of tonnage to rival Savannah.

Of course, Major Anderson was intent on preserving the peace. But one suspects that he never really planned to fight, that he never thought it would be necessary. Some of the preparations and some lack of them make it appear that he was only going through the motions in order to impress the Charlestonians. As a veteran artillery officer he must have known that the fort's top tier would be untenable in case of attack from land. But at great cost of time and labor he ostentatiously mounted his heavy guns there. And after the Southern land batteries actually opened fire it seems that Major Anderson's cannoneers discovered they had precious few cartridge bags ready-made for use with any of their guns.

As it turned out, there was little blood-letting for an event that precipitated the greatest war his land has ever known. Four Southerners were injured and four men were wounded at Sumter by flying brick or pieces of shell, none of them seriously. The only fatality of all the cannonading was a horse killed by a Sumter ball. In fact, Anderson's surrender may well have given the chivalry of the South a false idea about the bloodlessness of war. First Blood is well executed and objective. Mr. Swanberg has made a significant contribution to Civil War literature.

Philadelphia NATHANIEL C. HALE

The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
Vol. 82, No. 4 (Oct., 1958)

........

Amazone

Excellent history of the start of the Civil War

Authoritative history, true to the fact, with enlightening details about the key players on both sides. Well written and well-read by the narrator. If you like reading history, this won't disappoint. If you're not a history reader, on the other hand, you should probably pass this by.

anonymous

---

4 stars. Remove some of the repetitive information and this hits 5. I recommend regardless of its 1957 copyright. If you want a good understanding of South Carolina, Union Major Anderson and the situation he and his men endured, and how Jefferson Davis and other Confederate politico's thirst for war started the US Civil War, this book is a very good start.

Daniel L. Toppins

---

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in 1957 and used as a resource in the writing of several subsequent Civil War accounts, this book provides good background and insights into the events leading up to the eventual first shots of the war. Despite the age and topic, I found the primary sources used to be more than adequate and the tone to be unbiased (which is always a concern of mine regarding divisive topics such as the Civil War). As with most historic events, the details are sometimes more fascinating than the event itself, and this is the case here. The lack of clear guidance from Buchanan's lame-duck period and the sabotage of communication and relief efforts by members of his administration who were sympathetic to the Southern cause put fort commander Major Robert Anderson in an unwinnable position. The incoming Lincoln administration's lack of initial commitment to a resupply and reinforcement effort also added to Anderson's troubles. There are many what-ifs that are interesting to consider that could have changed the course of history in the short term.

[Andrew Owen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book! We don't often hear of the political landscape of America between the election of Lincoln and the March Inauguration. That stretch of time where Buchanan is a lame duck is so perilous as the Confederacy takes form - with the near treasonous, and In my opinion in some cases, treasonous actions of sitting US politicians and functionaries. The author clearly had fun writing this and I had fun reading it!

[Terry Warco · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough accounting of the months leading up to the assault on Fort Sumter. A bit dry at times. The author does not take sides but he portrays Major Anderson in a less flattering light than others. Also is pretty clear in describing the disfunction of Buchanan’s cabinet and his seeming incompetence.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A vintage story from 1957 of the beginning of the Civil War. A lot of detail on the various participants in the events at Fort Sumter. An important history to be understood.

[Cws]

973.731

[Denise DeRocher · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great history for young people!