• Charleston, City of MournersAnticipations of Civil War in the Cradle of Secession
• Michael E. Woods (bio)

On Saturday morning, January 19, 1861, a Northern journalist steamed into Charleston Harbor aboard the Columbia. Skirting the “massive, commanding, and formidable” hulk of Fort Sumter, the ship docked at the nascent republic of South Carolina. The unnamed correspondent stayed ten days, taking the pulse of a citizenry energized, and yet divided, by the prospect of war. Everywhere, Charlestonians discussed “those two eternal subjects, Secession and Fort Sumter.” Secession was electrifying; Sumter was vexing. Perched on an island three miles from downtown, the fortress defied armchair strategists, whose schemes for seizing it ranged from frontal attacks to stink bombs that would drive the garrison back to Yankeedom. “Young and thoughtless” hotspurs craved war, but many of their elders gagged at the idea of risking their genteel lives against the “gang of Irishmen, Germans, British deserters, and New York roughs” manning the fort. Excruciating anxiety united white Charlestonians: how long would they teeter on the verge of combat? Locals postponed clothing purchases, lest Sumter’s guns rake the city and compel them to wear mourning black. They flinched when doors slammed and quivered when cannons fired, even to celebrate Louisiana’s secession on the twenty-sixth. And always, their conversations circled back to the awaited assault. One impatient soldier loudly berated a civilian friend: “‘Why, good Heaven, Jim! do you want that place to go peaceably into the hands of Lincoln?’” Jim emphatically denied the charge, but added a warning. “‘I tell you, Fred, when the fort is attacked, it will be the bloodiest day,—the bloodiest day!—the bloodiest—!!’” Suddenly speechless, [End Page 7] Jim “flung his arms wildly about, ground his tobacco with excitement, spit on all sides, and walked away, shaking his head . . . in real grief of spirit.”¹

Three themes pervade the journalist’s account: Fort Sumter’s strength, dread of a costly assault, and anticipations of an even bloodier civil war. Since late December 1860, secessionists had coveted the fort, the last Federal stronghold in the Palmetto State. But white Charlestonians differed over the expediency of an assault. Many envisioned appalling short- and long-term consequences. Would Charleston Harbor run red with the blood of Carolina’s finest? Would the resulting war claim even more lives? Despite Charleston’s reputation for fire-eating politics and military ardor, these questions plagued the city’s diverse white population during the secession winter of 1860–61. Charlestonians did not rush blindly into a catastrophe, in part because Fort Sumter constantly reminded them of war’s grim costs. Yet, their candid forecasts of a bloody and protracted conflict did not foster an organized peace movement, largely because the meanings of “bloody war” talk varied widely. As Elizabeth R. Varon has shown, antebellum Americans used “disunion” discourse to predict the future, threaten rivals, and tar opponents as traitors.² After South Carolina seceded, anticipations of war played similarly diverse roles in Charlestonians’ public and private discussions of the future. Ardent secessionists, reluctant disunionists, and unionists appealed to the prospect of bloodshed for their own purposes. Forebodings of violence at Fort Sumter and beyond did not uniformly point toward moderation or compromise.

This emphasis on powerful but diverse anticipations of bloodshed cuts against the grain of Civil War historiography. Often, the bombardment of Fort Sumter serves as an ironic interlude between secessionist vitriol and Civil War carnage or as a milestone on Americans’ impulsive rush to war. That Sumter’s defenders capitulated after an artillery duel that killed no one is, in retrospect, ironic, given the slaughter soon to come. According to one oft-repeated phrase, the bombardment was “a bloodless opening to the bloodiest war in American history.”³ That Sumter was undermanned and unfinished after three decades of [End Page 8] fitful construction enhances its symbolic significance. Like the incomplete US Capitol dome or the half-built Washington Monument, Sumter’s unmounted guns and empty embrasures readily represent the nation’s political and military immaturity. Dismissed by one historian as “unfit for service,” Fort Sumter provides an ideal setting for tales of naïfs plunging into the abyss.⁴

Embedded in these narratives...

• 查尔斯顿，悼念之城分离派摇篮中的内战预期
• 迈克尔·E·伍兹（生物）

1861年1月19日星期六星期六，一位北方记者在哥伦比亚号登上查尔斯顿港。这艘船在萨姆特堡的“庞大，指挥和强大”巨人身旁，停靠在新生的南卡罗来纳共和国。这位不愿透露姓名的通讯员呆了十天，以一个充满活力但又因战争前景而分裂的公民的脉搏。查尔斯顿主义者到处讨论“这两个永恒的主题，分裂国家和萨姆特堡”。分裂令人振奋；萨姆特很烦。这座堡垒de立在离市区三英里的一个岛屿上，遭到了反叛的扶手椅战略家们的占领，方案从正面攻击到发臭的炸弹，将驻军赶回扬基多姆。“年轻而漫不经心的”热潮渴望战争，但许多长者却冒着冒着冒着平民生活的危险，反对将“爱尔兰人，德国人，英国逃兵和纽约粗暴团伙”当成堡垒的想法。令人不安的白人联合查尔斯顿主义者感到焦虑不安：他们将在战斗边缘徘徊多久？当地人推迟了服装采购，以免萨姆特的枪支袭击了这座城市，并迫使他们穿黑色的哀悼服。当门关上时，他们退缩了，当大炮射击时，他们颤抖了起来，甚至是为了庆祝路易斯安那州第二十六日的脱离。总是，他们的谈话转回等待的攻击。一位不耐烦的士兵大声谴责一个平民朋友：“'为什么，天哪，吉姆！你想让那个地方和平地进入林肯的手里吗？'”吉姆强调地否认了这一指控，但添加了警告。“'我告诉你，弗雷德，当要塞被袭时，这将是最血腥的一天，-最血腥的一天！-最血腥的一天！！” 以免萨姆特的枪支掠夺这座城市，迫使他们穿黑色的哀悼服。当门关上时，他们退缩了，当大炮射击时，他们颤抖了起来，甚至是为了庆祝路易斯安那州第二十六日的脱离。总是，他们的谈话转回等待的攻击。一位不耐烦的士兵大声谴责一个平民朋友：“'为什么，天哪，吉姆！你想让那个地方和平地进入林肯的手里吗？'”吉姆强调地否认了这一指控，但添加了警告。“'我告诉你，弗雷德，当要塞被袭时，这将是最血腥的一天，-最血腥的一天！-最血腥的一天！！” 以免萨姆特的枪支掠夺这座城市，迫使他们穿黑色的哀悼服。当门关上时，他们退缩了，当大炮射击时，他们颤抖了起来，甚至是为了庆祝路易斯安那州第二十六日的脱离。总是，他们的谈话转回等待的攻击。一位不耐烦的士兵大声谴责一个平民朋友：“'为什么，天哪，吉姆！你想让那个地方和平地进入林肯的手里吗？'”吉姆强调地否认了这一指控，但添加了警告。“'我告诉你，弗雷德，当要塞被袭时，这将是最血腥的一天，-最血腥的一天！-最血腥的一天！！” 他们的谈话转回了期待已久的袭击。一位不耐烦的士兵大声谴责一个平民朋友：“'为什么，天哪，吉姆！你想让那个地方和平地进入林肯的手里吗？'”吉姆强调地否认了这一指控，但添加了警告。“'我告诉你，弗雷德，当要塞被袭时，这将是最血腥的一天，-最血腥的一天！-最血腥的一天！！” 他们的谈话转回了期待已久的袭击。一位不耐烦的士兵大声谴责一个平民朋友：“'为什么，天哪，吉姆！你想让那个地方和平地进入林肯的手里吗？'”吉姆强调地否认了这一指控，但添加了警告。“'我告诉你，弗雷德，当要塞被袭时，这将是最血腥的一天，-最血腥的一天！-最血腥的一天！！”[结束第7页]吉姆“疯狂地挥舞着双臂，兴奋地将烟草研碎，吐向四面八方，然后走开，摇了摇头。。。内心深处的悲痛。” ^1个

记者的报道涉及三个主题：萨姆特堡的实力，对昂贵的袭击的恐惧以及对内战更加血腥的预期。自1860年12月下旬以来，分裂主义者一直垂涎这座堡垒，这是帕尔梅托州的最后一个联邦据点。但是白人查尔斯顿主义者在进攻的权宜之计上存在分歧。许多人设想短期和长期的后果令人震惊。查尔斯顿港（Charleston Harbour）会被卡罗来纳州最好的血流满面吗？由此产生的战争会夺去更多的生命吗？尽管查尔斯顿（Charleston）在食堂火爆的政治和军事热情方面享有盛誉，但在1860-61年分离国家的冬季，这些问题困扰着该市多样化的白人。查尔斯顿主义者并没有盲目地陷入灾难，部分原因是萨姆特堡不断使他们想起战争的严峻代价。然而，他们对流血冲突和旷日持久的冲突的坦率预测并没有促进有组织的和平运动，这在很大程度上是因为“血腥战争”谈话的含义千差万别。正如伊丽莎白·R·瓦隆（Elizabeth R. Varon）所显示的那样，美国人在战前使用“分裂”的话语来预测未来，威胁竞争对手，以焦油的对手为叛徒。²在南卡罗来纳州脱离后，对战争的预期在查尔斯顿主义者关于未来的公开和私人讨论中发挥了类似的不同作用。狂热的分裂主义者，勉强的分裂主义者和工会主义者呼吁为自己的目的而流血。萨姆特堡及其周边地区的暴力预感并没有统一指向节制或妥协。

这强调对内战史学的流血削减有力而又多样化的预期。通常，对萨姆特堡的轰炸是分裂主义的硫酸和内战大屠杀之间的讽刺插曲，或者是美国人冲动性战争的里程碑。回顾这次屠杀，萨姆特的捍卫者在一场没有杀死任何人的大炮决斗后投降了，回想起来，这具有讽刺意味。用一个经常重复的短语说，轰炸是“美国历史上最血腥的战争的无情之门”。³经过三十年的努力，萨姆特（Sumter）的人员不足且未完成[完第8页]合适的结构增强了它的象征意义。就像不完整的美国国会大厦圆顶或半建成的华盛顿纪念碑一样，萨姆特的未安装枪支和空空的炮台很容易代表美国的政治和军事不成熟。萨姆特堡（Fort Sumter）被一位历史学家认为是“不适合服务”的人提供了一个理想的场景，可让他们了解陷入无底深渊的幼稚的故事。⁴

嵌入这些叙述中...