The first shots fired upon Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m. are traditionally recognized as the commencement of the American Civil War. After nearly 34 hours of bombardment, Union forces surrendered, marking what many consider the spark that ignited the nation. However, within the halls of the U.S. Senate, the attack on Fort Sumter was perceived as the culmination of a series of escalating events that had been propelling the nation towards war for months.
The Election of 1860: A Catalyst for Secession
The election of 1860 proved to be a pivotal moment, fundamentally altering the political landscape and accelerating the march to civil conflict. Abraham Lincoln’s victory on November 6, 1860, was achieved solely through votes from the Northern states, as the newly formed Republican Party gained national prominence. This outcome deeply alarmed Southern states, triggering immediate reactions that signaled the impending crisis. Just four days following Lincoln’s election, Senator James Chesnut of South Carolina resigned his Senate seat and returned to his home state to spearhead the drafting of an ordinance of secession. The following day, James Hammond, also a Senator from South Carolina, voiced his unwavering commitment to the Confederacy. These resignations and pledges underscored the growing sentiment of secession in the South and the fracturing of national unity.
Senate in Crisis: Secession and Division
The gravity of the situation became palpable as the Senate convened for the 2nd session of the 36th Congress on December 3, 1860. Vice President John Breckinridge presided over a chamber filled with tension and uncertainty. The opening prayer offered by the Senate chaplain poignantly reflected the desperate hope for peace amidst the burgeoning crisis, pleading for senators to set aside partisan animosities and work for the collective good of the nation. However, the clerk’s subsequent roll call starkly revealed the deepening divide: ten Southern senators were absent, a clear indication of the escalating secession crisis.
[Imagine an image here: A solemn photograph of the US Senate chamber in 1860, possibly with some empty seats to symbolize the secession.]
(Alt text: The US Senate chamber in 1860, highlighting empty seats representing the absence of seceding Southern senators, symbolizing the growing division before the Civil War.)
As weeks passed, the secession crisis intensified, casting a long shadow over the Senate’s proceedings. Vacant seats became more numerous, and the ability to achieve quorum was increasingly threatened. Following Mississippi’s vote to secede on January 9, Senator Jefferson Davis delivered a stark warning to his Senate colleagues. He declared, “If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so be it,” yet cautioned that failure to heed the secessionist movement would result in “a war… the like of which men have not seen.” By the end of January, six more senators had departed, and an additional three left in February. Ultimately, 25 of the Senate’s 66 members would abandon their posts to join the Confederate cause. Even Vice President Breckinridge, despite representing Kentucky, a state that remained within the Union, ultimately aligned himself with the Confederacy, further illustrating the deep national fracture.
Attempts at Compromise and the Inevitable Path to War
Even amidst this internal turmoil mirroring a civil war within its own ranks, the Senate continued to grapple with its constitutional responsibilities. During these critical months leading up to open conflict, the Senate confirmed five cabinet secretaries and a Supreme Court justice. It also passed significant legislation, including the 1861 tariff bill aimed at generating much-needed revenue for the Union. Recognizing the dire need to find a peaceful resolution, the Senate established a Committee of Thirteen. This committee was tasked with exploring peace proposals, most notably Senator John Crittenden’s plan. Crittenden’s proposal sought to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, demarcating territories as free or slave states. He hoped this measure could offer a path to reconciliation.
[Imagine an image here: A portrait of Senator John Crittenden, looking thoughtful, perhaps with the Capitol Building in the background.]
(Alt text: Portrait of Senator John Crittenden, a key figure in pre-Civil War attempts at compromise, with the US Capitol subtly visible, symbolizing the political context of his peace efforts.)
However, the era of compromise was drawing to a close. Radical Republicans like Senator Charles Sumner rejected Crittenden’s efforts, viewing secession not as a mere political disagreement, but as a fundamental “revolution.” Sumner and others believed that the time for compromise had passed, and the divisions were too deep to bridge with political solutions. Ultimately, Crittenden’s proposal failed to gain sufficient support, highlighting the irreconcilable differences that were pushing the nation toward war.
Fort Sumter: The Breaking Point
By the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, the nation was teetering on the brink of war. Rumors of a Confederate attack on Fort Sumter were widespread, and the pressure for military action was mounting, particularly from Northern Republicans and the abolitionist press. The rallying cry of “Reinforce Fort Sumter at all hazards!” echoed across the North. Lincoln, in an attempt to de-escalate the situation while asserting federal authority, agreed to resupply Fort Sumter, but with provisions rather than armaments. Despite this attempt at moderation, Confederate forces initiated the attack, and Fort Sumter fell. This event served as the definitive breaking point. In the wake of Fort Sumter, the lines were firmly drawn, not just within the Senate, but across the entire nation. Senator Stephen Douglas, a prominent voice in the pre-war debates, declared the stark reality of the moment: “Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war.” The attack on Fort Sumter, while traditionally seen as the start, was in reality the final act in a protracted drama of division and discord, rooted in deep-seated issues and played out dramatically in the Senate and across the nation.
[Imagine an image here: A depiction of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, smoke and cannon fire, perhaps from a period illustration.]
(Alt text: Illustration of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, depicting cannon fire and smoke, representing the commonly perceived start of the Civil War, but also the culmination of prior tensions.)
In conclusion, while the firing on Fort Sumter is often cited as the beginning of the Civil War, understanding Why Did The Civil War Start requires looking at the broader context. The escalating tensions, the political polarization highlighted by the election of 1860, the secession crisis within the Senate, and the failure of compromise all contributed to the inexorable slide into war. Fort Sumter was not the origin, but rather the inevitable outcome of a nation deeply divided and a Senate struggling to maintain unity in the face of profound disagreement.
