This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force National Register of Historic Places High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: South Carolina Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as High-importance). Historic sites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Why are these not generally quoted as the first shots of the war, instead of the attack on April 12th? Valetude ( talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Because no general war followed the repulse of the Star of the West; the ship simply retired and President Buchanan took no further action. It was in April 1861 that the Confederate leadership made the decision to bombard the United States troops in Fort Sumter and begin the war. Beanbag82 ( talk) 06:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The Summary section states "The attack on Fort Sumter is generally taken as the beginning of the American Civil War—the first shots fired. Certainly it was so taken at the time—citizens of Charleston were celebrating. The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when South Carolina Militia artillery fired from shore on the Union garrison. These were, both sides agreed, the first shots of the war." Within this one article we have two separate dates and two distinct events which are both identified as the first shots of the war. While I can see how both events could be identified as the first shots of the war, they cannot both be the first shots. We can either identify which one is actually the first shots of the war or indicate that there is ongoing controversy. As is, the entry contradicts itself. TFDrayton ( talk) 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

One Union soldier died and another was mortally wounded

Presumably, these were the first Union deaths of the war - on operational service, even though not in action. Are their names known? Valetude ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm entirely perplexed by the footnote references to "Elliot" in dealing with the events leading to and including the First Battle of Fort Sumter. There are six "Elliot" notes with page numbers but without any bibliographic information. Is this a published book or some primary source? These are useless notes. Furthermore, the "Primary sources" list a source as Elliott, Stephen, Jr. (1902). "Detailed report, September 12, 1863" from the _Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion_, is this the supposed source on the First Battle? Stephen Elliott was the Confederate Commander of Fort Sumter during the Second Battle and had nothing to do with the First Battle and submitted no reports on it. So, how is he a "source" for the First Battle? The source given is his report on the Second Battle. Beanbag82 ( talk) 06:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20131220230120/http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110413/ARCHIVES/304139995 to http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110413/ARCHIVES/304139995

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

It seems odd that there's nothing in the article about the lead-up to the Battle of Fort Sumter, strategy and significance to the secession movement, nor the mobilization of confederate forces for assault. The assault of Fort Sumter was a deliberate attempt to instigate conflict with US forces in order to provoke a military response that would push border states to secession, per Roger Pryor's journey to Charleston and speech at the time. In advance of the battle, the confederate government called up militia, forced the surrender and evacuation of all other federal officials (Lincoln's Inaugural Address mentions that he won't challenge the loss of all post offices in states trying to succeed), seized federal munitions and forced the surrender of Castle Pinckney, and a confederate force of about 6,000 was besieging/blockading the fort.

This article seems to fail the NPOV test. It barely mentions confederate forces, implying that Anderson abandoned Moultrie for no reason and that US forces were starved without participation of a besieging force. It uses passive voice to obscure that the base was threatened by an approaching army. In truth, South Carolina mobilized militias immediately following secession, a force of 6,000 had taken Moultrie and trained guns on the fort. I would expect to find this framing in a book about "The War of Northern Aggression" but not on Wikipedia. Aharriso ( talk) 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Aharriso: For future reference new messages are posted to the bottom of talk pages. Tide rolls 14:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• See Battle of Fort Sumter for details on the battle. Dimadick ( talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

So ummm just change 1812 to 1813, cause at the time it was closer to 1813, like duh lol please read thiis I Don't English ( talk) 17:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Please provide a clearer explanation of the changes you are requesting. Tide rolls 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

In the section about the First Battle of Fort Sumter, this article says, "A Confederate soldier bled to death having been wounded by a misfiring cannon." Do we have any sources about this?

I looked through the reference linked earlier in the paragraph, Allegiance by David Detzer, and couldn't find any mention of this event, even though Detzer does mention the accidental death of a Confederate soldier related to a bayonet before the battle on page 196, and Detzer goes into great detail about the process, liabilities, and dangers of preparing and firing cannons, especially on pages 260-263 and 291. There's a Union Sergeant named Thomas Kirnan who bled from but survived a purposeful Confederate cannon shot during the battle on page 275, and on pages 196-197, a Confederate cannon accidentally shot a cannonball before the battle and hit no-one. These are the closest incidents to what this article describes, but I don't think the article is referring to any of them.

I also couldn't find any references to such an event on the Wikipedia page for the Battle of Fort Sumter, which states in the info box that "0" Confederate casualties or losses occurred, and the 1861 New York Times article it cites for that number doesn't seem to mention it happening, either.

Also, it's hard to tell from this section whether the death happened before, during, or after the battle, so hopefully an edit with a source would clarify this as well. Present Individual ( talk) 22:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply