"The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over. It was not a fair sample of what was to come."
This is the last sentence of chapter 12. What do Boorstin and Kelley mean?
This assignment is due Saturday first period, November, 17.
When Lincoln was elected as the president, he realized that Fort Sumter was out of supply. When he determined to send the supply, he notified to the state of South Carolina, which was a part of Confederate states. Then, South Carolina determined to attack the fort by bombarding Fort Sumter. Boorstin and Kelly mention that it was the “first” battle because South Carolina invaded Fort Sumter, which symbolized the start of the Civil War. They also mentioned “the quickest and the most bloodless battle” because a general from the Union side, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered right after they got hit from the Confederate Army, but no one had been wounded. A reason why they said “It was not a fair sample of what was to come” is that no one was actually wounded from this battle, which did not show us the true image of the Civil War. This quote implied that the Civil War would be a bloody battle, and it would take long time to end the war.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
DeleteWhen Boorstin and Kelly say that the Battle of Fort Sumter says that it was "the first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over" and that it "was not a fair sample of what was to come", they mean that that was only the beginning. That battle would be nothing compared to what will happen in the Civil War. Fort Sumter was not that badly hurt compared to the other places battle were fought. No one was wounded; the number of people wounded in this battle is literally and figuratively nothing compared to the total number of wounded by the end of the war. This battle last barely two days while the entire civil war lasted longer than the people the people expected. In fact, the Civil War lasted about 4 years. This battle would not have prepared any one to face the extent of this battle. The country did not know what hit them based on what they experienced. Boorstin and Kelly are basically saying that this battle was a sorry excuse for a battle.
ReplyDeleteSources:
“American Civil War.” 2012. The History Channel website. Nov 16 2012, 3:40 http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war.
Boorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
The American Civil War proved to be one of, if not the most, gory battles in American history. So, when Boorstin and Kelley say that the Battle of Fort Sumter was "the first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war" is almost an understatement. It's true that it was "not a fair sample of what was to come" because after the Battle of Fort Sumter, many Americans most likely believed that this was how the entire war would pan out: this was definitely not the case. After this battle, with no death count, no one in America was prepared for what was about to hit them: over 600,000 casualties and a complete division of one of the strongest countries in the world. This battle is a completely false prediction for the Civil War and following the Battle of Fort Sumter, it only went downhill for the Union and the Confederates in America.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
One quick firing of arms, a skirmish at Fort Sumpter in South Carolina, was the predecessor to a series of battles that would later be known to the world as The American Civil War. Although no one was injured, the underlying tone to the four-year-long battle that was to follow was set by the newly-formed Confederate States of America; they wanted freedom and were willing to fight for it. Boorstin and Kelley point out that the skirmish lasted briefest amount of time, and that no one was wounded or killed when they describe the Confederate attack on Union-occupied Fort Sumpter as "The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war"(1). The Civil War would turn out to be anything but bloodshed-free and quick. In fact, many of the soldiers who signed up for regimental armies expected the war to end quickly. They underestimated the grand scale of the issues at hand. During the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day known to the United States, "Union casualties at Antietam were 12,400 including 2,100 killed; Southern casualties were 10,320, including 1,550 killed"(2). The skirmish at Fort Sumpter was a gross misrepresentation of what was to come during the duration of the Civil War.
ReplyDelete(1) Boorstin, Daniel J., and Brooks M. Kelley. A History of the United States. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2007. 326. Print.
(2) "The Price of Freedom: Exhibition." The Price of Freedom: Exhibition. Smithsonian National Museum of American History, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. .
When Boorstin and Kelley said: "The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over. It was not a fair sample of what was to come.", they were implying that the war was going to be the opposite of quick and bloodless - very perilous and long-lasting. As soon as Lincoln decided to risk the disunity of The United States of America by sending supplies to Fort Sumter, South Carolina decided to take the fort. Fort Sumter was then bombarded on April 12th, 1861 by General P.G.T. Beauregard.The reason Boorstin and Kelley called this the "most bloodless battle of the war" was because on the following day after the fort was bombarded, it was surrendered by Major Robert Anderson. This was "not a fair sample of what was to come" because it wasn't as simple as surrendering forts and bloodless battles; it was in reality, the beginning of one of the most gruesome wars in American history - the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
- Nicky Friedman
"The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war" refers to the battle of Fort Sumter, in which the Confederate States bombarded Fort Sumter. As soon as Lincoln was inaugurated, Lincoln had to decide whether to give up Fort Sumter or to secure Fort Sumter, and he decided to not give up Fort Sumter because Fort Sumter was one of the strongest positions in Charleston Harbor. As a result, knowing that Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, the South fired the first shot. The Confederate General Beauregard began bombarding Fort Sumter. Within twenty four hours, Major Robert Anderson surrendered Sumter Fort to the Confederate States. "No one had been wounded," and this is why this battle was bloodless (Boorstin & Kelley 326). From the last sentence of chapter 12, Boorstin and Kelley imply that unlike this short, bloodless battle of Fort Sumter, countless, time-consuming, and bloody battles between the Confederate States and the Union would be waiting in the future of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWhen Boorstin and Kelley write, "The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over. It was not a fair sample of what was to come," they are describing the brief battle of Fort Sumter which was one major cause to the start of the Civil War. As president Lincoln went into office in 1861, Fort Sumter on the coast of South Carolina had been surrounded by Confederate forces from the south. The fort began running low on food and other supplies as a result, however, Lincoln did not want to fire first, but he did not want his troops to starve either, so Lincoln proposed a plan, though Lincoln had no intention of sending supplies, he told the south he was sending supplies to the fort which caused the south to fire upon fort Sumter first. In the brief battle no one was injured or killed, rather the south bombarded the fort, hence "The most bloodless battle..." Because the battle of Fort Sumter was such a quick and harmless battle, it led both the north and the south to false interpretations of what the Civil War was to bring in the near future.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002.326. Print
The American Civil War was the most gruesome and violent war fought in American history. When Boorstin and Kelley stated that the Battle of Fort Sumter was "the first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war [and] it [is] not a fair sample of what was to come", implies that battle was only a small taste of what the Civil war had in store for America. The American Civil War waged on for four years, and within those four years over 618,000 Americans died. Once Lincoln allowed the South to succeed from the Union, he took on the risk of half of our country permanently leaving. When Lincoln attempted to resupply Fort Sumter he alerted South Carolina, a Confederate state, who was then determined to attack Fort Sumter. South Carolina then proceeded to bombard the fort in April, lead by General P.G.T. Beauregard. This attack was considered the "most bloodless battle", due to the fort being surrendered by Major Robert Anderson the next day. This quick and comparatively non-violent battle is what Boorstin and Kelly refer to as "not a fair sample of what was to come". The worst of the war laid ahead of them as well as 618,000 dead Americans.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
-Francesca Ghi
What Boorstin and Kelley mean is that the battle of Fort Sumter, without casualties, was the complete opposite of what was expecting them in this bloody war. This battle is significant because it was “the site of first shots of the Civil War”. The reason why this battle is not considered a “fair sample of what was to come” is that during this battle, even though shots and cannons were fired, there were no dead or wounded soldiers on either side; as opposed to the 4 years of war, when about 1/4 (about 620,000) of the soldiers were killed in battle and millions more were injured. In most of the battles during the Civil War, there were many soldiers killed and injured in each side; most of them also lasted longer than 34 hours, hence the reason they said “…the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war…”
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.history.com/topics/fort-sumter
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war
Boorstin and Kelley
Pedro Escobar
"As soon as Lincoln was inaugurated, on March 4, 1861, he had to make one of the great decisions in American history." The Union decided to pull the National Army ("federal posts") out of the rebellious seceding Southerners but decided to leave strongholds like Fort Sumter in Charleston Bay. Lincoln faced the decision of how to handle Fort Sumpter. Lincoln knew that the fort was running low on food and if they waited much longer, they would have to surrender. The surrendering of this fort would have "mean[t] no civil war. But it would also mean the end of the of the Union", and Lincoln being the passionate abolitionist that he was didn't allow this to happen. He decided to send supplies to the fort, even if it meant "a fight that might go on for years..". Lincoln would allow the fort to attack unless the Confederacy fired the first shot, a policy still implemented today. Once the Confederacy attacked, the fort surrendered under the command of Major Robert Anderson 10 hours later. "The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over", refers to how there were no casualties in any sense. "It was not a fair sample of what was to come" refers to the countless other bloody battles to come as a result of the Civil War; this battle did not represent anywhere close to the amount of bloodshed that will occur in the next 4 years; and in addition, this incident marked the beginning of that 4 year conflict.
ReplyDelete-Michael Schiffer
Boorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
"The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over. It was not a fair sample of what was to come."
ReplyDeleteIn this statement, Boorstein and Kelly, the authors of “A History of the United States” are trying to make the point that this battle at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, in which the first shots of the civil war were fired with no casualties, was not a sign of things to come through the rest of the war.
This battle at Fort Sumter, in which the southern, confederate states, attempted to stop the federate ships for being stationed in their harbor, was the first moment of definite warfare between the northern and southern states. However no blood was lost. The rest of the war was unfortunately different as Boorsein and Kelly point out. In the Entirety of the American Civil war, over 620,000 American soldiers lost their lives fighting over the issue of slavery and the secession of the confederate states (American civil war 1). In direct answer to the statement made by Boorstin and Kelly, the bloodless battle at Fort Sumter pales in comparison to the Battle of Gettysburg. Possible the most famous battle of the war, it is commonly estimated that over 40,000 soldiers died in the three days of fighting (Military history 1). In addition to this, the relatively tame piece of fighting that took place in Fort Sumter directly contrasts with the horrible, horrific fighting that occurred during the Civil War. Not only did the war put friends against friends and family against family, it also was a much more bloody and costly war than previous wars. With over 40 percent of every soldier who fought becoming a casualty (Boorstin and Kelley)
In my opinion it is these points that sum up what Boorsein and Kelly are trying to say. That this Bloodless battle was not even remotely close to what followed it in the four years of the civil war. Where every single American was affected
Works Cited.
Battle of Gettysburg:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/getty4.aspx
American Civil war
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war
Just by out of context, we are assuming Boorstin and Kelley mean that the American Civil War is the event preceding the surrender of Fort Sumter in South Carolina in 1861. In April of 1861, Fort Sumter was the Unions ‘stronghold’ in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. The Union was “the separate states gathered together the United States; the Northern states during the Civil War.”(Boorstin and Kelley) The Confederacy was “a union, alliance of league. During the Civil War the southern states called their union a Confederacy.” (Boorstin and Kelley) South Carolina was a prominent member of the Confederacy. Lincoln was a member of the Union part of the United States. He did not wish to start a war that could last for years and tear apart the nation. Lincoln knew what was right. Whether it would tear the country apart or not, mankind has the birth right to be equal. And if blood has to be shed, then it has to be shed (For another example World War II). But he would not fire first. Lincoln gave the Confederate Army the chance to decide if they wanted a war. He warned them that he was sending Fort Sumter food, allowing the confederacy to make a decision; to take the Fort, or give up. South Carolina took Fort Sumter and ran. What Boorstin and Kelley mean by “bloodless battle” is not that no one was injured. Blood is the universal symbol for passion and sacrifice. They were implying that the both sides would have to sacrifice a lot of blood and passion in the future in order to achieve what each side wanted. And in this particular battle, there was not a huge significant sacrifice. There wasn't the passion from each side to win. This particular battle fueled the spark of passion, and caused not only some states to switch from the union side to the confederate side, but for the Union to realize they were going to have to sacrifice much more than to surrender one fort and let the enemy strike first.
ReplyDeleteKrissy Govertsen
Boorstin, Daniel J., Brooks M. Kelley, and Ruth F. Boorstin. A History of the United States. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
What Boorstin and Kelley mean when they describe the Battle of Fort Sumter as not a fair sample of what was to come, is that it was in all ways a misrepresentation of the future battles in the Civil War. Fort Sumter was a one day battle, April 12, 1861. The fort had been surrounded for a while before this, but no shots were fired. Lincoln faced a conundrum as to whether to let the South take this fort, or stand up and support this fort. The significance in Lincoln choosing to support Fort Sumter was that he showed he was willing to take a stand against the Confederates, and fight for freedom of all people in the United States. The battle of Fort Sumter was however only one day long, ten hours to be more precise, which was nowhere near the length of the war, just over four years, or the over two week long battle at Port Hudson, and many other lengthy battles scattered throughout the war. Secondly, there were no deaths in this battle. This is also atypical of the war that had over 200,000 soldiers killed in action, and 51,000 casualties in the war of Gettysburg alone. The final reason this isn't typical of the war to follow is because the Confederates won, and the Union ended up winning the war. Due to the length, casualties and victor the Battle at Fort Sumter was not a foreshadowing of things to come in the upcoming war.
ReplyDeleteThe “quickest, most bloodless battle of the war” is referring to Fort Sumter. Often regarded as the first battle of the Civil War, Fort Sumter was merely a skirmish compared to battles in the Civil War. In 1860, after South Carolina declared its secession from the Union, The union brought troops to Fort Sumter, located in Charleston, South Carolina, in hopes it would delay South Carolina’s militia from attacking the Union. Lincoln had to decide between sending supplies to the Union troops and risking a fight with South Carolina, or let South Carolina keep Fort Sumter. Lincoln decided to fight for the Union, and did not give up Fort Sumter. On April 12, 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter. The next afternoon, Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort, ending the first battle of the Civil War. No one had been wounded, making this the most bloodless battle of the war as compared to the Battle of Gettysburg, which yielded 51,112 casualties and the Battle of Antietam, which, in a day, yielded 26, 134 casualties. Also, compared to the Battle of Port Hudson, which spanned from May 21 1863 to July 9, 1863, it was short. Thus, making the siege of Fort Sumter the “quickest and most bloodless” battle of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., and Brooks Mather Kelley. A History of the United States. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.
Pratima Singh
This quote, “ The first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over. It was not a fair sample of what was to come,” proclaimed by Boorstin and Kelley in chapter 12 signifies a plethora of concepts, especially, in sector of foreshadowing. First off, the quote’s essence lays in beginning of the sentence when it states, “The first,[and] the quickest,” which refers to the escapade between South Carolina and President Lincoln at Fort Sumter, where Lincoln had to make the executive decision on whether or not to send supplies to the fort. The Fort Sumter incident was “The first” pertaining to the first battle of the Civil War and “the quickest,” in the fact that it only took a little more than a day for Union Major Robert Anderson in charge of that fort to surrender. They next sentence in the quote is written as, “It was not a fair sample of what was to come,” I think it is implemented as a “mind-toggle” that actually hints to the reader that the rest of the Civil War will be different and, normally, be won by Union instead of the Confederates who won this time.
ReplyDeleteThe battle of Fort Sumter began the start of the American Civil war as the newly formed confederacy attempted to pull away from the Northern Union states. The first shots at the battle of Fort Sumter were fired at 4:20 on April 12, 1861 and by 2:30 the next afternoon; the battle had already been terminated. No lives perished in this short lived skirmish and, “the first, the quickest, and the most bloodless battle of the war was over”. As stated by A History of the United States, “this was not a fair sample of what was to come”. Although this first battle began and ended causing little to no injury to either side, this did not accurately portray the huge amount of bloodshed that would ensue as the war progressed. The civil war would eventually erupt into an extremely violent and deathly war for both ends, resulting in an overall tally of 620,00 American deaths. The Battle of Fort Sumter, with its non-existent death toll did not at all accurately resemble any of the many battles that would occur in the near future.
ReplyDelete