TIME MACHINE: Bombardment of Fort Sumter

TIME MACHINE: BOMBARDMENT OF FORT SUMTER

This month marked the 150th anniversary of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina. Following this attack, the United States found itself plunged into a civil war that lasted four years. 

Following Abraham Lincoln's election as the 16th president of the United States in November 1860, several Southern states threatened to secede from the Union, fearful that a Republican administration would pose threats to the political, social and financial agendas of their region. The one thing they generally feared was that Lincoln and his administration would abolish slavery, undermining both their social and financial power.

Nearly two months after Lincoln's victory at the polls, South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union on December 20, 1860. Within a month, six more states seceded - Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Not long after South Carolina's secession, the state demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. Realizing that his command might be in danger, Major Robert Anderson moved his command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie, a more substantial fortress that controlled the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Lame duck President James Buchanan sent an unarmed merchant ship named the Star of the West to deliver supplies and reinforcement troops to Major Anderson's command on in early January. But on January 9, 1861; cadets from The Citadel, stationed at the Morris Island battery, fired upon the steamer as it tried to enter Charleston Harbor. The Star of the West was hit three times before it turned around at headed back to its home port in New York. 

South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, following the Star of the West incident. Only Fort Sumter remained outside its grasp. However, the commander eventually found itself besieged by South Carolina military forces throughout the winter of 1861. In late February, the Confederate States of America was formed, with Jefferson Davis (formerly a senator from Mississippi) named as its president. The following month, two events occurred. Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States. And Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, the first commissioned general officer of the Confederate Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard immediately began strengthening the batteries around Charleston harbor, aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as Major Anderson found himself short of men, food, and supplies.

On April 4, President Lincoln had sent a naval expedition led by former captain Gustavus V. Fox, who had proposed a plan for nighttime landings of vessels smaller than the Star of the West. Fox's orders were to land at Sumter with supplies only. And if he was opposed by the Confederates, he was to respond with the U.S. Navy vessels following and to then land both supplies and men. This time, Major Anderson was informed of the impending expedition, although the arrival date was not revealed to him. President Lincoln informed South Carolina governor, Francis W. Pickens, that he planned to send supply ships to Fort Sumter. The Confederate government responded by sending an ultimatum to the Lincoln administration that Anderson and his men must evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Anderson refused to surrender. On April 12, at 4:30 a.m., Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. 

Lieutenant Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Captain George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. James had offered the first shot to Virginia secessionist Roger Pryor. But the latter declined, stating that he could not fire the first gun of the war. The shell exploded over Fort Sumter as a signal to open the general bombardment from 43 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, the floating battery, and Cummings Point. General Beauregard ordered the guns fired in a counterclockwise sequence around the harbor, with 2 minutes between each shot. He wanted to conserve ammunition, which he calculated would last for only 48 hours. Edmund Ruffin, another Virginia secessionist, had traveled to Charleston in order to be present for the beginning of the war, and fired one of the first shots at Sumter after the signal round - a 64-pound shell from the Iron Battery at Cummings Point. The shelling of Fort Sumter from the batteries ringing the harbor awakened Charleston's residents, including diarist Mary Chesnut.

Major Anderson withheld his fire, awaiting daylight. His troops reported for roll call at 6 a.m. and then had breakfast. At 7 a.m., Captain Abner Doubleday fired a shot at the Ironclad Battery at Cummings Point. He missed. Given the available manpower, Anderson could not take advantage of all of his 60 guns. Although the Federals had moved as many of their supplies to Fort Sumter as they could manage, the fort was nearly out of ammunition at the end of the 34-hour bombardment. Because of the shortages, Major Anderson reduced his firing to only six guns - two aimed at Cummings Point, two at Fort Moultrie, and two at the Sullivan's Island batteries.

Ships from Gustave Fox's relief expedition began to arrive on April 12. Although Fox himself arrived at 3 a.m. on his steamer Baltic, most of the rest of his fleet was delayed until 6 p.m. One of the two warships, USS Powhatan, never did arrive. Unbeknownst to Fox, it had been ordered to the relief of Fort Pickens in Florida. As landing craft were sent toward the fort with supplies, the artillery fire deterred them and they pulled back. Fox decided to wait until after dark and for the arrival of his warships. But heavy seas made it difficult to load the small boats with men and supplies on the next day. Fox was left with the hope that Anderson and his men could hold out until dark on April 13.

On April 13, Fort Sumter's central flagpole was knocked down at 1 p.m., raising doubts among the Confederates about whether the fort was ready to surrender. Colonel Louis Wigfall, a former U.S. senator, had been observing the battle and decided that this indicated the fort had had enough punishment. He commandeered a small boat and proceeded from Morris Island, waving a white handkerchief from his sword, dodging incoming rounds from Sullivan's Island. He met with Major Anderson and indicated that the latter had did all that was possible to defend the fort. He suggested that Anderson surrender, before any blood was shed. Encouraged that Wigfall had used the word "evacuate" instead of "surrender", Anderson agreed to a truce. He knew that his command was low on ammunition and his men, hungry and exhausted. He ordered that one of his men raise Wigfall's white handkerchief on its flagpole as the former senator departed in his small boat back to Morris Island. The handkerchief was spotted in Charleston and a delegation of officers that included Beauregard; Stephen D. Lee; Porcher Miles, a former mayor of Charleston, and Roger Pryor; sailed to Sumter, unaware of Wigfall's visit. Anderson was outraged when these officers disavowed Wigfall's authority, telling him that the former senator had not spoken with Beauregard for two days. He threatened to resume firing. General Beauregard sent a second set of officers, offering essentially the same terms that Wigfall had presented. And the Anderson-Wigfall agreement was reinstated.

After 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate on April 14, at 2:30 p.m. There had been no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement. During the 100-gun salute to the U.S. flag - Anderson's one condition for withdrawal - a pile of cartridges blew up from a spark, killing 36 year-old Irish born Private Daniel Hough instantly and mortally injuring another member of the gun crew, Private Edward Gallway. Hugh and Gallway were the first fatalities of the American Civil War. The salute stopped at fifty shots. Gallway died a few days later at a hospital at Charleston. The rest of Anderson's troops spent the night aboard a Confederate steamer named the Isabel. The next morning, they were transported to Gustave Fox's relief ship Baltic, resting outside the harbor bar. Major Anderson carried the Fort Sumter flag with him North, where it became a widely known symbol of the battle and a rallying point for supporters of the Union.

The bombardment of Fort Sumter became the first military action of the American Civil War. Following the surrender, Northerners rallied behind Lincoln's call of arms to recapture the fort and preserve the Union. This call for 75,000 volunteers triggered four additional states - Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina - to join the Confederacy. The ensuing war lasted four years. Fort Sumter officially returned to Union hands on April 14, 1865; with Robert Anderson in attendance (who was by then, retired). The war effectively ended on April 9, 1865; with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, in Virginia.

"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" (1982) Photo Gallery

Here are some photos from the 1982 television version of Baroness Emmuska Orczy's novel, "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL". The movie starred Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen: 



"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" (1982) Photo Gallery

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review

With the exception of a few, many of Martin Scorsese's films have been set in the City of New York - whether in the past or present. One of those films is his 2002 Oscar nominated film, "THE GANGS OF NEW YORK". 

Loosely based upon Herbert Ashbury's 1927 non-fiction book, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" had the distinction of being a crime drama about a gang war . . . set during the first half of the U.S. Civil War. Before I continue, I should add that the film was not only based upon Ashbury's book, but also on the life and death of a street gang leader named William Poole.

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" began in 1846, when two street gangs - the Protestant"Nativists" led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting; and the "Dead Rabbits", an Irish immigrant gang led by "Priest" Vallon; meet somewhere in the Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan for a fight. Near the end of a vicious street brawl, Cutting kills Vallon. A close friend of Vallon hides his young son inside an orphanage on Blackwell's Island. Sixteen years pass and Vallon's son, who has renamed himself Amsterdam, returns to the Five Points neighborhood to seek revenge against "Bill the Butcher", who now rules the neighborhood. Against the back drop of the early years of the Civil War, Amsterdam maneuvers himself into Cutting's confidence, as he waits for the right moment to strike and get his revenge against the man who killed his father.

There are aspects of "GANGS OF NEW YORK" that I either liked or found impressive. Considering that Scorsese shot the film at the Cinecittà Studios and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, New York; I must admit that I found Dante Ferretti's production designs serving for Manhattan rather impressive. Impressive, but not exactly accurate or near accurate. The movie looked as if it had been shot on a sound stage. But I must say that I admired how the designs conveyed Scorsese's own vision of Manhattan 1862-63. I also noticed that the color tones utilized by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus reminded me of the three-strip Technicolor process from the early-to-mid 1930s. Rather odd for a period movie set during the U.S. Civil War. However, thanks to Ferretti's designs and Michael Ballhaus' very colorful photography, the movie's vision of 1860s Manhattan had a theatrical style to it - especially in the Five Points scenes. I did not love it, but I found it interesting.

I could probably say the same about Sandy Powell's costume designs. They struck me as an extreme version of 1860s fashion, especially in regard to color and fabrics, as shown in the image below:



And there was something about the movie's costume designs for men that I found slightly confusing. Mind you, I am not much of an expert on 19th century fashion for men. But for some reason, I found myself wondering if the costumes designed for the male cast were for a movie set in the 1840s, instead of the 1860s, as shown below:



But if I must be honest with myself, I did not like "GANGS OF NEW YORK". Not one bit. The movie proved to be a major disappointment. One of the main problems I had with this film was that Scorsese; along with screenwriters Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan; took what should have been a character-driven period crime drama and transformed it into something nearly unwieldy. When you think about it, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was basically a fictionalized account of a feud between American-born William Poole and an Irish immigrant named John Morrissey, the former leader of the real "Dead Rabbits" gang. And their feud had played out in the early-to-mid 1850s. Instead, Scorsese and the screenwriters shifted the movie's setting to the early years of the Civil War and ended the narrative with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 in some attempt to transform what could have been a more intimate period drama into this gargantuan historical epic. I found this perplexing, considering that the Civil War had little to do with the film's main narrative. It also did not help that the film's narrative struck me as a bit choppy, thanks to Scorsese being forced to delete a good deal of the film at the behest of the producers. 

I did not have a problem with the conflict/relationship between Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon. I thought Scorsese made an interesting choice by having Amsterdam ingratiate himself into Cutting's inner circle . . . and keeping his true identity a secret. This paid off when Amsterdam saved Cutting from an assassinating attempt, leading the latter to assume the position of the younger man's mentor. At first, I could not understand why Scorsese had included a romantic interest for Amsterdam in the form of a grifter/pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. In the end, she proved to be a catalyst that led to Amsterdam and Cutting's eventual conflict near the end of the film. One of the few people who knew Amsterdam's true identity was an old childhood acquaintance named Johnny Sirocco, who became infatuated over Jenny. When he became aware of Amsterdam's romance with Jenny, Johnny ratted out his friend's identity to Cutting. 

But what followed struck me as . . . confusing. On the 17th anniversary of his father's death, Amsterdam tried to kill Cutting and failed. Instead of killing the younger man in retaliation, Cutting merely wounded Amsterdam, branded the latter's cheek and declared him an outcast in the Five Points neighborhood. An outcast? That was it? I found it hard to believe that a violent and vindictive man like Bill "the Butcher" Cutting would refrain from killing someone who tried to kill him. Perhaps this scenario could have worked if Cutter had tried to kill Amsterdam and fail, allowing the latter to make his escape. Or not. But I found Scorsese's scenario with Amsterdam being banished from Cutting's circle and the Five Points neighborhood to be something of a joke.

As for the movie's performances . . . for me they seemed to range from decent to below average. For a movie that featured some of my favorite actors and actresses, I was surprised that not one performance really impressed me. Not even Daniel Day-Lewis' Oscar nominated performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. Mind you, Day-Lewis had one or two scenes that impressed - especially one that involved a conversation between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, inside a brothel. Otherwise, I felt that the actor was chewing the scenery just a bit too much for my tastes. Leonardo Di Caprio, on the other hand, was crucified by critics and moviegoers for his portrayal of the revenge seeking Amsterdam Vallon. Aside from his questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with Di Caprio's performance. I simply did not find his character very interesting. Just another kid seeking revenge for the death of his father. What made this desire for revenge ridiculous to me is that Bill the Butcher had killed "Priest" Vallon in a fair fight. Not many critics were that impressed by Cameron Diaz's performance. Aside from her questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with the actress. I had a bigger problem with her character, Jenny Everdeane. To put it quite frankly, aside from her role serving as a catalyst to Cutting's discovery of Amsterdam's true identity, I found Jenny's role in this movie rather irrelevant.

As for the other members of the cast . . . I found their performances solid, but not particularly noteworthy. I thought Henry Thomas gave a decent performance as the lovelorn and vindictive Johnny Sirocco. The movie featured Jim Broadbent, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Cara Seymour and Michael Byrne portraying true-life characters like William "Boss" Tweed, P.T. Barnum, Hell Cat Maggie and Horace Greeley. They gave competent performances, but I did not find them particularly memorable. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Stephen Graham, Eddie Marsan, David Hemmings, Barbara Bouchet and Alec McCowen. But honestly, I could not think of a performance that I found memorable.

My real problem with "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was Scorsese's handling of the movie's historical background. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling. I am not referring to the film's visual re-creation of early 1860s Manhattan. I am referring to how Scorsese utilized the movie's mid-19th century historical background for the film. Earlier, I had pointed out that the Civil War setting for "GANGS OF NEW YORK" barely had any impact upon the movie's narrative. I think it may have been a bit in error. Scorsese and the screenwriters did utilize the Civil War setting, but in a very poor manner.

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" should never have been set during the U.S. Civil War. It was a big mistake on Scorsese's part. Day-Lewis’ character is based upon someone who was killed in 1855, six years before the war's outbreak. Scorsese should have considered setting the movie during the late antebellum period, for his handling of the Civil War politics in the movie struck me as very questionable. From Scorsese's point of view in this film, the Union is basically a militaristic entity bent upon not only oppressing the Confederacy, but also its citizens in the North - including immigrants and African-Americans. This view was overtly manifested in two scenes - the U.S. Naval bombing of the Five Points neighborhood during the Draft Riots . . . something that never happened; and a poster featuring the images of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass that appeared in the movie:



What made this poster even more ridiculous is that the image of Frederick Douglass was anachronistic. Douglass was roughly around 44 to 45 years old during the movie's time period. He looked at least 15 to 20 years older in the poster. 

In "GANGS OF NEW YORK", Americans of Anglo descent like Bill the Butcher were the real bigots of 1860s Manhattan. Not only did they hate immigrants, especially Irish-born immigrants, but also black Americans. I am not claiming that all 19th century Anglo-Americans tolerated blacks and immigrants. Trust me, they did not. But did Scorsese actually expected moviegoers to believe that most of the Irish immigrants were more tolerant of African-Americans than the Anglos? Apparently, he did. He actually portrayed one character, an African-American named Jimmy Spoils, as one of Amsterdam's close friends and a member of the latter's newly reformed "Dead Rabbits" gang. Honestly? It was bad enough that Scorsese's portrayal of Jimmy Spoils was so damn limited. I cannot recall a well-rounded black character in any of his movies. Not one. 

Scorsese and his screenwriters made the situation worse by portraying the Irish immigrants as generally more tolerant toward blacks than the Anglos. In fact, the only Irish-born or characters of Irish descent hostile toward African-Americans in the film were those manipulated by Anglos or traitors to their own kind. According to the movie, the violent inflicted upon blacks by Irish immigrants was the instigation of Federal military policy. By embracing this viewpoint, Scorsese seemed unwilling to face the the real hostility that had existed between Irish immigrants and African-Americans years before the draft riots in July 1863. Actually, both the Irish and the Anglo-Americans - "the Natives" - were racist toward the blacks. One group was not more tolerant than the other. The movie also featured Chinese immigrants as background characters. In other words, not one of them was given a speaking part. If Scorsese had really wanted the New York Draft Riots to be the centerpiece of this movie, he should have focused more on race relations and been more honest about it.

I really wish that I had enjoyed "GANGS OF NEW YORK". I really do. I have always been fascinated by U.S. history during the Antebellum and Civil War periods. But after watching this film, I came away with the feeling that Martin Scorsese either had no idea what kind of film that he wanted or that he tried to do too much. Was "GANGS OF NEW YORK" a period crime drama or a historical drama about the events that led to the New York Draft Riots? It seemed as if the director was more interested in his tale about Amsterdam Vallon and William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. If so, he could have followed the William Poole-John Morrissey conflict more closely, set this film where it truly belonged - in the 1850s - and left the Civil War alone. I believe his handling of the Civil War proved to be a major stumbling block of what could have been an well done film.

"SHADOW OF THE MOON" (1957/1979) Book Review

"SHADOW OF THE MOON" (1957/1979) Book Review

I first became aware of British author, M.M. Kaye back in the early 1980s, when I read her famous 1978 bestseller, "THE FAR PAVILIONS". Intrigued by the author’s portrayal of the British and Indian societies in 19th century, I read another one of her novels – namely "SHADOW OF THE MOON". 

First published in 1957, "SHADOW OF THE MOON" was re-released 22 years later to cash in on the success of "THE FAR PAVILIONS". Like the latter, the novel was set in 19th century India. "SHADOW OF THE MOON" told the story of Winter de Ballesteros, the only daughter of an aristocratic Spaniard whose family lived in India and the beloved granddaughter of an English earl. Orphaned at the age of six, Winter is forced to leave India and live with her mother’s family in England for the next eleven years. Betrothed at an early age to Conway Barton, the nephew-in-law of her great-aunt and an official of the East India Company, serving as Commissioner of the Lunjore District, Winter finally leaves England to return to India in order to marry him. Barton’s military aide, Captain Alex Randall of the British East India Company (aka "John Company"), is assigned to act as escort for Winter’s return journey to the East. 

Unfortunately for Winter, she encountered two misfortunes after her arrival in India – the discovery that her new husband is a debauched and overweight drunk who had married her for her fortune; and that she had fallen in love with Alex Randall. She is unaware that Alex has also fallen in love with her. While Winter struggled with her love for Alex and her unhappy marriage, events slowly came to a boil that lead to the outbreak of the Sepoy Rebellion in which the Indian soldiers of the Bengal Army rose against the British between May 1857 and June 1858. The violent outbreak of sepoy troops against the rule of the British East India Company forced both Winter and Alex to experience the violence that explodes throughout most of India and acknowledge their feelings for one another. 

For a novel that is supposed to be about the famous Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-58, most of it seemed to be set before the rebellion’s actual outbreak. The novel’s first six chapters focused upon Winter’s parents and her childhood in both India and England. The next thirty-four (34) chapters focused upon Winter and Alex’s journey to India, the introduction of Anglo society in India, Winter’s marriage to Conway Barton in Lunjore, the growing tensions between the British rulers and those who have much to resent them, Winter and Alex’s growing feelings for one another . . . well, you get the picture. By the time Winter, Alex and other British residents encounter the rebellion in Lunjore, Chapter 40 had arrived. Only Chapters 40 through 51 featured the actual rebellion. 

Ironically, this does not bother me. I suspect that "SHADOW OF THE MOON" is basically a romantic drama with a historical backdrop. M.M. Kaye was born in India to a family that had served the British Raj for generations. She spent most of her childhood and early years of marriage in India, which made her a strong authority on the Anglo-Indian and Indian societies of the British Raj."SHADOW OF THE MOON" is filled with strong historical facts about Great Britain during the first five decades in the 19th century, the East India Company, the Anglo-Indian and Indian cultures in the 1850s, and the politically charged atmosphere leading up to the Sepoy Rebellion and facts about the rebellion itself. 

Reading the novel made it easy for me to see why M.M. Kaye had gained such fame as a historical novelist. Along with Alexandre Dumas, Susan Howatch, John Jakes, George MacDonald Fraser, James Michener, Ken Follet and Cecelia Holland, I consider her to be among the best historical novelists. Not only is "SHADOW OF THE MOON" filled with interesting facts about the British Raj in the 1850s, it is a well-written romantic drama about two people who managed to find love despite the obstacles of a loveless marriage and political turmoil. The two main characters – Winter and Alex – are well written characters that managed to avoid the usually clichés found in many inferior romantic paperback novels. Well . . . Winter and Alex’s characterizations managed to avoid most of the clichés. There are a few clichés about them that seem very familiar:

*Winter’s age spans between 17 and 19 in most of the novel. Most heroines of historical tend to be between the ages of 16 and 17.

*The age difference between Winter and Alex is 13 years – which is typical for the heroine and hero of most historical romances.

*The heroine, Winter, spends most of the novel stuck in an unhappy marriage with a much older man.

Despite these minor clichés, Winter and Alex turned out to be two very interesting and well-rounded characters. Surprisingly, I can say the same of the supporting characters, whether they be British or Indian. A few characters stood out for men – notably Alex’s cynical Indian orderly Niaz; a sharp-tongued British socialite named Louisa “Lou” Cottar; an intelligent and intensely political Indian nobleman who becomes a dangerous enemy of the British Raj by the name of Kishan Prisad; Lord Carylon, an arrogant and temperamental English aristocrat with a strong desire for Winter; and Conway Barton, the latter’s corrupt and narrow-minded husband, who lacks a talent for political administration.

Aside from a few clichés that are a part of Winter and Alex’s characterizations, I have a few other quibbles regarding the novel . . . or Kaye’s writing style. First of all, she had a tendency to describe a historical event or character in a slightly grandiose manner. One example featured the death of a famous military figure named John Nicholson. Kaye also had a bad habit of announcing an important sequence before it unveiled . . . taking away any moment of surprise for the reader. This was apparent in the following passage:

"'Two more days to go', thought Alex that night, leaning against the wall and watching a quadrille danced at the Queen’s Birthday Ball.

But there were no more days. Only hours."

In the following chapter, Winter, Alex and a host of other characters experience firsthand, the horror of the rebellion in Lunjore. I would have preferred if the beginning of the Lunjore rebellion had taken me by surprise.

Despite Kaye’s occasional forays into over-the-top prose, she created a sweeping and detailed novel filled with romance, adventure, historical accuracy and well-written characters. Although "THE FAR PAVILIONS" is considered her masterpiece, I must admit that "SHADOW OF THE MOON" remains my most favorite novel she has ever written.