The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War

“No, sir, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares make war upon it. Cotton is King.”

This quote from the Southern planter James Hammond while speaking before Congress epitomizes Southern overconfidence in their position relative to the North—an overconfidence that contributed to the secession movement. Hammond, among others, believed that the North would have to concede to Southern demands because the South controlled America’s cotton production, and cotton was needed across the country and also by potential allies like Britain. Hammond’s assertion would prove to be incorrect. His false view of the situation was tied into The Challenging Nature of Honor, with his extreme sense of honor leading him to overvalue both the power of cotton and the South’s military strength.

“Just think of such a sucker as me as President!”

This quote from Abraham Lincoln emphasizes his humility, which contrasts sharply with the self-confident, even over-confident, personalities elsewhere in Larson’s text, including those of William Seward and members of the Southern elite. Lincoln’s appreciation for the difficulties awaiting his presidency suggests a firm handle on The Challenging Nature of Honor, since he recognized that his personal honor was less important than the country’s needs. The fact that later Lincoln would become one of the most famous and celebrated presidents in American history gives this statement a sense of irony, revealing him as a real person, not just a legendary president, and touching on The Human Stories Behind Historic Events.

“What will you do with these people? Will you allow them to sit at your own table, marry your daughters, govern your States, sit in your halls of Congress and perhaps be president of the United States?”

This quote from an anonymous Southern orator about the possibility of Lincoln abolishing enslavement was meant to stir up Southern outrage by detailing the preposterous future that abolition might create. Today, it comes out as highly ironic, given that each of the future situations it describes has indeed come to pass. The fact that an integrated future was so inflammatory to Southerners shows how different the Southern mindset was from the modern day.

“The address left William Seward baffled. ‘It shows conclusively that it is the duty of the President to execute the laws—unless somebody opposes him; and that no state has a right to go out of the Union—unless it wants to.’”

Seward’s reaction to President James Buchanan’s speech shows how ineffective Buchanan was at handling the secession crisis. Buchanan’s contradictory and indecisive rhetoric was meant to appease everyone, but instead infuriated both the North and the South. Seward, like Lincoln, was frustrated with Buchanan’s leadership style, wanting to take decisive action but unable to do so until Lincoln became president. The speech epitomized Buchanan’s delaying strategy, in which he hoped to keep the nation together long enough for secession to become Lincoln’s problem.

“He agreed with a friend’s assessment that the state was ‘going to the devil,’ but in accord with honor and loyalty to home, two of the most powerful forces in the South, he felt compelled to go with it.”

This sentiment from South Carolina unionist James Petigru sums up Larson’s depiction of The Challenging Nature of Honor and The Problem of Loyalty Amid Civil Conflict. Even though some Southerners could see that secession would likely lead to danger and bloodshed, the South’s strict code of honor led them to support secession anyway. While some South Carolinians wanted to remain in the Union, they also wanted to appear loyal to their home states, even when they disagreed with the state’s political decisions. The inability of unionists like Petigru to prevent secession shows how honor and loyalty can lead to damaging results when taken too far.

“Anderson’s move galvanized the North, where his lone and courageous act was all the more striking when juxtaposed against the behavior of an administration whose salient feature was inaction. The major became an immediate hero.”

This passage reinforces President Buchanan’s ineffective leadership throughout the secession crisis, including during the standoff at Fort Sumter. It also shows the outsized effect that seemingly minor decisions in Charleston Harbor had on the national consciousness at the time. Anderson did not plan for his secret move to Fort Sumter to make him a hero—he did it for basic strategic reasons—but his maneuver would greatly change the national political and military landscape, underlining The Human Stories Behind Historic Events.

“The delegates were very clear about their motivation. ‘Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of enslavement—the greatest material interest of the world,’ they wrote in their official declaration.”

This excerpt from the Mississippi declaration of secession shows that protecting the right to enslave others was the driving force behind the secession movement. Its description of enslavement as “the greatest material interest” underlines how important enslavement was to the southern agricultural economy, which was driven by the exploitation of enslaved labor. Mississippi’s secession, which took place on January 9, 1861—before Lincoln even became president—shows how worried the state was about Lincoln abolishing enslavement upon taking office, even though Lincoln had never said that he planned to do so.

“What Seward had not addressed in his speech, and perhaps did not truly understand, was that at this point in the crisis, the thing that the South most resented was the inalterable fact that the North, like the rest of the modern world, condemned enslavement as a fundamental evil. In doing so, abolitionists and their allies impugned the honor of the entire Southern white race, for if enslavement was indeed evil, then the South itself was evil, and its echelons of gentlemen, the chivalry, were nothing more than moral felons.”

This summation of the Southern mindset focuses on The Challenging Nature of Honor by showing how honor created an insurmountable barrier between the North and South. Even more than the threat to its economy—driven by the work of enslaved people—the South could not bear to have its reputation slandered as evil. This made any compromise that recognized the evils of enslavement impossible. The passage also highlights a flaw in Seward’s view. Without direct experience in the South, Seward continued to believe reconciliation was possible, not understanding how the issue of honor had made reconciliation unrealistic. By bringing “the rest of the modern world” into the discussion, Larson underlines how far behind the times the American South was in its view toward enslavement.

“The beef incident was imbued with the South’s peculiar sense of chivalry: The state would be civil, generous, courteous, while also planning to exterminate the garrison with a bombardment on a scale the nation had never seen—akin to serving a man his favorite meal before slipping a noose around his neck.”

The “beef incident”—in which South Carolina authorities offered to send the Fort Sumter garrison additional provisions but were turned down by Major Anderson—reinforced the deep respect that both sides of the Charleston Harbor standoff felt for one another. While the larger political framework placed Major Anderson and the South Carolinians on opposite sides, their courteous behavior toward each other on a personal level emphasizes The Human Stories Behind Historic Events. Even though his garrison was running low on supplies, Major Anderson refused to accept the food because he felt doing so would dishonor him. This shows a negative consequence of holding personal honor too tightly as Anderson grappled with The Challenging Nature of Honor.

“By this point quite a few unhappy people had managed to get inside the Capitol despite the Army’s vigilance. The galleries were packed, according to diarist Adams; members of the Peace Convention had flooded the House floor. Upon Breckinridge’s announcement, a burst of anger rose from within the chamber.”

Typically, the electoral count is a purely administrative affair, certifying the election of the next president of the United States. The furor surrounding the 1861 count, however, showed how deeply divided the county had become over Lincoln’s election and the issues of abolition, enslavement, and secession. The inability of the Army to prevent dissidents from making it into Congress provides an eerie parallel to the Capitol Assault of January 6, 2021, where an angry mob broke into the houses of Congress to try to disrupt the counting process (See: Background).

“The first gun fired at our fort will call the country to arms; the bugle that sounds the attack upon us will echo along the slopes of the Alleghenies, and the granite hills of the North, along the shores of the great lakes, and far away on the rolling prairies of the west and the earth will shake with the tread of armed men.”

Captain Doubleday’s summation of the Fort Sumter standoff encapsulates the way that the nation’s fate hung on the developments in Charleston Harbor. As Doubleday’s words predicted, the first cannon shot against Fort Sumter—fired by Edmund Ruffin on April 12, 1861—began a Civil War that would involve the entire country in a bloody and years-long conflict. Doubleday’s poetic description of this “call to arms” indicates that he, like many at the time, had a romanticized notion of what such a conflict might entail—a view that sharply clashed with what the coming war was really like.

“This was Lincoln’s triumphant arrival: an empty railroad station, before dawn, in disguise.”

Larson here uses irony to emphasize the indecorous nature of Lincoln’s arrival to the nation’s capital for his inauguration. Whereas most presidents would come to their inaugurations with great fanfare, Lincoln had to sneak into Washington to avoid any potential assassination attempts against him. This humble entrance, one of The Human Stories Behind Historic Events, emphasizes Lincoln’s nature as a real person, not just a famous historical figure. His willingness to accept the embarrassment of this arrival suggests Lincoln valued the country’s needs over his own ego, showing his unique approach to The Challenging Nature of Honor.

“You speak to me of disappointment. To me, who was justly entitled to the Republican nomination for the presidency, and who had to stand aside and see it given to the little Illinois lawyer. You speak to me of disappointment!”

This passage underlines William Seward’s personal ego and his belief that he should have been president instead of Lincoln. Like the Southern elite, Seward put a high value on his honor and reputation, which at times hampered his effectiveness as Lincoln’s Secretary of State. Seward’s description of Lincoln as “little” —when in fact Lincoln was quite tall—suggests that Seward’s own ambitions may have warped his view of Lincoln’s capabilities as an effective leader and president.

“The crux of the crisis was in fact enslavement. This was obvious to all at the time, if not to members of a certain school of twentieth-century historiography who sought to cast the conflict in the bloodless terms of states’ rights.”

In a rare occurrence, Larson here breaks from his main historical account to address what he views as a flawed representation of American history from some other historians. As demonstrated throughout The Demon of Unrest—in the Mississippi declaration of secession, for example—enslavement was the central issue around which the secession movement was based. Larson here disagrees with scholars who—perhaps in trying to disconnect the Southern states from their intimate connection with enslavement—have tried to instead argue that secession was primarily driven by the Southern states’ desire for their own autonomy.

“Davis was not an ardent secessionist. He had little patience for insouciant visitors to his home who talked so blithely of civil war. He would listen politely, but after they left, Varina wrote, he would erupt, ‘God help us, war is a dreadful calamity even when it is made against aliens and strangers. They know not what they do.’”

This passage reveals that Jefferson Davis’s views, like Lincoln’s, were more moderate than those of the more ardent members of their factions. Many viewed Lincoln as an outspoken abolitionist, even though his views toward enslavement were more nuanced. Likewise, Davis was head of the Confederacy, but personally disdained the thought of going to war with the North. Davis’s comment to his wife Varina that civil war is a “dreadful calamity” highlights The Problem of Loyalty Amid Civil Conflict. Though sworn to the Confederacy, Davis still felt attachment to his fellows in the North, who were far closer to him than “aliens and strangers.” Davis’s wish to avoid war reflects his accurate appraisal of the devastating consequences that resulted when war broke out.

“The man next to him, the ineffectual James Buchanan, had let all this come to pass without making any substantial effort to stop it. All Buchanan wanted to do now was go home to Wheatland. He could not wait to leave the White House.”

Lincoln’s inauguration provided a clear juxtaposition between him and James Buchanan. While Buchanan was largely passive in the face of the secession crisis, Lincoln entered office desiring to take bold action. Lincoln’s focus was on the country, while Buchanan’s was on his home in Wheatland. Larson’s hyperbole that Buchanan “could not wait” to leave underlines how desperate he was to hand over the country’s problems to Lincoln.

“South Carolina slave holder as I am my very soul sickened […] It is too dreadful. I tried to reason—this is not worse than the willing sale most women make of themselves in marriage—nor can the consequences be worse. The Bible authorizes marriage and enslavement—poor women! poor slaves!”

Though a member of the Southern elite, Mary Chesnut here reveals an inner conflict when she is faced with the harsh realities of an auction of enslaved persons. Her turn to the Bible to help resolve her mixed feelings highlights the importance of religion to the South, as well as the ways that some tried to use religion to excuse the abuse of enslaved people. Mary’s equating of marriage and enslavement underlines the unequal treatment of men and women during this time period, while hinting that Mary herself may have been resentful of her own marriage.

“He knew Beauregard; he had taught him artillery tactics at West Point. Beauregard in turn rated Anderson his favorite teacher and had worked for him briefly as his assistant. The two men considered each other friends.”

The relationship between Major Anderson and P. G. T. Beauregard—the Confederate commander in Charleston—encapsulates The Problem of Loyalty Amid Civil Conflict. For much of their lives, the two men were friends, each loyal to their country and the United States army. The secession crisis destroyed this relationship by forcing both men to choose sides. Anderson remained loyal to the Army, while Beauregard put his loyalty in his southern home. The fact that the two friends became mortal enemies is a microcosm of similar rifts the Civil War created across the country.

“Like Seward, Lincoln believed, on basically no evidence, that loyalty to the Union was pervasive, but unlike Seward, he now wanted proof.”

This passage shows that Lincoln and Seward shared a misguided view of the Southern mindset, especially in how much some Southerners believed their honor had been offended by the debate over enslavement. This sort of misunderstanding was a problem on both sides of the conflict, contributing to the eventual outbreak of war. Lincoln’s wish to find proof set him apart from his Secretary of State, indicating that Lincoln was more open to changing his opinions and strategies than the self-involved Seward.

“Across the bay in Charleston, life among the chivalry followed its usual rhythm, with little regard for the prospect of civil war. Carriages and fine horses moved at an easy pace along the Battery as wealthy men and women strolled upon its paved frontage and greeted one another and made arrangements for tea and dinner, and for midday visits having no purpose at all.”

Larson here stresses the contrast between the dangerous atmosphere at Fort Sumter and the casual attitude of the day-to-day citizens of Charleston. Describing the citizens’ “easy pace” as they “strolled” about town for “no purpose at all” shows that there are other things going on than secession and possible civil war. These scenes reveal The Human Stories Behind Historic Events, showing that few suspected momentous events would soon spring from what was happening in Charleston Harbor. Larson presents the South Carolina elite as calm and carefree, taking for granted a privileged life that would soon disappear forever.

“Lincoln read and reread the telegram and asked if there wasn’t some mistake. ‘He took upon himself the whole blame’ Welles wrote—‘said it was carelessness—heedlessness on his part—he ought to have been more careful and attentive.’”

Lincoln’s major mistake—assigning the powerful warship the Powhatan to two expeditions at once—doomed the mission to relieve Major Anderson and the Fort Sumter garrison. As he does often, Larson focuses on this moment to tell The Human Stories Behind Historic Events, showing that even the legendary President Abraham Lincoln could be prone to simple mistakes. In doing so, Larson helps bridge the gap to the past, inviting empathy for the people who were faced with handling the secession crisis. Lincoln’s quick acceptance of his mistake underlines his humility, showing him handling The Challenging Nature of Honor by taking responsibility for his actions instead of trying to protect his ego by deflecting blame.

“‘In aiming the first gun fired against the rebellion I had no feeling of self-reproach […] for I fully believed that the contest was inevitable, and was not of our seeking.’ As Doubleday saw it, he was fighting for the survival of the United States. ‘The only alternative was to submit to a powerful oligarchy who were determined to make freedom forever subordinate to enslavement.’”

Captain Doubleday’s thoughts as he fired the first cannon against the Confederacy underscore the emotional victory that Major Anderson’s delaying tactics had won for the Union. By repeatedly refraining from firing against the Confederate troops as they fortified Charleston Harbor, Anderson forced the Confederacy to take the first aggressive action. By only firing when fired upon, the Union could claim the moral high ground, assigning responsibility for the violence to the other side. As Doubleday suggests, the Union’s feeling of fighting against enslavement amplified this sensation of moral superiority, boosting the morale at Fort Sumter.

“The loss of Sumter’s flag was for Anderson and his men a heartbreaking and humiliating event. The flag was a tactile representation of nationhood. In merely firing on it, the confederates who claimed so noisily to revere honor had engaged in a singularly dishonorable act. To bring it down by gunfire was heinous beyond measure.”

Here the Fort Sumter garrison demonstrated a strong sense of decorum that parallelled the obsession with honor Larson elsewhere ascribes to the Southern elite. The passage’s commentary on avowedly honorable men committing a dishonorable act underlines The Problem of Loyalty Amid Civil Conflict by demonstrating the shifting loyalties of the Confederate forces. Where before they would never have attacked a symbol of the United States, their loyalties have now shifted to their states and the Confederacy. What the fort’s garrison viewed as honorable, therefore, was far different from the Confederates’ perspective.