Hmmm found this and was amused

[MkollCSA]

well as his letters to his wife and to lincoln suggest, he did it just to spite Pope and it worked pretty well.....and porter was wrongly court martial'd IMO

[pepe4158]

Hee-hee ...but makes Mac look like the, 'savior' of the union, as his forces are the only thing left standing between Lee and Washington.
Also, Pope limps back to run behind him, terrible military move, good political move, as we in hindsight can analyze it probably was Mac's motives.

[MkollCSA]

well no matter how you cut it..Mac disobeyed Halleck and didnt send the 2 corps from Harpers Ferry....that alone should have cost him his command...then with the letters that should have sealed the deal.

[pepe4158]

If you want to use a Fabian allusion, I think that the Johnston --> Hood parallel is much stronger than applying it to Lee. I think Lee having the reckless is applicable in the game due it's mechanic, but I do not agree with the term being applied to him. I am anything but a Lost Causer, I just think the word is a bit strong for the evidence.

Say I hope I am not too off hand here asking this, but would you all agree that amoung other traits too, the good-subordinates trait should be applied to Lee too? I am of the opinion it was Lee, and only Lee who could have brought all these southern generals to the table and got them to work together.
I would quess that Pocus probably agonized quite a bit with his team what traits to give Lee, as he is unarguably the most famous general of the ACW for his great victories.....n really think the good-subordinates trait is deserving of him as it was only Lee who could have brought these talented generals together and had them work in unity without killing each other in a deul.
For example, Longstreet couldnt stand Stuart....n Jackson had little use for his theatrics, but Lee was the father figure all three defered too.

[MkollCSA]

lee was the most loved general in the south....no matter who you were or what unit you came from you knew who General Lee was even if you never saw him

[tagwyn]

Little Mac's behavior in failing to move quickly to support Pope was treasonous! Under the circumstances, Lincoln could not discipline him properly. Then and again at Antietam, he almost cost the North the war! apy:

[pepe4158]

Little Mac's behavior in failing to move quickly to support Pope was treasonous! Under the circumstances, Lincoln could not discipline him properly. Then and again at Antietam, he almost cost the North the war! apy:

Then again, the northern press at the time blamed Pope himself, n viewed Mac as the hero, we have the hindsight of history to know the facts as Porter is made the scape-goat. So one could hardly fault Lincoln for not blaming Mac at the time I think, as everyone trusted the papers at that period of time to provide them the truth of the day, and face it Pope didnt have to be stupid enough to fall for Jackson's little ploy to start the battle.

Small excerpt from Harpers Weekly (the paper of the day):

Posting myself in the centre, within view of both portions of the field where infantry were engaged, I could not determine which had the best of it. Evidently but few troops were engaged, and I surmised that we were fighting merely to learn where lay the enemy's main force. At length our force at the right was driven back, and I thought General Pope had been outgeneraled when he moved men at an earlier part of the day from right to left.

This was only one union newsman's printed opinion of course, but I think sums up the feelings of the north.

[Brochgale]

Say I hope I am not too off hand here asking this, but would you all agree that amoung other traits too, the good-subordinates trait should be applied to Lee too? I am of the opinion it was Lee, and only Lee who could have brought all these southern generals to the table and got them to work together.
I would quess that Pocus probably agonized quite a bit with his team what traits to give Lee, as he is unarguably the most famous general of the ACW for his great victories.....n really think the good-subordinates trait is deserving of him as it was only Lee who could have brought these talented generals together and had them work in unity without killing each other in a deul.
For example, Longstreet couldnt stand Stuart....n Jackson had little use for his theatrics, but Lee was the father figure all three defered too.

The Irony is that the Southern Generals were working togther for the most part I believe. With the exception of Bragg and Pemberton? The problem was Davis - espeiaclly when he replaced Johnston with Hood - I read somewhere that both Hood and Hardie pleaded for Johston to be reinstated before the fall of Atlanta.
Johnston who I believe who would have been familiar with the Theories of General Jomini had a plan for dealing with Sherman - a plan that was presented to Davis and I am told approved by even Lee but Davis would not listen? Not the first time that Davis made a Strategic howler.
Johnston wanted to give command of all the Cavalry to Nathan Bedford Forest to harrass and cut Shermans supply lines, remember Johston had been using a scorched earth policy in respect of Shermans advance , Sherman had to be supplied by rail and those supply lines were getting longer and longer . Sherman had to pull more and more of his Army over to defending those lines of supply.
I believe that even Johnston was getting prepared to attack Sherman when Davis blundered.

[Brochgale]

If you want to use a Fabian allusion, I think that the Johnston --> Hood parallel is much stronger than applying it to Lee. I think Lee having the reckless is applicable in the game due it's mechanic, but I do not agree with the term being applied to him. I am anything but a Lost Causer, I just think the word is a bit strong for the evidence.

See my post above it is sort of related.

[pepe4158]

The Irony is that the Southern Generals were working togther for the most part I believe. With the exception of Bragg and Pemberton? The problem was Davis - espeiaclly when he replaced Johnston .

Hmm well it worked when he replaced Johnston with Lee, maybe he thought he was on a roll lol, as unarquably it was one if his worst choices to choose the reckless Hood and leave his good friend Bragg at the helm for so long before Johnston.
But interesting you blame Davis for the ultimate defeat, as Davis blamed himself too as quoting Davis:

that The Confederacy needed either a great stateman, or a great military leader. In Jefferson Davis, they got neither.

After Lee's death, although Longstreet loved Lee, Longstreet blames Lee, as you imagine that doesnt go over well in the southern newspapers lol.

[Jabberwock]

Johnston who I believe who would have been familiar with the Theories of General Jomini

Almost all West Pointers during the Civil War were heavily influenced by Jomini through the teachings of Dennis Mahan. Jackson took different ideas and methods from those teachings than Johnston. I think "Jominian" taken as an adjective to describe a school of thought, rather than any specific ideas or the actual body of work written by General Jomini, applies more perfectly to Johnston than any other Civil War general.

If Jomini's theories are greatly simplified as - trade space for the time to use interior lines to concentrate your forces, then fight one big glorious battle ... that describes what Johnston was trying to do pretty well. Grant (with an assist from Davis) never let him concentrate forces in Mississipi, and then Davis pulled the rug out at Atlanta before his glorious battle.

[Brochgale]

Almost all West Pointers during the Civil War were heavily influenced by Jomini through the teachings of Dennis Mahan. Jackson took different ideas and methods from those teachings than Johnston. I think "Jominian" taken as an adjective to describe a school of thought, rather than any specific ideas or the actual body of work written by General Jomini, applies more perfectly to Johnston than any other Civil War general.

I have General Jominis Art Of War for bed time reading at moment. It just seemed to me that Generals on both side would have been familiar with his writing. As I understand it they would not have been familiar with Von Clausewitz as he did not get translated into English till after civil war.
I have been trying to get behind and understand the mentality of the Generals in the Civil War. Most of all trying to understand the reasons "Why did the Confederacy lose?"

[Brochgale]

Hmm well it worked when he replaced Johnston with Lee, maybe he thought he was on a roll lol, as unarquably it was one if his worst choices to choose the reckless Hood and leave his good friend Bragg at the helm for so long before Johnston.
But interesting you blame Davis for the ultimate defeat, as Davis blamed himself too as quoting Davis:

that The Confederacy needed either a great stateman, or a great military leader. In Jefferson Davis, they got neither.

After Lee's death, although Longstreet loved Lee, Longstreet blames Lee, as you imagine that doesnt go over well in the southern newspapers lol.

The more I read about Davis it seems he was deeply flawed as a President of the Confederacy but I think an equal portion of the blame must go to the States themselves. I ask myself would the election of someone else as Confederate President have altered the outcome?
Davis seemed to view himself as a great military strategist. Also he seemed to lack the quality as a Statesman to get the Confederate States themselves fully behind the Confederate Army? Or is the inability to reach a compromise inherent in the character of Southerners?
Lincoln though did not want to interfere to same extent it seems though more than once he certainly got exasperated with his Generals and advocated and pushed them into actions that they did not want to take?

[Jabberwock]

I have General Jominis Art Of War for bed time reading at moment. It just seemed to me that Generals on both side would have been familiar with his writing. As I understand it they would not have been familiar with Von Clausewitz as he did not get translated into English till after civil war.
I have been trying to get behind and understand the mentality of the Generals in the Civil War. Most of all trying to understand the reasons "Why did the Confederacy lose?"

I've read that Halleck was possibly familiar with Clausewitz, but his greatest influences were definitely Jomini and Archduke Charles of Austria. Sherman's marches could be considered the pre-eminent Civil War example of the type of strategy Charles propounded.

Jomini (or Clausewitz) writes about annihilating the enemy. Charles writes about securing your own base and exhausting the enemy. I think it took a balance to be successful with Civil War era military technology. It is difficult to annihilate your enemy without weakening him by attacking his infrastructure. It is difficult to attack his infrastructure without annihilating some of his forces. That is one thing (of many) this game models extremely well.

[Jabberwock]

The more I read about Davis it seems he was deeply flawed as a President of the Confederacy but I think an equal portion of the blame must go to the States themselves. I ask myself would the election of someone else as Confederate President have altered the outcome?
Davis seemed to view himself as a great military strategist. Also he seemed to lack the quality as a Statesman to get the Confederate States themselves fully behind the Confederate Army? Or is the inability to reach a compromise inherent in the character of Southerners?
Lincoln though did not want to interfere to same extent it seems though more than once he certainly got exasperated with his Generals and advocated and pushed them into actions that they did not want to take?

Look at the alternatives to Davis. Cobb, Toombs, Stevens ... all deeply flawed. I think R.M.T. Hunter might have been a good President for the Confederacy, but Virginia wasn't part of the Confederacy when they chose a President. Davis would've worked well as a field commander for Sidney Johnston, and been a decent replacement for him. He also would've made a good Sec. of War for Hunter.

I don't think it was so much southern character as the states rights ideology that caused the lack of cooperative effort when it was needed.

[MkollCSA]

well i have always been of the opinion that davis wasnt the best choice for president but he was cunning enough to be able to secure the vote for himself....so he was at least a good enough statesmen to do that....johnston should never have been replaced and most certainly not with Hood. as Lee said Hood was "all lion and no fox" to davis....he was one heck of a division commander and he was valuable in this role...take when Longstreet had him arressted and tried to have him forced out of the army...Lee personally stepped in and had Longstreet release Hood.

[Brochgale]

Look at the alternatives to Davis. Cobb, Toombs, Stevens ... all deeply flawed. I think R.M.T. Hunter might have been a good President for the Confederacy, but Virginia wasn't part of the Confederacy when they chose a President. Davis would've worked well as a field commander for Sidney Johnston, and been a decent replacement for him. He also would've made a good Sec. of War for Hunter.

I don't think it was so much southern character as the states rights ideology that caused the lack of cooperative effort when it was needed.

I will read up on Hunter. I have read something about Stephens and indeed I am familair with some of his speeches. Most notably his 1850 Public Domain address to the Congress. A very good speech actually and obviously a very good orator even if some of his views were fairly obnoxious and deeply racist.
I agree that Cobb and Toombs would have been even worse than Davis

[tagwyn]

A vicious wind-bag, a bully, and, probably a coward. Would not have made as good leader as your German shepard dog, imho. apy:

[Jabberwock]

A vicious wind-bag, a bully, and, probably a coward. Would not have made as good leader as your German shepard dog, imho. apy:

Do you have sources on him? I would like to read more about him, and also find out what led you to this conclusion.

[anarchyintheuk]

Johnston had had plenty of time in which to stage his mythical battle far from Atlanta. He didn't. Fact is Johnston rarely communicated his ideas and plans to Davis (as Pepe stated before) unlike Lee and Bragg. This made Davis very nervous as Sherman approached Atlanta and, combined with his personal and political dislike (Johnston's supporters were not necessarily supporters of his but rather Davis's enemies) meant he wouldn't get the same slack afforded Lee and Bragg. Johnston knew this and continued to keep Davis in the dark regarding his plans.

IMHO whether Johnston or Hood or Lee was in charge of the AoT the effect would have been very much the same. Atlanta would have fallen although what happened afterwards may have been different.

More to blame than his choice of commanders was his departmental policy and the irony of not being able to coerce the cooperation of the states, most of whom had supposedly gone to war in the name of states rights.

[Brochgale]

Johnston had had plenty of time in which to stage his mythical battle far from Atlanta. He didn't. Fact is Johnston rarely communicated his ideas and plans to Davis (as Pepe stated before) unlike Lee and Bragg. This made Davis very nervous as Sherman approached Atlanta and, combined with his personal and political dislike (Johnston's supporters were not necessarily supporters of his but rather Davis's enemies) meant he wouldn't get the same slack afforded Lee and Bragg. Johnston knew this and continued to keep Davis in the dark regarding his plans.

IMHO whether Johnston or Hood or Lee was in charge of the AoT the effect would have been very much the same. Atlanta would have fallen although what happened afterwards may have been different.

More to blame than his choice of commanders was his departmental policy and the irony of not being able to coerce the cooperation of the states, most of whom had supposedly gone to war in the name of states rights.

Johnston did actually submit a plan for dealing with Sherman - a plan which even Lee approved but Davis was not to be swayed. Whether or not the plan would have worked we do not know but it might have been enough to slow Sherman down further and bought Atlanta time. It is all what if?

[anarchyintheuk]

Its been a while since I read about that campaign, but the only plan I remember Johnston having was vague generalities about attacking Sherman mid river crossing. Never happened. Hood tried at Peach Creek. Maybe that's what Johnston had in mind. However, as you say, it's all what if.

[Jabberwock]

Johnston had had plenty of time in which to stage his mythical battle far from Atlanta. He didn't. Fact is Johnston rarely communicated his ideas and plans to Davis (as Pepe stated before) unlike Lee and Bragg. This made Davis very nervous as Sherman approached Atlanta and, combined with his personal and political dislike (Johnston's supporters were not necessarily supporters of his but rather Davis's enemies) meant he wouldn't get the same slack afforded Lee and Bragg. Johnston knew this and continued to keep Davis in the dark regarding his plans.

But can you blame him? He went to talk with Davis and the cabinet about retreating from Manassas. After the meeting he goes back to his hotel, and someone in the lobby asks, "Are you really going to retreat from Manassas, General?" or words to that effect. He never trusted Davis with anything after that. Would any sane general?

[Shabaka]

was based on Joe Johnston's plan.

Why did the South lose the war?

BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT WIN THE WAR!!!

Unless:
1. War weariness occurred and a Democrat was elected to surrender to the enemy (sound familiar?). This was precluded by the victory in Atlanta which derailed George McClellan's chances to defeat Lincoln in the '64 election.

2. Intervention by France or England. This was a long-shot under any circumstance but Antietam and the summer of '63 pretty much ended this option.

3. I can think of no other way...any thoughts on this?

[Shabaka]

1. Jefferson Davis' orders were followed.
2. Joe Johnston's strategies and orders were not followed.
3. Robert E. Lee was too much of a gambler.

Three of Jefferson Davis' major blunders which precluded foreign intervention and led to the defeat of George McClellan in the '64 election.

1. He ordered A. S. Johnson to have a forward leaning defense which led to the loss of 15,000 men captured at Ft. Donelson to Grant. During the Vicksburg campaign he advised Pemberton and Gardner to hold the line at Port Hudson and Vicksburg. This resulted in the capture of 37,000 troops by Grant. He pushed Lee to obtain a victory on Northern soil in the hopes that this would get France or Britain to intervene (the result was Antietam and later Gettysburg). He replaced Joe Johnston (arguably the greatest of CSA generals ) with John Bell Hood.

2. Joe Johnston advised Jefferson Davis the south should follow a strategic defensive policy which Davis did not want to hear. On May 9 as Grant was moving on Vicksburg Johnston received notification from Davis that he was to take personal command of the CSA forces in the Vicksburg area. When he arrived at Jackson MS on the 13th he was advised by General Gregg there were 6,000 troops available for the defense of Jackson. He was also told that McPherson's Corps and and Sherman's Corps were expected to make contact shortly. Johnston ordered a holding action by Gregg while he pullled out what he could from Jackson. Approximately 5K more troops arrived in Jackson overnite and another 4K became available in afternoon of 14th giving him a total of ~15K troops. McPherson and Sherman attacked Jackson on the 14th with 30,000 plus troops. Johnston had saved the cannons, supplies and troops of Jackson to fight another day by this move. He immediately ordered Pemberton and Gardner to break out to the east so they could link up for coordinated action. Gardner and Pemberton both decided to follow Davis's plans and holed up in Port Hudson and Vicksburg respectively. Johnston put together a disparate motley of troops from MS, AL, TN and was up to approximately 31,000 by early July 63. Grant had 25000 in defensive positions facing Johnston and 50,000 surrounding Pemberton in Vicksburg. Pemberton surrendered ~30,000 troops on July 4 and Gardner surrendered ~7500 troops on July 9. By following Davis' orders these troops were not saved to fight another day.

Without Davis' orders (think of Hitlers orders to Paulus' 6th Army in WWII for comparison) the entire situation would have been different. 15K troops from Donelson, 30,000 from Vicksburg and 7500 from Port Hudson along with the 31000 Johnston had = 83500 troops Johnston could have had facing Grants 75000 (soon to be 120K) in the Vicksburg area. Bragg (I would replace him with Pierre Gustav Toussant Bauregard..if you could get him out of his sick bed) could have faced Rosey or whoever replaced him in Middle TN with 58K vs 65K.

2. Joe Johnston fought with Sherman in the Atlanta campaign (5/4/64 to 9/2/64during the summer of '64 with approximately 50K/65K troops vs Shermans 100K to 115K.
Take a close look at the Overland campaign (5/7/64 to October 64) that Lee 60K/65K fought with Grant 110K/120K. Johnston gave up almost the exact same amount of territory during approximately the same time period. Lee was considered a genius for his accomplishments and Johnston was replaced by Hood....go figure!!!! Grant had 55K casualties to Lees 32600 casualties. Johnston had 18000 casualties to Shermans 23500. The casualty ration changed significantly after the battle of Peachtree when JB Hood took over command. Hood = 17000 casualties, Sherman 8200 casualties.

3. Lee was a gambler, I dont have time to go into this, I need a sambuca now. but suffice it to say he followed Davis orders and went North when he would have been far better off going to the strategic defensive as Joe Johnston advised. On the other hand he was very lucky when he gambled (Hannibal stated that a lucky general was a great general) and won far more often than he lost.

Joe Johnston is arguably the greatest general of the Confederacy

[TeMagic]

Joe Johnston is arguably the greatest general of the Confederacy

I think so too, but Joe Johnston was suffering from the departmental system created by Jefferson Davis and his Secretary of War. With the current system, Joe Johnston was uncertain of his authority and were having a hard time organizing the defense in the west. Jeff Davis would have done better in creating a much smaller number of departments (as was done eventually), if the department system should be operable at all.

When I play the game, I imagine myself as the president, and I have 9 departments at start (vs. the hostorical 17, I think), eventually reducing the number to six (Virginia, West, Trans-Miss, Carolinas, Georgia & Florida, Gulf)

Pemberton's ~ 40 000 and Floyd's 15 000 men surely would have made the war in the West longer and probably even more bloody.

But in the end, I think the states' rights and the horrible strategic decisions by the president, cost the confederates their chance for victory. At the end of 1861, 300 000 confederate troops had been mustered for the defense of their country, yet, A. S. Johnston had ~ 40 000 men availible, and Johnston in Virginia had ~ 60-70 000 men. That meant, app. 200 000 men were spread out across the other departments, failing to defens the Hatteras and New Orleans, failing to reduce Fort Pickens, etc. I can't imagine a worse president for the confederacy than the honourable Jeff Davis. Cobb and Toombs couldn't have been worse...

Cobb for president, Atlanta capitol, Joe Johnston as commander in the West, Lee in the East, Jeff Davis commander of the Atlantic Department, A. S. Johnston commander in Trans-Miss, Beauregard in command of the Gulf Department....

[Brochgale]

I think so too, but Joe Johnston was suffering from the departmental system created by Jefferson Davis and his Secretary of War. With the current system, Joe Johnston was uncertain of his authority and were having a hard time organizing the defense in the west. Jeff Davis would have done better in creating a much smaller number of departments (as was done eventually), if the department system should be operable at all.

When I play the game, I imagine myself as the president, and I have 9 departments at start (vs. the hostorical 17, I think), eventually reducing the number to six (Virginia, West, Trans-Miss, Carolinas, Georgia & Florida, Gulf)

Pemberton's ~ 40 000 and Floyd's 15 000 men surely would have made the war in the West longer and probably even more bloody.

But in the end, I think the states' rights and the horrible strategic decisions by the president, cost the confederates their chance for victory. At the end of 1861, 300 000 confederate troops had been mustered for the defense of their country, yet, A. S. Johnston had ~ 40 000 men availible, and Johnston in Virginia had ~ 60-70 000 men. That meant, app. 200 000 men were spread out across the other departments, failing to defens the Hatteras and New Orleans, failing to reduce Fort Pickens, etc. I can't imagine a worse president for the confederacy than the honourable Jeff Davis. Cobb and Toombs couldn't have been worse...

Cobb for president, Atlanta capitol, Joe Johnston as commander in the West, Lee in the East, Jeff Davis commander of the Atlantic Department, A. S. Johnston commander in Trans-Miss, Beauregard in command of the Gulf Department....

I believe Cobb would have been worse and Toombs always wanted to be a soldier after failing to become CSA President himself. Toombs another bad choice as well? As for Davis after the strategic mistakes he made - would you seriously give him any armies?
Also did the Confederacy have anyone who would have got the States on board in March 1861? States rights States Rights would have been the call whoever was in charge I reckon and thus doomed?

[TeMagic]

I believe Cobb would have been worse and Toombs always wanted to be a soldier after failing to become CSA President himself. Toombs another bad choice as well? As for Davis after the strategic mistakes he made - would you seriously give him any armies?
Also did the Confederacy have anyone who would have got the States on board in March 1861? States rights States Rights would have been the call whoever was in charge I reckon and thus doomed?

I hardly think anyone would have been worse than Davis as president. As for Davis being in command of an army, I do not see a way for the president avoiding such an assignment, Davis being influental, in command of Mississippi troops, former secretary of war. I doubt he would have made a great general, maybe he would, who knows...

As to the Confederate Congress, I think maybe electing Toombs as provisional president, until the secession of other southern states, including the border states, then holding up Breckinridge as candidate for president might have been a plausible and better way of handling the affairs. Toombs as provisional president would have meant no firing of Fort Sumter, and probably the location of the capitol would have been fixed on the state of Georgia, safer from the enemy, allowing more of a strategic defense in depth, needed by the south. Lincoln would probably still call up volunteers to put down the rebellion, which would have increased southern support in the border states, Breckinridge as presidental candidate might have bolstered southern recruitment and acquiring of provisions of war from the border states, and he had ample practise of politics (same as Jefferson Davis, which might have made a good secretary of war).

Now, no firing on Fort Sumter, meaning the south would have had the moral card, at least until the emancipation declaration, confederate capitol in Georgia, Joseph E. Johnston the most senior commander in the southern army, allowing for Jominian strategy of defence, the secession of the border states (Maryland would probably have been occupied quickly by the north to secure D. C.), and a president who might have understood that the war would be chiefly fought and won in the western theater (as suggested by senior generals Beauregard and Bragg), might have delayed the union control of the Tennessee, Cumberland and Mississippi rivers... Well, I think the war might have turned out differently.

Now, the war being inevetably, I'm still inclined to think it was good, the union victory, as it meant the end of slavery, but as I see it, the whole ordeal was unnecessary and costly. The south would have been wise in declaring a gradual and compensated emancipation of the african american, but unfortunately, the southern aristocracy and the ruling elite did not view that as a viable option.

[Brochgale]

Davis could not afford to let Lincoln resupply and reinforce Sumter - it would have weakened the new Confederacy to recognise that Feds had any claim to any coastal forts etc. No other CSA President could have done anything else - I believe that Lincoln wanted to bully the South - he overplayed his hand and Sumter got fired on.
It is also probable that if there is no shot fired on Sumter then Va, Ark, TN and N.C probably stay in Union in short term as there is no need for Lincoln at that point to rattle any sabres

[TeMagic]

Davis could not afford to let Lincoln resupply and reinforce Sumter - it would have weakened the new Confederacy to recognise that Feds had any claim to any coastal forts etc. No other CSA President could have done anything else - I believe that Lincoln wanted to bully the South - he overplayed his hand and Sumter got fired on.
It is also probable that if there is no shot fired on Sumter then Va, Ark, TN and N.C probably stay in Union in short term as there is no need for Lincoln at that point to rattle any sabres

I'm quite sure that a resupply mission to Fort Sumter would have been successfull, but seriously, how many men would the union be able to stack up in the tiny fort - compared to what the confederates would have been able to on the mainland?

Either way, the rebellion would have continued, and Lincoln would sooner or later been forced to fire the first shot and called up volunteers, leading to the secession of Va, Ark, TN and NC, and quite possibly, even the border states, as the North would have been seen as the clear offender and instigator of armed conflict.

Toombs as provisional president would not have authorized the firing of Fort Sumter. He was the only man in the cabinet who objected the firing of Fort Sumter, historically, fearing the loss of foreign recognition as a result of southern aggression. In hindsight, he might have been right in his assumption.

EDIT: The only practical value of Fort Sumter pre-war (and for a short duration during the war, before the southern batteries would have totally reduced the fort and any occupants) was the closing of Charleston Harbor. Well, the loss of an operable Charleston Harbor "might" have weekened the confederacy, but relatively speaking, I think the firing on the fort weakened the South more than the closing of Charleston Harbor would have.