Continued from February 1856 (reply #11, first excerpt)
Don E. Fehrenbacher, "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" (1978)
Chicopee (MASS.) Weekly Journal, March 1, 1856
Click on the pdf to view the image.
http://www.chicopeepubliclibrary.org/archives/items/show/3815
The Treaty of Paris was signed in March 1856, ending the Crimean War between Russia and England, France, and the Ottoman Empire.
The Massachusetts newspaper I posted above mentions this war which was winding down.
I’m only posting these as interesting background, as they have no direct reference to the material you’re dealing with.
I figure anything that gives one the sense of the times is useful.
Page two of the Chicopee Weekly Journal for March 1, 1856 that I linked above contains information about the Republican convention held in Pittsburg. Interestingly, they say that the most “ultra” anti-slavery speech was made by a delegate from South Carolina.
There is also quite a bit about Irish immigration, which of course would make quite a bit of difference just a few years down the road, in terms of manpower.
Also an article about saltpeter, which would matter greatly as well...
http://www.chicopeepubliclibrary.org/archives/files/original/a72b80b2f281be0534b85642ff6682c3.pdf
From a pure territory point of view it looks like slavery is on the ascendancy but if you had a map that depicted RR track miles (as a proxy for industrialization) a different picture would likely emerge.
Continued from February 1856 (reply #11, first excerpt)
Don E. Fehrenbacher, "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" (1978)
I read some reviews on Amazon and chose this version. I thought about getting Grant’s own Memoirs, but was daunted by the length of a two-volume set. But in the preface to his bio Smith mentioned that Grant’s autobiography “achieved deserved fame as the greatest military autobiography in the English language.” English is my language, so I guess I better get that one, too.
I am only three chapters into the book – to get past 1856 – but what I have read so far has made me a fan and admirer of Grant. Before he became famous he showed himself to be a man of courage, kindness and high character.
U.S. Grant started life April 27, 1822 as H.U. Grant. His given names were Hiram Ulysses. That was changed by the congressman who got him his appointment to West Point. Rep. Thomas Hamer wrote Ulysses S. Grant on the application by mistake, thinking the middle name was Grant’s mother’s maiden name – Simpson. So Grant went on the roster at the USMA as U.S. Grant instead of H.U. Grant. The young man was so unassuming he didn’t get officialdom to correct the error, so the name stuck. Grant was a mediocre cadet in all things except horsemanship, in which he was unsurpassed at the academy. He finished in the lower middle of his class. That was largely due to his habit of reading popular novels of the time rather than studying his text books.
Grant’s first assignment after getting his commission with the class of 1843 was to the 4th Infantry Regiment at Jefferson Barracks, near St. Louis, Missouri. While there he frequently visited the family home of his academy roommate, Fred Dent. He began to court Dent’s sister, Julia, and eventually the couple became engaged.
I can accurately state that almost everything I know about the Mexican War I learned from chapter 2 of this biography. I learned that U.S. forces suffered killed in action in that war at a rate “highest of any war fought by the United States.” I learned that the U.S. expeditionary forces fought two different campaigns under two commanding generals. Zachary Taylor led the campaign in northern Mexico in 1846 that resulted in the capture of Monterrey and Winfield Scott led the campaign that took Mexico City the following year. The change of commanders was a political decision made by President Polk, who wanted a Democratic figure to replace the Whig Taylor. Taylor and Scott differed greatly in personal style but both were able commanders. Grant and the 4th Infantry took part in both campaigns. For much of the northern campaign Grant was assigned as quartermaster. He protested this assignment in writing because he wanted to remain with his company to share their dangers, but his letter requesting that was denied. Grant benefited greatly in the long term because he learned from the bottom up what it takes to keep an army field and on the move supplied. The author suggests we will learn how Grant benefitted from this lesson during the Civil War. Despite this assignment Lt. Grant managed to get into combat several times and was decorated twice for distinguished behavior while under fire.
Grant spent several months of occupation duty in Mexico after hostilities ceased, then returned to the United States in 1848, where he married Julia Dent on August 22, 1848. The names of Grant’s comrades-in-arms during the Mexican War read like a who’s who of Civil War commanders of the north and south. To illustrate this, Grant’s best man at his wedding was Julia’s cousin James Longstreet. The two ushers were Cadmus Wilcox and Bernard Pratte. “All three would surrender to Grant at Appomattox.”
Lt. Grant was next assigned to a number of posts on the Canadian border before getting orders to accompany the 4th Regiment, along with dependent wives and children, to California by ship via Panama. Julia Grant was pregnant with the couple’s second child and Grant insisted she forego the grueling trip. That turned out to be literally a lifesaving decision. When the travelers reached Panama a cholera epidemic was raging, and it struck the Americans hard. All twenty of the young children on the voyage died. Lt. Grant was in charge of logistics for the regiment and behaved heroically in the crisis. “When orderlies balked at tending the sick, Grant undertook the nursing himself.” He organized a pack train and got them moving towards the Pacific side of the isthmus. The 4th reached San Francisco on August 17, 1852.
During his west coast tour Lt. Grant began to involve himself in business ventures. He and a partner tried growing potatoes, onions and corn in the Columbia River gorge. The crop was flooded out. They invested in chickens for sale in San Francisco. The vessel was delayed and the chickens died. They tried to open a social club in San Francisco. Their agent ran off with the funds. They loaded ice on a ship, again for sale in San Francisco. The ship was again delayed and the ice melted. It seems Grant was able to envision the potential profits from a business venture but didn’t look at the downside risk. He also placed too much trust in the wrong people. His run of bad luck was icing on his failure cake. During this time Grant began to drink more than was good for him, as was standard behavior among the army officers he served with. Eventually the boozing resulted in his resigning his commission and returning to civilian life. The details are not known for certain but it seems highly probable that Lt. Grant’s CO at Ft. Humboldt, California, Lt. Col. Robert C. Buchanan, came across Grant drunk while on duty and gave him the choice of resignation or court martial. To avoid the shame of a trial Grant resigned effective July 31, 1854.
This began a series of hard years for Grant. He returned to his family in St. Louis and – now a teetotaler – tried farming and other vocations, attempting to keep one step ahead of the bill collectors. At times he was reduced to cutting and selling firewood on the streets of St. Louis to keep his family afloat.
So that is where we find U.S. Grant in March 1856 – struggling for a living in St Louis. At the end of 1859 Grant will move to Galena, Illinois, where his father and brothers are running a leather business in 1860. I believe the U.S. Army will find a better use for his talents shortly afterwards.
I like this book and recommend it.