The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. (Book Reviews).

The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Volume XXI: November 1, 1870-May 31, 1871; Volume XXII: June 1, 1871-January 31, 1872; Volume XXIII: February 1-December 31, 1872; Volume XXIV: 1873. Edited by John Y. Simon and others. (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, c. 1998, c. 1998, c. 2000, c. 2000. Pp. xxii, 548; xxiv, 513; xxiv, 536; xxiv, 557. $65.00 each volume; ISBN 0-8093-2197-1; 0-8093-2198-X; 0-8093-2276-5; 0-8093-2277-3.)

Volumes XXI through XXIV of this remarkable series cover the Grant presidency from November 1870 through December 1873, when Grant transformed himself from a man above parties to Republican Party leader, securing reelection to a second term. Each volume begins with a very brief statement of the key events and developments reflected in the materials, a very limited indication of editorial procedure, and a chronology of events touching Grant directly. The volumes include all letters Grant sent during this time, ordered chronologically. These are followed by a chronological calendar of letters received that have not been already reprinted in the often lengthy footnotes accompanying those sent by Grant. There is an index of names of individuals, states, and countries. Occasionally, descriptive subentries flesh out the general entries.

The fact is that Grant was as laconic in writing as he notoriously was in speech. Reprinting his letters alone would hardly have been worth the effort or money it would have taken. What makes these volumes valuable is the way the editors have augmented Grant's words with related correspondence and occasionally newspaper reports and personal memoirs. Presented herein in a smaller font, this material far exceeds Grant's productions in volume and informativeness.

The positive aspect of this immense effort is that Grant's brief expositions are placed in a deep political context; his personal letters occasionally are similarly augmented but in general receive less expansive treatment. A short note to a federal officer in Louisiana (Grant's brother-in-law) warning against factionally motivated removals is followed by six pages, in very small print, of letters between Louisiana politicians and letters to Grant about the state's factional politics and federal appointments (Vol. XXI, pp. 268-74). A longer letter offering the chief justiceship of the Supreme Court to Senator Roscoe Conkling is followed by three pages of correspondence among Conkling, Grant, congressmen, and others recommending nominees, as well as entries from the diary of Secretary of State Hamilton Fish (Vol. XXIV, pp. 253-56). The material comes from manuscript collections from all over the country, records in the National Archives, published diaries and correspondence, even manuscript sales catalogues! Entry after entry receives this treatment. There are ideas for articles, dissertations, and books lurking in every entry. It is an endeavor reminiscent of some of the great historical enterprises of past centuries.

However, there is a negative side as well. Often the editors use some missive from Grant as an excuse to present a mass of material only tangentially related to it. For example, a cryptic February 21, 1871, acknowledgement of a note from Senator Hannibal Hamlin leads to seven pages of correspondence about appointments and governance of the District of Columbia, with dates ranging from March 1869 to March 1873 (Vol. XXI, pp. 192-200). It is often difficult to follow the chronology of all this material. Linked correspondence in the supplementary material often proceeds from most recent to earliest, often with the year given only once. Then a slight shift in topic leads to a new set of material with overlapping dates, perhaps beginning in a different year. Five pages of material supplementing a two-line note offering a choice of federal offices to Pennsylvania politician and editor John W. Forney, proceeds backwards from March 22, 1871, to February 14, jumps to March 1, 1873, skips back to January 17, and then sticks around March 1871. One of the offices Grant offered was the mission to Brazil. This leads to three pages of correspondence about patronage loosely connected to the Brazil mission but including long discussions of politics in Missouri and the South (Vol. XXI, pp. 241-46).

All this material is fascinating and rewarding to a specialist in the Grant era's politics, diplomacy, and governance willing to plow through it. While one can acquire important information utilizing the index, it will not get the researcher to all relevant material. It is not clear, for example, that a scholar researching the political role of patronage employees would find William W. Ivory's observation that St. Louis officeholders did little for the Republican Party in 1871 and that the rank and file had therefore become apathetic. His letter to Grant is included among the material related to the Brazil mission because Ivory begins by asking to be considered for that position (Vol. XXI, pp. 244-45). The letter is indexed only under "Brazil," "Ivory, William W.," and "St. Louis, politics in." Likewise, one could not be sure of finding all material relevant to a particular event by checking the entries around the time that it happened. If Grant himself did not write about it, and if it is not among the calendared letters to Grant at the end of each volume, relevant correspondence might be practically anywhere.

Despite this caveat, the Papers of Ulysses S. Grant is an extremely valuable publication. It has an immense amount of information about politics in general, specific political events, diplomacy, Indian policy, Reconstruction, and appointments, patronage, and the civil service. The indexing does lead the researcher to materials on all these topics, although often not directly. (For example, one must look under each southern state and topical entries such as "Amnesty" and "Civil Rights Act" to fully get at Reconstruction.) Despite some personal material, the focus is very much on public life. Nonetheless, there is a good deal to be gleaned from the correspondence about how men, especially, presented themselves and constructed their identities.

Reading these volumes is like immersing oneself in a great manuscript and records repository. Nuggets of information are everywhere. One might not find them all except by reading every volume, but the bounty is so great that it is hard to imagine anyone interested in traditional fields of history coming up empty-handed. The set belongs in every research library with an interest in United States history.

MICHAEL LES BENEDICT
The Ohio State University