|
Fort Union
Historic Structure Report |
|
| PART II |
HISTORIC BASE MAP: INTRODUCTION
The history of the study of the buildings of First Fort Union is as long as the history of the park. After the establishment of Fort Union National Monument in 1956, the archeologist George Cattanach began excavation and stabilization of the Third Fort buildings, and had little time for the First Fort; not until the late 1950s was his successor Rex Wilson able to relocate some of the buildings of First Fort by excavation. Based on his fieldwork and research, Wohlbrandt, Marsh, and Cotten attempted to draw a map of First Fort in the early 1960s. Nick Bleser of the Fort Union staff carried the research and field work further in the second half of the 1960s, and Wayne Ruwet, working with Bleser, carried out an initial identification of the buildings on the ground and first description of their history in the late 1960s. Using these earlier attempts and his own original research, Richard Sellars began research on the Historic Structure Report for First, Second, and Third Fort in the mid-1970s. When Sellars ran out of time that could be spared for the project, Dwight Pitcaithley carried it further, with an emphasis on Third Fort. Finally, Pitcaithley and Jerome Greene finalized the material for Third Fort and published it in 1982 as Historic Structure Report: Historical Data Section, The Third Fort Union, 1863-1891, Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico. The lack of a Base Map derived from an archeological survey left many of the First Fort buildings unlocated or unidentifiable, and the absence of detailed documentation about the construction of Second Fort made it very difficult to compile a structural history of this fortification. These crippling gaps in the accessible information made it impossible for Sellars, Pitcaithley and Greene to finalize the reports for First Fort and Second Fort.
The present Historical Base Map is the most recent in a series of attempts to map the First Fort, Second (or Star) Fort, and Third Fort of Fort Union. In addition, Sutler's Row is given a first, rough evaluation here, based on available sources. Third Fort, sheets 4, 5, 8 and 9, has preserved the plan of its buildings clearly enough that the correspondence between historical maps and the existing structures was fairly clear. Only the less substantial outlying buildings and structures overlaid by more recent buildings remained somewhat elusive. This Historical Base Map has attempted to plot a clear location and outline for these structures, and the Historic Building number series has been extended to include the new additions.
In some cases, original Third Fort numbers have had additional information included about the history of the buildings they cover. This usually consists of further detail about the changes in plan over the life of Third Fort and the relationship of earlier buildings to later ones, and are further clarifications or addenda to Pitcaithley and Greene, rather than intended to stand alone.
In the First Fort, Second Fort, and Arsenal sections, considerable reference is made to Leo Oliva's study, Fort Union and the Frontier Army in the Southwest. Unfortunately, Oliva's work was available only in draft form at the time the Historic Structure Report and Historical Base Map had to go to press; all references to Oliva are to the page number of the draft, the short title of which will be "Frontier Army," not to the final published version. [1] Where specific details of Laura Soulliére Harrison's discussion in Part I are referred to in Part II, the location of the details is given by a reference such as "Part I, p. 10."
The First Fort and Arsenal, sheets 2 and 3, have proven to be a difficult problem for those who wished to draw an accurate plan of the buildings. For one thing, the multiple additions, changes, and overlaying of structures makes an overall plan exceptionally complex, as can be seen by looking at the Base Map. Secondly, only one historical map of First Fort is available, and it is a schematic, rather than an accurate plan; it was drawn early in the life of the fort, and does not show the many later changes and additions. Two army plans for the Arsenal during its life have been available, but research has shown that one of these was a proposal plan, not an as-built. Attempts to map the area in the 1960s resulted in faulty or incomplete maps of the First Fort/Arsenal group, because most of the First Fort buildings and a number of Arsenal buildings were not of substantial construction and were difficult to see on the ground.
The earliest National Park Service map of the area was prepared by Wohlbrandt, Marsh and Cotten (first names unknown) in August, 1960, and July, 1961, following an initial archeological relocation of some structures by Rex Wilson in 1959-1961. [2] Although it looks like a good start, this plan is seriously flawed by a series of errors in plotting the structures. The east-west locations of the buildings are far too close together, as though the map had several vertical strips of empty space cut out of it between rows of structures. This is not apparent, however, until the Wohlbrandt plan is compared with a more accurate map, such as the base contour map prepared for the National Park Service by Thomas Mann Aerial Mapping in 1989, using aerial photography flown in November, 1988, for this project.
Many of the First Fort and Arsenal structures plotted on this Base Map were located and identified during 1963-66 by Nicholas Bleser, Administrative Assistant at Fort Union in the 1960s. The Base Map owes a great debt to him for his efforts. A further debt is owed to Wayne Ruwet, who, building on Bleser's field work, in 1969 wrote a report for Fort Union National Monument on the structural history of First Fort and the Arsenal. [3] In 1970 Ruwet prepared an expanded version of this report for his Master's Thesis for the University of California at Los Angeles, and was kind enough to send a copy to the park. [4] Ruwet's work supplied this study with a great deal of useful information about the plan and changes to the buildings of First Fort and the Arsenal, and schematic maps based on intensive examination of the available nineteenth century drawings of the area. When reference is made to Ruwet's work, it is cited as, for example, Ruwet, "Fort Union," p. 10. Had they had the help of an archeologist and the contour maps prepared for this report, Bleser and Ruwet would have done this job in 1969 and left us little further work.
Most plans of the Second Fort, sheet 8, have been drawn by topographic surveyors, using stereographic aerial photographs, with no attempt to interpret the visible outlines in terms of structures or their possible uses. The original plan of the fort made by its designers is mentioned several times in army correspondence, but has disappeared. A portion of the Second Fort appears on a plan dated January, 1867, prepared by John Lambert under the direction of Captain Henry Inman; this plan is fairly accurate and gives a clear location and use of several parts of the eastern third of the Star Fort. An early effort to interpret the Star Fort was begun by Nicholas Bleser. In the set of 5" x 8" information cards in the collection of Fort Union appears a sketch plan of the Star Fort by Bleser, dated October 25, 1965. This contains virtually all the significant information to be seen on the plan of the fort in this Base Map set. Bleser's work made this formal analysis fairly simple; most of the difficulty centered around the effort to reconstruct a true outline of the fort's structures without archeology; excavations would have considerably aided this effort, but will have to wait for future projects with specific research goals requiring such excavation. This Base Map was intended to go as far as possible using only evidence visible on aerial photographs and contour maps, on the surface, or detectable by probe. I hope that the information presented here will help those who conduct future archeological investigations as much as Bleser's investigations helped us.
Field Methodology
The Base Map is based on one month of field investigation and surveying by a crew under James Ivey, Division of History, Southwest Region, in May, 1989, and a number of later one-day visits by James Ivey and Will Ivey to confirm measurements, to clear up confusion, to check further probable structural locations, or to add details. The crew mapped the buildings of the First Fort and Arsenal, the Second Fort, Sutler's Row, and a number of previously unmapped buildings of the Third Fort. They worked entirely from surface indications, artifact scatters, visible foundations and chimney bases, and foundations detected by probe; no excavations were conducted. They were guided to the specific sites by using general locations and outlines gained from aerial photography and nineteenth-century maps and drawings, and the fieldwork of earlier researchers such as Rex Wilson, Nicholas Bleser, and Wayne Ruwet. Once structural traces and building outlines were determined by these methods, the crew measured the precise locations of the corners and wall segments by the use of field tape measurement, theodolite, and electronic distance measurement. The locations in general are probably accurate to within two feet.
The Historic Structures Listing
A critical component of the Base Map in this report is a detailed Historical Structures Listing. Structures are discussed in the order of their Historical Structure (HS) numbers; except that the 300-series, assigned to additional structures in the Third Fort area, will be discussed immediately after the other Third Fort buildings, rather than after the Second Fort 200-series. The most prominent Third Fort buildings use the numbers up to 100, and First Fort uses the 100-series numbers. The descriptions of Third Fort structures will in most cases consist only of a page reference to the Historic Structure Report by Greene and Pitcaithley, called Third Fort Union in these references. Where changes or additions to the description by Pitcaithley and Greene are necessary, or where new structures are being added, the details are included here. The peculiarities of numbering are the result of keeping the original Park Service numbering system and expanding on it. This was done to avoid forcing the Park to renumber all their records dealing with individual structures, but resulted in preserving inconsistencies in the method of assigning numbers to structures. For example, in Third Fort the Park Service had assigned the number 36 to the entire Mechanics' Corral, containing a number of blacksmithing, forging, machine shop, kitchen and messhall activities contained in specific rooms, while at the same time in First Fort assigning the numbers 104, 105 and 106 to individual rooms of one structure because they had separate functions: the oil house, armory, and tinner and blacksmith shop. This can be annoying at times, but will suffice.
One guiding principle used throughout the building descriptions should be pointed out to those using this Base Map. Where possible, the descriptions of individual structures attempt to keep track of the movement of function. The U. S. Army had a set of functions that must be carried out at each post. They constructed buildings to house those functions. A Base Map of an army post does its job best when it traces the movement of a given function from one structure to another through time, and this method frequently allows a suggestion to be made for the function of a building when no other evidence is available.
Some of the historical buildings of Fort Union were not included within the boundaries of the two components of the National Monument when the park was established in 1956. These structures are indicated with an asterisk (*) before their HS number. They are on the private property of Fort Union Ranch, and are not available for public visits without specific written permission from the owners. The First Fort component, although part of the National Monument, is not open for public visits except during one day a year. Special visits are sometimes possible, but must be arranged with both the National Monument and Fort Union Ranch, through which the visitor must travel.
Where critical details are included in original documents but not discussed by any of these authors, the original document is cited. Finally, the First Fort and Arsenal have a set of cross-references to the numbers or letters assigned to the individual buildings by previous researchers, to aid future investigators in understanding exactly which structure in one or another of the early reports is being discussed in this Historic Structures Listing.
|
| Figure 17. Early and later versions of the Post Corral and Depot Corral. |
HISTORIC BASE MAP: BUILDING LISTINGS
THIRD FORT AREA
Third Fort Union was designed by Captain John C. McFerran, Chief Quartermaster of the District of New Mexico, and revised somewhat by Captain Henry J. Farnsworth, Quartermaster of the Depot of Fort Union. The design was worked out in mid-1862, and construction began on a large storehouse and the Quartermaster Corral by September, 1862 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," pp. 547-48), although full approval of the new plans did not happen until November, 1862. The initial construction was completed by late 1867, but several areas were redesigned that year, and rebuilding was not complete until almost 1870. The fort was abandoned in 1891.
POST CORRAL
The first plan of the Fort Union Corrals and Stables was designed by John McFerran in late 1862; it was to be 390 feet deep, east to west, and 643 feet long, north to south, the same length as the set of four Company Quarters (HS-11 to 14) on its west side. Work on the Post Corral began in late 1866. By January, 1867, the western side of the compound was under construction, and at least the foundation trenches for the east side, and therefore probably the north and south sides, too, had been excavated, as shown by their clear presence on aerial photographs and ground inspection; however, the plan, although somewhat revised, was already considered inadequate. In May, 1867, a new plan of the Corrals and Stables was drawn by John Lambert under the direction of Captain Henry Inman, Depot Quartermaster, which added a number of rooms and extended the corral to a total depth of 445 feet. The Lambert and Inman redesign divided the Corrals and Stables into two equal sections; the southern half was the Cavalry Corrals and Stables, while the northern half was the Post Quartermaster Corral and Stables. Much of the new plan was built by the end of 1867 (see figure 17, p. 110). In 1875-76 the decision was made to add two companies to the garrison, and the various workshops, offices and storerooms of the Post Corrals were converted to barracks space for one of the companies.
QUATERMASTER DEPOT
DEPOT CORRAL
The original plan for the Depot Corral was by McFerran. Construction on the Quartermaster Depot Corral began in September, 1862, prior to final approval of the new plan in November (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 396). Pitcaithley and Greene (Third Fort Union, p. 11) state several times that the early corral was larger than the final version, but this is not true. The overlay demonstrates that the early corral, at 648 feet north to south and 350 feet east to west, was significantly smaller than the later. The old plan is still visible in places, and most of it is still in the ground. The addition of an enlarged wagon corral yard on the east side about 1870 brought the outline of the original corral out to 450 feet, forming the eastern edge location used for the later corral. Photographs of the various structures of the early corral appear in ill. 47 (Third Fort Union, pp. 218-19), ill. 48 (Third Fort Union, pp. 220-21). A new corral was designed by Colonel H. M. Enos and John Lambert in 1867, but it was not built (Third Fort Union, p. 157, ill. 16), probably because the Depot felt less need for a revamping of its plan than did the Post. Instead, the original Depot corrals, stables, granaries, and sheds continued in use until they were destroyed by fire on June 27, 1874. The fire was thought to have started in a privy at the south end of the easternmost granary, almost against the east wall of the corral.
Construction on replacement buildings began immediately, and was well under way in the fall of 1874 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 651). Some of the walls, at least, were of adobe. An 1875 plan shows the repaired Depot Corral, with dimensions of 704 feet north to south, and 450 feet east to west. A fairly complete redesign of the Depot corrals was carried out in 1875-76, incorporating the perimeter walls, keeping the new dimensions and the buildings constructed along the west side of the Depot Corral in 1874, but creating a completely new division of space in the remainder; it is uncertain who designed this final plan (see figure 17, p. 110). It had been constructed by 1876 and remained relatively unchanged for the rest of the life of Fort Union.
HOSPITAL
Construction began on the Hospital complex in 1863. The major construction was completed by early 1864, and the group was enlarged sometime soon after November, 1866. The enlargement apparently consisted of the construction of the Enclosing Wall (HS-65), the Dead House (HS-66), the Hospital "Sink" (HS-67), and the probable second latrine (HS-68).
ADDITIONAL FORT STRUCTURES, VARIOUS LOCATIONS
SUTLER'S COMPLEX
At the beginning of the preparation of this base map, Sutler's Row at Fort Union was a virtually unknown entity. The structures of the Row were visible in the background of several photographs, and two photos of "the Post Sutler's Store" were available, of two distinctly different buildings, taken at times nearly twenty years apart. Only one effort to sort out the structural history of these buildings, or to relate them to the confused mass of references to post traders, is on record; this is a plat of the ruins of the Row in the Document Files of Fort Union National Monument, apparently drawn by an unknown member (possibly Nick Bleser) of the Park staff sometime in the early days of the Monument. Because an accurate plan of the buildings was not available, and because the extremely complex sequence of changes to the regulations governing post traders was not understood, this plat was far too simple.
The present base map, with the photographs and the two military maps that show structures on the Row, has given clear enough an idea of the physical changes. Leo Oliva's research, along with the work of Robert Reiter, David Delo and Darlis Miller, when combined with available correspondence in the Fort Union National Monument collections assembled largely through the efforts of Nick Bleser in the 1960s, allowed a surprising level of detail about who built which building, what it was used for, who it was sold to, and when. As a result, somewhat more space has been given to the Sutlers buildings than was originally anticipated to accommodate this information. [5]
Early Sutlers and the First Sutler's Store at Fort Union
From the establishment of Fort Union in 1851 through the difficult years of the Civil War, only one sutler was allowed on post. The permit was usually issued in the name of an individual, but frequently that individual was part of a sutler's company, because the managing of a large sutler operation was complex and could not be handled by one person alone.
Someone had to operate the store from day to day, keep track of daily sales, keep up with stocking and inventorying, and see to the maintenance of the building; one leaky roof could mean financial disaster. Meanwhile, someone trustworthy had to take cash or credit to Saint Louis, Missouri, where they would purchase many thousands of dollars of goods, arrange for their shipment by wagon to the sutler store, and sometimes accompany the goods on the trip to insure that they were treated properly. It was common, in the face of these difficulties, to have at least two partners, one to manage the store and the other to be the travelling purchaser. The company would usually have a hired staff of several employees, and the store had residential rooms for some of this staff and their families.
The appointment as sutler could be an uncertain thing. Army regulations of 1857 required that sutlers be nominated by a "council of administration," composed of the second through the fourth-ranking officers at a post; the Secretary of War made the final decision on whether a given nominee received the appointment. [6] The officers at a post sometimes played their favorites rather than going with the best qualified person; and sometimes a sutler appears to have had his appointment cut short. Sutlers usually received an appointed for three years, "unless sooner revoked by competent authority." [7]
Jared W. Folger was appointed as the first sutler to the new Fort Union on September 27, 1851. The first sutler's store (HS-145) was undoubtedly begun soon after his appointment; a completion date of early 1852 is reasonable. The available drawings and plan show a building in the shape of a backwards "C", the open side on the west. Assuming that the size shown on the one available plan is representative, the building had a main wing about 85 feet long and 21 feet wide running north to south, with two somewhat lower wings extending west, each about 40 feet long and 21 feet wide. Pitched roofs covered all three wings, and there were at least two chimneys, one on the roof ridge in the center of the north wing, and the other on the southeast corner at the end of the roof ridge of the main wing. The building had a store, storeroom, post office, a residence for the sutler and his family, residences for some employees, and rooms for rent. [8]
Folger ended his tenure as sutler on September 26, 1854. In October, Ceran St. Vrain received an appointment ending rather abruptly in August, 1856. This was a month short of two years, rather than the usual three-year appointment. At the end of St. Vrain's appointment, there appears to have been a 4-month gap during which no sutler was at Fort Union. On December 31, 1856, George M. Alexander began his appointment as sutler. Alexander hired Nathan Webb, just arrived in the territory, to be his storekeeper. Webb, later to become a partner with William H. Moore, was recently arrived from Lafayette, Indiana. He had left his wife and fled to the frontier because of "a difficulty with another man's wife." [9] By 1859, Webb had become Alexander's bookkeeper as well as the store clerk.
Alexander may have built a new sutler's store, HS-162, at the southeast corner of First Fort Union. This building was first shown in 1859, and later became a hotel, apparently operated by the post sutler. It was a frame building perhaps thirty by fifty feet, with a porch on the front, facing north, and a pitched roof. A large depression visible within the ruins today, measures about 45 x 20 feet and appears to have been a cellar. The building had an enclosed yard about 100 feet long at the rear on the south, containing one or two outbuildings. The structure was built sometime between August, 1853, when only the sutler store, HS-145, is shown on the map, and the next available drawing made in May, 1859, when HS-162 was already standing.
In 1859 Alexander lost the sutlership to William H. Moore. On March 26, Moore was appointed as sutler, to take effect on January 1, 1860. [10] As the date of his receiving the sutler store from Alexander approached, Moore carried out the preparations necessary to begin business. Among other things, on December 16, 1859, he hired Nathan Webb, Alexander's clerk and bookkeeper, to be clerk at Moore's store. On the first day of 1860, Moore opened his sutler's store at Fort Union.
William H. Moore at Fort Union [11]
William Moore had arrived in New Mexico at the end of the Mexican War. In 1848 or 1849, Moore opened a trading post at Tecolote, about 12 miles west of Las Vegas and 48 miles west of Fort Union on the Santa Fe Trail. In 1851 he began selling supplies to the new Fort Union, established in July. Beginning in 1852, Moore entered into partnership with Burton Reese, forming Moore, Reese and Company, dealing principally in corn contracts, but also involved in forage sales and cattle herding for Fort Union. With Moore's appointment as sutler at Fort Union, and Reese's subsequent licensing as sutler at Fort Stanton in March, 1860, the business had become so complex that the company had to expand. The two formed a new company with William Mitchell to operate and supply the two sutler's stores and the Tecolote store; when Reese left for California soon afterwards, the partnership became Moore, Mitchell and Company.
From its opening on January 1, 1860, to February 18, 1861, Webb was the clerk and manager at the Sutler's Store at Fort Union, running the store for Moore, Mitchell and Company. Moore operated the main store at Tecolote, while Mitchell was principally the buyer, making the company purchases in person in St. Louis.
The census of 1860 gives a snapshot of the sutler's community at Fort Union. When the census-taker arrived on August 14, he listed Nathan Webb as the "merchant" at Fort Union. In his household was his clerk E. F. Mecick, and two servants. Also living at the sutler's store was the clerk R. Letetrin and a household of six other persons.
On February 18, 1861, Nathan Webb resigned as Moore's storekeeper at the Fort Union sutler's store and returned to "the States." This may have been some sort of ploy to pressure Moore into changing the relationship between the two men, because three months later, on May 15, Webb returned to New Mexico and entered into a partnership with Moore and Mitchell for the operation of the sutler's store at Fort Union, a partnership that lasted until Moore established Webb in a subsidiary company, Nathan Webb and Company, in February, 1863. This company operated the sutler's store at Fort Bliss, Texas. During the period from 1861 to 1863 when Webb ran the Fort Union store, he received a salary of $1,500 a year and one-eighth share of the annual profits from the store.
As the Civil War showed signs of sweeping into New Mexico, Moore, Mitchell and Webb found that they faced more difficulties than fire, rain, or Indian raids. On March, 1862, before they marched to the Battle of Glorieta, soldiers of Fort Union broke into "the Sutler's cellar and gobbled a lot of whiskey, wine, canned fruit, oysters, etc." It is likely that this was HS-162 by this date—the building called "the Hotel" in 1865 and afterwards. The large depression within its foundations may well be the remains of the cellar the troops broke into.
Moore Builds the Sutler Store at Third Fort
After the threat of invasion of New Mexico by the Confederacy had faded, the Army began the process of making Fort Union more inhabitable and useable than First or Second Fort would allow. Third Fort Union was designed by Captain John C. McFerran, Chief Quartermaster of the District of New Mexico, in mid-1862, and revised somewhat by Captain Henry J. Farnsworth, Quartermaster of the Depot of Fort Union. The Army laid out the plan of the new fort and began construction on a large storehouse and the Quartermaster Corral in September, 1862, although full approval of the new plans did not happen until November, 1862. [12]
About the same time in 1862, Moore built a massive new sutler store, HS-302. [13] The building was probably begun about September, after the Third Fort was laid out, because it is square with the plan of the fort and was placed so that "the front of the store was near the big gate," [14] facing the main west entrance to the fort compound, between the Depot and the Post. [15] Moore later stated that "the buildings were erected with the permission of the commander of said post of Fort Union [probably Captain Peter Plympton, who took command on September 25 from Major Henry Wallen], for the use of William H. Moore and Company as a sutler's store, and cost the said William H. Moore and Company the sum of $4,644.40." [16] Nathan Webb, Moore's storekeeper at Fort Union at this time, probably oversaw the construction of the new building, and transferred the goods from the old store to the new one. [17]
The main store building was a U-shaped structure of adobe, 63 feet across the front, one story high, with a large doorway in the center of its east face, flanked by a window symmetrically on each side, and the pitched roof was shingled. Rooms included the store, storerooms, several offices, a billiard room, several residential rooms, and a safe room.
Walls extending west from the north and south wings enclosed a large yard behind the main building; along these walls were several additional buildings, probably barns, stables, and storerooms. Visible traces give a compound 150 feet long and 63 feet wide. The entire complex was the structure that William Ryus later described as "built like a fort," with walls of adobe brick reaching to a height of nearly 20 feet, enclosing an interior patio or corral. A large gateway, 15 feet wide, opened through the center of the south wall of the compound. [18] "Here," said Ryus, "the wagons drove in to unload and reload." [19]
In early 1863, Nathan Webb left the Fort Union store to become sutler at Fort Bliss, Texas in partnership with Moore. About the same time, Moore moved his residence to his Fort Union store. Ryus described him playing billiards with Kit Carson about 1865, and he and his family were living there as of the census of 1870. [20] In addition to his store, Moore apparently operated a hotel (HS-162) near First Fort. This building, probably constructed as an additional sutler store at First Fort by his predecessor, George Alexander, went up after August, 1853, and before May, 1859, and continued in use as a hotel through 1868. [21]
Sutler to Trader: the Army Regulation Changes of 1866-1867
Partly in reaction to the excesses carried out by sutlers during the Civil War, on July 28, 1866, Congress passed Statute 14, an act that, among other things, abolished sutlers. The provisions of the statute were to go into effect July 1, 1867. [22] In compliance with Statute 14, on January 26, 1867, the War Department issued General Order 6, announcing the termination of the warrants of all sutlers on July 1, 1867. [23]
However, protests from western forts prompted Senate Joint Resolution #25 on March 30, 1867, authorizing the Commanding General of the Army to permit "a trading establishment to be maintained" after July 1. [24] This was interpreted to mean that the Commanding General could authorize a single trader at each post.
In response to this resolution, on April 20, 1867, Headquarters, Division of the Missouri, issued a circular requiring the Commanding Officer of each established military post in the military division of Missouri west of the 100th meridian, not at or in the vicinity of any town, to nominate, at once, through the regular military channels, a suitable person to maintain and carry on, after July 1, 1867, a trading establishment under the provisions of the Joint Resolution of Congress of March 30. As an interim provision, on May 24, 1867, the Adjutant General issued General Order 58 (authorized May 30), permitting sutlers to trade at posts between the 100th meridian and the eastern border of California until further orders. [25]
Moore Becomes a Trader
In the first week of May, 1867, Lieutenant Colonel W. B. Lane, the commander of Fort Union, received the order of April 20, requiring each post to nominate a person to become post trader when the regulations permitting a post sutler expired. On May 10, 1867, he notified Headquarters of the Army, Washington, D. C., of the possible choices for post trader at Fort Union. Two people had applied for this position before official notification to Fort Union. They were Charles Shoemaker (the son of Captain William Shoemaker, commander of the Fort Union Arsenal) and W. H. Moore. Lane left the final choice to the Headquarters of the Army. Headquarters of the Army chose W. H. Moore to become the new Post Trader when the regulations went into effect on July 1, 1867. [26] On July 1, when the position of Post Sutler was officially abolished, William Moore became the first post trader at Fort Union.
Up to this point, even through the flurry of almost-conflicting orders, business continued as usual for the post sutler, now trader; but the strongest impacts of the new regulations were still to come. On August 22, 1867, Adjutant General Order 68, by order of General Grant, modified General Order 58: it stated that any number of traders could practice at posts, subject only to regulations imposed by the commanding officer. [27]
With the passage of this regulation, Moore lost his monopoly on the trade at Fort Union, and soon had competition for the Fort Union and Santa Fe Trail markets. Sometime this year, probably soon after the regulation change, General Ulysses Grant attempted to get his brother-in-law John C. Dent a post tradership at Fort Union. [28] Grant's effort on Dent's behalf came to nothing, but about the same time Charles Shoemaker reapplied for a post trader position, and apparently had more success. Probably sometime in September, Shoemaker was issued authorization to build a house and conduct trade at Fort Union, [29] but on October 4, his license was revoked by Headquarters, District of New Mexico, in Special Order 97. [30] No reason for this action was given. Since Shoemaker must not have received permission to trade much before mid-September, it is unlikely that he got very far in building a store.
Dent and Shoemaker attempted to compete with Moore, but neither managed an effective assault on his position. The successful invasion of Moore's territory came from a third person: the Santa Fe Trail trader, John E. Barrow.
The Trader John E. Barrow at Fort Union
John Barrow had been operating out of Missouri since about 1860. He had traded in New Mexico beginning about 1861; as he said later, "I had been out there frequently before [1867]; I had traded out there in 1861, and sold out my goods to different parties." His major purchasing was apparently through Robert Campbell and Company of St. Louis, but he also had dealings there with Julius Smith and Company. In perhaps August or September of 1867, Barrow hauled $37,000 worth of goods to New Mexico; "after getting out there with them I found that I had no opportunity to sell them, trade being dull and no business going on." [31] Learning of the new regulations of August 22 allowing multiple traders at Army posts, he decided to give up on speculative trade and make the attempt to get a tradership at Fort Union. At this time, Fort Union was considered "the most valuable post, with the exception probably of Fort Sill and one or two others, in the country. . . . It had a large trade outside of the post." [32]
Leaving his goods in storage in Las Vegas, Barrow returned to St. Louis. He knew it would be difficult: "Mr. Moore, who was then trader out there, had been there for twenty years. He had a great deal of influence with the military, and I knew that there were a great many persons who had tried to get the appointment and who had not succeeded." [33]
"I used some influence," said Barrow, "went and saw Mr. [Robert] Campbell, of Saint Louis, and also Mr. Thomas, who was then quartermaster in Saint Louis, to use their influence in getting the appointment, but found out I could not succeed in that way, and so was induced to apply to Mr. [William D. W.] Bernard, knowing he was a brother-in-law of John C. Dent and an intimate friend of General Grant . . . I was advised by different parties to apply to Bernard as having more influence with General Grant than any other man in Saint Louis." [34]
About mid-October, Barrow was introduced to Bernard. Barrow said that Bernard "advised me to give him my own application in writing for that post, which I did, and he wrote a letter . . . to General Grant . . . . I was to give him one-third of the profits yearly for his influence with General Grant in getting me the place at Fort Union." [35]
Barrow had never met Bernard before; he said, "I knew nothing of Mr. Bernard only what I had heard—that he had been intimate with [General Grant], been drunk with him, given him a horse, and all that kind of thing . . . ." Bernard, a clerk with Julius Smith & Co., had lived in St. Louis for a time. He was married to the sister of John C. Dent's wife; Dent already had an interest in the tradership at Fort Union, and was the brother of Julia Dent Grant, married to General Ulysses S. Grant. Bernard was a friend of Julia's, and had known Grant for some time. Barrow had heard that "General Grant had been with Mr. Bernard. He lived with him when [Grant] was a poor man in St. Louis, for a number of years." [36]
After making his application through Bernard, Barrow was confident that he would receive the position at Fort Union. He said, "I left for New Mexico . . . I did not wait [in St. Louis] for the appointment." [37] Barrow was apparently back at Fort Union by December 5, when the authorization was issued, to go into effect January 1, 1868. [38] Barrow probably received this notification at Fort Union sometime in early or mid-December.
In mid-December, Lt. Col. John R. Brooke, commanding officer of Fort Union, gave John Barrow permission to build a store, and, said Barrow, "staked off my ground for the buildings." Barrow's building, HS-305, was built between about December 15, 1867, and February 3, 1868, and cost $7000. He brought the $37,000 worth of goods from storage in Las Vegas to sell in it. Once built and supplied, Barrow felt that his store was a good one: "I had probably the best sutler's store in America, and the best stock of goods at the time." [39]
Barrow was worried about W. H. Moore's competition. "We did not [sell at a big profit] at that time; we had competition. Moore . . . had a large trade, and the only way I could do anything was to sell at a much less profit than he did." [40] Barrow felt, however, that he had the financial base and business acumen to make his gamble as a Fort Union trader pay off. As it happened, he was wrong; but it was not William Moore who brought him down.
The Barrow Store
On February 3, 1868, John Barrow opened his store at Fort Union. [41] Barrow built the new store north of Moore's building, facing the same direction, and with its front aligned with Moore's; the two buildings established the line of what was to become Trader's Row, soon to acquire further additions. Barrow's building had an enclosure extending to the west an estimated 150 feet, the same size as the Moore store. It was an adobe building with a frame false front facing east. It had a substantial stone foundation and was about 70 feet across the front and 94 feet deep to the west. The building was divided into three sections by east-west frame partition walls. These three parallel sections had pitched roofs with the ridgebeams extending west from the simple false fronts. In part of the store, Barrow ran a bar called the "Billiard Saloon." [42]
Eventually part of Barrow's complex was HS-304, just south of Barrow's store. This building was either built by Barrow as additional space, or perhaps built by Charles Shoemaker in September, 1867, and never used by him, but purchased by Barrow. On the 1868 map it is shown as a simple U-shape with no rear enclosure; soon after 1868 the entire structure and its enclosed yard were incorporated into the compound of HS-305. This appears to be the building in which were located John Gilbert's barbershop and residence, sometime before October, 1868. [43] John Gilbert was an African-American, and was probably living on the row and operating his barbershop by mid-1868. Gilbert may have arrived in the Fort Union area as a member of the 57th Colored Infantry, stationed here in 1866. [44] Next to the barbershop was a stand used for a while in 1868 by a photographer, and then after October by John Taaffe, who sold beer by the bottle out of the stand. [45]
Barrow was expecting his first wagon train from the States on February 15, and his second on March 15. On July 3, Barrow sent a new ad to the Santa Fe newspapers, in which he stated that he was "now receiving over 100 tons of assorted merchandise." [46] Barrow said later, "I had bought $50,000 or $60,000 worth of goods from January until October or November . . . ." [47] He replenished his stock "two or three times." However, Barrow was not making a large profit, because he was having to undercut Moore's prices to acquire some of the trade.
Barrow to Bernard
About May, to Barrow's dismay, his supposedly silent partner William D. W. Bernard moved from St. Louis to Fort Union. Here he "proposed to take his share of the profits and stay in the house, which he did for some time," presumably living in the residence in Barrow's store. [48]
In October, 1868, Barrow left on a purchasing trip to St. Louis, leaving the store in the hands of "Mr. Mickels," his clerk. [49] About the end of October, Barrow's appointment was cancelled. "Without any notification whatever I received a dispatch from my clerk, stating that my permit was revoked, and that Mr. Bernard was appointed in my place." [50] About the same time, Bernard telegraphed John C. Dent to meet with Barrow and arrange to buy Barrow's goods for Bernard. [51] Bernard took over the store in his absence: "He was appointed, and being around in the house sometimes, Mr. Mickels, the clerk, did not know what to do . . . He just turned it over to him after he got the appointment." [52] Of course, Bernard was in some sense Barrow's partner, and could argue that he had some claim to the store and its goods.
Barrow was uncertain as to how Bernard was able to take over the trader position, but thought it likely that "he got it through General Grant, as a matter of course." [53] Barrow had the impression that Bernard exercised a good deal of power. For example, after Bernard moved to Fort Union, "he seemed to take charge of everything at Fort Union. General Grier was commander after General Brooke left there. [Bernard] seemed to have control over him, and in fact talked about having the post-commander appointed, and talked about the old man [General Grant] as if he [Bernard] was almost Secretary of War himself, and could accomplish everything. That was the way in which he conducted himself around the post and all through the Territory." [54] This was in 1868, before General Grant became president. Grier, a colonel at the time, was appointed post commander on July 12, 1868, and continued so until September 11, 1869. [55]
Barrow left St. Louis soon after being notified of the loss of his appointment; he met with Dent and returned to Fort Union with him: "I took Mr. Dent down with me to the fort, and when I got there Bernard had charge of everything." [56] They arrived at Fort Union in the second week of November, and on November 16, Barrow terminated the partnership with Bernard. [57] On December 9, Barrow sold the store and goods to Dent—he thought. Barrow said that he and Dent entered into a written agreement, but "it was not signed, however. It was a memorandum agreement. We had just got through taking stock as the stage came up." Apparently Barrow and Dent left Fort Union for St. Louis on December 9, after a stay in New Mexico of about three weeks. [58]
A month and a half later, on January 26, 1869, Bernard finally announced in the New Mexican that his partnership with Barrow had ended on December 16, but added that he was continuing the business at Fort Union; the phrasing of the announcement implied that Bernard kept the store and goods. In reality, John C. Dent was in the process of buying the store and goods; even though Bernard was an authorized trader, he legally owned neither a store nor stock. Nevertheless, Bernard operated out of the Barrow/Dent store for a considerable time into 1869, and apparently continued to use the name "J. E. Barrow and Company." [59]
Eventually, in the first week of February, Barrow notified the public that as of December 9 he had agreed to sell his store and goods to John Dent. Barrow further said that he authorized Dent "alone in our absence, to collect all notes and accounts due the late firm of J. E. Barrow and Company." [60] However, Dent "never did. Mr. Bernard collected them, and he had nothing to do [with] it." [61]
In January, after returning to St. Louis, Barrow found that Dent had no intention of going through with the purchase of Barrow's store and goods on the terms agreed to at Fort Union. Barrow said, "I consulted with my creditors. They advised me to sell out at his terms and take what he offered me . . . . I had to accept his own terms, which subjected me to a loss on the debts I had out there of $16,000 or $18,000, and a loss on my goods of between $30,000 and $40,000." Barrow added, "I sold on long credit, and compromised with my creditors at fifty cents on the dollar." After two or three weeks of negotiations, about late February Barrow officially transferred his store and goods to Dent. [62] With this, John Dent became the owner of the Barrow Store and all its goods at Fort Union with a minimum of expense. Barrow was ruined by the takeover, losing something like $50,000 and his good credit rating. He had to begin again in Utah. [63]
Bernard, as the appointed trader, apparently continued to operate the store until at least June. The ad for the J. E. Barrow and Company store at Fort Union continued to run in both papers, and must have been paid for by Bernard during this period; it seems typical of Bernard that he continued to foster the deceit that Barrow was still part-owner of the store. In the Weekly New Mexican, the ad last appeared on June 8, 1869. [64] Barrow indicated that Dent remained in St. Louis through at least the end of February, since it took most of that month to work out Dent's forced agreement. Dent probably returned to Fort Union about March; but since Bernard, not Dent, was the authorized trader, Dent could not operate the store without Bernard's cooperation until Dent was appointed trader in September. It is reasonable to assume that Dent and Bernard set up some sort of partnership for the period from March to late September, 1869, sharing the profits while Bernard acted as trader selling Dent's goods out of Dent's store, under Dent's management.
Finally, Dent's machinations paid off; on September 23, 1869, he was appointed as a post trader at Fort Union, the position he had been working towards since 1867. [65] W. D. W. Bernard left, and about a year later was appointed Bank Examiner in St. Louis, a position he held until at least 1876. [66]
The Adolph Greisinger Building
In the meantime, a fourth building was added to the Row. On September 15, 1868, Adolph Greisinger, an enlisted man stationed at Fort Union, wrote to the commanding officer, requesting permission to build a house "in the vicinity of the two trader stores" (that is, HS-302, W. H. Moore's store, and HS-305 and 304, John Barrow's store) when he was discharged on October 1, 1868. Greisinger stated that he wanted specific permission to operate a restaurant and bowling alley in the house he proposed to build; he expected that he would have the building completed by late November, 1868. [67]
Soon after his establishment on the Row, Adolph Greisinger opened a hotel in his building. The Hotel (HS-162) near the old First Fort, apparently operated by William Moore, was closed down sometime in 1869 or early 1870, [68] and Greisinger probably began his hotel operation about the same time; he was operating the hotel by August, 1870. [69]
Greisinger was one of a group of entrepreneurs who operated businesses at the fort, not as a post trader, but as a subcontractor or employee of one or another authorized trader. The barber John Gilbert, the beer-stand operator John Taaffe, the unnamed photographer, and several later persons all apparently fall into this category. Appointed post traders subcontracting their position to someone else who actually carried out the duties was a continuous problem for the Army through the late 1860s, culminating in a circular of 1872 requiring that the trader would carry on the business himself, and habitually reside at the post where he was appointed. He was not permitted to transfer, sublet, sell or assign his business. However, this did not forbid persons operating businesses as employees of the post trader, and such multiple businesses under a single trader/manager continued at Fort Union through the rest of its active life. [70]
Even more informal trade could operate along the Row. For example, in June, 1870, Greisinger complained about a "Mexican Market House" next to his house and restaurant. [71] No structure has been identified for this activity, but since so little space was available on the north side of HS-303, it is likely that the Market was in the space between Moore's store and the Greisinger building.
Dent Gets the Monopoly
From 1867 until 1870, the new regulations allowed multiple post traders; in 1870, this was modified to the provision that post traders authorized by the Secretary of War were to be allowed on post. On July 15, 1870, a House Resolution authorized the Secretary of War to permit one or more trading establishments on all posts. [72] With this bill, giving more power to political influence than to skill and talent, Dent was able to begin the last step: to gain the monopoly on the post tradership at Fort Union. Dent exercised all the influence he had, and on October 6, 1870, was ruled the only authorized trader. [73]
On October 25, the notification of Dent's appointment was received at Fort Union. William Moore applied for and received permission to continue business up to January 1, 1871; his request for a further extension to March 1, 1871 was denied. [74] Moore closed his store on January 1, 1871, and the building was apparently unused after that date. Ultimately, the loss of the post sutlership broke W. H. Moore's company; by 1873 it was in severe debt from which it never recovered. [75]
Dent did not simply step into Moore's shoes as the only recognized trader, however. With the closure of his business, Moore did not sell his building to Dent; instead, he continued as owner until January, 1872, when he sold the structure to his bookkeeper, Henry V. Harris. [76] Dent encountered some opposition from the local military establishment, as well. On April 4, 1871, for example, Dent wrote to the commanding officer of Fort Union, Major David Clendenin, saying that he was "ready and have been for some time, to do the duties of Post Trader at this post . . ." It appears that Major Clendenin was dragging his feet on issuing the commander's authorization required before Dent could conduct business. [77]
Trader's Row During the Dent Years
The census of 1870, made at Fort Union between August 16 and September 5, gives a brief look at the Trader's Row community in that year. [78] The census taker started at the north end of Trader's Row and worked south. John C. Dent's store was at the north end, HS-305, with John Dent listed as a retail merchant with no family, Edgar James and Frank Jager clerking for him and Richard Dunn serving as freight agent; all four lived in the Dent compound. Next south was the residence of John Gilbert, the African-American barber, whose barber shop and residence were apparently in HS-304. Next was Adolph Greisinger's hotel, HS-303, also containing his restaurant and beer saloon. In Greisinger's household were two cooks, two domestic servants, an ostler, and a laundress; in the hotel were 11 households comprising 43 persons. Finally, William Moore's store, HS-302, with eight residents, including Moore, his family (one son of whom was a store clerk), and his bookkeeper, Henry V. Harris.
No residents were listed south of Moore's store. However, HS-300 had already been built here by 1870. The census implies that the building was not a residence. No owner or use is suggested by the presently-available information. It was a low, nondescript structure, perhaps no more than a shed. The ground traces suggest that it was about 45 x 30 feet with two small extensions. [79]
The 1870 census listed Thomas Lahey as a soldier at Third Fort. He was apparently discharged soon afterwards, and on November 1, 1872, he and Edward McDonald leased the Greisinger house. They intended to continue the restaurant and saloon, and applied to the commanding officer for permission to operate the hotel; they would purchase the building if they receive approval to do this. They presumably bought the building soon after receiving this permission.
By 1875, John Dent had sold part of HS-305 to Edward Shoemaker. The 1870 census listed Edward Shoemaker as a postmaster, apparently at the Arsenal; in 1875 Shoemaker's Post Office was located in the middle frame-fronted structure of the Barrow Building, with a residence attached. Dent's store continued in the northernmost frame-fronted structure of the building. [80]
The last building added to Trader's Row was built in 1876. Sometime this year, Samuel B. Watrous built a butcher shop with quarters for employees; this very likely was HS-301. [81] This structure was not on the ca. May, 1868, map, but is visible in the ca. 1885 photographs. The field investigations and examination of the photographs allow a general description of the building. It had a front section, apparently of adobe, 53 x 20 feet, covered with a pitched roof, and two wings extending westward. A walled yard was west of the building, apparently extending about 100 feet west, and at least one outbuilding is visible on the ground in the yard. The butcher who operated the shop was apparently Frank Jager, who had been a clerk for John Dent in 1870.
In 1876 the power of choosing a post trader was returned to the council of administration at individual posts. [82] Also in 1876, Fort Union had inquired of John C. Dent as to whether the building known as the "Hotel and Billiard Room" was owned by him or was under his control as part of his trading establishment. This was apparently the Hotel (HS-304), still owned and operated by Lahey with the permission of Dent, the authorized trader. [83]
By 1877, the Barrow building was referred to as the "old Post Sutler's store, Beer saloon, Post Office, etc." [84] Dent operated his store out of HS-306 until 1878, when Crayton Conger took over as trader, and probably bought the store.
In 1877, civilians authorized to live on post were John C. Dent and his family, Harry Mumford (listed as assistant PM [postmaster?] in the 1880 census), James Duncan, Henry V. Harris and family (either living in Dent's buildings and working for him, or living in Moore's old building and working for the Romeros), C. Waldenstein, John McKie, J. F. Jager (presumably the same as Frank G. Jager, the clerk/butcher, probably working and living in the Watrous butcher shop), Samuel Edge, Francisco Cordoba, and Thomas Lahey, probably still operating the hotel and saloon out of the Greisinger building. [85]
The Barrow Building After John C. Dent: The Conger Era
On April 9, 1878, Crayton H. Conger was appointed as post trader. On April 12, John Dent ended his appointment as trader, and probably sold HS-303 to 305 to Conger. Crayton's brother Arthur Conger was apparently Dent's storekeeper in the last year or so, and undoubtedly was involved in Crayton's selection as the new trader. In fact, Arthur appears to have run the store from April 12 until Crayton arrived a month or two later. Crayton brought his family out to Fort Union from Iowa. Reminiscences by his granddaughter, Mary Lou Skinner, about her grandmother's memories of the trader store state that Crayton took over the store being run by his brother, and describe some of the life at the store. [86] However, after only two years as trader, on May 22, 1880, Crayton Conger died of heart disease while in Oneida, Kansas. [87]
The census of 1880, on June 8, listed the family of Arthur W. Conger, Crayton's brother, living in the Trader Store compound, HS-303, 304, and 305, with Arthur listed as Merchant. At this time he was the acting trader. One of the residents in Arthur's household was L. A. Conger, a widowed female, 39, who was Louisa Agnes Conger, Crayton's widow and Mary Lou Skinner's grandmother. Also living and working in the compound were four additional households made up of two cooks, two housekeepers, a laborer, and their families; the total of the Congers and the others in the compound was 17 people. Further south in the Row was the butcher Frank Jager and his wife, Safronia, followed by three households of a cook and two laborers and their families, for a total of seven people, all probably living and working in HS-301. Jager had apparently become the Beef Contractor by this time. [88] It appears that W. H. Moore's old store, HS-302, was empty at the time of this census.
Not long afterwards, on July 17, 1880, Arthur W. Conger was officially appointed trader. Conger and several of his employees handed the tradership back and forth for the next ten years. Frank Jager, the butcher and one of Conger's partners, and his salesclerks Werner Fabian and Edward Woodbury, all became traders, alternating their appointments with reappointments of Conger. Conger's first appointment as trader ended on September 28, 1881, when he probably left Fort Union to escort the Crayton Conger family back to Iowa. Conger's partner Frank Jager took over the tradership in his absence.
While Conger was gone, on October 18, 1881, soon after President Rutherford Hayes ordered the cessation of liquor sales on Army posts, Jager was ordered by the post commander to close the saloon connected with his store until he had proper permission to operate it. Other exchanges about the saloon through November resulted in permission for Jager to operate the saloon only as a beer and wine bar. [89] A few months later, on January 18, 1882, Samuel Watrous sold the butcher shop, HS-301, to Jager, consolidating all the businesses in the row in the hands of the trader. [90]
A few days later, on January 21, Frank Jager resigned his position as trader. Arthur Conger applied to be reinstated in the position. A Board of Survey recommended that Conger receive the appointment. [91] On February 8, 1882, Frank Jager's resignation was accepted, and Arthur W. Conger began another term as trader. About the same time, complaints about the saloon in the Row resulted in its being closed. [92] It is likely that the saloon causing these problems is the old "Barrow Billiard Saloon."
A. W. Conger ended his term as trader on January 17, 1884. The same day, Werner Fabian, one of Conger's clerks, became the trader. [93] Edward P. Woodbury, a salesman for Arthur Conger, continued to work in that capacity for Fabian, and Conger probably operated as the manager and owner of the store. [94]
On February 27, 1885, Werner Fabian ended his term as trader, and Arthur Conger became the trader again, but only for seven months; on October 14, Arthur resigned, and the salesman Edward P. Woodbury, became the trader.
Trader's Row in 1885 [95]
By the mid 1880s the buildings of the Row were in poor condition, but HS-305 seems to have been kept up a little better than most. In 1885 A. W. Conger was again appointed trader for eight months. Edward P. Woodbury, Conger's salesman, took the position in late 1885, and continued until 1890.
The original 1868 structure built by John Barrow was the frame-fronted building photographed in ca. 1880. The ca. 1880 photograph shows the Post Trader in the northernmost frame-fronted section of HS-305, and the post office in the center. The southern frame-fronted building may have been the residence for the post office. A walkway extended along the fronts of these three buildings, and continued south. An adobe wall about 7 feet high extended south from the frame-fronted buildings along the walk, and probably continued all the way to HS-304, part of the Dent group. At least two buildings surrounded the yard behind the frame-fronted structures; others may have been located between HS-304 and 305, but it is difficult to tell buildings from mounds of collapsed adobe wall in this area; archeological work will be necessary to work out the actual plan. One of the back buildings, an L-shaped adobe structure, still has a portion of its walls standing. The other was a low, long pitched roof building north of the L-shaped building, probably along the rear wall of the yard or against the back of the three-sectioned main building.
By 1885 HS-304 and its enclosed yard were incorporated into the compound of the Dent Store, HS-305, to the north. The building as shown in the ca. 1885 photograph and on the ground was an L-shaped structure with a fireplace located in the angle between the two wings. Pitched roofs covered both wings. A substantial stone foundation extended to the west from the south wall of the building, probably to support an adobe wall around a yard behind the building. A boardwalk extending south from the Dent store continued across the front of this structure.
In 1885, Greisinger's old hotel, HS-303, had been considerably enlarged; the structural remains of this building are more complex and massive than any of the others in the Row. Substantial stone foundations probably supported adobe walls, and a massive cellar, 13 x 18 feet, was under the floor at the rear of the building. The photographs show a central building, apparently about 40 feet square with a pitched roof, and a smaller section on its south side with a separate pitched roof, both with the ridgebeams extending westward. A wing ran north from the central building; its pitched roof had its ridgebeam north to south. Some part of this wing probably stood on the foundations extending northward towards HS-304; or, these foundations might have been built to support a hallway connecting HS-303 to HS-304 on the north. A small flower bed or garden was against the south wall of the building near the west end; it was 6 x 30 feet, and outlined by stone slabs set on edge. Several outbuildings, some with substantial foundations, outlined a yard on the west side of the building. Lahey operated the enterprise for a time after 1872, and is last mentioned in October, 1877; the building was apparently sold to John C. Dent or his successor Crayton Conger about 1878. [96] By 1880 it was in use as part of Arthur Conger's trader enterprise, although still serving as a hotel.
Moore's old store, HS-302, apparently continued in disuse. Harris transferred the ownership of the building to Vicente Romero in May, 1876. [97] By 1882, the building was apparently owned by Raphael Romero, probably an heir of Vicente: on Feb. 3, 1882, the Army sent a letter to Raphael Romero asking him to show proof that he owned the building in Sutler's Row, and to show cause why he should not either tear it down or have military authority take it over as abandoned property. It was still standing in the ca. 1885 photographs, but probably did not long outlast the closing of Fort Union.
A seventh building was begun on the row, but never finished; this was HS-306. This structure was begun as part of Trader's Row, but appears not to have been finished. Its plan suggests that it was to be a carriage house or some similar usage, with a large room entered through a wide doorway facing east, and a smaller office space on the south side. The location implies that it was started after 1868-1970, because at an earlier date it would have been placed in one of the large gaps on the main part of the Row. It is on the same alignment as the other Row buildings, and may have been begun about the same time that the Barrow compound was being enlarged, tying HS-304 into the group and extending the yard westward. This was probably about 1878-80.
The End of the Barrow Store
In August, 1886, A. W. Conger was in trouble about the bar in his store again, [98] probably the old "Billiard Saloon" in HS-305. Conger is spoken of as the "post trader," even though E. P. Woodbury was the official trader; the inspection report of March, 1887, for example, stated that E. D. Woodbury was post trader. [99]
Finally, in December, 1889, the Barrow Building was destroyed by fire. Colonel Aubrey Lipincott, who lived at Fort Union as a boy, remembered the event: "One night the store, run by a man named Woodbury, caught fire and burned . . . every man in the command with their fire axes and fire buckets . . . had to pass right by our house running to the fire. And this fella, Cary [a trumpeter in one of the troops] came running down the street . . . running and blowing fire call. And it was the most vivid thing I have ever heard because of the exquisite tone this man got out of the [trumpet] . . . The building was totally destroyed, of course." [100]
The fire in December, 1889, left clear evidence; the entire area of the main building of HS-305 is a mass of burned wood, burned broken glass and ceramics, and fallen adobe walls. It is likely that burned floor joists, wall and ceiling sections, hardware, counters, doors and windows, and the charred remains of most of the stock, are all still in place within the ruins, buried under the fallen rubble of the building. Archeology would be able to work out a great deal about this post trader's operation, including the layout of the interior spaces and the use of many of the areas.
Woodbury reopened in perhaps HS-303 or 304, and continued in business through 1890 until the discontinuation of Post Traders at military posts.
The outline of ownership and use given here is all that is presently available; however, some of the lease and purchase agreements were undoubtedly recorded in the Mora County Court-house, and many others are mentioned to have been filed in St. Louis public and private records. It is likely that considerably more can be learned about the Post Sutler/Trader operation at Fort Union through these documents.
TRADER'S ROW STRUCTURES
| HS | Name and Use |
| 300 |
Unknown. No owner or use is suggested by the presently-available information. This building appears to have been added to Sutlers Row between 1866 and 1868; on the 1868 map, the space between HS-302 and the next building to the south seems to be large enough that HS-300, rather than HS-301, must be the structure shown. In the ca. 1885 photographs it is a low, nondescript structure, perhaps no more than a group of sheds. The ground traces suggest a structure about 45 x 30 feet with two small extensions. The census of 1870 indicates no occupants south of HS-302 as of August-September, 1870; this suggests that the building was a stable or had some other nonresidential use. |
| 301 |
S. B. Watrous Butcher Shop. Not on the 1868 map and no residence here in the 1870 census, but visible in the ca. 1885 photographs. This structure was probably the Butcher Shop with employee's quarters constructed by S. B. Watrous on Sutler's Row in 1876. The building was sold to Frank Jager, apparently the Beef Contractor, in 1882, and it was still standing in ca. 1885. The field investigations and examination of the ca. 1885 photographs show that the building had a front section, apparently of adobe, 53 x 20 feet, covered with a pitched roof, and two wings extending westward. A fireplace was located in the west end of the north wing. A walled yard was west of the building, apparently extending about 100 feet west, and at least one outbuilding is visible on the ground in the yard. Examination of the remains of the building indicates that it has not been seriously disturbed, and most of the archeological record of the foundations, lower walls, rotted floor joists and floorboards, doorsills, building hardware, and occupation trash are probably still in place, awaiting excavation. |
| 302 |
W. H. Moore Store. This structure was built in 1862, probably in September-December, after the Third Fort was laid out; it was the first to be built of the Sutler's group, and is the building shown in the ca. 1865 photograph, ill. 53, pp. 230-31; in the background of ill. 22, pp. 168-69, taken about the same time; and shown in plan on the 1866 map, August-December, 1866; in fact, it is the only Sutlers building in the row until Barrow began his store, HS-305, about December, 1867. With the closure of his business in 1871, Moore did not sell his building to Dent; instead, he continued as owner until January, 1872, when he sold the structure to his bookkeeper, Henry V. Harris. Harris transferred the ownership of the store to Vicente Romero in May, 1876. In 1882, the building was apparently owned by Raphael Romero, probably an heir of Vicente. At this point it seems to have been sufficiently deteriorated for the U. S. Army to threaten condemnation on it. It was still standing in the ca. 1885 photographs, but probably did not long outlast the closing of Fort Union. The main store building was a U-shaped structure of adobe, 63 feet across the front, one story high, with a large doorway in the center of its east face, flanked by a window symmetrically on each side. Door and windows are all surrounded by white wooden framing. The roof was pitched, and covered with shingles. Two tall chimneys stood against the inner surface of the south wall of the south wing, one about halfway along the length of the wing and the other near the end, where a smaller extension of the wing with a lower roof begins. A similar extension seems to run west from the north wing. A third chimney was located at the north end of the east wing. Rooms included the store, storerooms, several offices, a billiard room, several residential rooms, and a safe room. Across the front of the building was a stone walkway connecting it with the other stores to the north. This walkway is not visible in the 1866 photograph, but is clear in later pictures taken after 1868 (see, for example, MNM # 37178). It extended south to a point a little north of the north edge of the south window. The walk must have been built sometime after the completion of the Barrow store in early 1868, but before the Moore store was closed at the end of 1870—the likely date is sometime in 1868. Behind the main building was a large enclosed yard. Visible traces give a compound 150 feet long. The entire complex was presumably the structure that William Ryus described as "built like a fort," with walls of adobe brick reaching to a height of nearly 20 feet, enclosing an interior patio or corral. One of the ca. 1885 photographs shows a large gateway in the center of the south wall of the compound. The large building along the west side of the patio or corral has an odd, four-section appearance caused either by three chimneys along the back wall (for which no visible traces were seen in the surface survey) or by a peculiar roof on the building, perhaps made of canvas. The field examination indicates that most of the foundations, lower walls, and probably flooring of this building remains in place in the ground. An archeological examination would reveal a great deal about the planning, construction, and operation of a sutler store in the period of 1860-1870. |
| 303 |
Adolph Greisinger Building. Greisinger had been an enlisted man at Fort Union in the mid-1860s. In September, 1868, he requested permission from the post commander to establish a restaurant and bowling alley "in the vicinity of the two traders stores;" that is, in the area of the W. H. Moore Store and the John H. Barrow Store. Construction on his new building probably began in October, and was completed by December, 1868. No reference to the bowling alley is known after Greisinger's original letter for permission. The census of 1870 makes it clear that by 1870 Adolph Greisinger was operating a hotel in his building (for example, the census refers to him as "hotelkeeper."). In 1872, Thomas Lahey and Edward McDonald leased the restaurant and other associated buildings from Greisinger, and applied for authorization to continue operating the hotel in the Greisinger buildings. They presumably bought the building soon after receiving this permission. Lahey operated the enterprise for a time thereafter, and is last mentioned in October, 1877; the building was apparently sold to John C. Dent or Crayton Conger about 1878. By 1880 it is clearly in use as part of Arthur Conger's trader enterprise, although still serving as a hotel. After 1868, HS-303 was considerably enlarged; the structural remains of this building are more complex and massive than any of the others in the Row. The plan suggests that Greisinger and later owners added sections to it periodically over the years; the first major addition was probably about 1869, when Greisinger converted it to a hotel. The building has substantial stone foundations that probably supported adobe walls. A massive cellar, 13 x 18 feet, was under the floor at the rear of the building. At least two fireplaces were seen. The photographs show a central building, apparently about 40 feet square with a pitched roof, and a smaller section on its south side with a separate pitched roof, both with the ridgebeams extending westward. A wing ran north from the central building; its pitched roof had its ridgebeam north to south. Some part of this wing probably stood on the foundations extending northward towards HS-304; or, these foundations might have been built to support a hallway connecting HS-303 to HS-304 on the north. A small flower bed or garden was against the south wall of the building near the west end; it was 6 x 30 feet, and outlined by stone slabs set on edge. Several outbuildings, some with substantial foundations, outlined a yard on the west side of the building. As with the other buildings, the archeological record of this structure seems to be largely undisturbed, and would be tremendously rewarding to excavate. Extending between the fronts of the Greisinger Hotel and the Barrow Building on the north was a walkway of well-laid flagstone. An additional section of cobblestones with a slab edging was laid in front of the northern wing of the Greisinger Hotel, but the rest of the front had a boardwalk instead of a stone walk. Again, south of the Hotel was another section of stone walkway, different from the stone walk in front of the Moore Store, HS-302. A gap about 7 feet wide appears in the stone walkway between the Hotel and the Moore Store, apparently a drainage opening probably crossed with a wooden section. |
| 304 |
John Gilbert Barber Shop? This structure was added to Sutler's Row in 1867 or 1868, and to the 1868 map about the same time. It may have been begun by Charles Shoemaker, who was briefly authorized as a post trader in late 1867, or built in mid-1868 by John Barrow to give additional space to his enterprise. On the 1868 map it was a simple U-shape with no rear enclosure; by ca. 1885 the entire structure and its enclosed yard were incorporated into the compound of the Dent Store, HS-305, to the north. This appears to be the building in which were located John Gilbert's barbershop and residence, based on the 1870 census. Next to the barbershop was a stand used for a while in 1868 by a photographer, and then after October by John Taaffe, who sold beer by the bottle out of the stand. [101] The building as shown in the ca. 1885 photograph matches the plan of the Base Map. It was an L-shaped structure; the front was about 48 x 25 feet, while a wing 25 x 18 feet extended westward from the south end of the building. It appears that a northern wing to the west, shown on the 1868 map, was removed between 1868 and the mid-1880s; or this wing could still be there, but obscured by other changes and wall collapse. A fireplace was located in the angle between the two wings. Pitched roofs covered both wings. A substantial stone foundation extended to the west from the south wall of the building, probably to support an adobe wall around a yard behind the building. A boardwalk extending south from the Barrow store continued across the front of this structure. |
| 305 |
John H. Barrow Store. Barrow built the core portion of this building in the period from mid-December, 1867 to late January, 1868, and opened for business on February 3. The Barrow Store contained the Billiard Saloon, which was closed on September 25, 1868, by order of the post commander. This was one of the two trader's stores mentioned by Adolph Greisinger in September, 1868. In ca. October, 1868, Barrow's appointment as post trader was cancelled and given to his partner William D. W. Bernard, who took over the store. Barrow elected to sell the store to John C. Dent, Bernard's brother-in-law, rather than to Bernard himself. The sale occurred about February, 1869. Dent was appointed trader in September, 1869, and in October, 1870, was made the only trader at Fort Union. He operated his store out of HS-306 until 1878, when Crayton Conger took over as trader, and probably bought the store. Crayton died in 1880, and his brother Arthur W. Conger became the trader. The census of 1880 indicates that A. W. Conger operated out of the entire complex of HS-303, 304, and 305 in 1880-86; it is probable that his bar was originally Barrow's Billiard Saloon. In 1881, Arthur Conger's partner, the butcher Frank Jager, took over as trader for four months. Arthur Conger was again trader in 1882, and continued so until 1884. Werner Fabian became trader in 1884 (he had been a clerk for Conger), and in 1885 A. W. Conger was again appointed trader for eight months. Edward P. Woodbury, Conger's salesman, took the position in late 1885, and continued until 1890. In December, 1889, during Woodbury's term as trader, the frame-fronted section of the building was destroyed by fire, and Woodbury transferred the trader operation to one of the other buildings in the HS-303, 304, 305 group. In 1868 the building had an enclosure extending to the west an estimated 150 feet, the same size as the Moore store. After 1868 the complex was considerably enlarged, reaching the full extent shown on the plan before 1885. The 1868 structure was the frame-fronted building photographed in ca. 1880; actually, this was an adobe building with a frame false front facing east. [102] The adobe building had a substantial stone foundation and was about 70 feet across the front and 94 feet deep to the west. The building was divided into three sections by east-west frame partition walls within the adobe building. These three parallel sections had pitched roofs, ridgebeams extending west from the simple false fronts. The three sections do not appear to be the same width, but rather about 28, 19-1/2, and 22-1/2 feet across. A description in 1875 says that the post office and its associated residence were located next to the post trader. By 1875 at least the post office and its residence were owned by Edward Shoemaker, son of William Shoemaker, the commander of Fort Union Arsenal (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 884). The ca. 1880 photograph shows the Post Trader in the northernmost frame-fronted section of HS-305, and the post office in the center. The southern frame-fronted building may have been the residence for the post office. The post office had a fireplace on its south wall at the front. The Post Trader had a fireplace somewhere towards the rear of the building visible in the photographs; however, no clear trace of it is visible on the ground, and it is presumably buried in the rubble left by the fire of 1889. A walkway extended along the fronts of these three buildings, and continued south. The traces on the ground and the appearance in the photograph suggests that this was a boardwalk. An adobe wall about 7 feet high extended south from the frame-fronted buildings along the walk, and probably continued all the way to HS-304, part of the Dent group. At least two buildings surrounded the yard behind the frame-fronted structures; others may have been located between HS-304 and 305, but it is difficult to tell buildings from mounds of collapsed adobe wall in this area; archeological work will be necessary to work out the actual plan. One of the back buildings, an L-shaped adobe structure, still has a portion of its walls standing. The other was a low, long pitched roof building north of the L-shaped building, probably along the rear wall of the yard. By the late 1880s the buildings of the Row were in poor condition, but HS-305 seems to have been kept up a little better than most. The fire in December, 1889, left clear evidence; the entire area of the main building of HS-305 is a mass of burned wood, burned broken glass and ceramics, and fallen adobe walls, dating from this fire. It is likely that burned floor joists, wall and ceiling sections, hardware, counters, doors and windows, and most of the stock, are all still in place within the ruins, buried under the fallen adobe walls of the building. Archeology would be able to work out a great deal about this post trader's operation, as well as the layout of the interior spaces. |
| 306 |
Carriage House? incomplete. This structure was begun as part of the Sutlers Row, but appears not to have been finished. Its plan suggests that it was to be a carriage house or some similar usage, with a large room entered through a wide doorway facing east, and a smaller office space on the south side. It was probably begun after 1868. |
OTHER BUILDINGS, NORTH SIDE OF THIRD FORT
FIRST FORT AND ARSENAL AREA
Codes used for number designations of First Fort and Arsenal buildings:
| HS | = | Historic Structure number; the official National Park Service building number. |
| R | = | Ruwet number; the number assigned to the structure by Wayne Ruwet in ca. 1970. |
| B | = | Bleser number; the number assigned to the structure by Nicholas Bleser in 1965. |
| W | = | Wohlbrandt number; the number assigned on the Wohlbrandt map in 1961. |
| K | = | Kelp number; the number assigned by W. Kelp in ca. 1882 (Arsenal buildings only). |
| 66 | = | The number assigned to the Arsenal buildings by the 1866 proposed plan of the Arsenal, erroneously dated "1876." |
| M | = | Mansfield letter; the letter assigned to the First Fort buildings by Col. Joseph Mansfield in 1853. |
Arsenal Structural Information
The "Proposal Plan" of 1866
At the time the research for the Base Map was conducted, the available copy of this document was a xerox of a tracing of the original, rather than a photocopy or photostat of the original itself. On the master copy in the Arrott Collection at Highlands University, Las Vegas, New Mexico, the date of 1876 is written in pencil on the back; whether this is on the original or is just the opinion of the collector is not known. It appears to be a planning document for the Arsenal, depicting an early intended arrangement of the enclosing wall and buildings when they were finished.
The Arsenal is shown enclosed by a wall about 1000 feet square, but the plan shows the old Commanding Officer's Quarters, HS-133, and the old Ordnance Barracks, HS-143. Since construction on the main enclosing wall began in October, 1868, after the construction of the new Ordnance Barracks, HS-113, between March and October of the same year, it is not possible to have an as-is map that shows the enclosing wall standing without HS-113 also being shown. The diagram was drawn when the wall was planned but the actual location of HS-113 had not been selected; therefore, the date of 1876 is obviously an erroneous guess on the part of a researcher—the plan must have actually been prepared at some earlier date. The evidence indicates that the "1876" plan was a design, a "proposal plan," rather than an "as-built;" it seems to be a scale drawing and portrays the location and dimensions of some buildings with fair accuracy. With a little thought and research, the date of the drawing can be estimated as mid-1866. The reasoning behind this date is as follows: In 1860, Shoemaker believed that a new site was about to be selected for the Arsenal, and spent most of his efforts on trying to keep up the old buildings, rather than the construction of new ones; he did, however, work out a tentative plan for his new Arsenal that is presently unavailable (Part I, pp. 70-72). The intervention of the Civil War delayed the effort to relocate the Arsenal, and ultimately the decision was made to leave it at the site of First Fort. This decision was apparently reached sometime between December, 1864, when Shoemaker was still talking about other possible locations for the Arsenal, and September, 1865, when he had begun new, permanent buildings on the original site (Part I, pp. 72-74). In December, 1864, Shoemaker stated that he had made no estimate for construction costs for 1865 (presumably on September 1, 1864, when the estimates were usually submitted) because he did not want to spend money on the old buildings at the old site in anticipation of beginning a new Arsenal at a new site. In November, 1865, he referred to the "annual estimate for permanent buildings here" submitted on September 1, 1865; the use of the phrase "permanent buildings here" suggests that as of that date Shoemaker had already been informed of the imminent formal establishment of Fort Union Arsenal at First Fort during FY 1866. [103] Therefore, Shoemaker probably began working on plans for a completely rebuilt Arsenal soon after being notified of the decision, sometime between January and August, 1865, and on September 1, he officially submitted an estimate for the construction of the first permanent buildings. The context of the November, 1865, letter indicates that the new buildings he intended to build in 1865 were the Magazines, HS-109 and 110, and probably the wall enclosing them; as of November he was planning to start work on these buildings immediately and continue construction through the winter.
During the first planning in the first half of 1865 for his new Arsenal on the original site, Shoemaker prepared some sort of plan of how the establishment would be laid out. The available evidence indicates that the initial design was more or less the plan of the Arsenal as it stood a year later, in 1866, with two magazines in a walled enclosure to the south of a group of Arsenal buildings including both a few new buildings and those old ones built of adobe, with all the buildings connected by a series of walls or fences that created a second enclosure. In addition, most of the remaining First Fort buildings not used by the Arsenal were removed between ca. August, 1865, and ca. August, 1866. Because of the placing of the Magazines within their walled compound, Shoemaker must have already planned for additional workshops and storehouses in the north half of the Magazine compound, although these had not been built by late 1866.
A year after the decision was made for the new Arsenal to remain on the old Ordnance Depot site, Fort Union Arsenal was officially created on May 8, 1866. The "1876" plan, apparently a simplified sketch map made from a more exacting, scale plan, must have been prepared about the same time, and was probably intended to show the construction goals for the next several years. Specifically, the plan was prepared after the decision was made to add HS-106, the blacksmith's shop, to the east end of the original building, HS-105, the armorer's shop, the construction for which occurred in May, 1866 (Shoemaker to Dyer, June 1, 1866, RG 156, Letters Received, Office of the Chief of Ordnance). The tone of the letter implies that this addition was rather impromptu, rather than part of a long-planned change. Additionally, the sketch map was made before the Carpenter Shop, Saddler Shop, and Laboratory intended to be added to the group within the original Magazine compound were redesigned. The sketch map shows what is undoubtedly the original layout intended for the Magazine compound as planned in early 1865. However, between August of 1866, when Lambert and Enos surveyed the Arsenal area for the 1866 map, and July of 1867, when the Carpenter's Shop was completed in its present form as HS-108, [104] the Laboratory was removed from the plan, the two shops were increased to be the same size as the magazines, and the revised version built. For HS-108 to be completed in July, 1867, the redesign had to have occurred by late 1866 or early 1867.
Therefore, the original design was prepared in 1866, probably between May and the end of the year. To further tighten the date, in October, 1866, Shoemaker referred to "all of the work projected last spring," the spring of 1866 (Shoemaker, Fort Union Arsenal, New Mexico, to General A. B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, Washington, D. C., October 2, 1866). This must be a reference to the planning resulting in the "1876" plan. Based on these considerations, the following discussion of the buildings of the Arsenal will assume that the "proposal plan" is a simplified version of Shoemaker's master plan for his new Arsenal, prepared about May, 1866. The plan as designed and as it was later carried out in modified form demonstrated Shoemaker's usual scrupulous avoidance of needless expenditure. Where already-existing buildings met his standards, he modified them to serve in the new Arsenal. Apparently most buildings that had been constructed before 1865 using adobe with well-built stone foundations were adapted to the new plan. This included the Armory (HS-105), the Artillery Storehouse (HS-199), the Storehouse (HS-102), the adobe portion of the Ordnance Clerk's Office and Quarters (HS-115), and HS-192, a well-built structure behind HS-133, Shoemaker's first house—this building, used as a stable in later years, may have been the original adobe magazine, built in 1859.
Shoemaker constantly revised his plan of the final Arsenal. As mentioned above, after the creation of the "1876" plan about May, 1866, he carried out a further redesign in late 1866 or early 1867; a copy of this modified plan is not available, but resulted in the removal of HS-199 and the construction of HS-118, as well as the redesign of the Shops (HS-107 and 108) into their present form. This produced the version of the Arsenal shown on the 1868 map; the revised plan may be considered to have looked like the plan of the Arsenal as plotted on the map of 1868. Then, soon after the preparation of this map about May, 1868, Shoemaker arrived at several new changes to the plan, and in fact continued to revise and modify his plans until the completion of the Arsenal about 1871-72. In other words, the "1876" plan is only one of perhaps six or seven possible proposal plans, each reflecting another stage in the development of Shoemakers's design towards the final Arsenal; it just happens that the "1876" is available while the others are not. We are extremely fortunate that at least one of these plans was found, because the "1876" plan tells a great deal about the intermediate planning that carried the Arsenal from its original Depot configuration to the final plan in 1882.
Other Graphic Information
First, a word of warning: no matter how precise and accurate they look, the maps, plans and drawings discussed below are the result of the composer's interpretation; the presence or absence of a building from a drawing or plan does not prove that it is present or gone, but only indicates that this may be the case. This report assumes that the drawings depict what was present; some of the plans, however, show intended structures that were never built, or leave off buildings that were standing at the time; where other evidence shows that this has happened, it will be presented. In general, the plans and drawings are assumed to show the "truth," but this is only an assumption. Keep in mind that interpreting fine detail on the plans and drawings falls into the same category as fine detail in photographs: some of the information depends on the mind or knowledge of the beholder, and is not necessarily there to be seen by anyone. Basically, the more you know about a place and time, the more you can get from a drawing, plan, or photo, but at the same time, it becomes easier to see too much by projecting what you think should be there into the random markings of fine detail.
Maps
Two maps of the Fort Union Reservation prepared by Army surveyors contain critical information for this Base Map. These are the "Map of the Military Reservation at Fort Union, N. M.," surveyed in August to December, 1866, by John Lambert under the command of Brevet Colonel H. M. Enos; and the "Map of the Reservation Proper at Fort Union, N. M., originally 8 miles square," stated on the map to have been drawn in 1868, by Lambert under the orders of Brevet Lieutenant Colonel M. I. Ludington. A copy of this map is in Greene and Pitcaithley, ill. 2, p. 128-29. The 1866 Enos and Lambert Map is extremely good; it appears that virtually everything standing at the time was surveyed and plotted on the map, and the accuracy of the measurements is quite high, especially considering how small the original was drawn.
The 1868 map by Brevet Lieutenant Colonel M. I. Ludington and Lambert appears to have been traced largely from the 1866 Enos and Lambert map, with some differences to reflect the changes in the intervening two years. The map was drawn principally to show the revised boundaries of the Military Reservation of Fort Union, based on a survey carried out in March, 1868. A note on the edge of the map indicates that it was officially received by the Engineering Office of the Department of the Missouri at Fort Leavenworth on June 13, 1868. The map was therefore probably drawn in April or early May, 1868. However, on the two available versions of the 1868 maps, Ludington and Lambert show five buildings in Sutler's Row. This is awkward, since there were only two trader's stores at Fort Union Third Fort as of May, 1868. These were HS-302, the W. H. Moore Store, built about September-December of 1862, and John E. Barrow's Store, HS-305, built in December, 1867-January, 1868. HS-304 was in existence by mid-1868 when it was used as a barber shop and residence, and could conceivably have been built by May. But HS-303, the Greisinger building, was built in October-November, 1868, and must have been added to the 1868 map at the end of 1868 or in 1869; there can be no doubt that it was added after the final draft arrived at Fort Leavenworth, by somebody who had no concern for the peace of mind of later researchers. Based on these considerations, the available copies of the 1868 map must be considered to be updated through at least December, 1868.
The W. Kelp map of the Arsenal in approximately its final form is usually considered to be dated July 3, 1882. In actuality, this date is open to question, since it is directly associated with a parenthetical statement written on the original map: (Abandoned as an Arsenal), with the date directly underneath. This could be considered a note added to the map to indicate that the Arsenal was closed on July 3, 1882, rather than the date the map was made. If so, the map would have been made at some date other than July, 1882. Several oddities about it need to be noted. First, the enclosing wall is apparently not marked on the plan, even though other walls are clearly shown, such as those around HS-116 and HS-111. Other walls separating the interior of the compound into sections seem to be shown, especially the east wall of the Magazine compound. These walls seem to end at the points where the enclosing wall would have been, had it been drawn. Projecting the lines, it is found that the Kelp map shows the enclosure as 1005.4 feet east to west along the north side, and 1138.8 feet north to south along the centerline (as built, the interior dimensions were: the west wall, 1166.30 feet long; the south wall, 1000.08 feet long; the east wall, 1190.31 feet; and the north wall 1046.84 feet long). More interesting, the map shows no teardrop entrance drive, but rather the old entrance road along the north side of the Arsenal parade ground, and HS-102 is in two sections, as it was in 1888, rather than one continuous building. It is likely that the map was made about 1885-1890, when the enclosing walls were considerable deteriorated and the loop road had been abandoned for a more direct route straight in along the earlier entrance road to the large storeroom, still occasionally in use by Fort Union (Part I, p. 89).
Photographs
There are two pictures that serve as the principal photographic sources for the Arsenal:
1. A photograph of the Arsenal area as visible behind Third Fort buildings, National Archives 111-SC-87997, a copy of which is in Third Fort Union, ill. 32, pp. 188-89, contains a great deal of critical information about the Arsenal. This photograph had no associated date in the Fort Union files, and has been generally dated to 1866, but an examination of the details of the Third Fort buildings allows a narrower date-range to be suggested. First of all, the lines of sight across the Quartermaster Depot Officers' Quarters and First Fort demonstrate that the picture was taken from the west edge of the roof of the Mechanic's Corral, HS-36, at its southwest corner. The three structures being built in the foreground are the three Officers' Quarters for the Fort Union Depot, HS-27, 28, and 29, from left to right. These buildings were begun in July and August, 1865, and the right-most building, HS-29, was completed by February 1, 1866 (Third Fort Union, p. 58). The photograph shows this building to be well along, with the chimneys and ceilings more or less complete but the brick cornices and upper roof still needing to be finished and the doors and windows installed, while HS-28 has its ceilings but no visible chimneys, and HS-27 is still unroofed, with sunlight shining into the rooms. Since bouts of freezing weather made construction proceed slowly during the winter months, in order for HS-29 to be completed by February, 1866, this picture must have been taken in late 1865. On April 15, 1867, Brevet Colonel H. M. Enos, in a letter to Chief Quartermaster L. C. Easton, mentioned in passing that Captain H. J. Farnsworth had sent photographs of Fort Union to Captain A. B. Carey, who assembled a collection of these from a number of posts and sent them on to the Quartermaster General in September, 1865. This makes it virtually certain that the several photographs of Fort Union taken during the early construction of the Depot were made by Captain H. J. Farnsworth or one of his subordinates sometime during and just before September, 1865. Since we know construction on HS-27, 28, and 29 did not begin until July, and is well along in the photographs, early September seems the best guess. In the following descriptions, the date "ca. September, 1865," will be used.
This may seem like a lot of effort to determine a date of only minor interest, but in this case the evidence of the photograph is of tremendous value. Since the point at which the picture was taken is known, and since all the Officer's Quarters in the picture still stand to some extent, the exact line of sight to the ends of specific buildings can be plotted on the map with an accuracy of a few feet. Taken in combination with the statements of MSK Shoemaker at the Arsenal, the photograph clarifies an amazing number of details; such things as what buildings he was referring to in his correspondence of 1865 and 1866, the dates of destruction of many buildings, including several of the First Fort Officers' Quarters (still standing in the Farnsworth photograph, but gone by the time of the survey for the 1866 map a year later), and the extent to which other buildings had been built. The importance of the date of the photograph will become apparent as the descriptions of buildings are examined below and the frequency of reference to the photograph becomes apparent. Many thanks to Superintendent Harry Myers of Fort Union for recognizing that First Fort was visible in the background of this picture, and insisting that we look a little closer at it. It allowed precision in many cases where otherwise the phrase "sometime in 1865-68" would have had to do.
2. The Arizona Pioneers Historical Society photograph of the Arsenal, taken from high on the hillside to the west of the buildings by an unknown photographer. This photograph is usually dated 1879, again apparently a researcher's guess; however, evidence in the picture suggests a date of ca. 1885. For example, the buildings of Sutler's Row are virtually identical in condition to another picture of Sutlers Row from the west that can be easily dated to 1883-1889; the Commissary Sergeant's quarters apparently not built until about 1880-83, are visible at the north end of Third Fort; the Flagstaff, HS-173, apparently is not standing, and no flag is flying over the Arsenal, a condition that probably indicates it has been closed; the east wall of the arsenal south of the gate is clearly irregular and partly collapsed, suggesting no maintenance for several years; the roofs of the buildings look irregular and in poor repair. Finally, the southernmost room of HS-102 appears to be separate from the rest of the building, as it is in the 1888 photograph (Third Fort Union, ill. 56 top, p. 237) and on the ca. 1885 plan of the Arsenal, and the arched opening facing west has a large multipaned window filling it (actually this is a pair of French doors—by 1888 the window panes have been painted white or filled with wood panels painted white). All this suggests a date after closure in 1882, but before 1888. A median date of ca. 1885 will be used for this photograph, rather than the traditional 1879 date.
ARSENAL STRUCTURES
| HS | R | B | W | K | 66 | M | Name and Use |
| 100 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Enclosure Walls, Arsenal. This number includes the entire complex of inner and outside walls. These walls were built in a series of campaigns lasting from 1859 through 1872. Shoemaker began the effort to gain permission to construct an adobe magazine inside a walled compound of adobe in early 1853 (Part I, p. 66). However, the building of the first magazine and an enclosure around it, both of substantial adobe construction, was not carried out until June-August, 1859 (Part I, p. 69). This was apparently a rehabilitation of the enclosed yard and structures west of the Ordnance Officer's Quarters, HS-133, visible in the Heger drawings of May, 1859. Shoemaker planned a new magazine compound in mid-1865, and began construction in late 1865 or early 1866. No trace of the construction can be seen in the ca. September, 1865 photograph, indicating that it began sometime after that date, probably about November, 1865. The enclosure was 345 feet east to west by 720 feet north to south, abutted the original compound west of HS-133, and enclosed the two new magazines, HS-109 and 110. Work on the wall was well along in October, 1866, and lacked only a few hundred feet of length to be finished in November (Part I, pp. 75-76). Presumably this was a few hundred feet of adobe wall remaining to be placed on the already-laid stone foundation. The Enos and Lambert map of August-December, 1866, shows the entire enclosure complete, and further shows that the other Arsenal buildings north of the Magazine compound were connected by walls or fences to create a second enclosure. The "proposal plan" shows that by ca. May, 1866, Shoemaker had developed plans to enclose the entire Arsenal within a wall. However, construction slowed down considerably after completion of the Magazine enclosure at the end of 1866, and work on the main enclosing wall continued only intermittently over the next several years. In mid-February, 1868, Shoemaker requested permission to stop work on the Arsenal wall for a while and build a new Barracks, HS-113, using the available adobes. This building was not shown on the proposal plan of 1866, and is the result of one of Shoemaker's modifications to his original plan for the Arsenal; by mid-1871 this process of modification resulted in the final plan visible today. In October, 1868, Shoemaker asked for further funds to begin again on the wall to enclose the entire Arsenal (Part I, p. 77). The work continued to followed the 1866 proposal plan, which intended to make the enclosure exactly 1000 feet square on the interior. The south wall was apparently completed according to the original plan, and perhaps the southern 1000 feet of the west wall; the south wall interior length remained unchanged through later revisions, and is 1000.1 feet long (however, the angle between the two sides was 91° 48', not the precise 90° it should have been). As of November, 1868, Shoemaker stated that he intended to finish the walls sometime in 1869 (Part I, p. 77). The east and north sides of the original plan seem to have actually been begun, but appear to have never gotten beyond foundation trenches; only faint traces of what may be trench lines appear to be visible in the aerial photographs. These trench lines seem to follow the general layout of the 1866 plan. At this point, during the winter of 1868-69, Shoemaker must have worked out the final design of the plan for the Arsenal. The proposal plan's 1000-foot north-south dimension must have already been recognized as impractical because of what appears to be an error produced by faulty surveying. The proposal plan, and therefore presumably Shoemaker's original design, plots the location of the northern buildings with a cumulative error of about 50 feet in their north-south location, so that the 1000 foot dimension would have placed a wall across the middle of several buildings Shoemaker intended to keep or had just built. In order to achieve the relationship between the buildings and enclosing wall as shown in the plan, Shoemaker realized he had to increase the north-south dimension of the enclosing wall to about 1050 feet (for further discussion of the question of the intended location of the north wall, see the discussion of the later flagstaff locations under HS-173, below). With this necessity in mind, during the redesign of late 1868 Shoemaker moved the proposed location of the enclosing walls and the Ordnance Stables, HS-111, even further north, to produce a north-south dimension of 1166 feet along the interior of the west wall. The Stable Compound may have been begun at this point. The inspection report of September, 1869, mentioned only the wall around the magazines (Part I, p. 79). In June, 1870, half the foundations of the enclosing wall had been completed, probably the south and west walls (Part I, pp. 79-80). Work on the new wall was halted in September, 1870, for a time. In April, 1871, Shoemaker decided to relocate the Clerk's Quarters (HS-116) to the northeast corner of the new enclosure (Part I, p. 80), apparently changing the alignments of the as yet unbuilt east and north walls to accommodate it. By June, 1872, the new buildings and enclosing wall were more or less complete; they were finished by the time of the inspection of 1873 (Part I, pp. 79-81). The 1873 description stated erroneously that the enclosing wall was 1000 feet long on each side. This was the size intended, but as built, after the redesign of 1868, the interior dimensions were: the west wall, 1166.30 feet long; the south wall, 1000.08 feet long; the east wall, 1190.31 feet; and the north wall 1046.84 feet long. These rather random sizes of the enclosing walls seem to be the results of surveying error, rather than intentional changes. The southeast corner angle is very close to a right angle: 90° 31'. However, the southwest angle was 1° 48' larger than a right angle; in order for the east side to be parallel to the west, and the north side to be the same length as the south, both the southeast and northwest angles should have been 1° 48' less than a right angle, or 88° 12'. The failure to compensate for the original error in layout at the southwest corner of the Magazine compound resulted in an increase of about 47 feet on the north side of the Arsenal. Since both the southeast and northwest corners were set out at almost exactly 90° the cumulative errors produced an east wall 24 feet longer than the west wall, and a northeast corner of 88° 07' It appears that the redesign may have been intended to have the four sides parallel, with an interior length of 1164 feet north to south and a width of 1000 feet, east to west, but missed this intention by a little. The enclosing wall had buttresses of adobe at regular intervals, usually 50 feet, along all four sides. The locations of these buttresses are marked on the ground by short segments of stone foundation at right angles to the main walls. Each of these usually extended towards both the inside and the outside of the wall. One inner or outer segment usually measured 2.6 feet long by 2 feet wide. Occasionally, a buttress seems to be on only one side of the wall, but this may be the result of the opposite foundation being buried in collapsed adobe and sheetwash, and therefore not detectable from the present surface. Such buttresses were included even on the earliest enclosure, the Magazine Compound wall around HS-107, 108, 109, and 110. Those found are plotted on the map; few were seen along the north wall and the north part of the east wall of the main enclosure, but are probably still present under a thick layer of slumped adobe. A number of thick wooden posts or tree stumps were seen along the inner side of the south wall; it is uncertain whether these were decorative plantings or additional supports for the wall where it received damage from water runoff from the rest of the enclosure. At least three drains through the stone foundation were seen along the south wall, and one small drain on the east wall near the southeast corner, the low point of the Arsenal enclosure. Each was about 5 feet long (the small drain on the east side was only about 2 feet long), and the adobe wall was supported above it by a long slab of stone forming a lintel. It is possible that one or two similar drains remain to be identified along the southern part of the east wall. The survey found no clear gateway through the south wall. An odd arrangement of parallel walls at the southeast corner of the magazine compound may have been equipment storage sheds, an abortive wall alignment, or some other, unknown usage. The gateway through the west wall had a decorative arch over it, as seen in the ca. 1885 photograph. A second gateway through the west wall opened into the Stable yard, HS-111; this gateway had a rectangular entrance structure of two vertical side posts and an overhead beam. The main east gate seems to have had several locations; a massive deposit of large cobbles that were noticed during the survey of the enclosure wall may mark the intended gateway during wall construction from ca. 1868 to ca. 1871. When the 1866 proposal plan was found to be a fairly accurate plan rather than a schematic, the gateway through the east wall of the enclosure turned out to be located virtually on this spot. It is assumed that the cobbles were a surfacing material in the high-traffic area of the intended gate itself. The 1882 plan shows the main entrance to be a little south of the Clerk's Quarters, HS-116. However, the formal entrance from about 1872 to 1881, or later, was the curved gateway east of the traces of the old fort buildings of HS-144 and 145; this entrance is not shown on the 1882 plan. Part of what appears to be a stone curbing is visible along the north edge of the entrance road at the gateway. Within the gateway, the road split into the teardrop shape visible in aerial photographs and on the ca. 1885 photograph, although not shown on the 1882 map. This teardrop was symmetrical with the front porch of Shoemaker's house, and centered on a flagstaff whose stone base survives as HS-173. The entrance drive passes just in front of the lawn and trees along the front of Shoemaker's house; see further discussion of this under HS-114, below. |
| 101 | 6a | - | - | 1 | 6 | - |
Main Storehouse. Construction began on this building in the spring of 1865, prior to the preparation of the 1866 proposal plan (Part I, p. 73). The building apparently superseded HS-102, although that building continued in use as a storehouse. The northernmost section of the Main Storehouse, of adobe on a stone foundation 145 feet long and with a pitched roof, had been completed as of the ca. September, 1865, photograph by Farnsworth (111-SC-87997), where it appears as a long building with a pitched roof and a large central doorway; a pair of windows are also visible, placed symmetrically on either side of the doorway. The 1866 proposal plan indicated that at least by the spring of 1866 Shoemaker intended to extend the building to a length of about 220 feet, so that it would reach the north wall of the Magazine compound. The Enos and Lambert map of August-December, 1866, shows it still at its 145-foot length. As of the Ludington and Lambert map of March, 1868, no further work had been carried out, but between May, 1868, and the inspection of 1873 the intended addition of about 71 feet to the south end of the storehouse had been completed. In 1873, the building was described as of adobe on a stone foundation, 216 feet in length and 23 feet in width (Part I, p. 81). On the Kelp plan of ca. 1885, the original 145 foot section of the building was shown with two porches or loading docks on the east side; these echo the symmetrical location of doors and windows visible in 1866, and probably existed by that year. No clear traces of these were seen in the survey, so they are not plotted on the plan. The 1873 inspection described the building as having a basement; the physical remains indicate that this was only a half-basement. Between 1873 and 1882, foundations were constructed that would have extended the building another 40 feet south (these are visible in the ca. 1885 photograph), but the Kelp plan shows the foundation still unused, and implies that the added construction never took place. |
| 102 | 19a | - | - | 2 | 3 | - |
Storehouse. Ruwet assigns 20a to the south end of this building, shown as a separate structure on the Kelp map of 1882 and visibly separate from the rest of the building in 1888; however, the foundations indicate that as built, the building was a single continuous structure. The building was adobe on a stone foundation, 88-1/2 x 26 feet with a pitched roof. The northern 65 feet of the building were apparently constructed between May and August of 1959, along with the Magazine HS-192 (Part I, p. 69). In May, 1859, Shoemaker states that he is constructing a storehouse, presumably this one, at the same time as the magazine, HS-192. [105] The building is shown on the 1866 proposal plan and is visible in the Farnsworth photograph of ca. September, 1865. At a later date, two rooms were added to the south end, extending the building to the south about 24 feet; these changes undoubtedly occurred during Shoemaker's finalization of the Arsenal buildings in 1871-72. An arched opening in the west end of the southernmost room was filled with a French door with large glass panes. Between 1872 and 1882 one room of the building was removed, leaving the southernmost portion of the extension as a separate building; it is shown this way on the Kelp map and the gap can be seen in the ca. 1885 photograph and the photograph in ill. 56 (Third Fort Union, pp. 236-237), taken in 1888. In ca. 1885 the glass of the French door was still clear, while in 1888 the panes had been painted over with light-colored paint or covered with boards. |
| 103 | 27a | - | - | 3 | - | - |
Storehouse. This building was begun in mid-1866, apparently just after the Arsenal area was surveyed by Enos and Lambert in August. It was probably intended as additional storage to supplement HS-101 and 102. On October 2, 1866, the building was described as almost complete, with the outer roof in place (Part I, p. 75). It is apparently shown on the March, 1868 plan by Ludington and Lambert, and is on the 1882 plan. The building was adobe on a stone foundation, 23 x 64 feet on the exterior, with walls two feet thick and a front porch centered on the south, 10 x 7-1/2 feet. In the ca. 1885 photograph the building had a steeply-pitched hip roof of sawn boards. |
| 104 | 26a | - | - | 4 | - | - |
Oil House. This is the westernmost room of the three-room building, HS-104/105/106. No specific information appeared in the written documentation on this building. It was added to the west end of the original structure, HS-105, after 1868 and before 1882; the construction probably occurred during the last major building episode of the Arsenal in 1871-72. It measures 13 x 33 feet on the interior, was adobe on a stone foundation with a pitched roof of sawn boards, and has no visible fireplace; not surprising, considering the inflammable nature of the materials stored here. |
| 105 | 26a | - | - | 5 | 4 | - |
Armory. This is the original room of a three-room building, HS-104/105/106. No specific information appeared in the written documentation on this building. It was built before May, 1866, when the Blacksmith Shop, HS-106, was mentioned as being added to it, and may be just visible at the north end of HS-102 in the ca. September, 1865, Farnsworth photograph; the building was probably one of Shoemaker's first permanent structures built in 1865. The building appears on the 1866 proposal plan of the Arsenal, with the blacksmith extension, HS-106, and is shown on the 1866 Enos and Lambert map, the 1868 map, the 1882 Kelp plan, and the ca. 1885 photograph. The original Armorer's building, HS-105, was 15-1/2 x 38 feet; it was adobe on a stone foundation, with a pitched roof of sawn boards. What appears to be an odd-shaped chimney or forge base can be seen inside its northwest corner on the ground. |
| 106 | 26a | - | - | 6 | 4 | - |
Tinner and Blacksmith Shop. This is the easternmost room of a three-room building, HS-104/105/106. The Blacksmith Shop was added to the east end of HS-105 in March-June, 1866, and continued in use through the life of the Arsenal. It is 15-1/2 x 35 feet on the interior, of adobe on a stone foundation, with a pitched roof of sawn boards. A chimney base is centered on its east end. The addition produced the Armorer and Blacksmith Shops building, no. 4, shown on the proposal plan of 1866. The proposal plan shows the building as about 26 feet wide and 84 feet long; actual dimensions of HS-105/106 are 20 x 80 feet. |
| 107 | 3a | - | - | 7 | 14 | - |
Saddler Shop. This building was built in 1867-68. The 1866 proposal plan showed that the saddler's shop was originally intended to be a small building on the location of HS-107, about half the size of the version as built. The map of August-December, 1866, showed nothing had yet been constructed on this location, although the First Fort Officer's Quarters, HS-134 and 135, had been removed, probably about November, 1865, when construction began on the Magazines, HS-109 and 110. In the interim before construction began, the layout was redesigned and the saddler's shop and carpenter's shops (no. 15 on the 1866 proposal plan) were both enlarged; construction on the revised version of the building was completed sometime before May, 1868, probably not long after July, 1867, when HS-108 was finished; the foundation of HS-107 was probably one of those finished in July (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 906). The building was still in use as a Saddler Shop at the time of the 1880 inspection (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 1062), but when the 1882 map was drawn up it indicated that the Carpenter shop had been moved out of HS-108 and combined with the saddlery in this building. The Saddler Shop was adobe on a stone foundation, and measured 27 x 70-1/2 feet. It and HS-108 were apparently intended to be the same size and on the same alignment as HS-109 and 110; however, the alignment of these two structures is offset to the east about 1-1/2 feet from the alignment of the two earlier buildings, and they are 2 feet narrower and 5 feet shorter. The building had a gable roof of sawn boards, with a chimney or stovepipe about 1/4 of the roof ridge length down from the north end of the building on the west slope of the roof. The building had three window openings on the west side and three on the east; the three openings on the west elevation had board moldings surrounding them, and the three on the east probably had the same. The 1882 map shows a loading dock or walk along the entire east side of the building, although no traces of this structure were found on the ground. However, investigation on the ground located porches or loading docks of stone edging with packed earth fill, 20 x 14 feet, on both the north and south ends of the building. The building had wood double doors centered on the north gable end, and probably a similar set on the south, both opening onto platforms at the ends of the building. |
| 108 | 4a | - | - | 8 | 15 | - |
Carpenter Shop. This building was built in 1867-1868. The 1866 proposal plan intended that the carpenter's shop be located on this spot, but it was to be about half the final size of HS-108. The building was redesigned in late 1866 or early 1867, and construction on it was completed in July, 1867 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 906). The structure continued as a carpenter shop through the inspection of 1880 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 1062), but by 1882 the carpenter's operation had been moved to HS-107, and HS-108 had become a storehouse. As constructed, the carpenter shop was adobe with a stone foundation, 26-1/2 x 70-1/2 feet. The gable roof was covered with sawn boards and had a chimney centered on the roof ridge. There were three window openings on the west side of the building, and three more on the east; the three window openings on the west elevation had board moldings surrounding them. The building had wood double doors centered on the north gable end, and apparently the same arrangement on the south end, opening onto a porch about 20 x 14 feet. The 1882 plan of the Arsenal shows a loading dock or walk along the east side, although there were no large doors here. |
| 109 | 1a | - | - | 9 | 10 | - |
Powder Magazine. Shoemaker apparently planned this building, the adjacent Ammunition Magazine, and their enclosing wall in mid-1865, and began construction on both magazines about mid-November, 1865. [106] The walls were completed by early June, 1866, and work on the roofs began soon afterward. The building was completed by October, 1866 (Part I, p. 75). It was adobe on a stone foundation, 29 x 75-1/2 feet. The porch or loading platform on the south end of the building, about 20 x 14 feet, and the stairs to it (apparently of wood, since no trace of them is visible on the ground) were still being finished in October, 1866. When finished, the building had a doorway at the north end, another on the south opening onto the southern platform, a single door or window in the west wall, and two symmetrically placed doors or windows on the east side. |
| 110 | 2a | - | - | 10 | 9 | - |
Ammunition Magazine. Planned about mid-1865, begun about November, 1865, and completed by October, 1866, about the same time as HS-109, above. The building was adobe on a stone foundation, 29 x 75-1/2 feet. A porch about 20 x 14 feet was on the south end of the building. Doors and windows were placed as in HS-109. |
| 111 | 29a | - | - | 11 | - | - |
Ordnance Stables. Ruwet applied the number 29a to the standing adobe stable building, 70 x 27 feet, and 30a to the second building shown on the Kelp map, apparently a wooden structure, 45 x 10 feet. Both buildings had pitched roofs of sawn boards. Traces of a third structure, perhaps just a corral enclosure, 45 x 15 feet, are visible just east of the main corral wall. On the 1866 proposal plan, a somewhat different version of the stables compound was intended to be built a little south of this location. No stables are shown on the 1866 or 1868 maps, indicating that some other structure was serving as the Ordnance Stables during those years, probably HS-80, north of the "Old Post Corral" just west of Second Fort. HS-111 was built on this site soon after March, 1868; the most likely time is in early 1869, just after the redesign of the compound wall plan in the winter of 1868-69, but before the construction of the new walls began; in fact, the placing of the stables further north than in the 1866 proposal plan suggests that their construction was one of the earliest steps in the redesign. The stable compound, 102 x 97 feet, was incorporated into the main wall around the arsenal, but clearly was built before the north section of the enclosing wall (HS-100); the Arsenal wall extending between the Stables and the Clerks Quarters, HS-116, moved out to a location on the northeast corner of the new wall plan about April, 1871, did not precisely follow the angle of the north side of the Ordnance Stables enclosing wall. There is a slight but unmistakable change in angle where the north wall reaches the northeast corner of the stable wall, but no equivalent angle at the southwest corner of the stable yard, suggesting that the stable compound was built along with the northern portion of the main west wall. HS-111 was the Ordnance Stables structure mentioned in Shoemaker's 1873 summary for the Surgeon General (Part I, p. 81). |
| 112 | - | - | - | 12 | - | - |
Tool House. This building was not mentioned specifically in the written documentation, but it appears on the 1882 plan. Its location and size are approximate on the Base Map; no traces of it are visible on the ground. |
| 113 | 22a | - | - | 13 | - | - |
Arsenal Barracks. This structure was built between March and October, 1868 (Part I, p. 136), of adobe on a stone foundation, replacing the old Ordnance Barracks, HS-143. The dimensions of the Arsenal Barracks were 100 x 26 feet; it was divided lengthwise into four sections or bays, with chimneys at the centers of the two end bays. The base of the western chimney is still in place, while the eastern chimney fell into the basement at this end; it is, however, visible in the ca. 1885 photograph. It had porches front and rear, 9 feet deep by 100 feet long, supported on a series of stone piers and wooden posts set on stone blocks. A basement was under the easternmost bay, reached by a narrow stairway from ground level through the east wall of the building. At the southwest corner of the building, a brick walk led from the Ordnance Parade Ground to the barracks through a fence or wall along the south side of the building up to the porch. |
| 114 | 14a | 21 | - | 14 | - | - |
The Shoemaker House: Commanding Officer's Quarters, Arsenal (see further notes on this building under HS-133, below). The Army correspondence on this building indicates that construction began on it in April, 1870, but work slowed on the building that fall because Shoemaker was ordered to lay off his civilian employees. The building was nearly completed by the following spring. At this point, Shoemaker began planning for the enclosing compound walls, the outhouses, and the cistern (Part I, p. 141). HS-114 was probably finished in mid-1871. An 1873 inspection report described the building as measuring 54 x 75 feet. The building was adobe on a stone foundation, with chimneys incorporated into the gable end walls. The roof was v-channel metal (probably zinc). The rear wing to the west had a lower ridge line than the main portion of the building. The building had multi-light windows of at least three lights across—a variation from the plan. The plan of the Ordnance Commanding Officer's Quarters is available (Third Fort Union, ill. 55, pp. 234-35). This plan is virtually identical to the layout of the foundations of HS-114, except that the central hall was widened when it was constructed. This hall was shown as about 9 feet wide on the plans, while the actual hall appears to be about 13 feet wide. The building plan and elevation match the structure visible in Third Fort Union, ill. 56, pp. 236-37 (1888) and the ca. 1885 photo. The yard west and south of the building contained a number of structures. The available records are too limited to allow a detailed structural history of the changes to the compound from 1851 to 1882 or later; only archeological investigation will allow this to be worked out. Some of the buildings of First Fort that were built in conjunction with the Ordnance activities of Shoemaker continued in use southwest of Shoemaker's residence; many of the visible buildings, however, date from after the mid 1860s. In addition to the buildings, the yard had a number of carefully tended trees, some of which have left substantial stumps, and a stone-lined irrigation ditch network, only a small part of which is visible and plotted on the map. This irrigation system may have been fed from the large water tank shown on the house plans as being on the south side of the house where one branch of the ditch approaches the foundations (Part I, p. 142, fig. 12); this could be the "small cistern" referred to as "connected with the commanding officer's quarters" (Part I, p. 141). However, this tank was apparently intended to serve primarily as the water supply for the bathtub in the room next to the tank; grey water from the bathtub was undoubtedly drained into the irrigation system. Shoemaker formalized various parts of his Quarters area. At the front of the building was what appears to have been a grass-covered yard, probably enclosed in a fence. Along the west side of this yard were planted several trees in a symmetrical pattern. Four of them were set in pairs at equal distances on either side of his front porch, and two more at equal distances away, one near the north and one near the south extremes of the yard. An entrance walk apparently led from his porch, between the paired trees, across the lawn to the teardrop drive, itself symmetrical to the centerline of the house. The flagstaff and main entrance gate were also set up on this centerline; therefore, all these structures were built after HS-114 was at least marked out on the ground, therefore after about April, 1870. A path was left along the front of the compound wall enclosing Shoemaker's side and back yards, his house, and the Clerk's Office. On the south side of the compound around his house was another area outlined in larger stones, probably either a grassed area or planted with shrubs and flowers. The entrance road to the magazine compound ran along this planted area. Several other trees stood here and there south of this road; their stumps were not plotted on the map. North of his compound yard, Shoemaker had another area probably covered with grass, and separated from the road to the Storehouse, HS-101, by a white picket fence. The stones set in the ground as part of the support for this fence are visible in several places. The fence and yard behind it, as well as portions of the back of the house, Ordnance Clerk's Office, and outbuildings, may be seen in the photographs taken in 1887 and 1888, in Third Fort Union, ill. 56, pp. 236-37. |
| 115 | 15a | - | - | 15 | 2 | - |
Ordnance Clerk's Office and Water Tower. Ruwet assigned the numbers 16a-18a to the various additions to this building. The 1867 proposal plan gives the Office the number 2; this was the earlier version of the office and clerk's quarters that stood here, the northern two-thirds of which apparently became the later version, HS-115. The 1866 proposal plan shows the first clerk's office and quarters to have been about 70 feet long and located so that it overlapped HS-115 and the space between it and HS-114. The earlier office and clerk's quarters were built partly of logs and partly of adobe (Part I, p. 141); the log portion was constructed as one of the First Fort ordnance buildings, probably about 1852, and is visible just north of the Ordnance Officer's Quarters in the Heger drawings of 1859. The adobe section was apparently built on the north end of the log building about 1859; if this section became part of the final building, it had a stone foundation with adobe walls. Ruwet erroneously considered the earlier office the same as that depicted on the Kelp map, and also assigned it the number 15a. It appears that the southern third of the building was the original log section shown in the Heger drawings; archeological investigations would clarify this. The log portion was torn down sometime after April, 1871. The removal of the log section from the building had the effect of removing the clerk's quarters from it, leaving the adobe section as the present office (HS-115); the new clerk's quarters (HS-116) were built in 1872 (Part I, p. 141). The Office has a stone foundation measuring 17 x 49 feet. The main portion of the structure was covered with a metal hip roof with a low slope. A chimney base is centered at the south end of the building, and a second at the north end, matching the locations of the chimneys visible in various photographs of this office. On the east side of the building was an entrance porch or step, 8 feet wide and perhaps 3 feet across. Its center was at 35 feet south of the north end of the stone foundation, suggesting that it had been built at the center of the original building, including the log section that made it 70 feet long. This building probably contained the large safe weighing 3,500 pounds built into one of the Arsenal buildings. By 1882 several additions had been made to the northern end and west side of the building. One of these additions was a two-story tower with four louvered openings on its west and north sides; the east and south sides probably were similar in design. This tower was probably built between 1872 and 1877, and held a water tank that would have been, among other things, the water supply for the fountain in the Duck Pond, HS-124. Water pipes probably ran from this tower to the tank on the south side of Shoemaker's house as well as to the Duck Pond, and from the Well, HS-122, to the Water Tower. Some sort of pump must have been in place at the well to force water up the tower. The water tower appears to have been of wood frame construction, and had a steeply pitched pyramidal roof. One or two shed-like additions may be seen on the west side of HS-115 and the water tower. The approximate plan of one of these was visible on the ground, and is shown on the map. A detailed plan of these additions would probably be retrievable by archeology. |
| 116 | 21a | - | - | 16 | - | - |
Ordnance Clerk's Quarters. Shoemaker proposed construction of this building in 1871, and it was undoubtedly built just prior to or at the same time as the construction of the northeast corner of the enclosing wall, HS-100, in late 1871 and early 1872. The structure was completed by 1873. The building was adobe on a stone foundation, and had a small front porch, several rooms across the front, and perhaps one room making an ell at the east end of the back; this is also the layout shown on the 1882 map. The ca. 1885 photograph shows apparent chimneys at the east and west ends of the front row of rooms, and a third chimney at the northeast corner of the ell, suggesting that this room was the kitchen. The entire west half of the back section of the house is shown on the Kelp map of 1882 as a patio, with a small porch facing west onto it from the northeast room. On the ground, a section of the east wall of the house was constructed or repaired with fired brick, possibly associated with the fireplaces apparently located in this area. The house had a small yard in front and a large compound in back with several storage buildings; one of these may have been a stable. It is likely that the Clerk's Quarters compound with its enclosing wall was built first, in the second half of 1871, and then the Arsenal enclosing wall (HS-100) was built incorporating it into the Arsenal compound in the spring of 1872, as was done for the Stables compound, HS-111, above. A wall or fence once ran westward from the southwest corner of the front yard of these quarters, to the north end of the Storehouse, HS-102. This fence formed the north side of the Ordnance Parade Ground. |
| 117 | 32a | - | - | 17 | - | - |
Cistern. The Kelp map assigned the number 17 to all the cisterns, and the National Park Service followed suit by giving them all the number 117. Ruwet assigned the number 32a to the several cisterns west of the Commanding Officer's Quarters, but gave the cisterns north of HS-102 the numbers 24a (east cistern) and 25a (west cistern). This report allots a different number to each cistern; see below, HS-121 through 123. Cistern HS-117 seems to be one of the two proposed by Shoemaker in January, 1867 and completed by July (Part I, p. 134; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 906); the other was probably the eastern cistern in HS-120. As described, these were both 12 feet in diameter and 18 feet deep; they were intended to hold about 15,000 gallons of water. Stone channels carried rainwater collected from the roofs of HS-101 to this cistern; a second channel apparently carried overflow from HS-117 to HS-122. |
| 118 | 5a | - | - | 18 | - | - |
Gun/Artillery Shed and Storehouse. Built about 1867-68 to replace HS-199. The Ludington and Lambert map of May, 1868, shows HS-118 standing and HS-199 gone. HS-118 is apparently one of the "three smaller storehouses" described in 1873 (Part I, p. 81); it is on the 1882 plan and in the ca. 1885 photograph. It was an adobe building on a stone foundation, 100 x 25-1/2 feet, with a gable roof of sawn boards. The foundation is easily recognized today. |
| 119 | 28a | - | - | 19 | - | - |
Coal House. No mention is made of this structure in the written documentation, but it was built between 1868 and 1882, and probably stored coal for the blacksmith forge. The building may have been built after 1879, when coal became more available by rail. It appears to have been an adobe structure on a stone foundation. The roof was a low-sloped hip roof of sawn boards. The wall outline cannot be recognized on the ground, but a large mass of coal marks the site. The dimensions of the outline on the plan are approximate. |
| 120 | 23a | - | - | 20 | - | - |
Bakery. What appears to be the cinder fill of an oven is easily found on the site, but stone foundations are easily identified east of the oven mound, and the ca. 1885 photograph makes it seem that the bakery was on these foundations. This makes it uncertain that the cinder mound is the remains of the oven for HS-120. Several peculiarities of the surface, both in aerial photographs and on the ground, suggests that a second barracks like HS-113, or some structure of similar plan, may have been begun in this area, predating the bakery. The most likely candidate is a set of married officer's quarters, planned for in late 1868 (Part I, p. 77). However, no such building is indicated on the 1866 proposal plan (made before HS-113 was constructed), or shown on the Kelp map of 1882, or visible in the ca. 1885 photograph. There was easily enough time for quarters to be begun about 1869, and then given up and a bakery built on the site by the time the 1882 map was drawn. Archeological investigation would be necessary to define what happened here. Two cisterns were located in or near the outline of this possible structure or group of structures, one at the south edge and a second at the west end. The cistern at the west end, directly north of HS-102 and directly east of HS-104/105/106, appears to predate the others of the Arsenal. It is shown on the 1866 proposal plan and the 1866 and 1868 Lambert maps and is still present in 1882. It is not visible on the ground, although it can be made out in the 1935 aerial photo of the Arsenal. The other cistern, one of the two numbered 17 on the Kelp map, is about 12 feet in diameter. This was undoubtedly the second of the two cisterns planned by Shoemaker in January, 1867 and finished by July (Oliva p. 924). Both cisterns at HS-120 were apparently backfilled by the Fort Union Ranch before the National Monument was established. |
| 121 | 32a | - | - | - | - | - |
Cistern. Originally one of the group numbered HS-117. This cistern, about 30 feet in diameter, appears to predate HS-117, the cistern on its south edge, which was probably built in 1867. The date of its construction is unknown. It is difficult to recognize on the ground because it was apparently backfilled by the Fort Union Ranch, but is easily seen on the 1935 aerial photograph. |
| 122 | 32a | - | - | - | - | - |
Well. Originally one of the cistern group numbered HS-117. The visible part of this structure appears to be a well, with a central shaft about 5 feet in diameter. However, the stone channel from HS-117 to this point does not penetrate the wall of the well, and examination of the area shows that the well was apparently built within a stone structure of about 12 feet diameter. It received runoff from HS-117 and probably had a further channel to HS-123 and HS-124. The date of the reconstruction of this cistern into a well, breaking this system of channels, is unknown. The Arsenal may have had a pump at this location, feeding water to the Water Tower at the north end of HS-115. To add to the uncertainty about the use of this structure, in 1882 it is marked as a cistern, not a well. |
| 123 | 32a | - | - | - | - | - |
Cistern. Originally one of the group numbered HS-117. The size of this cistern makes it similar to HS-121. It is centered on the alignment through the centers of 117, 122, and 124, so it is part of that system as developed after the construction of 1867, and is probably one of the cisterns under construction in 1869 (Part I, p. 79). |
| 124 | 32a | - | - | - | - | - |
Duck Pond with Fountain? Ruwet and the National Park Service have considered this to be a cistern, but the visible evidence suggests a decorative structure. This structure, centered on the line through the centers of 117, 122, and 123, probably was the small duck pond complete with a fountain mentioned a description of the arsenal in 1877 (Part I, p. 81); it was probably added after the completion of the more necessary structures around Shoemaker's house (Part I, p. 80), and therefore was built between late 1871 and about 1877. The fountain was undoubtedly fed by water from the Water Tower on the north end of HS-115. |
| 125 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Oven. No written information appeared on this structure, nor is it noted on any map or visible in the photographs; but it is easily seen on the ground. It is a mounded rectangular mass of cinders and looks like the oven bases of the First Fort Bakery (HS-159a, b, discussed below). It may have been the baking oven for the Commanding Officer's House, HS-114, and could be one of the unidentified rectangles shown behind HS-114 on the Enos and Lambert map of 1866. |
FIRST FORT
First Fort Union was established by Major Edmund B. Alexander on July 26, 1851 (Part I, p. 19-34). No plan is available of its original layout, but a schematic made two years later shows it just after the completion of many of its principle buildings. Although there were a few changes and alterations in subsequent years, the plan saw no significant changes until the onset of the Civil War in 1861.
In September, 1852, Captain E. S. Sibley, Assistant Quartermaster, wrote a description of the condition of the Fort. He gave the size of most of the buildings actually built or under construction at the time, but no suggestion as to their locations. Colonel J. F. K. Mansfield made a sketch-map during his visit a year later, August 1 to August 6, 1853. This map, not drawn to scale, can only be used to determine the relative location of the buildings shown, and perhaps very general dimensions.
Fortunately, there are several drawings of First Fort that supply a great amount of additional information. The earliest was made just before Mansfield visited the fort. This was Joseph Rice's drawing of June, 1853, in Josiah M. Rice, A Cannoneer in Navajo Country: Journal of Josiah M. Rice, 1851, ed. Richard H. Dillon (Denver: Old West Publishing Company, 1970). Rice's drawing is primitive, to be polite, but clearly shows a number of structural details of importance. For example, he shows HS-126, the Commanding Officers' Quarters, as still having a flat roof; he depicts a great deal of detail about HS-182, the Quartermaster Depot; and may be the only artist to show HS-137, the Dragoon Stables—the structure seems to be just visible north of HS-136, and was torn down before the end of 1853.
The next in time is an engraving of Fort Union in William Watts Hart Davis, El Gringo; Or New Mexico and Her People (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1857). This engraving was made from a drawing executed before the construction of the east wing of the Post Quartermaster Storeroom, HS-136, by August of 1853, when it appears on the Mansfield map; and before the construction of the New Dragoon Stable, HS-161, after the orders for its construction on November 4, 1853, by Lt. Col. Philip St. George Cooke. It appears, in fact, that the Ordnance Depot is still under construction, the Ordnance Officer's Quarters, HS-133, still has a flat roof, although the other eight seem to have board roofs (four officer's quarters still had flat earthen roofs in September, 1852), and HS-146, begun between September, 1852, and August, 1853, may not be present at all, or under construction; therefore, the drawing was probably made about the end of 1852. Undoubtedly details visible on the original were obscured or misconstrued by the engraver. Davis himself visited Fort Union for a period of four hours in December, 1853, but apparently got this drawing from one F. A. Percy of El Paso, mentioned as one of the sources of the drawings in the book. The Dragoon Stable, HS-137, appears not to be present on the drawing, leading Wayne Ruwet, in his reconstruction of the events associated with the destruction of HS-137 and the construction of HS-161, to argue that the drawing was made by Davis's other source, a Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Eaton, who appears to have been Joseph Horace Eaton of the Third Infantry, at Fort Union in 1855. However, the other details visible on the engraving, and the documents associated with the building of HS-161, make it clear that Eaton was at Fort Union several years too late to have made the original drawing. It seems that the drawing was made before the Dragoon Stable was built, or while it was still under construction; again, a date of sometime in 1852 is implied. This will be called the Davis drawing, and a date of late 1852 will be used.
The best depictions of the First Fort are those by Joseph Heger. Heger was a private in Company K of the Regiment of Mounted Rifles, and was stationed at Fort Union from January, 1858, to his discharge about September, 1860. He was an accomplished artist, and a lithographer by profession. A number of Heger drawings and prints are in various collections; it is likely that other views of Fort Union in 1858-1860 await discovery among these. See Campaigns in the West, 1856-1861: The Journal and Letters of Colonel John Van Deusen Du Bois, with Pencil Sketches by Joseph Heger, ed. George P. Hammond (Tucson: Arizona Pioneers Historical Society, 1949), p. v-vi, for a discussion of the locations of the collected works of Heger. The first of the two presently available drawings is a pencil sketch made on May 20, 1859 (Part I, p. 30, fig. 3). The undated and unattributed etching of Fort Union in the Kansas State Historical Society Photograph Collection, reproduced on the cover of this report, is virtually identical to Joseph Heger's May, 1859, drawing in most details of the plan, layout, perspective, depiction of building proportions and materials, the lines of roads both in the middle ground and especially the far distance, and the shapes of the Turkey Mountains. It is highly probable that the KSHS etching was taken from a Heger drawing made about the same time as the 1859 sketch, but from a point about 480 feet further north along the side of the hill, somewhat lower down beside HS-126. It is possible that Heger, himself a professional lithographer, made the engraving of the picture.
The Reconstruction of First Fort, 1859-1861
The structural evidence demonstrates that Fort Union began a major construction effort in 1859-1861 that was ended by the advent of the Civil War. This is in direct conflict with Leo Oliva's study, and all other histories written before it, which unanimously agree that Fort Union's repeated attempts to gain approval to rebuild many of the First Fort were rejected.
A number of new buildings were being built in 1859-1861; specifically, HS-157 was rebuilt as a large frame building with a stone foundation in 1859, and HS-156 reached the stage of almost complete foundations next to it. HS-165, 166, and possibly 167, all with substantial stone foundations, may have been built in this period, while HS-170 and 171 on the south side of the fort also reached the stage of virtually completed stone foundations. It appears that these two were laid out with the intent to construct a new group of structures arranged around a second parade ground just south of the original post. This would have produced a fort plan rather like that seen in many other places on the western frontier where the 1850s fort plan survives beside a later, enlarged and rebuilt fort (see, for example, Fort Davis and Fort McKintosh in Texas.
Since HS-157 is apparently being completed in mid-1859 (see the discussion below under this historic structure number), and no trace of HS-156 can be seen in the drawing, suggesting that it had not been begun, it seems reasonable to assume that HS-156, and the other, similar buildings, HS-170 and 171, were all begun after mid-1859. Then something stopped the rebuilding effort abruptly, leaving a number of buildings as incomplete foundation outlines. The most likely candidate for this halt is the start of the Civil War in 1861 and the abrupt shift of effort to the Second Fort earthworks. Once the suspicion arises that work did begin on some buildings, a few remarks in the documents take on a different meaning. For example, on August 17, 1861, work on constructing new storehouses "laid out as joining the old ones was suspended" (Major Chapman of Fort Union Quartermaster as quoted in Part I, p. 37). Similarly, in mid August, 1859, Captain Robert M. Morris, Commander at First Fort, requested permission to hire "citizen mechanics" to build more company quarters. In late August, 1859, he was told to suspend all improvements until instructions came from Washington (Part I, p. 36). Since some structures were begun, including what appears to be new company quarters (HS-171), he must have received such instructions soon afterwards.
These structures illustrate an interesting aspect of historical vs. archeological research. The histories of First Fort based entirely on the available documents agree that the reconstruction of First Fort never was allowed to begin; the physical evidence makes it clear that work did begin on rebuilding First Fort, and perhaps even on a Second Fort on its south side. This is a strong demonstration of the need for using both sources of information when writing the history of a place. This previously unsuspected episode in the history of the development of the Fort needs further definition through research and archeological investigations.
Notes on Building Construction
—by Laura Soulliére Harrison
The army's use of available materials around Fort Union was an obvious choice. Several other factors also influenced construction. In First Fort construction, for instance, the army's arrival during the summer forced the troops to construct buildings quickly—before the onset of winter—so the cutting of trees for the log structures was carried out in haste. To save time, the logs were not peeled or cured or even placed on foundations; these factors resulted in early deterioration problems in the buildings.
Considering that the army had only occupied New Mexico for five years before Fort Union was established, adobe was a building material with which few army builders were familiar. As the army spent more time in New Mexico and settled certain areas, including Fort Union, the employment of local laborers and the adoption of local building traditions greatly increased the use of adobe in army construction. When the army stayed in one place long enough and things were quiet enough on the frontier, there was time to have the troops or locally hired men make the adobes and allow them to cure. The adoption of, or improvement upon, local buildings techniques increased the quality of the structures and the length of the serviceable use of the buildings at Fort Union.
Information presented in the army correspondence of the period was often confusing or conflicting, in part because of changing functions of structures. Sometimes a building would be built for one purpose, and then after a few years of use its function would change. Also, few pieces of military correspondence, when considered as a whole, dealt specifically with building construction. Luckily, a considerable amount of information did exist in the correspondence on the arsenal for two reasons. William Rawle Shoemaker had to request separate appropriations for his arsenal buildings, and he was a thoughtful man who wanted his structures to be built in the best possible way with the best possible materials available to him. He commented, for instance, on the suitability of certain materials to the climate of New Mexico, and he criticized the quartermaster corps for using cement in the roof structures of the buildings it constructed. In general, though, the information on the building construction and on specific buildings is relatively spotty and very open to interpretation. The discussion below of the probable construction histories of individual buildings presents one such interpretation.
FIRST FORT BUILDINGS
| HS | R | B | W | K | 67 | M | |
| *126 | 1 | 19 | - | - | - | a |
The Sumner House: Commanding Officers' Quarters, First Fort (the adjacent office north of the Quarters is HS-197, Office of the Commanding Officer and Courtmartial Room). The building is referred as "the Sumner House" in 1863. The quarters served as a hospital during the Civil War, based on a remark in the same letter of 1863. [107] This building was begun in early August, 1851 (Part I, pp. 20-22), and enlarged to approximately its present plan by June, 1853; but by that date it still had a flat roof and apparently only three chimneys. It was first occupied by Lieutenant Colonel (brevet Colonel) Edwin V. Sumner, Commander of the Ninth Military Department (effectively all of New Mexico) until he transferred his headquarters to Albuquerque in February, 1852 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 109). All commanding officers of Fort Union after February, 1852, probably lived in the Sumner House. After Sumner left, the house undoubtedly stood empty for ten months until the arrival of the new commander, Major Gouverneur Morris, and his wife Anna Maria, in December, 1852. Morris left the post in June, 1853, and the building again stood empty until the arrival of Captain Nathaniel C. Macrae in August, 1853. Two other officers commanded for short periods during 1852 and 1853, but they were already at the post and probably did not move from their quarters into the Commanding Officer's Quarters. The house was constructed of unpeeled logs. In the Rice drawing of June, 1853, the building still has a flat roof and a rectangular plan with chimneys on the north and south ends, and two smaller chimneys on the rear additions. It is reasonable to assume that the building received its board roof during 1853. In the Heger drawing, showing the building in 1859, the building has a pitched board roof, and the gable-end chimneys appear forward of the roof ridge. During 1861 and 1862, this building was apparently used as the hospital (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 508, 515). In February, 1863, the order came through to tear down this building and reuse the lumber, doors, and windows for a new set of officer's quarters "at the redoubt," the Second Fort. It was torn down in March, 1863. The quarters constructed using the material salvaged from HS-126 was probably HS-78, apparently the residence of the commanding officer of the fort (see AC cards 110, 112). |
| 127 | 3 | 2 | 2 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters, First Fort. Constructed beginning August, 1851, this building was a structure of unpeeled logs like the Commanding Officer's Quarters, again with three rooms and a kitchen. Note: until February, 1852, this building was probably referred to as the "Commanding Officer's Quarters," and HS-126 was called the "Department Commander's Quarters." This structure was probably torn down with most of the other Officer's Quarters in March and April, 1866 (Oliva, p. 569). It had a flat, earthen roof at first, and had a board roof by 1853. The written evidence indicates that the earthen roofs remained in place even after the board gable roofs were put in place. It is likely that this building was first occupied by Captain (brevet Lieutenant Colonel) Edmund B. Alexander, first commander of Fort Union, and his wife, name unknown. Alexander left the post in April, 1852. |
| 128 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Begun in August, 1851, and probably first occupied by Captain (brevet Major) James H. Carleton, second commanding officer of Fort Union, and his wife Sophia. Captain Carleton served as post commander from April 1852 until August, 1852, when Captain (brevet Major) William T. H. Brooks took over until Major Gouverneur Morris arrived at the post. Major Carleton and Sophia were transferred to Albuquerque in October, 1853. |
| 129 | 7 | 4 | 4 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Built after the higher-ranking officers' quarters, therefore probably in September-October, 1851. In 1859 this building still had only one gavelled rear wing and chimney; its simpler form indicates that it and HS-132 were probably for junior officers such as lieutenants and low-seniority captains. The front north and south chimneys contain brick in addition to field stone, indicating large-scale remodelling late in the life of the building, after brick-making began in the area about September, 1860 (Part I, p. 71). These quarters were gone by August-December, 1866. |
| 130 | 8 | 5 | 5 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Begun September-October, 1851. Probably a captains' quarters, like HS-131, below. No brick is visible in the chimney bases. This building continued in use through at least August, 1866, when it was shown on the Enos and Lambert map as enclosed by a wall or fence. It was gone by May, 1868. |
| 131 | 9 | 6 | 6 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Begun September-October, 1851. Probably a captains' quarters, like HS-130, above. Three of the chimney bases contain brick, so the structure was part of Shoemaker's brick experiment in September, 1860. The building was still standing as of ca. September, 1865, when it can be seen in the Farnsworth photograph, but was torn down by the time the Enos and Lambert map was made in August-December, 1866. |
| 132 | 10 | 7 | 7 | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Begun September-October, 1851. Because of its simpler plan, probably a lieutenants' or junior captains' quarters. Visible in the Farnsworth photograph in ca. September, 1865, but gone by August-December, 1866. |
| 133 | 11 | - | - | - | 1 | a |
Ordnance Officers' Quarters. It was begun in August 1851, and first occupied by Military Storekeeper William R. Shoemaker, in charge of the Ordnance Depot established at Fort Union, and his wife Julia. It continued in use longer than any of the other Officers' Quarters of the First Fort. This may be the "Commanding Officer's Quarters" (presumably referring to Captain Shoemaker) that were to be torn down in March, 1866, but instead may have been given to Shoemaker (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 569). It was described as still acceptable as a dwelling in October, 1868 (Part I, p. 77), and standing but needing to be replaced in 1869 (Part I, p. 79; Third Fort Union, p. 121). It was torn down about 1872, after completion of the new Arsenal Commanding Officer's Quarters the same year. The 1866 proposal plan gave the old Arsenal Commanding Officer's Quarters the number 1. Ruwet considered this building to have stood about the same distance north of the central group of quarters as HS-129 was to the south, placing it just south of the compound wall around the later Commanding Officer's Quarters, HS-114, with its north wall would have been against the south wall of the compound. He assigned the numbers 7a through 13a to the various outbuildings behind (west of) the main house. Bleser concluded that the Ordnance Officers' Quarters of the First Fort was on the same site as the Commanding Officer's Quarters of the Arsenal, and assigned his number 21 to the site. Neither of these locations appear to be correct; the First Fort Ordnance Officers' Quarters was located just south of the south wall of the new Commanding Officer's Quarters. Its southern chimney, containing a large percentage of brick (probably added during repairs as part of Shoemaker's brick experiment of 1860), stood at the location of the south compound wall, which is built across it, and its north chimney was on the wall line of Shoemaker's new quarters. Mansfield's map, although only a schematic, showed the northernmost Officers' Quarters to be a little further north than symmetry would have required. The southernmost Officers' Quarters, HS-129, has a distance of exactly 250 feet between the outer face of its northern chimney and the southern face of the chimney of HS-130, the next Officers' Quarters north. If the Ordnance Officer's Quarters were exactly the same separation to the north, then the center of its northernmost chimney should fall about 6 feet north of the southern compound wall around HS-114. The chimney base located in this area fell, instead, on the location of the compound wall. Since the available evidence indicates that it was a little north of its symmetrical location, the chimney under the compound wall must be the southern chimney of the Ordnance Officer's Quarters. The distance from the northern chimney of HS-132, the next Quarters south, to the south chimney of HS-133, is therefore 295 feet, or 45 feet further north than symmetry would place it. This is also the location of HS-133 shown on the proposal plan of 1866. The northern chimney would then be partly under the location of the southernmost chimney of HS-114; again, this is supported by documents: in September of 1870, Shoemaker wrote that the chimneys along one side of his house, HS-133, had to be removed and the windows closed in order to continue construction on his new Quarters, HS-114. This indicates that the north wall of HS-133 was against the south wall of HS-114. After the construction of the Ordnance Officer's Quarters in 1851, Shoemaker began the development of his Ordnance establishment. This took the form of a series of buildings constructed west, north, and east of HS-133. Several of the buildings were built in an extension of the yard behind HS-133. The first of these was probably the log gunshed constructed in mid-1853 (Part I, pp. 66-67). This is the compound visible in the Heger depictions of the Shoemaker complex. In June-August, 1859, Shoemaker built a magazine and probably part or all of a protective enclosing wall of adobe (Part I, p. 69); Heger's pencil drawing is in fact dated May 22, 1859, just before Shoemaker began the construction. Also clearly visible north of and on line with Shoemaker's quarters is a small building that was undoubtedly the Ordnance Clerk's office, apparently a log building. This appears to have become the southern third of the log and adobe building shown on the 1866 plan, the precursor of the present HS-115. The plan of the back buildings as shown by Heger strongly resembles some parts of the back buildings as they appear on the present plan. Shoemaker put up a flagstaff just north and perhaps a little east of the north end of HS-133 by 1859, when Heger shows it on both his drawings. This flagstaff may have been placed as early as the beginning of the development of the Ordnance complex in 1853. By August-December, 1866, Shoemaker's house and yard, the buildings out back, the Clerk's Office with the Clerk's Quarters added in adobe to its north end, the Storeroom (HS-102), the Armorer and Blacksmith shops (HS-105/06), the Artillery Storehouse (HS-199), and the Main Storehouse (HS-101), were all enclosed by a series of walls and fences connecting the ends of the various buildings; this enclosure was joined to a large rectangular wall enclosing the two large Magazines (HS-109 and 110). The structures that had been the Magazine and Gunshed were apparently converted to stables and outbuildings for Shoemaker's house. |
| 134 | 13 | 20 | - | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. Ruwet gives this building and the adjacent quarters the same number. The survey was unable to locate the second rear chimney, even though one was undoubtedly present. Begun in September, 1851, this seems to be the house wherein Captain Isaac Bowen and his wife Katie were the first occupants, living in these quarters from the time of their construction until October, 1853. Captain Bowen was in charge of the Subsistence Commissary stores for the Department. Katie reported that they moved in to this building about the end of October, and that the third room was finished by the end of November (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 327). The third room was used as the bedroom, and Isaac kept the funds for the Department Quartermaster here, as well as the Commissary funds. In Katie Bowen's letters, she describes a number of the structures she and her husband built in the back yard of the house, as well as details of the interior. The Bowens kept several cows, three pigs, one or more horses, as many as 80 chickens, and a team of mules in their yard. Isaac built a "cow house," a barn, and several chicken coops; they may also have dug several small cellars for keeping milk, and had a small garden plot (Part I, pp. 24-25, Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 327). Undoubtedly the other officers' quarters had similar buildings and usages in their yards. The house appears to be still standing as of ca. September, 1865, when it is just visible behind HS-132; it was probably torn down about November, 1865, during the construction of the magazines and enclosing compound. |
| 135 | 12 | 20 | - | - | - | a |
Officers' Quarters. The survey was unable to locate the second rear chimney of this house, even though one is clearly visible in both Heger drawings. These quarters, closer to the Commanding Officer's Quarters, HS-126, were begun in August, 1851 and probably first occupied by Captain (brevet Major) Ebenezer Sprote Sibley and his wife Charlotte. Sibley was Assistant Quartermaster in charge of the Department Quartermaster Depot (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 153) as well as being the Post Quartermaster. Sibley's quarters were built first because his brevet rank was higher than that of Captain Bowen, and it is usual for higher ranked officers to be housed closer to the commanding officer. The Sibleys lived here until August, 1853. The building appears to have stood until about November, 1865, when it was probably removed as part of the construction of the magazine compound, the west wall of which passes across the west wall of this house. |
| 136 | 14 | 9 | 9 | - | - | h |
Post Quartermaster's Storehouse. Note that this is different from the Department Quartermaster's Depot, located in HS-182. HS-136 was apparently built originally as the Post Hospital. As of August 20, 1851, the walls of the hospital were completed, but it had no roof (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 112). In December, 1851, Major E. S. Sibley said that "the building designed for the hospital does not exactly answer the purposes for which it was intended;" another building was to be built (HS-140) and the hospital would be converted to a storehouse to get the stores out of the tents where they had been since the post was founded. The new hospital was built and the old hospital converted to Post Quartermaster Storehouse in the first half of 1852. It was shared by the commissary and quartermaster departments (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 120). In his report on the condition of the post in September, 1852, Sibley stated that the storehouse had only one wing; his description said that the building was 100 x 22 feet with one wing of 45 x 22 feet, with a sawn board gable roof (Part I, p. 23). The Davis drawing of late 1852, shows the west wing, and clearly shows no east wing (see the exceptionally clear print of the engraving in MNM #82350). The Rice drawing of June, 1853, shows the west wing, but unfortunately the area of the east wing is obscured. Mansfield shows two wings standing by August, 1853; therefore, the east wing was added sometime in the first half of 1853. In September, 1853, this storehouse was reported to be in "deteriorated condition," and it was proposed to build a new structure. It must have been repaired instead, and is probably the Quartermaster storehouse where a ball was held in September, 1858. According to the rather detailed description by Major John S. Simonson, the building had a Quartermaster's office with a small room on either side, all probably in one of the wings. The Quartermaster Storehouse proper, with a packed earthen floor, was probably located in the main east-west wing (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 356-57). The building continued in use through 1859, but was gone by 1866. The traces of the building consist of four clearly-defined firehearths of stone, and the visible outline of the building in the form of rubble mounds and vegetation lines. A massive rectangular area of stone, 19.5 x 8.5 feet, was located just west of the east wing of the storehouse, and was probably a loading dock. If its eastern edge was against the west wall of the east wing, as is likely, then the east wing was 19 feet wide rather than 22 feet. A large mound of rubble and midden-like debris is just east of the east wing, and may have been cleared from the area of HS-137 by the Fort Union Ranch prior to the creation of the National Monument. |
| 137 | 38 | - | - | - | - | g |
Dragoon Stables (see also HS-161, HS-148, HS-149). This building is not visible in the Davis drawing of late 1852, but may be one of the two corrals, each 100 feet square, described by Sibley in the inspection of September, 1852. It seems not to be on the Rice drawing of June, 1853; but is shown on the Mansfield map in early August, 1853. The building is gone by 1859, and the date of its disappearance is as uncertain as the date of its construction. However, planning for a new stable began in July, 1854 (Part I, p. 34), and Colonel Thomas T. Fauntleroy stated in July, 1855, that "the stables for one Company have to be rebuilt entire." Ruwet suggests that it was the Dragoon Stables needing replacement (Ruwet, "Fort Union," pp. 40, 42; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 184); this seems a reasonable suggestion, and indicates that HS-137 was in bad shape by mid-1854, but was probably used through mid-1855. Ruwet further suggests that the stables were rebuilt on a new site, which he considered to be the complex he called number 24 (see HS-148, 149 below). Ruwet is very likely correct in thinking that the new stable built after Fauntleroy's evaluation was probably HS-148 and 149 (Ruwet's no. 24), since this group of corrals and stables were built sometime between 1853 and 1859. However, it was probably HS-161, built in 1853 as an additional Dragoon stable, that replaced HS-137 (see HS-161, below). The building has a fairly clear presence on aerial photographs, and there is a great mass of burned debris and trash deposits on the site. The appearance of the area of HS-137 is consistent with destruction by fire and subsequent use as a trash-dumping area, or abandonment and later trash-dumping including ashes and charcoal from fireplaces. |
| 138 | 18 | 8 | 8 | - | - | b |
Soldiers' or Dragoons' Quarters. One of the two company quarters with walls finished as of August 20, 1851. The roof of this or HS-139 was being built as of that date. The structure continued in use through at least the end of 1866, when it appears on the 1866 Enos and Lambert map; it was gone by March, 1868. The 1852 description of this building listed it as being 100 x 18 feet with two wings of 50 x 16 feet with board roofs. A walkway, 2-1/2 feet by 10-1/2 feet and made of flagstone, led to a doorway in the center of the south side of the main wing; an extra fireplace stood at the north end of the west wing. |
| 139 | 26 | 22 | - | - | - | b |
Soldiers' Quarters. Built in 1851, it stood through May, 1859, and may have been torn down in August, 1859 (Part I, p. 37). It was certainly gone by the time of the photograph of ca. September, 1865. The building was 100 x 18 feet with two wings of 50 x 16 feet, with board roofs. The four stone fireplace bases are clearly visible today, and the general outline of the building can be seen by differences in vegetation. |
| 140 | 27 | - | - | - | - | f |
Hospital. Built 1852, stood through 1868, gone by 1882. This is the second building built for the Post Hospital; the first hospital constructed was not satisfactory. As a result, in December, 1851, the Fort Union staff proposed to turn the first hospital into the Post Quartermaster's Storehouse (HS-136) and build a second hospital in 1852. In September, 1852, the new Hospital was described as 48 x 18 feet, with a wing 46 x 16 feet (Part I, p. 23). Assistant Surgeon Jonathan Letterman, in his 1856 inspection, described this building as being so wet that the hospital staff moved the sick outside into tents and covered over the hospital equipment with canvas (Part I, p. 35). In the 1859 Heger depictions of the building, what appears to be a yard or corral can be seen at the east end of the south wing; several rectangular areas and clear vegetation lines can be seen in the aerials, suggesting that several palisade lines and perhaps one building were built just east of the main portion of the hospital. The hospital was deemed unfit for occupancy in an 1861 inspection. The building was transferred to the ordnance depot in June, 1862 and subsequently used for storage (Part I, p. 72; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 904). It was probably torn down by Shoemaker as part of the finalization of the plan of the Arsenal about 1872. The visible traces of this building consist of two chimney bases and some traces of the footprint of the structure itself. The best fit of the stated measurements to the site put the 48 x 18 foot Hospital extending east to west, and the 46 x 16 foot wing running north to south from its west end. However, archeological examination should be conducted before this is accepted as fact. The description of 1862 says that the Hospital had seven rooms: three wards, a surgery, a storeroom, a steward's room, and a kitchen. |
| 141 | 28 | - | - | - | - | e |
Ordnance Depot. Although Shoemaker's depot was not described in Sibley's report of 1852, Shoemaker's correspondence shows that in June, 1852, the depot building was under construction. It was to cover four sides of a square of 100 feet, and would be about 20 feet in height (Part I, p. 26). In 1853, Mansfield reported that the ordnance depot included storehouses, quarters, and a gun shed. The Depot building itself apparently housed the barracks and messroom for depot personnel. The barracks rooms and mess hall had fireplaces, marked by H-shaped foundations. These formed two-sided hearths built at room-dividing walls so that a fireplace would face into each of two adjoining rooms. The spacing of the fireplace bases indicates that there were three barracks rooms, each 20-1/2 feet long and 15-3/4 feet wide. The mess room was probably on the east end, and was perhaps 36-1/4 feet long and 15-3/4 feet wide. The presence, location and plan of the fireplaces allows most of the primary dimensions of the building to be deduced. The east-west exterior length was almost exactly 101 feet, and each wing was 15-3/4 feet wide. The walls were about 1 foot thick, and were probably of horizontal or vertical logs. North to south, the building was again 101 feet long, and the porches on the north and south sides were each about 7-1/2 feet deep and extended the full width of the building. In September, 1855, the four rooms forming the northern wing were converted to storerooms; the chimneys were torn down, leaving their bases under the floors, and a new barracks, mess hall, and kitchen, HS-142, 143, and 194, below, were built just to the north (Part I, p. 67). The Depot stood as it was originally constructed through 1859. In the 1859 drawings, and on the ground, the roofs are pitched, a chimney is visible centered on the east end of the south wing, probably for the Depot office, and lightning rods can be seen in the center of the roof of the north and south wings. A section of about one-third of the north end of the west wing is distinctly different from the remainder of this wing in both Heger drawings, suggesting that it was constructed in a different, but undefinable, manner. By 1866 much of the Depot had been torn down; the Enos-Lambert map shows the western three-quarters of the north wing standing, along with a short section of the west wing making an ell; apparently this was the section appearing to be different in the Heger drawing. In addition, the eastern third of the south wing, probably housing the Depot office, remained standing. The section of the north wing remaining appears to have consisted of the four storerooms that had been barracks rooms and a mess hall. Ruwet suggests these were the shops for the Ordnance Depot. He suggests that the two north-south wings were the stables, and were removed sometime between 1859 and 1866 because the stables in HS-149 were used in their place. However, this is unlikely, since HS-148 was the group of stables in this area, and were also torn down in 1859-1866, while HS-149 appears to have been offices and a yard. The stabling area for the Ordnance Depot between about 1862 and about 1869 was probably located at HS-80, near the Second Fort. After ca. 1869, the Ordnance Stables were at HS-111. The north and south wings of the Depot continued in use through 1868, but were torn down probably during the final episodes of construction in 1871-72. |
| 142 | 31 | - | - | - | - | - |
Ordnance Messroom? Undoubtedly part of the Ordnance Depot group, along with HS-143, the Ordnance Barracks, and HS-194, the possible Ordnance Kitchen. This may be the new messroom mentioned as soon to be built in Shoemaker's correspondence of September 1, 1855 (Part I, p. 67). This structure was visible in 1859 and stood through 1868, when it appears on the Ludington-Lambert map, but was probably torn down in 1871-72 construction; its last vestiges were removed at the time of the construction of the tear-drop entrance drive. It was completely gone by the time the ca. 1885 photograph was taken. The Heger drawings show some details of the structure. A chimney appears on the ridge line of the pitched roof near the center of the building, but has not been found on the ground, and a door is visible on the south wall near the same end. The site of this building, crossed by the tear-drop drive, received so much later impact that the plan cannot be seen on the ground. The building plan taken from the aerials is plotted on the Base Map; it is a structure 75 feet long and 15 feet wide. |
| 143 | 32 | - | - | - | 7 | - |
Ordnance Barracks. Not visible in the 1852 Davis and 1853 Rice drawings; built probably in 1855 to replace the barracks rooms in the original depot building, converted to storerooms the same year (Part I, p. 67). Clearly visible in the Heger drawings of 1859. Shown on the proposal plan of 1866, where it is identified as "Barracks." Continued in use as the ordnance barracks through 1868, when Shoemaker's request for permission to build a new ordnance barracks was approved. It was replaced by HS-113 between March and October, 1868, and probably torn down by the end of the year. In the 1859 Heger drawings the building has a pitched roof with a chimney on the ridge line about 1/3 of the length of the building from the south end, perhaps a smaller chimney at the peak of the north end, and a porch along its west side. The Heger engraving shows what Ruwet interpreted as a fence extending from the south end of HS-143 to the west end of HS-142; however, this could as easily be a clothesline with wet clothing hanging from it. The outline of the building is clear on the ground; it is odd that the fireplace base was not found in the area. It is likely that the traces of the fireplace were obscured by later usage of the area, and simply have not been recognized under a covering of loose dirt. The building appears to be about 85 feet long, north to south, and about 30 feet wide, of which some part seems to be a porch on the west side. It is likely that the building was about 22 feet wide, and the porch about 8 feet deep. |
| 144 | 30 | - | - | - | - | m |
Laundresses Quarters. Built ca. 1851, described by Sibley in 1852 as 114 feet long, 18 feet wide and containing six rooms and an earthen (flat) roof. The building was present in September, 1853, when it was depicted on Mansfield's plan of the fort, but may have been removed by 1859, when it cannot be identified behind the Ordnance Depot, HS-141. If the quarters were removed in 1854-59, their new location is unknown. Traces of a stone foundation have been located in this area, and are shown on the map. The outline of a rectangular building is visible here on the aerial photograph, but is about 25 feet wide and 65 feet long, rather than the dimensions of the Quarters recorded by Sibley; this outline is just to the west of the stone foundations. It is possible that the building outline visible on the aerial is the southern 65 feet of the Laundresses' Quarters, and that it had a porch 7 feet wide on the west side, but without archeological investigation this is conjecture. No clear trace of any structure can be seen in the southern part of the area on the ground or in the aerials; the south end was crossed by the most deeply worn sections of the Arsenal entrance drive and all structural information may have been destroyed. Archeological testing of the probable location of the building would clear up many of these uncertainties. It is possible that an adobe building was constructed on the stone foundations at the north end of the site in the early 1860s—a small structure is indicated in this area in 1866, and may still be present in 1868. |
| 145 | 29 | - | - | - | - | p |
Sutler's Store. Jared W. Folger was appointed as the first sutler to the new Fort Union on September 27, 1851. The sutler's store was undoubtedly begun soon after his appointment, and a completion date of early 1852 is reasonable. The available drawings and plan show a building in the shape of a backwards "C", the open side on the west. The Davis drawing shows what seems to be the sutler's store from the northwest in 1853, and the south end of the east wing can be seen on the Heger drawings in 1859. Assuming that the size shown on the Mansfield map of 1853 is representative, the building had a main wing about 85 feet long and 21 feet wide running north to south, with two somewhat lower wings extending west, each about 40 feet long and 21 feet wide. Pitched roofs covered all three wings, and there were at least two chimneys, one on the roof ridge in the center of the north wing, and the other on the southeast corner at the end of the roof ridge of the main wing. As of 1857, the sutler's operation had a store, storeroom, post office, a residence for the sutler and his family, residences for some employees, and rooms for rent (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 367, 402). It appears likely that sometime before 1859, and perhaps as early as 1857, HS-162 was built by the post sutler to augment or replace HS-145; therefore, some of these activities may have been housed in HS-162. Only the approximate location and outline of HS-145 is shown, taken from the Mansfield map; this area was later crossed by the Arsenal entrance road and enclosing wall, obscuring the structural traces so that the Sutler's Store is not yet clearly located on the ground. Archeology would easily relocate the plan of this building. |
| 146 | 25 | 17 | 17 | - | - | b |
Soldiers' Quarters. Sibley mentions only two barracks in September, 1852, the Dragoons' Quarters, HS-138, and the Soldiers' Quarters, HS-139. Ruwet suggests that these barracks were not part of the original plan of 1851. This proposal is supported by the asymmetrical location of the building; and the estimated front of the structure seems to be about 1-1/2 feet north of the alignment of the front of the first barracks, HS-139. It is visible in the Rice drawing of June, 1853; therefore, it was built between September, 1852, and June, 1853. It is shown on the Mansfield plan of August, 1853, and the Heger drawings of 1859. These barracks may have continued in use through the early 1860s, but was gone by the time of the ca. September, 1865 photograph. The physical remains of the building are somewhat more complicated than its neighbor and twin, Soldier's Quarters HS-139, to the west, although the plan appears to be identical in size and shape. The two fireplace bases on either end of the main east-west wing are much larger than those in the other barracks, as is the one on the north end of the east wing. Two additional apparent chimney bases or masonry structures of some other use are found within the building outline near the southwest corner. One of these appears to be a chimney base at the south end of the west wing. |
| 147 | 23 | 16 | 16 | - | - | o |
Post Quartermaster's Office?. This building is shown as 38 feet long and 18 feet wide, with a stone chimney centered on the east side; however, the disturbed area around the chimney could accommodate a building up to about 40 feet by 40 feet. Mansfield shows a row of three offices, HS-147, 151, and probably under the west end of 157. Sibley describes several offices; one of these was for himself (Sibley was the Assistant Quartermaster in charge of both the Quartermaster Depot for the Department, and the Post Quartermaster); the others were for the Subsistence Commissary. The Office of the Department Subsistence Commissary was under Captain Isaac Bowen, while the Post Commissary probably had a separate office. It is likely that the Assistant Quartermaster Office, where Major Sibley was located, was in HS-147; see HS-151, 152, and 157, below for the reasoning behind this. |
| 148 | 24 | 23 | - | - | - | - |
Dragoon Stables and Corrals (presumed use). These buildings are not on Mansfield's original plan, but clearly visible in the 1859 Heger drawings. The drawings show that these stables were built between 1853 and 1859. Assuming that the various references in this period were all to the same group of stables, their construction was planned for as of July, 1854 as additional stables needing to be constructed for a new cavalry company being brought to Fort Union; possibly the same as the replacement for stables needing to be removed (the deteriorated stables may have been HS-137) as mentioned by Col. Fauntleroy in July, 1855; and very likely the Dragoon stables under construction in May, 1856 (Part I, p. 34; Ruwet, "Fort Union," p. 40; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 914). Continued in existence through 1859, although little of the plan can be seen on the Heger drawing. The corrals were gone by the time of the photograph of ca. September, 1865. The physical remains are complex on both the aerials and on the ground. The plan shown on the map is the best compromise based on these sources. These corrals formed an enclosed compound, 274 x 117 feet, with the east and west wings 25 feet wide and the north and south wings 20 feet wide with porch-like additions on the inner faces, 10 feet wide. The corrals and the Ordnance shops or Offices, HS-149, were built parallel to each other but at a slight angle to the grid of the rest of the fort. The northern component, HS-148c, is visible in the aerial photos but not particularly on the ground. One office with a stone chimney base was found on the south side near the east corner. |
| 149 | 24a | 23 | - | - | - | - |
Shops or Offices. Not on Mansfield's original plan. Built between 1853 and 1859. The building and yard are visible in the 1859 Heger drawings and the ca. September, 1865, photograph from Third Fort, as well as on the 1866, 1868, and 1874 maps of the valley. Continued in use through 1874, abandoned by 1882. Four stone chimney bases were found within the outline of a building about 92 x 24-1/2 feet; what appears to be a stone step at an entrance may be seen a little south of the center of the west side. Bricks found in association with the southernmost chimney show that this building, too, took part in Shoemaker's fired brick experiment of 1860. A structure 47 feet long and 24-1/2 feet wide on the north end of the building appears to have been made of vertical posts, and may have been a stable. A corral or yard along the east side of the building, also of vertical posts, is 139 by 60 feet. |
| 150 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. No building is shown at this location on the Mansfield map, nor is anything visible here in the 1859 drawings. This structure was a deep rectangular pit, perhaps used for ice storage, about 25 by 30 feet, and about 1 foot deep at the center. It was possibly constructed between 1859 and 1866. |
| 151 | 22 | 14 | 14 | - | - | o |
Post Subsistence Commissary Office?. Built ca. 1851, visible in all drawings through 1859, but gone by 1866. See HS-157, for further discussion. Shown as 38 x 18 feet, with a stone chimney base near the center of the east side, but the disturbed area around the chimney is about 38 by 30 feet. |
| 152 | 21 | 15 | 15 | - | - | i |
Post Commissary Stores. Not described in Sibley, 1852, but shown on the Mansfield plan of 1853 and identified as for Commissary Stores. Visible through 1859, but gone by 1866. See HS-157 for further discussion. Shown as 38 x 18 feet, with a stone chimney base at about the center of the building, but the disturbed area around the chimney is about 49 by 29 feet. The Commissary Stores for the Department were probably kept in HS-163. |
| 153 | 42 | 24 | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. It is likely that the west wing was the small structure visible behind HS-152 in the 1859 drawings; if so, it received a considerable addition after 1859, but was gone before 1866. The building was T-shaped, with the west wing about 35 x 30 feet, and the crossbar of the T about 37 x 68 feet. The stone base of a chimney is near the southeastern corner of the west wing. |
| 154 | 43 | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Not visible on any map or drawing. May be concealed behind HS-153 in the 1859 drawings. Gone by 1866. Rectangular pit approximately 20 by 30 feet and presently perhaps 2 feet deep. This is probably the icehouse that went into use in 1851-52 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 121), described by Sibley in September, 1852, as 20 x 30 feet with a flat earthen roof covered by a board roof (see also HS-150, 160). The icehouse does not appear on the Mansfield map of August, 1853, even though it was certainly in use; nor does it appear on any other drawings, probably because it was a low, unobtrusive structure. |
| 155 | 44 | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Not visible on any map or drawing. May be concealed behind the possible HS-153 in the 1859 drawings. Gone by 1866. Traces of a stone footing about 1 foot thick, outlining a structure 21 x 13 feet. |
| 156 | 20 | 13 | 13 | - | - | - |
Storehouse, incomplete. Not visible on any map or drawing. Cut stone foundation, 1-1/2 feet thick, of same size and shape as HS-157, below. 150 x 30 feet. Foundations do not seem to be complete; portions of the east half of the north and south walls, and all of the east wall, do not have stone detectable from the present surface. However, a footing trench seems to be present for the full circumference. This and the lack of artifacts or debris on the site strongly indicates that the structure was not finished. The area where this foundation is located is clearly visible in the Heger drawings, and shows no trace of construction work; this strongly implies that the building was started after 1859. It was probably one of the storehouses begun ca. 1861; work on these storehouses stopped in August, 1861, in order to speed up work on the Second Fort (Part I, pp. 37-38). The storehouses were never finished. See also HS-170 and HS-171 for further discussion of the 1859-1861 surge in building. |
| 157 | 19 | 12 | 12 | - | - | o |
Department Subsistence Commissary Office?/Storehouse. This building began as a small office of unknown use in 1851-53; it was shown on the Mansfield plan of 1853 and the 1853 drawings. However, by 1859 it had been rebuilt as a much larger building, but retaining offices at the front on the west end. It is likely that the original office was that for the Department Subsistence Commissary. In October, 1853, the Department Commissary moved to Albuquerque, so the large Commissary Storehouse, HS-163, may have been abandoned then; however, Fort Union continued as a sub-depot for commissary stores, and HS-157 as offices and HS-152 as a small commissary storehouse may have continued in use. In July, 1858, a report stated that the Quartermaster and Commissary storehouses (probably for the Post) were "insufficient in capacity" (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 196). In April, 1859, orders may have come to begin construction on new Fort buildings, especially barracks and storehouses (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 171-74; see also Part I, pp. 36-38). Certainly it appears that HS-157 was completely renewed about this time. The original small office of horizontal logs was torn down, and a new structure built in its place, with two offices in front and a large storeroom in the back. Presumably, the Commissary Offices continued in the front, and the Commissary stores were kept in back. It stood in this form by May 20, 1859, when it is shown on Heger's pencil drawing. It may have been under construction at the time, since the drawing shows what appears to be two braces or supports angling up against the south side of the building. The drawing on which the Heger engraving is based may have been made a month or two later; it seems to show a porch along the north side of the building, while it is clear that no porch was present in the pencil drawing. In its final plan, the Office/Storehouse was a frame structure with a gable roof, on cut stone foundations 150 feet long and 30 feet wide on the exterior, and averaging about 1-1/2 feet thick. The interior was divided into two offices at the front and a large storehouse in the back. The office on the north measured 9 x 19 feet on the interior; on the south, 17 x 20 feet; the east walls of the two rooms are not the same distance from the front of the building. The south room had a stone step to an entrance just south of the partition wall; Heger shows that the north room also had a door, near the north corner with a window just south of it. The triangular chimney base supported two corner fireplaces, one in each room. Behind the office, the storehouse was 125 x 28 feet on the interior. The storehouse section had a wooden floor supported by joists resting on the two long side walls, supported at their centers by a third line of stone. The building had disappeared by 1866. |
| 158 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Small office-like building with two chimneys, one in the center and one on the north wall, with a small enclosed yard or storeroom extension to the rear. The front section is 30 feet across the front and 24 feet deep, while the yard or rear section is 30 feet wide and 76 feet long, for a total length of 100 feet. Not visible on any map or drawing. Perhaps dates from 1859-1862 period. May have been one of the storehouses under construction in 1861, stopped in August, 1861 (Part I, pp. 37-38). |
| 159 | 16 | 10 | 10 | - | - | 1 |
Bakehouse. Ruwet incorrectly identified the large stable building along the west side of HS-161 as having replaced the Bakehouse on this location by 1859 (Ruwet, "Fort Union," p. 39). Bleser and Wohlbrandt give the north oven base the number 10 and the southern base the number 11. In September, 1852, Sibley describes the building as 31 feet long and 17 feet wide, while Davis, later in 1852, shows a small building with two chimneys, one on the north and one on the south. It is possible that this indicates that the building was enlarged by the addition of a second oven in September-December, 1852. Mansfield shows a rectangular building labelled "Bakery" at this location in August, 1853. The 1859 drawings show what appear to be two mounds of rubble here. Two fieldstone oven bases are visible today. The pictorial, documentary, and structural evidence suggests that the structure began in ca. 1851 as a building 31 feet long and 17 feet wide, but was doubled in size in late 1852 with the addition of a second oven, with final dimensions of 60 x 17 feet. The ovens were abandoned and in ruins by 1859. The later location of the bakery after the abandonment of HS-159 is unknown. |
| 160 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Possibly an ice house. Not on any map or drawing. Rectangular pit, 15 x 10 feet. A second icehouse in addition to HS-154 was built in late 1852 and filled with ice by March, 1853 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 344); this pit could be that icehouse. |
| 161 | 16 | 18 | 18 | - | - | - |
New Dragoons' Stable and workshops. Ruwet misidentified the large western building of this structure as standing on the site of the Bakehouse, and gave the two offices or workshops east of it the numbers 39 and 40. Wohlbrandt gave the number 18 to a portion of the southern side, outlined most of the east and north sides, but saw nothing along the west edge. Bleser added the number 25 for the other structures Wohlbrandt outlined on the east and north sides. This large compound is not on the Mansfield map. It was begun in November, 1853, when Lt. Col. Philip St. George Cooke ordered a new stable of pickets built for Co. H, 2nd Dragoons (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 358). It was finished by July, 1854, and the main stable measured 190 x 30 feet. It was built stockade-style with "upright logs set in the ground" with a gavelled "sharp board roof" (Part I, p. 34). As seen on the ground, this complex appears to be a large stable, barns, and at least six workshops and offices set up in a rectangle around a central corral, 105 x 137 feet, with at least 6 chimneys distributed among the workshops and offices; the implication of this complexity is that the HS-161 compound was considerably enlarged after 1859. This corral complex is gone by December, 1866, when it does not appear on the Enos and Lambert map. However, artifacts scattered thickly on the site indicate that at least the eastern portion of the structure was in use through the late 1860s, suggesting that this portion of HS-161 was perhaps used as a trash dump for the Hotel, HS-162, present from before 1859 to ca. 1870. |
| 162 | 17 | - | - | - | - | - |
Hotel/Sutler's Store. Visible here in 1859 is a structure consisting of a frame building facing north, perhaps thirty by fifty feet, with a porch on the front, a pitched roof, and an enclosed yard about 100 feet long at the rear on the south, containing at least two outbuildings. Ruwet suggests that this is the Guardhouse described by Sibley in 1852, but it is more likely that the Guardhouse was in one of the buildings along the Parade Ground. The present structure was probably built as a new sutler store and Hotel by the post sutler sometime between August, 1853, when the sutler store was only HS-145, and May, 1859, when HS-162 was drawn by Heger. A large depression, about 45 x 20 feet, within the northwest corner of the present building under the front room of the ruins, appears to have been a cellar. This could be the cellar of the sutler's store broken into by Fort Union troops in March, 1862, just before they departed to the Battle of Glorieta. The building was considerably altered enlarged during the years after 1859, and was rebuilt in adobe. The earliest documentary reference to the Hotel was in late 1865. The Hotel shown on the 1866 and 1868 maps (Ruwet's number 34a) was an adobe building with stone foundations, 100 x 40 feet, with an ell, 30 x 90 feet, extending along the west side of the enclosed rear yard. South of the main compound was a stable building and yard about 100 x 70 feet. West of the main building is an isolated chimney base, and traces of other possible structures are visible east of the main building near the National Park Service chain-link enclosing fence. In ca. 1885 the Hotel is visible in the photograph of that year as a ruin in the distance with no roof and partly collapsed adobe walls. Artifacts scattered thickly across the site indicate a use from the early 1850s to ca. 1870. |
| 163 | 15 | 26 | - | - | - | i |
Commissary Stores. Probably the storehouse for the Department Subsistence Commissary. In September, 1852, Sibley refers to a "Smokehouse," 100 x 22 feet with a gable roof of boards (Part I, p. 23); HS-163 is the only structure that fits that description, and therefore presumably began as the Smokehouse. On September 8, 1853, Captain L. C. Easton was told by Brigadier General John Garland that "the building erected for a smokehouse can be fitted up for temporary use" as a storehouse (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 154). However, the building was shown a month earlier, on the Mansfield plan of August 1-6, 1853, as the Commissary Storehouse, indicating that the smokehouse had been pressed into use as a storehouse before General Garland ordered its refitting as one. It is visible in Davis, late 1852, and Rice, June, 1853, but is gone by 1859. The Department Commissary moved from Fort Union to Albuquerque in October, 1853 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 182). This building was probably abandoned at that time. It seems reasonable that part of the new storehouse, HS-157, took over the job of commissary storehouse and HS-163 was then removed. The fort remained a sub-depot for the area, so that something more than only a local storehouse was needed. The site is clearly marked by a row of large basalt boulders along the east half of the north wall and most of the east wall of the building. The remainder of the outline is easily visible in the aerials, and sometimes on the ground when the vegetation is right. |
| 164 | 27 | - | - | - | - | - |
Greenhouse and Gardener's House. Funds for the construction of the Greenhouse were requested by Captain Gouverneur Morris on January 31, 1853 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 135 n. 167). It was built apparently in February, and was completed and in use by March 3, when it was described by Katie Bowen. It was mentioned again in April, 1853, (Part I, p. 26). Bowen described this building as being 50 x 20 feet with a glass front facing south. The gardener's house was attached. The hothouse was not very successful, and the building was apparently dismantled in May or June, 1853; it is not shown by Rice on June 20, 1853, or on the Mansfield plan of August, 1853. It stood only about four months; this would explain why virtually no broken glass is visible on the location of the building. The building is at a slight angle to the general grid of First Fort, with the east end slightly north of where it should be. The west half of the structure is the Gardener's house, 37 x 25 feet, with an apparent porch about 8 feet deep across the entire north side, a small chimney base at the southwest corner of the building, and a possible chimney base in the center of the west wall; the east half was the Greenhouse itself, 50 x 20 feet, with a possible chimney base near the northeast corner. The mounded shapes of the planting beds are still visible. |
| *165 | 48 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - |
Unknown. Ruwet, Bleser and Wohlbrandt all grouped this structure and HS-166 together as a single building. This was a large house or office, 40 x 59 feet, divided into two sections. The front section was 40 x 22 feet with a chimney centered on the front wall and a second one slightly south of center on the east wall, while the back section was 40 x 37 feet, with a chimney on the south wall near the east corner. The building had a front porch about 10 feet deep, and a large enclosed back yard, 93 feet by 40 feet. The yard was enclosed by vertical posts, and a number of large boulders are scattered near the outside of the enclosing walls. It was probably a frame structure, standing on a fieldstone foundation much like those for HS-156 and 157. It is too far south and west to be visible in any of the drawings, and is not on any map. Artifacts are generally 1850s; the structure cannot be dated any closer than within that period, although the similarity in foundations makes it likely to have been built about the same time as HS-156 and 157, or ca. 1859-1861. It was gone by 1866. The yard and south half of the building are outside the National Monument fence on the private property of Fort Union Ranch. |
| 166 | 48 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - |
Unknown. Rectangular building, 33 feet x 17 feet with massive fieldstone foundations. Probably built about the same time as HS-165. |
| 167 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. This appears to be a two-room structure with a single chimney and stone foundations. The west room seems to be 27 feet square, while the east room is 27 x 33 feet. Date unknown, but the sparse artifact scatter suggests mid-to-late nineteenth century. |
| 168 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Built after 1853, and clearly visible in the Heger drawing of 1859 as a small frame house with a gable roof and a single chimney, standing at an angle to the grid followed by the rest of First Fort. At least two rooms, the north 29 x 14 feet, the south 16 x 19 feet. The chimney base was found to be at the southwest end of the building, rather than in the center as Heger shows it; this could imply that there is more building in the ground southwest of the chimney, but not visible at the surface. The structure was gone by 1866. |
| 169 | 6 | - | - | - | - | - |
Smokehouse? Square stone floor, 10 x 11 feet. The building that stood on it appears to be a frame structure, and is visible in Heger, 1859. The size and shape suggest that it was a smokehouse, like the somewhat larger HS-313 on the north side of Third Fort. It was gone by 1866. |
| *170 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Storehouse?, incomplete. First mapped by Bleser in 1965. This is a well-built fieldstone foundation, 30 x 138 feet on the exterior, with a central foundation line intended for joist support. The outside walls have a foundation thickness of 2 feet, while the interior walls are 1-1/2 feet thick. The building apparently was to have an office of 27 x 20 feet in the front, or west, end of the building, leaving a storage space of 27 x 113 feet, interior measurements. Very few artifacts and no visible mound of structural debris indicates that this structure was never finished. This is probably one of the storehouses begun in 1861 and discontinued August, 1861 (Part I, pp. 37-38; see HS-156, 158 above). |
| *171 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Company Quarters?, incomplete. First mapped by Bleser in 1965. This is a well-built fieldstone foundation marking out a large, E-shaped building, 194 feet long and 28 feet wide, with three wings extending south; the central wing 37 x 47 feet, the end wings 19 x 47 feet, exterior measurements. The foundation is 2 feet thick on all walls except the front, or north wall, and the central north-south dividing wall, which are 2-1/2 feet thick; it appears to be incomplete on the southwest corner. The lack of debris and artifacts suggests that, like HS-170 and 156, this structure was begun in 1861 and never finished. The plan and scale are similar to the adobe company quarters built at Fort Davis beginning in 1867. In 1869 each of these barracks had a main section of 186 x 27 feet and a single rear extension, 86 x 27 feet. The main section contained two squad rooms, 24 x 82-1/2 feet, separated by a passageway between them to the rear extension. At the end of each squadroom was a 10 x 10 foot sergeant's quarters, and a 10 x 10 foot barracks office. The rear extension contained a messroom of 50 x 24 feet, a kitchen, 20 x 24 feet, and a storeroom, 10 x 24 feet. Assigning the same functions within similar spaces in HS-171 would give two squad rooms end to end, each 25 x 94 feet, with no passage between them; a sergeant's quarters 28 x 14 and a barracks office 16 x 14 at each end; and a messroom of 20 x 33, kitchen 12 x 33, and storeroom 12 x 33 in the central wing. This makes for a rather small messroom and kitchen, but obviously the similarity is strong enough to make it virtually certain that HS-171 is a set of new company quarters. The presence of these buildings adds considerable significance to the statements made in 1858 and 1859 about "rebuilding Fort Union." In July, 1858, Post Commander Captain Andrew J. Lindsay submitted what had become a standard request to rebuild the post, perhaps in adobes. This time, however, the request was introduced into Congress, with the result that in April, 1859, funds were appropriated to rebuild Fort Union (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 197). In August, 1859, Post Commander Captain Robert M. Morris requested permission to hire civilians to help build more company quarters (Part I, p. 37). He received permission for such construction soon afterward, and on August 30, 1859, requested the Quartermaster at Fort Union to build the barracks quickly (Part I, p. 37; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 174). The placement of this apparent company quarters facing north, and the probable storehouse, HS-170, with its front facing west, suggest that these two buildings were planned to face onto a new parade ground. If the new company quarters was centered on the south side, then the parade ground would have been 400 feet wide, and had enough room between its front and the south side of the officers' quarters HS-129 to make a north-south length of 800 feet. The two new buildings, HS-170 and HS-171, were located about 1300 feet (1/4 mile) south of the center of the original parade ground (about 1900 feet, or a little more than a third of a mile, south of Shoemaker's Ordnance Depot), and somewhat closer to the springs at the Post Garden (HS-198). This adds weight to such statements as Shoemaker's statement in January, 1859, that Fort Union was "about to be rebuilt on a new site about half a mile distant," and that "operations toward the removal of Fort Union" had begun. On May 13, 1859, Shoemaker noted the arrival of "General Order Number 7, dated War Department, Washington, April 11, 1859." This is the same date as Special Order Number 55, the appropriation by Congress to rebuild Fort Union, and was apparently on the same topic. Shoemaker construed a portion of the General Order to pertain to his Ordnance Depot, and apparently stopped construction on his various projects until he knew whether he would be moving; as it happened, the decision on the relocation of the Arsenal was delayed, and ultimately the plan was abandoned upon the outbreak of the Civil War. The available documents, therefore, strongly suggest that construction began on a new Fort Union about September, 1859, and that HS-170 and 171 were the structures begun. The relationship between these buildings and the incomplete storeroom HS-156, started sometime after May, 1859, and stopped soon after it was begun, is uncertain, but various references in 1861 suggest the hypothesis that HS-170 and 171 were begun in September, 1859, and given up soon after; then in 1861 a second attempt was made to carry out the approved rebuilding, apparently starting the storehouse HS-156—this time to be halted by the outbreak of the Civil War. From this viewpoint, Third Fort, begun in late 1862 as several warehouses northeast of the Second Fort, is specifically the continuation of the effort to build a new fort begun in August, 1859. |
| 172 | 33a | 28 | - | - | - | - |
Flagstaff, First Fort. See also HS-173, 191. The flagstaff is located almost precisely at the center of the original parade ground of Fort Union. The parade ground itself is 470 feet north to south and 488 feet east to west, from building front to building front on each side. The flagstaff is 238 feet south of the front of HS-139, and 245 feet east of the front of HS-131, or 3 feet south and 1 foot east of exactly dead center. It is likely that the parade ground was laid out as a square 150 yards, or 450 feet, on a side. This would leave a space 10 feet wide along the barrack fronts on the north and south, large enough for a small stoop and walkway, and a space 19 feet wide for a porch and walk along the fronts of the offices and Officer's Quarters along the east and west sides. HS-172 undoubtedly went out of use as the post flagstaff with the construction and activation of Second Fort in 1861-1862; the Ordnance Depot flagstaff, HS-191, apparently continued in use for the Arsenal. After 1862, the location of HS-172 remained the center point of the Arsenal Reservation, and is marked "Center Stake" on the 1866, 1868, and 1874 maps of the valley. Nick Bleser, Administrative Assistant at Fort Union, relocated the Flagstaff site in 1964, and found the massive stump of the staff and the remains of the large bracing timbers still in place, buried in the ground (Ruwet, "Fort Union," p. 43; Bleser to Superintendent, Fort Union, October 8, 1964). |
| 173 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Flagstaff, Arsenal, mid-1871 to closure of the Arsenal in 1882. The Arsenal flagstaff was probably moved to this location about the time of the completion of Shoemaker's quarters, HS-114, about April, 1871. The tear-drop entrance road and probably Shoemaker's front lawn were undoubtedly laid out at the same time. The flagstaff is on the centerline of Shoemaker's house, and is precisely 225 feet east of the front of his house and 225 feet south of the fence or wall along the south side of the Arsenal Barracks, HS-113, that marks the north side of the Ordnance Parade Ground. The east side of the compound was apparently intended to be 225 feet east of this flagstaff, and another wall not marked on the proposal plan seems to have extended from the magazine enclosure eastward to the east wall at 225 feet to the south, forming the south side of the Parade Ground. These locations reflect a revision of the 1866 proposal plan to give a square parade ground with the flagpole in the center, and Shoemaker's house centered on the west side; this redesign appears to have occurred about the end of 1868 or in early 1869. The south wall of the Parade Ground may have been completed and continued in use until closure, since it seems to be shown on the Kelp map of ca. 1885-1890, and is apparently visible in some aerial photographs, but various errors placed the east wall line 240 feet east of the Flagstaff, rather than 225. See below, HS-191, for the Arsenal Flagstaff location between 1862 and 1871. |
| 174 | - | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. Four of the buildings HS-174 through 178 were built ca. 1854, and a fifth set was built about May, 1858, for civilian armorer George Berg and his family (Part I, pp. 68-69, 77; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 895). It is uncertain which one of the five was the last built. These five structures can be seen on the Heger drawings of 1859, the proposal plan of 1866, and the 1866 and 1868 maps, and are visible in the 1865 Farnsworth photograph of the First Fort area from Third Fort. Even though they are small and at a considerable distance, a great deal of detail can be determined about the buildings from these sources. Surprisingly, all six representations agree on how the buildings were laid out and where they were located. HS-174 is the eastern half of a double building forming the eastern end of the row of Civilian Quarters. Heger shows it as a house with a pitched roof, the ridgepole extending east-west, with a door in the center of the south side and two windows, one symmetrically on either side of the door. There appears to be a chimney at either end of HS-174, the western chimney being in the center of the double building, HS-174, 175. On the east end of HS-174 is a small structure with a single door and window. |
| 175 | 37 | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. This forms the west half of the double building, HS-174, 175. It also had a pitched roof and a door centered on its south side, with a window on each side of the door. A chimney is visible on its west end, and the chimney at the juncture between the two halves may have been double. |
| 176 | 36 | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. Like HS-174 and 175, this house had a pitched roof with the ridgeline running east and west, a single door centered on the south side, and two windows, one on each side of the door. A chimney stood at the center of the west end of the building. |
| 177 | 35 | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. Structure very similar to the previous three buildings. |
| 178 | 34 | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. A view of this building appears only on the Heger pencil sketch. It appears like the others above, except that the south side of the building has no door, but only two windows. A chimney stood at the west end. |
| 179 | 33 | - | - | - | 8 | - |
Civilian Quarters. The proposal plan of 1866 has six civilian structures, one more than all the other sources; however, none of them fits the measurements and layout of the 1868 building plan. It appears that the 1866 proposal plan shows the original five Civilian Quarters plus one additional house, and demonstrates that Shoemaker intended to add a new building on the west end of the row. By 1868, Shoemaker had decided to build three new sets of quarters, and submitted a design to headquarters for them. Each house was to have two rooms 16 feet square at the front, a kitchen at the back 16 feet square, and a front porch 6 x 32 feet (Part I, p. 77 and fig. 11). Shoemaker began construction on the new Civilian Quarters in November, 1868, starting with HS-179 at the west end of the row. The work went slowly during the period from 1868 to 1870, with other construction having a higher priority; the older quarters continued in use during this period. Work on the new civilian quarters probably stopped when Shoemaker was forced to discharge all hired labor in September, 1870; the projected buildings were apparently given up at this point, with only HS-179 completed. All civilian quarters were gone by the time of the closure of the Arsenal in 1882, and are not visible on the map or photographs taken after that year. When during the period from ca. 1870 to ca. 1885 the structures were removed is unknown. The layout of the six buildings on the Base Map are taken directly from the 1866 proposed plan of the Arsenal; it is uncertain how closely the 1866 plan corresponds to the actual location of the earlier civilian quarters or the foundations of whatever new quarters were begun. The actual number and location of the civilian quarters (HS-174 to 179) and the water tower, HS-180, should be regarded as tentative at best; archeological investigations are needed in order to arrive at actual locations and plans. |
| 180 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Water Tower, Civilian Quarters. This is an L-shaped wall fragment north of HS-17 that appears to be at the location of a water tower visible in the 1865 photograph as standing just north of the east end of the Civilian Quarters row, and as a small square structure north of the row on the 1866 map. |
| *181 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Cemetery. Oliva (Third Fort Union, p. 885-86) estimates that the cemetery was laid out in 1851. It is visible in the Davis drawing of late 1852, surrounded by a palisade fence. The palisade apparently rotted away by the mid 1860s. In 1866 the cemetery was shown on the Enos and Lambert map as 500 feet north to south and about 200 feet east to west, but in 1867, when it was refenced, its dimensions were stated to be 700 by 150 feet. The rows of grave pits and the stumps of some fence posts are still visible today. |
| *182 | - | - | - | - | - | k |
Quartermaster's Corral and Shops. Ruwet gives no number for this compound, although he discusses it in detail (Third Fort Union, pp. 43-47) and provides a sketch of the structures, based on the 1859 drawings. His readily fits the surveyed plan of the buildings on the base map. The core structures of the Corral were those outlined on the Mansfield plan in August, 1853, and shown in good detail by the Rice drawing of June, 1853. Rice shows a long building along the west side of the compound, and two smaller buildings, each with a chimney at each end, near the northeast and southeast corners. By June, 1853, the northeast and southeast buildings had gabled roofs, but the western building still had a flat roof. The southeastern building had two evenly-spaced windows on its south side, and a chimney at each end. The northeastern building had a large central door on the south side, with two windows symmetrically placed, one on either side of the door; a large chimney stood at each end. Sibley stated that the blacksmith's and wheelwright's shop was a single structure 30 feet long and 18 feet wide. This shop, certainly housed in the Quartermaster compound, probably was in the northeastern building; the two chimney bases of the building were located during the survey, 9 feet south of the north wall of the compound and 30 feet apart. It is likely that the foundations traces of the southeast building also exist in the northwest quadrant of the final plan of HS-182. The western building had four large doors and three windows evenly spaced on the west side, one window on the south end, and four chimneys evenly spaced down the centerline of the building. The bases of these chimneys were located during this survey. Rice seems to show the northernmost chimney as at the end of the building, but it was probably about 10 feet south of the north end. A large gateway was located on the east side near the northeastern corner, and a second, smaller gate on the south side near the west end. This core compound corresponds to the northwest quadrant of the later plan; it would have measured perhaps 120 feet square. Mansfield says that Sibley built the compound (in its early form) about 1851, and that by 1853 it had storerooms, corrals, and stables. Twenty-eight civilians and thirty-nine soldiers worked here in 1853, including carpenters, smiths, wheelwrights, a wagon and forage master, a saddler, and a number of teamsters (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 352). The rest of the compound was added between 1853 and 1859, and can be seen fairly clearly on the Heger drawings. The changes involved a considerable enlargement of the Quartermaster compound toward the east and the addition of several buildings in the new eastern half. The western building was extended by about 32 feet on its south end, and a low gabled roof was built on it. Heger shows a row of nine windows placed evenly along its west side, and the four chimneys still in place along its new roof. The old northeastern and southeastern buildings may have been removed at this time, and a new group of four buildings added east of them. These consisted of a building along the north wall, 25 feet by 136 feet, with five chimney bases along it, three larger ones to the west, and two smaller toward the east end. A large shed or barn was built along the east side of the new compound, 159 feet by 19 feet with a high gabled roof. It was divided into sections 45, 38, and 75-1/2 feet long by cross walls. Several massive post bases still survive along the wall lines of this building. West of this barn was a U-shaped building with a gavelled roof on at least the northern section; the end of it can just be seen above the building on the west side of the compound in the Heger drawing. Judging from the obvious mounds marking each building, the U-shaped structure was made of adobe, and possibly the northern and western buildings, too, were built or rebuilt in adobe. A large corral went up on the south side of this enlarged complex, for a final outline of 370 x 340 feet. The enclosing walls and corral were of palisade. Heger shows a large gateway centered in the palisade wall south of the western building; this gateway appears to be marked by a rectangular paved area, 8 x 2 feet, visible today just west of the palisade line at this location. Although most of the Quartermaster Corral is gone by the time of the Farnsworth photograph taken in ca. September, 1865, three of the fireplaces of the northern building are still standing. Various markings around these chimneys suggest that other structural ruins are still present, but no complete buildings stand. |
| *183 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. First mapped by Bleser in 1966. This building, approximately 100 x 27 feet, contains two massive mounds that look suspiciously like ovens, and may have been the bakehouse after the abandonment of HS-159 sometime between 1853 and 1859. However, HS-183 is not visible in the 1859 Heger drawings, indicating that it was built after 1859 but went out of use at least before the Farnsworth photograph of 1865; it was probably gone by 1862. Three joist beams are visible on the ground outside the northeast corner of the building; the northernmost is about 12 feet north of the north end of the building. They are 14 feet long, set at 4 foot centers, and extend eastward from the approximate east wall line of the building, apparently for the support of a large porch or frame structure along its east side. Traces of two others are visible south of these three in the aerials, and Bleser thought that he could see indications of this porch or building extending along the entire length of the east side of HS-183. |
| *184 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Limeslaking Pit? First mapped by Bleser in 1966. 34 feet in diameter, built of stone. This pit is associated with the chimney base to the west, HS-185. |
| *185 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Lime Kiln? First mapped by Bleser in 1966. Chimney-like structure associated with the large stonelined pit to the east. This could be the first lime kiln at Fort Union, referred to in September, 1851 (Part I, p. 21; see also North Lime Kiln, HS-83, South Lime Kilns, HS-89, and Lime Kiln and Slaking Pits, HS-187). |
| *186 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. First mapped by Bleser in 1966. Square outline of stone, 20 x 20 feet, enclosing a flat, slightly depressed area. Possibly an earlier, square slaking pit. Several other suspicious-looking surface marks may be found in this area on the ground and in the aerials; it appears that several small buildings or utility structures may have left traces here. |
| *187 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Lime Kiln and Slaking Pits. This group of kiln and slaking pits is larger and more sophisticated than the HS-184/185/186 group, and was probably the next one built. This kiln and slaking and storage pits probably date from the period of increased construction in the later 1850s. There is a possible water-supply ditch from the dam (HS-99, 2400 feet to the north) to this area, which would have brought the great amount of water used for slaking the lime. Next in the series of kilns would have been the large lime kiln, HS-83, built somewhat further east across the creek about 1860, followed by HS-89 at the south end of the valley. |
| *188 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Beef Corral. First mapped by Bleser in 1966. Ruwet erroneously assumes that this is the Hay Corral, HS-189, below, and that the Beef Corral was further to the north. Visible in 1859 drawing, in the ca. September, 1865 photograph, and on the 1866 map, but gone by 1868. Dimensions 160 x 175 feet—the corral is not exactly square; the south end is 160 feet across, while the north end is only 155 feet across. The corral is subdivided into various smaller enclosures, of which the most visible are plotted on the map. The 1859 Heger pencil drawing shows at least two gable-roofed buildings in the north half of this corral, and the photograph also shows at least two buildings, one of them on the northeast corner and the other on the north side or northwest corner. The 1868 map shows a building on the northwest corner, a second just south of the northeast corner, and a smaller pen within the southeast corner. Examination of the aerial photograph and the ground surface supports such a layout. One of these structures was undoubtedly the "excellent slaughter house" mentioned by Colonel Mansfield in the inspection report of August, 1853 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 179). The Beef Corral may have begun as one of the two corrals mentioned by Sibley in 1852, 100 feet square (the other apparently being the Dragoon Corral, HS-137; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 121). It was part of the subsistence commissary for the Department through 1853, and the corral for the Post commissary after that date (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 179). Abandoned in the summer of 1866 because of "the accumulated blood of the winter, as well as the bones of years," and torn down in late 1866 or early 1867 after the completion of the New Beef Corral, HS-84 (Part I, p. 39; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 571). |
| *189 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Hay Corral. Ruwet erroneously assumes that HS-189 is on the site of the Beef Corral, HS-188 (Ruwet, "Fort Union," p. 48). This corral was built probably in early 1854; it was mentioned as just completed in July, 1854 (Part I, p. 34; NARG 92, Consolidated Correspondence File, Box 1167, Lt. Col. St. George Cooke to Major General Jesup, Annual Inspection, July 15, 1854). 175 x 185 feet. The 1859 drawings show that this large corral is full of hay in long stacks, much like HS-72 and HS-73 of Third Fort in the 1860s. The Hay Corral is still standing, although empty, in the Farnsworth photograph of 1865, but is not shown on the December, 1866 Lambert and Enos map; therefore, it was torn down probably in early 1866. |
| 190 | 31a | - | - | - | - | - |
Privy. Visible in the ca. 1885 photograph, but not shown on any maps. |
| 191 | - | - | - | 12 | - | - |
Flagstaff. Arsenal, 1865-1871. See also HS-172, 173. The flagstaff is visible on the photograph of ca. September, 1865; it is shown on the proposal plan of 1866, and on one of the versions of the 1866 map (MNM # 148191). Shoemaker presumably erected this flagstaff about the time he began construction on the magazine and other new Ordnance buildings in 1865. The point he selected was apparently the center of the first version of the Arsenal Parade Ground; it is at the mid-point of the 250-foot space between the Commanding Officer's Quarters (HS-133) and the Clerk's Office and Quarters (HS-115) on the west, and the front of the Ordnance Messroom (HS-142) and the possible Ordnance Kitchen (HS-194) on the east. The north to south measurement was apparently intended to be 300 feet, from a line extending east from the north side of the Commanding Officer's Quarters, north to the fronts of the Civilian quarters, with the Flagstaff again on the center point. With the changes in the enclosing wall plan, the relocation of the Commanding Officer's Quarters to HS-114, and various other details, this plan became obsolete about 1871, when the entrance loop road was built. This is not the first flagstaff set up by Shoemaker at First Fort. The 1859 Heger drawings both show a flagstaff just east of the north end of Shoemaker's quarters, HS-133, although it is not visible in the 1852 and 1853 drawings. This was probably the Ordnance Depot flagstaff from about 1853 to 1865. |
| 192 | - | - | - | 16 | - | - |
Magazine/Stable. This building, 53-1/2 x 18-1/2 feet, of adobe on a stone foundation, was apparently built as the first magazine for the Ordnance Depot, with construction beginning sometime after May 13, 1859 and completed about August (Part I, p. 69). Shoemaker had planned on an adobe magazine for the Ordnance Depot since 1852, but was unable to construct the permanent building until 1859. The structure apparently continued in use as the only magazine at the Ordnance Depot until the completion of HS-109 and 110 in October, 1866. At this time the building was apparently converted to a stable for Shoemaker's personal use, as it is shown on the 1866 proposal plan. It probably continued as Shoemaker's stable through the life of the Arsenal. |
| *193 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Pump. Marked only on the Museum of New Mexico version of the 1866 map (MNM # 148191). |
| 194 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Ordnance Kitchen? Part of the Ordnance Depot group; see HS-141, 142. Probably built about the same time as HS-142 about September, 1855, after the messroom, kitchen, and barracks were removed from HS-141. This building is clearly visible standing between HS-142 and HS-141 in the two Heger drawings of 1859. Heger's pencil drawing shows it with a pitched roof and a chimney at the west end, and possibly a small, shed-like extension on the south side near the center. His etching depicts it with a flat roof, and again with some sort of southern extension at about its mid-length. It is on the ca. September, 1865, photograph, the Enos and Lambert map of 1866 (where it is connected to the Ordnance Messhall by a fence or wall, also visible on the aerial), and the Ludington and Lambert map of 1868, but was undoubtedly removed, along with the remaining sections of 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 195, about 1870-71, when HS-113 was built and the formal entrance drive laid out across this area. No physical traces of the building have been seen on the ground; the outline is taken from the 1984 aerial photos. The building appears to be 50 feet long and perhaps 12 feet wide. |
| 195 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Unknown. Arsenal, ca. 1865-ca. 1870. Building east of HS-143 visible on the 1866 map and the ca. September, 1865 photograph. |
| *196 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - |
Office of the Commanding Officer and Courtmartial Room? Ruwet gives the number 2 to this small building just north of the Commanding Officer's Quarters, HS-126, and suggests that this was the structure that E. S. Sibley named as the Commanding Officer's Office and Courtmartial Room, 48 feet by 18 feet, even though it was left off the Mansfield map. It would have seemed more reasonable to assume that one of the office buildings facing onto the parade ground would be this structure, but none of these are the right size; all are too short (see HS-147, 151, 152, 157 below). The building is visible in both Heger drawings of 1859. The width of the building on the ground is fairly clear, 18 feet, but the total length is about 57 feet. However, the plan on the ground is in two sections. The northern section is 39 feet long, with a chimney centered in it; added to the south end of this structure is an extension of 18 feet. The Heger drawing shows a similar structure. Its northern section has a doorway on the west side and two windows symmetrically placed on either side of it, with a chimney on the ridgeline of the building even with the doorway. However, the south end of the building extends noticeably further past the south window than does the north end. The ground traces and Heger's drawing suggests that the structure began as a building 18 feet by 38 feet, and was enlarged to a length of 57 feet. Unfortunately, neither of these lengths matches the length of the Commanding Officer's Office and Courtmartial Room. The identification of the building should therefore be considered as uncertain, and archeological investigation of this and the offices along the east side of the Parade Ground may be necessary to clear this up. |
| *197 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Ordnance Garden. Shoemaker established the Ordnance Garden in the spring of 1852 (Part I, pp. 27, 32). It was 1-1/2 miles north of the First Fort, and was a fenced area about 300 feet by 550 feet. It was partitioned into several sections, and had at least four barns and houses in 1866. It used water from a spring next to the garden. The garden failed in 1856 because of a drought and grasshopper infestation (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 135). In 1872 Shoemaker dug a well here, 20 feet deep (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 911). |
| *198 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Post Garden. This fenced garden, 200 feet north to south by 250 feet east to west, was located in the field just southwest of the present foreman's house of Fort Union Ranch, north of the highway (Part I, pp. 25, 27, 38). It was established in the spring of 1852 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 134). The Army built a bucket chain to bring water from one of the spring sources on the west side of Coyote Creek, or a spring just north of the garden shown on the 1866 map. This spring seems to have been the same as the capped well still present very near the correct location, and about 125 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the Garden enclosure. The garden was not marked on the 1868 map and was probably gone by that year. |
| 199 | - | - | - | - | 5 | - |
Artillery Storehouse/Gun Shed. This building is probably the "Gun Shed" that Shoemaker was planning to build as of July 2, 1862; the date of construction is assumed to be 1862. It replaced an earlier log gunshed built in 1852-53, presumably just west of HS-133 (Part I, pp. 66-67). Visible on proposal plan of 1866, and in photograph by Farnsworth, ca. September, 1865; shown on Enos and Lambert map of 1866, but is apparently gone by the time of the preparation of the Ludington and Lambert map of 1868. It was probably demolished about August or September, 1866, when HS-103 was begun; its function was apparently taken over by HS-118, begun about the same time. The Artillery Storehouse was ca. 23 feet wide and ca. 100 feet long, and apparently of adobe on a stone foundation. Its east wall was on or against the west wall of 115-103; its south wall was even with or a few feet south of the north wall of HS-101, and its southwest corner was ca. 30 feet east of the east wall of HS-101. Its north wall was apparently about 8 to 15 feet south of the original line for the north enclosing wall of the Arsenal compound. |
SECOND FORT AREA
The Earthwork, or Second Fort, was designed by Captain Cuvier Grover, 10th Infantry, in mid-1861. Constructed under the direction of Captain Grover and First Lieutenant William J. L. Nicodemas, 11th Infantry, under the command of Major (Brevet Lieutenant Colonel) William Chapman, 2nd Infantry (Arrott, card 63). The site was selected about August 4, and construction began August 4 or 5 (Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 332). The detailed inspection of the field work itself and the available maps and photographs by Nicholas Bleser in the 1960s, and his suggestions about the plan of the Second Fort, its probable interior arrangement, and the locations and functions of its outworks, all formed the basis upon which the present plan and detailed inventory was founded. Without his research, fieldwork and insights, the present Base Map of the Second Fort could not have been carried out.
As built, the fortification was apparently intended to measure 490 feet along each front (the line from the point of the top of the parapet of one salient to the next), although the actual measurements range from 483 to 503 feet as a result of various errors. The principal errors in the layout seems to have been a 1 degree error in setting out the central angle (east-west angle is 91 degrees), and a mistake in measurement that added 20 feet to the southwest corner. Each corner should have been 346.5 feet out a diagonal, but the southwest vertex was set at 366.5 feet instead.
Setting the point for the face angles of the bastion worked fine, except that the midpoints were measured along the fronts only from the northwest and southeast angles, offsetting them somewhat because of the earlier errors. The distance of 1/8 of the front (61.25 feet) was then measured perpendicular to these assumed midpoints of the front, and lines marked on the ground along the lines from the salients to these points. The construction crew would then have measured a distance of 1/3 of the front, or 163.33 feet, along these lines from each salient. The point arrived at by this measurement was the location of the outer corner of each flank, and the section of line between the salient and the corner of the flank was called the face. The line from this point at right angles to the face line from the next salient formed the flank itself. At some point early in the construction of the earthwork, but too far along to start over, it was realized that a severe error had been made in the layout, so that when the flanks were marked in their correct positions on the ground, the distance between each two facing flanks was about 160 feet. As a result, the midpoints were about 80 feet from the flanks, rather than the absolute minimum of 90 feet. This meant that the cannon could not be depressed far enough to bear on the area at the center of each front.
The actual minimum size of such an earthwork is 600 feet along each face. The earthwork actually began with an outline of 630 feet on a side, a comfortable size, but this was then used as the outer edge of the ditch, rather than as the crest of the parapet. Grover's basic mistake, worse than the ones mentioned above concerning the layout of the original square, was a simple error at the very beginning of the drawing of the plan for the earthwork. Essentially, he plotted the basic outline of the fort with faces of 630 feet, but instead of marking the ditch outward from this line, making it the outline of the parapets, he measured the ditch inward, making it the outer edge of the ditch. Grover, as the designer, probably made the decision to attempt to correct this fault by making each of the distances from flank to midpoint 100 feet. He did so by reducing each face to a length of 50 feet, and making the curtain (the line of parapet between the inner corners of the flanks) 195 feet long. When this correction was carried out on the ground, across the irregularities of the already-existing ditches and embankments, it was marked out very badly, so that most of the angles and distances are off in varying amounts. This produced the plan of the earthwork as it stands today. The fortification was declared capable of maintaining a defense as of August 26, 1861, although it underwent almost continuous further construction work through early 1863.
Apparently everyone involved in the effort to construct the fort kept quiet about the mistake; had it been known outside the very few persons directly involved in the work, it would have been loudly discussed in the same article in the Santa Fe Republican, July 5, 1862, that scathingly made public the other errors in its construction: it was too close to the western ridge to be safe from fire directed from its top, and the tunnel intended to supply water to the garrison collapsed soon after construction and was a wasted effort, anyway, since wells begun inside the earthwork immediately found water after the completion and collapse of the tunnel.
However, Grover wasn't through with making mistakes. Not only the sloppy revision of the flanks and faces, but also the need to place the enlisted barracks and the storerooms in the redans resulted from the size error. In fact, Major Chapman himself said on August 26 that the earthwork was "not as capacious as it might have been under other circumstances, but considering the time at which it was commenced, the necessity for its rapid completion and the force to be employed upon it, we have accomplished more than I expected . . ." (Arrott Collection, card 63, Major William Chapman, commanding, Fort Union, to Colonel E. R. S. Canby, Headquarters, Department of New Mexico, Santa Fe, August 26, 1861). Had the earthwork been built to the correct size, there would have been enough room within the parapets for the barracks and storerooms. By September 3, Colonel Canby had become insistent that the stores be gotten into secure, protected storage spaces immediately. The reduced interior space of the earthwork meant that some alternative had to be found for these structures. The earthwork was protected by the usual outworks in the form of earthen banks called redans or demi-lunes; about the first week of September, 1861, Captain Grover suggested that they be altered to contain the Company Quarters, storerooms, and presumably the Officer's Quarters. Grover apparently prepared the design about September 5, 1861, and Lt. Col. Chapman forwarded it to Colonel Edward Canby, who approved it on September 19, 1861 (Canby discussed this sequence of events in a letter from Headquarters, Department of New Mexico, Santa Fe, to the Adjutant General of the Army, Washington, D. C., dated July 22, 1862; the letter of approval is Canby, Headquarters, Department of New Mexico, Santa Fe, to Lt. Col. Chapman, commanding, Fort Union, September 19, 1861; Part I, p. 44; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 460). Construction on the barracks and storehouses in the redans was virtually complete by October 20, 1861 (Part I, p. 44). By January 7, 1862, virtually all of the Quartermaster property, Ordnance stores, and provisions had been moved from First Fort to Second Fort.
Unfortunately, once again Grover had miscalculated. Lt. Alexander Robb, who inspected the earthworks in June, 1862, noted that the change to the outworks interfered with the lines of fire from the main earthwork, clearly because they stood too high above the ground; the main guns could not be depressed below a certain angle, or they would fire into the back sides of the barracks. The barracks therefore provided cover to potential attackers.
To sum it up, this is without a doubt one of the most poorly planned and constructed earthworks ever built: an error in the original plan made it too small, the attempts to correct the small size resulted in a poor plan of fire and outworks that provided cover for the enemy rather than the defenders, and the site was chosen too close to superior ground for the defense to be effective even if the design had been correct. It is an obvious case of too much haste and too little experience.
Construction on the fort was stopped on June 12, 1862. The work was under the direction of Captain John McFerran at the time; McFerran designed Third Fort later that same year. However, in November, 1862, a second major effort of building began, resulting in the construction of bombproof barracks, officer's quarters, and a magazine within the earthwork, apparently replacing non-bombproof structures of similar use (Part I, p. 54). In March, 1867, an order came through to demolish the remaining buildings of the second fort and salvage the materials, except for those still being used as laundresses housing and stables, awaiting the completion of HS-16, 23, and HS-18, 26, about 1868. Some were still in use for storage during the late fall, 1867.
Graphic Representations:
Although no maps of the Second Fort as it was designed or completed are available, one plan drawn by Lambert under the command of Captain Henry Inman in January, 1867, shows a sketchy outline of the eastern third of the ditches and outworks. The 1866 and 1868 maps show a rough plan of the Fort, although these maps depict the buildings on its interior as two rows of three structures, with no resemblance to the layout visible in photographs taken in ca. September, 1865, or to the traces visible today. It is possible that the layout of buildings inside the earthwork as depicted on the 1866 and 1868 maps were taken from the original plans of the fortification, and show the layout of the original, non-bombproof interior structures, before the reconstruction beginning in November, 1862. The photographs, 111-SC-88000, 88001 (FOUN 905), and 88004 (FOUN 906), National Archives, were all taken about the same time in ca. September, 1865, probably by Farnsworth as part of his documentation of the conditions at the time.
SECOND FORT STRUCTURES
HISTORIC BASE MAP: THE BASE MAPS
The Base Map itself consists of ten sheets at a scale of one inch to one hundred feet. A master index sheet gives the relationship between the ten Base Map sheets. On the Base Maps, the plan of the historic structures are shown in black, while present features and contours are shown in grey. Hatching indicates either that the dimensions or the interior plan of a structure is somewhat conjectural. If the outline of the structure is dashed, the plan is conjectural; if solid, only the interior is conjectural. Fine dotted lines indicate a fence, or a palisade wall of upright posts. Double lines of dash-dot are roads. Small open circles are posts or tree stumps. Small, finely hatched rectangles are chimney bases whose locations were plotted by the survey.
(The base maps have been omitted from the online edition).
HISTORIC BASE MAP: NOTES
1Leo Oliva, Fort Union and the Frontier Army in the Southwest, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers no. 41 (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1993). Oliva's draft manuscript is on file at the Southwest Regional Office in the files of the Division of History, as well as at Fort Union National Monument.
2See "Old Fort Union (Parcel No. 2), Survey by: Wohlbrandt, Marsh, and Cotten, Date: Aug. 1960 and July, 1961, Compilation by: Cotten, Date: Nov. 1961, NM-FTU-2016, Drawer H, Doc. No. 112, Fort Union National Monument Files; "Archeology and Everyday Life at Fort Union," New Mexico Historical Review, 1965, 40(1), pp. 55-64.
3Wayne Ruwet, "The First Fort Union, Its Destruction and Replacement by the Fort Union Arsenal," December, 1969, accession no. 1393, Fort Union National Monument Files.
4Wayne Ruwet, "Fort Union, Its History and Its Value to Archeology," MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles, 1970; accession no. 1392, Fort Union National Monument Files.
5Robert Louis Reiter, "The History of Fort Union, New Mexico," Thesis, University of Colorado, 1950. David M. Delo, Peddlers and Post Traders: the Army Sutler on the Frontier (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992), p. 149. Darlis A. Miller, Soldiers and Settlers: Military Supply in the Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989). Darlis A. Miller, "The Perils of a Post Sutler: William H. Moore at Fort Union, New Mexico, 1859-1870," Journal of the West 32 (April, 1993): 7-18.
8Barton H. Barbour, ed., Reluctant Frontiersman: Ja0mes Ross Larkin on the Santa Fe Trail, 1856-57 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990), pp. 112-114; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 402.
9Post sutler's Store, FOUN Document File, p. 6. Webb's wife, Marcella Smith Webb, later received a divorce from Nathan on the grounds of abandonment and adultery.
10Actually, it is a little more complicated than that: Colonel W. W. Loring and the council of administration chose W. H. Moore on January 30, 1859, and wrote on February 10, 1859, to Colonel S. Cooper, Adjutant General, U. S. Army Headquarters, Washington, D. C., notifying him of their selection. Colonel Cooper then wrote back to New Mexico to W. H. Moore on March 26, notifying him of his selection, to take effect upon the expiration of Alexander's appointment on December 31. Moore probably did not receive this letter until perhaps the end of April, 1859. This was the typical approval process. In subsequent notes, the date of the available letter of authorization or the equivalent will be used.
11The following discussion is based on Miller, "Perils," and William H. Moore, William C. Mitchell, et al. vs. Gertrude E. Huntington, administratrix of Nathan Webb, deceased, Supreme Court of the United States no. 433, filed December 1870, copy in the Document Files of Fort Union National Monument.
12Oliva, "Frontier Army," pp. 547-48.
13Mora County Clerk's Office, Deed Records [MCDR], A:357-58, January 1, 1872. Other than the plan derived from field work in 1989, the 1866 map of Fort Union shows the plan of Moore's store. It was surveyed by Brevet Colonel H. M. Enos and John Lambert in August through December, and the final map undoubtedly drawn in January, 1867.
14William H. Ryus, The Second William Penn: A true account of incidents that happened along the old Santa Fe Trail in the Sixties (Kansas City, Missouri: Frank T. Riley Publishing Co., 1913), p. 128.
15Moore's store was first insured on Feb. 1, 1863 (FOUN Document Files, William H. Moore file). It was the first building to be constructed of the Sutler's Row at Third Fort Union, and is the one shown in the ca. 1865 photograph, Third Fort Union, ill. 53, pp. 230-31; in the background of Third Fort Union, ill. 22, pp. 168-69, taken about the same time; and shown in plan on the 1866 map, August-December, 1866; in fact, it is the only sutler's building in the row until Barrow begins his store, HS-305, in December, 1867. Because of the uncertainties about the 1866 map, the specific structure that was Moore's store cannot be proven using it alone. However, about August, the photograph in Third Fort Union, ill. 22, p. 169, clearly shows the building in Third Fort Union, ill. 53, p. 231, taken probably the same day, in the background behind HS-29. Lines of sight prove that this is indeed HS-303.
16Moore, Mitchell, et al. vs. Huntington. In 1866, Moore claimed that the buildings had cost him more than $25,000, while in 1870 Mitchell stated that they had cost $10,000; Miller, "Perils," p. 13. Even allowing for reasonable additions and improvements, these claims are obviously inflated.
17It is possible that Moore had a sutler's store at the Second Fort for a time in 1861 and early 1862; one of the long, strange buildings east of the fort, HS-218 or HS-219, could have begun as a sutler's building.
18One of the ca. 1885 photographs shows this gate, and it is visible today as a gap in the ruins of the wall.
19Ryus, Second William Penn, p. 128. William Ryus was a "counter jumper," a sales clerk, one of four who worked for William H. Moore at the sutler store about 1865.
20Ryus, Second William Penn, p. 128. Carson was commander of Fort Union from December, 1865, to April, 1866.
21Arrott Collection, card # 00162, Francisco Abreu to Major Benjamin C. Cutler, July 5, 1865, FOUN Fact Files.
22United States Statutes 14, 39th Congress, 1st Session. Miller, "Perils," p. 8.
23The series of orders issued in 1867 are very complex, and constantly refer back to earlier orders. If a military post missed receiving some of the orders, the others would appear to be meaningless and contradictory. Since mail was lost and destroyed frequently during this period, undoubtedly some posts were put in a very confusing position.
26Lieutenant Colonel W. B. Lane to Headquarters of the Army, Washington, D. C., May 10, 1867. The Army appears to have added Shoemaker to the approved list later, before October 4, when his authorization is revoked. Presumably Shoemaker received approval sometime after August 22, when multiple traders are authorized. Shoemaker had been in trouble about his sutlering activities before, when on August 2, 1866, he was ordered to close his illegal sutler's store. Later correspondence indicates that this was at the Arsenal.
27Delo, Peddlers, p. 148. The commanding officer could restrict traders to one, if he though appropriate.
28Miller, "Perils," p. 15. Grant was married to Dent's sister, Julia.
29He was authorized in Special Order 102, issued by Headquarters, Fort Union, but no date is given for the order in the reference to it.
30Brevet Major General Getty, Headquarters, District of New Mexico, Special Orders 97, October 4, 1867.
31John E. Barrow, 44th Congress, 1st House Report, volume 8, Number 799, Serial 1715, Hearings on "Sale of Post Traderships," (hereafter called "Hearings,"), p. 137.
32B. Gordon Daniels, 44th Congress, 1st House Report, Volume 8, Number 799, Serial 1715, Hearings on "Sale of Post Traderships," p. 127.
33Hearings, pp. 137, 138, 142, 144.
36Ibid., pp. 137, 138, 142, 143, 140. Sometime this year, W. H. Moore and Company owed money to the company of Bryant and Bernard; it is possible that William D. W. Bernard was associated with this company.
38FOUN, Fact Files, December 5, 1867; Hearings, p. 141.
39On December 14, 1867, Barrow bought $1,389.60 from A. Graclachowski, presumably in San Miguel County, New Mexico (Legal Notice, Weekly New Mexican, October 26, 1869, col. 1, p. 3). It is possible that this purchase was of construction material and building hardware. Hearings, p. 137-39.
41Barrow sent identical advertisements to the two Santa Fe newspapers. His first ad appeared in the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette on February 15, p. 2, col. 5. The ad in the New Mexican appeared on February 18, p. 2 col. 5.
42On September 25, 1868, the Post Commander ordered John Barrow to stop selling liquor to enlisted men at the "Billiard Saloon" associated with his store; Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 729.
43The presence of a barber shop here is taken from the letter by John Taaffe to Commanding Officer, Fort Union, October 23, 1868, FOUN Fact File; that it was operated by John Gilbert is based on the 1870 census.
44Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 1035.
45John Taaffe to Commanding Officer, Fort Union, October 23, 1868, FOUN Fact File.
46Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, July 11, 1868, p. 2, col. 5.
49While Barrow was gone, Bernard bet a load of Barrow's sugar and coffee that Ulysses Grant would win New York by 20,000 votes. He lost.
52Barrow said that "Mr. Mickels" had been in the Army for some time as Quartermaster Clerk. He was the brother-in-law of General Bradley, who was Quartermaster of Fort Union; Hearings, pp. 140-41.
55Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 1017.
57Weekly New Mexican, January 26, 1869, p. 3, col. 1.
58On December 4, the daily New Mexican mentioned that Dent was visiting Bernard at Fort Union, and had publicly expressed an interest in returning to New Mexico (Santa Fe New Mexican, December 4, 1868). "Notice," Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, February 6, 1869, p. 2, col 5; also Weekly New Mexican, February 9, 1869, p. 3, col. 1; Hearings, 137, 139, 140.
60"Notice," Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, February 6, 1869, p. 2, col 5; also Weekly New Mexican, February 9, 1869, p. 3, col. 1; Hearings, 137, 140.
63Ibid., p. 144. On October 26, in Santa Fe, Frank Chapman published an official notice of attachment of the goods and possessions of the J. E. Barrow Company, specifically the possessions of John Barrow and William D. W. Bernard, on behalf of A. Graclachowski, who had sold goods to the company on December 14, 1867. The case was to be heard in March, 1870. If one or both defendants did not appear in court, their property would be sold to satisfy the outstanding amount owed (Weekly New Mexican, October 26, 1869, p. 3, col. 1). Dent, the actual owner at this time, must have settled this account.
64In the Gazette, it ran through the last issue of the paper in September, 1869, but this may have been through an oversight.
65Miller, "Perils," p. 16; Special Orders 177, Headquarters Department of the Missouri, September 23, 1869.
67No reference to his proposed bowling alley is known after Greisinger's original letter for permission. Unfortunately, no direct evidence indicates whether HS-303 or HS-304 was the Greisinger building; however, considering the number of people apparently resident in Greisinger's Hotel in the 1870 census, it is likely that this establishment was located in the larger HS-303, rather than the smaller HS-304. The discussion assumes that Greisinger constructed the core building of HS-303 as his house and restaurant in October-November, 1868.
68The hotel appeared as in use on the 1868 map, drawn in May and updated through at least December, 1868, but closed before mid-1870, since it does not appear in the census of that year.
69For example, the census refers to him as "hotelkeeper;" Harry C. Myers, ed., La Junta Precinct No. 11, Mora County, New Mexico, 1860, 1870, 1880, Federal Census Enumeration (Albuquerque: New Mexico Genealogical Society, 1993), pp. 49-63.
70Adjutant General circular, authorized by the Secretary of War, March 25, 1872; Delo, Peddlers, pp. 153, 157.
71Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 755.
72House Resolution Executive Document #249, July 15, 1870. Delo says that "as passed," the bill allowed only one trader; Delo, Peddlers, pp. 149, 152, 154.
73Reiter, "The History of Fort Union," p. 47; Miller, "Perils," p. 16.
74Reiter, "The History of Fort Union," pp. 47-48.
77Dent to Major David Clendenin, Commanding Officer, Fort Union, April 4, 1871, FOUN Fact Files.
78Census of 1870, August 16-September 5, Myers, La Junta Precinct No. 11, Mora County, New Mexico, 1860, 1870, 1880, Federal Census Enumeration.
79This building appears to have been added to Sutlers Row between 1866 and about 1870; it first appears on the 1868 map, updated through perhaps 1869. The space between HS-302 and the next building to the south seems to be large enough that HS-301 is not yet present, and HS-300 must be the structure shown.
80Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 884.
81Reiter, "The History of Fort Union," p. 50.
83Major J. F. Wade, Commanding, to John C. Dent, March 18, 1876, Fort Union Fact File.
84Col. Dudley, commanding officer, Fort Union, July 18, 1877.
85Headquarters, District of New Mexico, to Commanding Officer, Fort Union, October 26, 1877, FUNM Fact Files.
86FOUN, Document Files, Mary Lou Skinner to Bruce T. Ellis, November 14, 1966. Photograph of HS-305, MNM #36599, shown in Third Fort Union, ill. 54, p. 233, sent to the Museum of New Mexico by Mary Lou Skinner, Crayton Conger's granddaughter, probably dates from the period of about 1880-1881 that the Crayton Conger family was at Fort Union.
88Mary Lou Skinner to Bruce T. Ellis, November 14, 1966, in Document Files, FOUN. Safronia Jager was born Safronia Gregg, daughter of the prominent farmer George W. Gregg. June 19, 1880, civilians with permission to live on the post are the "acting Post Trader [Arthur Conger], his family and employees, Beef Contractor [possibly Frank G. Jager] and family;" Lt. Col. Dudley, Commanding Officer, General Order 22, June 19, 1880, Fact File, FOUN.
89Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 730.
90Reiter, "The History of Fort Union," p. 50.
91Col. Granville Haller, commanding officer, Fort Union, to Secretary of War, January 21, 1882, Fact File, FOUN.
92Reiter, "The History of Fort Union," p. 88.
94Las Vegas Optic, June 7, 1884. In 1886, for example, when Edward Woodbury was officially the trader, Conger was referred to in Army correspondence as the trader.
95The buildings in their most complete form are visible in two photographs probably taken within a year or two of 1885, MNM #1823, and FOUN #1351. The last photograph is usually cited as having been taken in 1879, for unknown reasons, but evidence in the photograph strongly supports the later date.
96Thomas Lahey was still operating out of Fort Union as of June 1, 1876 (Thomas Lahey to C. B. Tison, June 1, 1876, FOUN, Fact File, Sutlers and Post Traders, Q170). He last appeared in the civilian authorization of 1877 (see note 85); he did not appear at Fort Union in the census or authorization of 1880.
97MCDR, A:161. On August, 1876, H. V. Harris and W. B. Stapp applied for a joint position as trader (Reiter, p. 47). It is odd that this dates after Harris's sale of the Moore building. W. B. Stapp appears several times in testimony collected from William Moore in December, 1870. In one reference, it appears that Stapp owed Moore a debt of $252 and that this was considered uncollectible; in a second reference, Stapp was one of the two principals of the company of Stapp and Hopkins, also in debt to Moore. William Stapp had been a clerk for Moore in the 1860s, and Hopkins married one of Moore's daughters (Fact File, FOUN).
98Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 731.
99Woodbury, and perhaps the traders before him, had "one room attached to the store which was set aside as sort of an officer's club. It was one place where they could go to play whist and things of that kind." Colonel Aubrey Lippincott, son of Surgeon Henry Lippincott, reel 29, side 2, Oral History Tapes, 1968, FOUN, p. 2.
101John Taaffe to Commanding Officer, Fort Union, October 23, 1868, FOUN Fact File.
102Pitcaithley and Greene, ill. 54, pp. 232-33. The eaves of the roof and part of the adobe wall leaning out from behind the facade can be seen on the left and right sides of the picture.
103NARG 156, Letters Received, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, M.S.K. Shoemaker, Union Arsenal, to General Dyer, Ordnance Department, Washington, November 16, 1865.
104Oliva, "Frontier Army," p. 906.
105NARG 156, Letters Received, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, M. S. K. Shoemaker, Union Arsenal, to General H. K. Craig, Ordnance Department, Washington, May 13, 1859.
106NARG 156, Letters Received, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, M. S. K. Shoemaker, Union Arsenal, to General A. B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, Washington, November 16, 1865.
107Arrott Collection, card 110, Brigadier General James H. Carleton, Headquarters, Department of New Mexico, Santa Fe, to Captain William Craig, Depot Quartermaster, Fort Union, New Mexico, February 22, 1963.
| <<< Previous | <<< Contents>>> |
foun/hsr/base-map.htm
Last Updated: 13-Feb-2006