Exhibit

Although sutlers and post traders have been studied in general, scholars have paid little close attention to the period from 1866 to 1870, the very difficult time in the changeover from post sutlers to post traders.  The sudden advent of multiple traders suddenly brought competition to a business that had been a monopoly for many decades; conflict and the rapid construction of new trader's buildings resulted.  The following is the tale of the unfortunate John Barrow, who mistakenly thought he could step into the post tradership at one of the most desirable military bases in the West: Fort Union, New Mexico.

Sutlers have occupied a relative backwater in military historical research.  The work of several historians, however, provides a background for the difficulties sutlers and traders experienced after the Civil War.  As a result of the reduction of the size of the army for peacetime and abuses of sutler privileges during the war, the United States government made post-war changes to the regulations controlling sutlers, and abolished the office in 1867.  Francis Lord wrote an overview of the army sutler during this conflict, and discussed the things sutlers sold, how they did business, and the interaction between them and the soldiers of the army.  Darlis Miller studied southwestern economics and the military, continuing a line of inquiry established by Robert Frazer.  She considered sutlers in more detail, and presented a summary of events in New Mexico in 1870-71 as a result of political corruption and political influence associated with the selection of post traders.

Delo presents the history of sutlers and traders in the United States army, and provides considerably more information about the transition period of the late 1860s.  He discusses the difficulties engendered by the changing regulations from 1866 to 1870, and considers several examples of these changes.  He narrates the story of the influence-peddling scandal that brought down Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 after years of selling traderships to those offering the highest bribes.  President Ulysses S. Grant’s bother Orvil and Belknap’s wife were implicated in the charges, and the government inquiry left it quite clear that bribery and corruption played a part in the appointment of at least some post traders.  The collected testimony implied that similar accusations could have been brought against President Grant’s wife Julia, her brother John Dent, and his brother-in-law William Bernard for their activities before 1870.  The collected testimony during the congressional hearings associated with the scandal demonstrated that the pattern followed by Belknap and his cronies in the early 1870s had already been established by the Grant family and their associates during the late 1860s.

None of these studies presents the specific details of the resulting regulation changes or the effects of tradership purchases on the military in the Southwest, and no examination of the construction and appearance of sutlers’ and traders’ buildings has seen broad publication.  Many posts abruptly acquired several competing traders for a brief period during these years, but few had such a neatly laid-out row of buildings as Fort Union, New Mexico, or as clear a series of rapid changes in ownership that could be directly linked to political influence.  Fort Union was not unique in the conflict between traders or in the use of political influence to place traders at a post, but it provides an excellent example of these events, and leaves a clear record in the ruins of the buildings built by the men involved.

Trader's Row at Fort Union has been virtually ignored since the fort's closure in 1891.  The ruins of the buildings exist today as vague outlines on the ground. They have not been tested archaeologically, and the author’s 1989 survey was the first detailed mapping of the building remains.  The buildings were occasionally visible as partial structures in the backgrounds of several photographs, but no clear, close-up photograph of the entire row exists.  Readers of general histories of the fort are left with the impression that William H. Moore was the sutler, with perhaps one or two other anonymous persons in that position in the fort’s waning days.  Neither the literature at the national monument nor references in the various histories of the fort explain why there seemed to be several buildings in a row where the sutler was known to have been, or which building was the sutler’s store, or what purposes the other buildings served.  Some of these questions can be answered now.  This article identifies and describes the various sutler's and trader's buildings at Fort Union, focusing specifically on Trader's Row.

From the establishment of Fort Union in 1851 through the difficult years of the Civil War, only one sutler was allowed on post. A sutler's permit at Fort Union or any of the other army posts was usually issued in the name of an individual, but frequently that individual was one part of a sutler's company, because the managing of a large sutler operation was complex and one person could not handle it 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 took cash or credit to St. Louis, Missouri and purchased many thousands of dollars of goods, arranged for this shipment by wagon to the sutler store, and sometimes even accompanied the goods on the trip to ensure 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 (sic) purchaser.  The company would usually have a hired staff of several employees and the store frequently had residential rooms for some of this staff and their families.

An 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.  The officers at a post sometimes played favorites rather than suggesting the best qualified person; sometimes a sutler even appears to have had his appointment cut short.  Sutlers usually received an appointment for three years, "unless sooner revoked by competent authority."

At the beginning of the Civil War, William Moore was the sutler at Fort Union.  He had been appointed in 1859, and operated the store at the northeastern corner of First Fort.  In addition to his store, Moore apparently operated a hotel (building 162) near First Fort.  The earliest frame version of this building was probably constructed by Moore’s predecessor, sutler George Alexander, sometime after August 1853 and before May 1859.  During Moore's tenure, it was considerably altered and enlarged from its 1859 appearance; most of the additions were apparently done in adobe.  The original frame structure appears to have continued as several rooms in the northwest corner of the enlarged building and the depression of a basement is still recognizable; this was probably the cellar raided by soldiers about to march to the Battle of Glorieta Pass in March 1862.  During the most dangerous and tense period of the war years at Fort Union, 1861-62, Moore moved his sutler's store to the more protected area near Second Fort.  There are two peculiar long buildings (218 and 219) northeast and southeast of the earthworks that seem to have had no specific military use; either of these could have begun as a sutler's building.

After the Union victory at Glorieta Pass in 1862, the threat of a Confederate invasion of New Mexico faded and the army began the process of making living conditions at Fort Union more tolerable than First or Second Fort would allow.  Captain John C. McFerran, chief quartermaster of the District of New Mexico, designed Third Fort Union in mid-1862 and Captain Henry J. Farnsworth, quartermaster of the depot of Fort Union somewhat revised it.   The army laid out the plan of the new fort and began construction on a large storehouse and the quartermaster corral on 1 October 1862, although full approval of the new plans did not come through until November 1862.

About the same time in 1862, Moore built a massive new sutler’s store, building 302. The building was begun perhaps in November, 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," facing the main west entrance to the fort compound between the depot and the post.  The building was completed about January 1863.  Moore later stated that "the buildings were erected with the permission of the commander of said post of Fort Union, 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."  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.

The main store building was a U-shaped adobe structure, sixty-three feet across the front, one story high, with a large doorway in the center of its east face that was flanked symmetrically by a window on each side. The pitched roof was shingled.  The structure's 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, forming a compound 150 feet long.  Along these walls stood several additional buildings -- probably barns, stables, and storerooms.  William Ryus later described the entire complex as "built like a fort," with walls of adobe brick reaching to a height of nearly twenty feet that enclosed an interior patio or corral.  A large gateway, fifteen feet wide, opened through the center of the south wall of the compound. This gate is visible in one of the 1885 photographs.  Today, it is a gap in the ruins of the wall.  "Here," said Ryus, "the wagons drove in to unload and reload.”  In early 1863, 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 and he and his family were living there as of the census of 1870.

Partly as a reaction to the sutlers' excesses during the Civil War, Congress passed Statute 14 on 28 July 1866, an act that (among other things) abolished sutlers. The provisions of the statute were to go into effect 1 July 1867.  In compliance with Statute 14, on 26 January 1867, the War Department issued General Order 6, announcing the termination of the warrants of all sutlers on 1 July 1867.  Protests from western forts, however, prompted Senate Joint Resolution No. 25 on 30 March 1867, that authorized the commanding general of the army to permit "a trading establishment to be maintained" after 1 July.  This meant that the commanding general could authorize a single trader at each post.

In response to this resolution, on 20 April 1867, Division of the Missouri headquarters issued a circular requiring the commanding officer of each established military post in that division west of the 100th meridian, that was not at or in the vicinity of any town to immediately nominate through the regular military channels a suitable person to maintain and carry on a trading establishment after 1 July 1867 under the provisions of the Joint Resolution of Congress of 30 March.  As an interim provision, the adjutant general issued General Order 58 on 24 May 1867, permitting sutlers to trade at posts between the 100th meridian and the eastern border of California until further orders.

In the first week of May 1867, Fort Union commander Lieutenant Colonel William B. Lane received the order of 20 April.  On 10 May 1867, he notified army headquarters in Washington D. C. of possible choices for post trader at Fort Union.  Two people had applied for this position before official notification was sent to Fort Union.  They were Charles Shoemaker (son of Captain William Shoemaker, commander of the Fort Union arsenal) and William H. Moore.  Lane left the final choice to the army headquarters.  Headquarters chose Moore to become the new post trader when the regulations went into effect on 1 July 1867.  On that date, the position of post sutler was officially abolished and William Moore became the first post trader at Fort Union.

Up to this point, even through the flurry of seemingly conflicting orders, business continued as usual for the post sutler (now trader) but the strongest impacts of the new regulations were still to come.  Within two months on 22 August 1867, Adjutant General Order 68, by order of General Ulysses S. 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.  With the passage of this regulation, Moore lost his monopoly on the Fort Union trade, and soon had competition for both the Fort Union and Santa Fe Trail markets.  Sometime that year, probably soon after this regulation change, General Grant attempted to get his brother-in-law, John C. Dent, a post tradership at Fort Union.  Grant's effort on Dent's behalf failed, but about the same time Charles Shoemaker reapplied for a post trader position, and had more success.  About the first week of September, Shoemaker was issued authorization to build a house and conduct trade at Fort Union, but on 4 October, District of New Mexico headquarters revoked his license by Special Order 97.  Reasons for this action are unclear.

Shoemaker must have received permission to trade in the first week of September and immediately began construction on his store.  He began the new building (304) north of Moore's store.  It faced the same direction and its front aligned with Moore's; the two buildings established the line of what was to become Trader's Row, which was soon to acquire further additions.  Shoemaker almost completed the building in the three or four weeks before the loss of his license halted his efforts.  On the 1868 map, the building is shown as a simple U-shape with no rear enclosure.  Dent and Shoemaker attempted to compete with Moore, but neither managed an effective challenge to his position.  The successful, albeit temporary, invasion of Moore's territory came from a third person, Santa Fe Trail trader John E. Barrow.

Barrow had been operating out of Missouri since 1860 and began trading in New Mexico about 1861.  "I had been out there frequently before [the year 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 August or September of 1867, Barrow hauled $37,000 worth of goods to New Mexico.  "(A)fter getting out there with them I found that I had no opportunity to sell them, trade being dull and no business going on."  Learning of the new regulations of 22 August that allowed multiple traders at army posts, he decided to give up on speculative trade and make the attempt to get a Fort Union tradership.  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."  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. . . . I used some influence, [and] 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 [then commander-in-chief of the army] . . . I was advised by different parties to apply to Bernard as having more influence with General Grant than any other man in Saint Louis.  [About mid-October, Barrow met 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."

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 and Company, had lived in St. Louis for a time and was married to John C. Dent's sister-in-law.  Dent was already interested in the tradership at Fort Union, and happened to be Julia Dent Grant's brother.  Her husband was Ulysses S. Grant.  Bernard was a friend of Julia's and had known Grant for some time.  Barrow 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."

After making his application through Bernard, Barrow was certain he would get the appointment.  He said, "I left for New Mexico . . . I did not wait [in St. Louis] for the appointment."  Barrow was back at Fort Union by 5 December, when he was authorized to be a post trader as of 1 January 1868.  Barrow probably received this notification at Fort Union sometime soon after 5 December.  In mid-December, Fort Union commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel John R. Brooke gave Barrow permission to build a store and, said Barrow, "[I] staked off my ground for the buildings."  Barrow's building (305) was built between 15 December 1867 and 3 February 1868 and cost $7,000.  He brought the $37,000 worth of goods from storage in Las Vegas to stock the store.  Once built and supplied, Barrow claimed 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."

Barrow built the new store north of Moore's building and Shoemaker's nearly completed store, facing the same direction, with its front aligned with those of the other two.  It was adobe with a false front that faced east.  It had a substantial stone foundation and was about seventy feet wide across the front and ninety-four feet long to the west.  The building was divided into three sections by east - west frame partition walls.  These three parallel sections had pitched roofs and ridgebeams that extended west from the simple false fronts.  In one part of the store, Barrow ran a bar called the "Billiard Saloon."  As with Moore's store, Barrow's building had an enclosure that extended to the west an estimated 150 feet.

While he built his store toward the end of December 1867, Barrow purchased Shoemaker's building (304) and soon after, John Gilbert located his barbershop and residence there.  John Gilbert was African American, and probably lived on the Row and operated his barbershop by mid-1868.  Gilbert may have arrived in the Fort Union area as a member of the 57th United States Colored Infantry, Companies A, B and D, stationed there in August and September 1866.  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.  A group of sheds (building 300) was added to the south end of the Row during 1868.

On 3 February 1868, John Barrow opened his store at Fort Union, and his first advertisement appeared in the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette on 15 February.  Barrow expected his first wagon train from the States on 15 February and his second on 15 March.  On 3 July, Barrow sent a new ad to the Santa Fe newspapers.  It first appears in the Weekly Gazette on 11 July.  Barrow stated that he was "now receiving over 100 tons of assorted merchandise." Barrow said later, "I had bought $50,000 or $60,000 worth of goods from January until October or November. . . . "  He replenished his stock "two or three times."  Barrow was not making a large profit, however, because he was undercutting Moore's prices to acquire some of the trade.

Barrow was worried about 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."  Barrow felt, however, that he had the financial base and business acumen to make his gamble as a Fort Union trader pay off.  Perhaps he was right; he failed not because of William Moore's competition but because of the political influence of his opponents.  In fact, soon after Barrow's fall, the same men ended Moore's career as post trader. 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 Barrow's store.

In October 1868, Barrow left on a purchasing trip to St. Louis and left the store in "Mr. Mickels," his clerk's, hands.  About the end of October, Barrow's appointment was suddenly 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."  About the same time, Bernard telegraphed John C. Dent to meet with Barrow and arrange to buy Barrow's goods for Bernard.  Bernard took over the store in Barrow's 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."  Of course, Bernard was Barrow's partner, and he could logically argue that he had a claim to the store and its goods.  Barrow was uncertain as to how Bernard was able to take over the trader position, but felt that "he got it through General Grant, as a matter of course."  Barrow had the impression that Bernard exercised a great deal of influence.  For example, after Bernard moved to Fort Union, "he seemed to take charge of everything at Fort Union.  General [William N.] Grier was commander after General [John R.] Brooke left there [on 12 July 1868].  [Bernard] seemed to have control over him, and in fact talked about having the post-commander appointed, and talked about the old man [Secretary of War 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."

Barrow left St. Louis soon after he was 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."  They arrived at Fort Union in the second week of November, and on the sixteenth, Barrow terminated the partnership with Bernard.  On 9 December, Barrow sold the store and goods to Dent -- or so 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 by stagecoach for St. Louis on 9 December, after a stay in New Mexico of about three weeks.

Six weeks later, on 26 January 1869, Bernard finally announced in the New Mexican that his partnership with Barrow had ended on 16 November, but added that he was continuing the business at Fort Union.  The announcement's phrasing implied that Bernard had kept the store and goods.  Actually, John C. Dent, although not the trader, was in the process of buying the store and goods.  While Bernard was the authorized trader, he legally owned neither a store nor stock.  Nevertheless, Bernard operated out of the Barrow store for a considerable time in 1869.

Eventually, on the sixth and ninth of February, Barrow published the announcement that as of the ninth of December 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."  Dent, however, "never did.  Mr. Bernard collected them, and he had nothing to do [with it]."  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 upon 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 . . . I sold on long credit, and compromised with my creditors at fifty cents on the dollar."

After two or three weeks of negotiations, around late February, Barrow officially transferred his store and goods to Dent.  With this action, Dent became the owner of the Barrow Store and all of its goods at Fort Union with a minimum of expense; his next step would be to get rid of the middleman, William Bernard, and acquire the trader's appointment for himself.  Barrow was ruined by the takeover, losing $50,000 and his good credit rating.  He had to begin anew in Utah.

The entire drama seems contrived.  Were Bernard and Dent working together, with the intent to defraud someone out of a Trader establishment at Fort Union, and Barrow just happened to be the unfortunate victim?  Or was Bernard actually the profligate Barrow thought he was, and Dent in fact risked something by buying Barrow out?  The research necessary to answer those questions is beyond the scope of this paper.  One way or the other, though, Barrow lost everything at Fort Union and Dent acquired it.

Bernard, as the appointed trader, continued to operate the store until at least June and probably until late September.  The ad for the J. E. Barrow and Company store at Fort Union continued to run in both Santa Fe papers.  Bernard must have paid for it during this period; it seems typical of him 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 8 June 1869 and in the Gazette, it ran through the final issue of the paper on 25 September 1869.

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 returned to Fort Union in 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 appears 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 out of Dent's store under Dent's management.  Finally, Dent's machinations paid off.  On 23 September 1869, he was appointed to the post trader position he had been working toward since 1867.  Bernard left, and about a year later received a bank examiner appointment in St. Louis, a position he held until at least 1876.

Meanwhile, a fourth building was added to the Row.  On 15 September 1868, Adolph Greisinger, an enlisted man stationed at Fort Union, wrote to the commanding officer and requested permission to build a house "in the vicinity of the two trader stores" (building 302, Moore's store; and buildings 305 and 304, John Barrow's store) upon his 1 October discharge. 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.  If he followed his expected schedule, construction on his new building (303) began in October and was completed by December 1868.  Soon after his establishment on the Row, Adolph Greisinger opened a hotel in his building.  William Moore's hotel (building 162) near the old First Fort closed down sometime in 1869 or early 1870.  Greisinger was operating his hotel by August 1870.

Greisinger was one of a group of entrepreneurs that operated businesses at the fort not as post traders, but as independent shopkeepers.  Some of these men may have been subcontractors or employees of authorized traders.  The barber John Gilbert, the beer stand operator John Taaffe, the unidentified photographer, and several later persons all fall into this category.  Subcontracting the position of post trader to someone who actually carried out the trader's duties was a continuous problem through the late 1860s, culminating in a circular of 1872 that required the trader to carry on the business himself and to habitually reside at the post at which he was appointed.  He was not permitted to transfer, sublet, sell or assign his business.  Neither employees of the post trader nor independents, however, were prohibited from operating a business if their activities did not conflict with the traders, and such multiple businesses continued at Fort Union through the rest of its active life.  Other informal trade operated along the Row.  For example, in June 1870, Greisinger complained about a "Mexican market House" next to his house and restaurant. No structure has been identified for this activity, but since so little space was available on the north side of building 303, it seems likely that the market was in the space between Moore's store and the Greisinger building.

From 1867 to 1870, the new regulations allowed multiple Post Traders. In 1870, a House resolution modified these regulations by the provision that only post traders authorized by the secretary of war were allowed on post.  This ruling placed the power of final choice in the hands of a single political appointee far from the posts where the decisions would take effect and therefore emphasized political influence rather than skill and talent. Taking advantage of the new arrangement, Dent finally gained the monopoly on the post tradership at Fort Union.  He exercised all the considerable influence he had as the president’s brother-in-law, and on 6 October 1870, became the only authorized trader.

On 25 October, Dent received notice of his appointment at Fort Union.  William Moore applied for and received permission to continue business until 1 January 1871; his request for a further extension to 1 March was denied.  Moore closed his store on 1 January as ordered and the building was unused after that date.  Ultimately, the loss of the post sutlership broke Moore’s company; by 1873 it was in severe debt from which it never recovered.  Dent did not simply step into Moore’s shoes as the 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.  Dent encountered some opposition from the local military establishment as well.  On 4 April 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 required authorization for Dent to conduct business.  From the end of Moore’s tradership on 1 January 1871 until sometime after 4 April 1871, when Dent finally received authorization from the commanding officer, no trader's store was open at Fort Union.

The census of 1870 -- made at Fort Union between 16 August and 5 September -- provides a brief look at the Trader's Row community in that year.  The census taker started at the north end of Trader's Row and worked south.  Dent’s store was at the north end (building 305) with Dent listed as a retail merchant with no family. Edgar James and Frank Jager clerked for him and Richard Dunn served as freight agent.  All four lived in the Dent compound.  Next in line was barber John Gilbert, whose shop and residence were in building 304.  Then came Adolph Greisinger's hotel (building 303) which also contained his restaurant and beer saloon.  Greisinger's household included two cooks, two domestic servants, an ostler (LHB note: one who tends horses, especially at an inn), and a laundress; the hotel held eleven households comprising forty-three persons, guests and semi-permanent residents.  Finally, William Moore's store (building 302) listed eight residents, including Moore, his family (one of his sons was a store clerk), and his bookkeeper, Henry V. Harris, who would buy the building two years later.

No other residents were listed south of Moore's store.  Building 300, however, had already been built by late 1868 or early 1869.  The census implies that the building was not a residence.  Available information does not suggest an owner or use.  It was a low, nondescript structure, possibly a shed.  The ground traces suggest that it was about forty-five by thirty feet with two small extensions.  The 1870 census lists a Thomas Lahey as a soldier at Fort Union.  He was discharged about a year later and on 1 November 1872, he and Edward McDonald leased the Greisinger building.  They intended to keep the restaurant and saloon open, and they applied to the commanding officer for permission to operate the hotel.  If they received approval to do this, they would purchase the building.  Soon after, Fort Union issued the permit and they bought the Greisinger building.

By 1875, John Dent had sold part of building 305 to Edward Shoemaker, the brother of Charles.  The 1870 census listed Edward Shoemaker as a postmaster at the arsenal; in 1875 Shoemaker’s post office was located in the middle section of the Barrow building, with an attached residence.  Dent’s store continued to operate in the northernmost section of the building.  As of 1876, the last major additions and changes to the Row had been carried out.  The last building (301), was added sometime that year, when Samuel B. Watrous built it as a butcher shop with quarters for employees.  Field investigations and photographs provide general descriptions of the building.  The adobe rectangular main building was fifty-three by twenty feet, covered with a pitched roof, and had two wings extending westward.  A walled yard was west of the building, extending about 100 feet west; at least one outbuilding is visible on the ground.  The butcher who operated the shop was probably Frank Jager, who had been a clerk for Dent in 1870.  Also in 1876, Fort Union officials asked Dent whether the building known as the “Hotel and Billiard Room” was his or under his control as part of his trading establishment.  This was the old Greisinger hotel (building 304), still operated by Lahey.

By 1877, the Barrow building was referred to as the "old Post Sutler's store, Beer saloon, Post Office, etc.”  Various civilians were authorized to live on post that year.  These individuals included Dent and his family, Harry Mumford (listed as assistant PM [postmaster?] in the 1880 census), James Duncan, Henry V. Harris and family, C. Waldenstein, John McKie, J. F. Jager (presumably a clerical error for Frank G. Jager), Samuel Edge, Francisco Cordoba, and Lahey.  Lahey apparently sold the old hotel to Dent or his successor about 1878.  Harris had transferred the ownership of the Moore building to Vicente Romero in May 1876, and was either living in Dent’s buildings and working for him or living in Moore’s old building and working for Romero.  Dent ran his store in building 305 until 1878, when Crayton Conger took over as trader and probably bought the store.

In 1876, one result of the patronage scandal involving Secretary of War William Belknap was that the power of choosing a post trader returned to the council of administration at individual posts. The appointment of a trader took less time, and the local interests of each fort tended to be the main factor in trader appointments.  At Fort Union, traders changed more frequently after the re-implementation of local choice.  Dent withdrew from the tradership in 1878.  On 9 April, Fort Union appointed Crayton H. Conger as the trader; he took the position on 12 April when Dent's appointment ended.  Dent sold buildings 303, 304, and 305 to Conger.  Arthur W. Conger, Crayton’s brother (LHB note: Arthur was actually Crayton’s son) had apparently been Dent's storekeeper for about a year and undoubtedly was involved in Crayton's selection as the new trader.  Crayton brought his wife, Louisa Agnes, and family out to Fort Union from Iowa (LHB note: the family had all been in Illinois, not Iowa).  Crayton and Louisa’s granddaughter (LHB note: Mary Lou Heaton Skinner Ross) reminisced about her grandmother’s memories of life at the trader store.  After only two years as trader, however, Crayton died of heart disease on 22 May 1880 while in Oneida, Kansas, leaving Arthur as the acting trader.

The census taken in June of 1880 (LHB note: just three weeks after Crayton's death), reveals that Arthur Conger's family lived in the trader store compound (buildings 303, 304 and 305).  Arthur was listed as merchant.  One of the residents in Arthur's household was Louisa, Crayton's thirty-nine-year-old widow (LHB note: although both Arthur and Louisa were listed as Heads of their Households).  Also living and working in the compound were two cooks, two housekeepers, a laborer, and their families.  The total number of people in the Conger compound was seventeen.  Further south in the Row was the butcher Frank Jager and his wife, Safronia, and a cook, two laborers and their families, totalling (sic) seven people.  All probably lived and worked in building 301.  Jager had apparently become the beef contractor by this time.  Moore’s old store, building 302, was empty at the time of this census.

On 17 July 1880, Arthur Conger was officially appointed trader.  Conger and several of his employees handed the tradership back and forth for the next ten years. Jager, who became Conger’s partner about this time, and Conger’s salesclerks Werner Fabian and Edward P. Woodbury, all became traders, alternating their appointments with reappointments of Conger.  Conger’s first appointment as trader ended on 28 September 1881, when he left Fort Union, probably to escort the Crayton Conger family back to Iowa.  Jager took over the tradership in his absence.  While Conger was gone, on 18 October 1881 and 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 communications between the two men throughout November allowed Jager to operate the saloon as a beer and wine bar.  A few months later, on 18 January 1882, Watrous sold the butcher shop (building 301) to Jager, consolidating the ownership of all the businesses in the Row in the hands of the trader.

On 21 January 1882, 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, and on 8 February 1882, accepted Jager’s resignation.  Conger began a new term as trader. About the same time, complaints about the saloon in the Row resulted in its closure.  It is likely that the saloon causing these problems was Barrow’s old “Billiard Saloon.”  Conger ended his term as trader on 17 January 1884.  The same day, Fabian became the trader.  Woodbury continued to work as Fabian’s salesman and Conger operated as the manager and owner of the store.  On 27 February 1885, Fabian ended his term as trader and Conger became trader again, but only for seven months.  On 14 October, Conger resigned and Edward Woodbury became the trader.

By the late 1880s, the buildings of the Row were in poor condition.  The original Barrow and Shoemaker buildings (building 305 and 304), now the Conger store, were connected by enclosing walls and shared various outbuildings to the west of the main Row.  The old Barrow building was faded and needed paint.  In August 1886, Conger was in trouble about the bar in his store again.  Conger is referred to as the "post trader", even though Woodbury was the official trader.  Woodbury, 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."

Around 1885, Greisinger’s old hotel (building 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 store foundations supported adobe walls, and a massive cellar, thirteen by eighteen feet, located at the rear of the building.  The photographs show a central building about forty feet square with a pitched roof and a smaller section on its south side with a separate pitched roof, both with ridgebeams that extended westward.  A wing ran north from the central building; the ridgebeams of its pitched roof ran north to south. Some part of this wing may have stood on the foundations that extended north toward building 304.  These foundations might also have been built to support a hallway connecting building 303 to building 304 to the north.  A small flower bed or garden lay against the south wall near the west end.  It was six feet by thirty 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 sold to Dent or Crayton Conger about 1878.  By 1880 it was clearly in use as part of Arthur Conger's trader enterprise, but still served as a hotel.

Moore’s old store, building 302, remained unused.  By 1882, Raphael Romero owned the building.  He was probably the brother or heir of Vicente, who had bought the building from Harris in 1876.  On 3 February 1882, Fort Union sent a letter to Raphael asking for proof that he owned a building in Trader’s Row and to demonstrate cause why it should not be torn down or appropriated as abandoned property.  It was still standing in the 1885 photographs, but did not outlast Fort Union's closure. The beef contractor's and butcher's shop (building 301) did not change significantly from its 1876 construction until the fort's 1891 closure.  The sheds near building 300, present in 1868 were still visible in the 1885 photograph.

A seventh building, (306) was begun on the Row but was never finished.  It was supposed to be part of Trader's Row and on the same alignment as the other Row buildings, but it consists only of stone foundations.  The absence of collapsed wall debris, flooring traces, and daily use trash indicates that it may never have been finished.  Its floor plan suggests that it was to be a carriage house or something similar, with a large room entered through a wide, wagon-sized doorway facing east. It had a smaller office space on the south side. The location implies that it was started after 1870, because prior to that year it would have been placed in one of the large gaps on the main part of the Row.  The fact that it was abandoned before completion suggests that it was begun before one of the major shifts in trader policy or appointment.

Finally, in December of 1889, The Barrow building (building 306), in use as Woodbury’s store, was destroyed by fire.  Colonel Aubrey Lippincott, 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 cavalry units] 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."  Woodbury reopened his store in either building 303 or 304 and continued in business until the post trader operation closed in early 1890.  It was replaced later in that year by a post canteen operated by the army.

Today, the area of Barrow’s store, building 305, is a mass of burned wood, broken glass and ceramics, and fallen adobe walls that date from the 1889 fire.  Burned floor joists, wall and ceiling sections, hardware, counters, doors and windows, and most of the stock are probably still in place within the ruins, buried under the fallen walls.  Such an end to a building, though disastrous for the occupants, is of great benefit to archaeologists. Burned materials, since they are virtually useless, are frequently left behind.  The charring of the fire makes them less susceptible to decay and therefore valuable to archaeologists. Cloth, wood, paper, leather, and other materials that under normal conditions would decay in the earth remain relatively unaffected over time.  As a result, a careful archeological examination of the ruins would determine a great deal about Fort Union's traders.  The location of the main store, the "Billiard Saloon," the storerooms, the residential areas, and the store goods await discovery.  Through excavation, we could learn a great deal about the sutler and trader operations on the western frontier and a fascinating exhibit could be made available to the public.  The elaboration of ownership and use provided in this essay is based on available documents.  Most of the lease and purchase agreements related to Fort Union were recorded in the Mora County Courthouse and other additional information is available in St. Louis.  Future researchers could discover considerably more about the post sutler/trader operation at Fort Union through these documents.  The nondescript line of mounds where Trader's Row once stood at Fort Union is, at first view, unimpressive.  Like a mass of unread documents, they have the potential to tell us a great deal more about that time, the people involved, their lives, and their buildings.

 

 

The above article appeared in the July 1995 issue of the New Mexico Historical Review, published quarterly by the University of New Mexico, volume 70, number 3, pages 299-327.  The attempt has been made to transcribe the work both accurately and completely, although the original publication contained photographs, diagrams and advertising copy.  James Ivey, the article's author, in 1995 was an historical archaeologist with the National Park Service in Santa Fe.