The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Vol. 19: July 1, 1868-October 31, 1869, and: The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Vol. 20: November 1, 1869-October 31, 1870 (review)

8oCIVIL WAR HISTORY Johnson's low opinion of the newly freed African-Americans also emerges clearly from these documents. The most obvious indication ofthis sentiment is his veto of the bill enfranchising the freedmen in the District of Columbia, a message in which he distinctly stated his conviction that the blacks were not yet ready to exercise the suffrage. He repeated some of these arguments in his veto of the bills for the admission of Colorado and Nebraska, in which he emphasized his belief that Congress had no right to impose black suffrage as a condition for membership in the Union. That he received numerous letters from Democrats insisting that the Founding Fathers had established a white man's government that ought to be preserved hardly changes the fact that, despite his declaration that he would be a Moses to the blacks, he was no friend of the race. Other matters discussed in this volume are relations with cabinet members, especially the secretary of state, who was resented by many, and the secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton, whom the president was urged to dismiss long before he did so. In addition, Mexican affairs, particularly the effort to evict the French from the continent, and Johnson's pardoning policies are well covered. It is perhaps to be regretted that a communication from Gen. Fitz John Porter, pleading for a reopening of his case, is only summarized instead of being cited in its entirety. The Fitz John Porter controversy certainly merits full treatment, and it is not clear why the document was omitted. All in all, however, this volume continues the excellent coverage afforded by its predecessors. Future additions to the series will be eagerly awaited. Hans L. Trefousse Brooklyn College and Graduate Center, CUNY The Papers ofUlysses S. Grant. Vol. 19: July 1, /S6S-October3/, 1869. Edited by John Y. Simon. Assistant editors, William L. Ferraro and J. Thomas Murphy. Textual editor, Sue E. Dotson. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois State University Press, 1995. Pp. xxvi, 608. $65.00.) The Papers ofUlysses S. Grant. Vol. 20: November 1, /Söo-October3/, 1870. Edited byJohn Y. Simon. Associate editors, William M. Ferraro, BrianJ. Kenny, and J. Thomas Murphy. Textual editor, Sue E. Dotson. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois State University Press, 1995. Pp. xxiii, 525. $65.00.) The addition of two more volumes to the excellent collection of The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant is once more a time to praise project editor John Y. Simon, his staff, the U.S. Grant Association, and Southern Illinois State University Press for ajob well done. As before, Editor Simon and his staffclearly lay out Grant's ideas and buttress each letter with copious footnotes and explanations, presenting a picture of one of America's more important nineteenth-century leaders through his correspondence. BOOK REVIEWS8l The period covered by the two volumes in this review finds Grant coping with peacetime responsibilities as commanding general, president-elect, and his first year and a half as the nation's eighteenth president. Coming off a period of rest during the electoral campaign (presidential candidates let their major supporters carry the burden in those days), Grant faced anew the uproar over his so-called 1862 "Jew Order" (7:50), a document that had ordered itinerant traders, collectively referred to as "Jews," out ofhis army's lines in Mississippi for security reasons—unfortunate wording that raised among Northern Jews the troubling specter of latent anti-Semitism. Having received "hundreds of letters" by "persons of the faith affected," Grant assured Jewish voters that he had "no prejudice against sect or race," even though he admitted that the wording of the order "did not sustain this statement" (19:37). He asserted that he would not have issued the order upon further reflection had he had time to reexamine it. Grant's further actions upon appointment ofJews to office or their sons to the military academies bear out his contention, however lame his explanation seems in retrospect (19:17-22, 37-39, 434, 455; 20:397-98). But one is not necessarily comforted by a snide, off-the-record communication between his aides Orville E. Babcock and Adam Badeau claiming that Jews lived offpatronage and could...