American Rifle - Alexander Rose [242]
Return to text.
74. Advertisement, reproduced in Edwards, Civil War Guns, p. 160.
Return to text.
75. On Spencer’s background, see Bilby, Revolution in Arms, pp. 68–76 and W. A. Bartlett, “Lincoln’s Seven Hits with a Rifle,” The Magazine of History with Notes and Queries, vol. 19, no. 1 (1921), pp. 68–69.
Return to text.
76. Ripley’s sparse biographical details can be found in R. V. Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War (Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956), esp. chap. 2; his entry in American National Biography; and C. L. Davis, Arming the Union: Small Arms in the Civil War (Port Washington, N.Y.: National University Publications/Kennikat Press, 1973), p. 13. On his appointment as Ordnance chief, see Special Orders no. 115, April 23, 1861, Official Records, 3d ser., p. 1:102 (see note 86 below). His predecessor, Henry Knox Craig, had been forced out (or so he said) by means of a whirling and gnashing machination involving corrupt jobbers, political patronage, and war profiteering, much of it somehow orchestrated (according to the pro-Craig New York Times) by the newly arrived Ripley. (For the gory details, see New York Times, July 10, 1861.) Ripley’s politics, however, are a bit of a mystery. Bruce, Lincoln, p. 29 and p. 305n., claims him as a Republican, saying that “Ripley was appointed to the superintendency at Springfield by a Whig administration, he promptly dismissed the Jacksonian paymaster, he feuded with the Independent Democrat, and he was removed under a Democratic administration and replaced by a Democratic politician.” Fair enough, but an entertaining New York Times hit piece (there’s no other word for it) of July 14, 1861, “inferred” that he had “no sympathy with Republicanism” and was “Pro-Slavery.” (The anonymous author also managed to insinuate that he was a coward (“It is not known that [Ripley] was ever in a fight,” and moreover, the Springfield Arsenal was “a place as far removed from the danger of assault by Mexican enemies as it is possible to conceive of.”) Bruce’s argument is the stronger of the two, and Ripley’s unyielding support for the Union lends it additional credence. He also appears to have lacked any kind of Southern connections. It is unlikely, however, that Ripley was particularly partisan or ideological, and he seems to have been more of a technocrat than anything else.
Return to text.
77. New York Times, July 14, 1861: “Our bureaucratic hero had the address to secure a brevet for his skill in manipulating red tape.”
Return to text.
78. On officer strength, see Davis, Arming the Union, p. 15; on clerks, ibid., p. 29.
Return to text.
79. Ibid., p. 30.
Return to text.
80. Ibid., pp. 133–34.
Return to text.
81. Bruce, Lincoln, pp. 131–43. On the “enemy-slaughtering” rifles, see W. O. Stoddard, Inside the White House in War Times (New York: Charles L. Webster & Co., 1890), p. 45.
Return to text.
82. Scientific American, September 19, 1863.
Return to text.
83. Davis, Arming the Union, pp. 46–47.
Return to text.
84. G. Perret, Lincoln’s War: The Untold Story of America’s Greatest President as Commander in Chief (New York: Random House, 2004), p. 147.
Return to text.
85. Quoted in Bruce, Lincoln, p. 36.
Return to text.
86. Ibid., pp. 33–34, 205.
Return to text.
87. James Ripley, “Notes on Subject of Contracting for Small-Arms,” June 11, 1861, in The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880–1901), 3d ser., pp. 1:264–65. Hereinafter known as Official Records. Later on, the commissioners looking into the matter of arms-contracting concurred: the Springfield rifle-musket was “the best infantry arm in the world.” Report on Contracts by J. Holt and R. D. Owen, July 1, 1862, Official Records, 3d ser., p. 2:191. See also Ripley’s comments in “The Small Arms of Our Armies,” San Francisco Bulletin, May 30, 1862, p. 2: “The United States musket, as now made, has no superior arm in the world. I say this with