Interview with Russell W

Interview with Russell W. Fridley

Interviewed by Lucile M. Kane and Rhoda R. Gilman Minnesota Historical Society

Interviewed on February 23, March 31, and April 6 and 17, 1987 at the Minnesota Historical Society Saint Paul, Minnesota

Russell W. Fridley - RF Lucile M. Kane - LK Project Rhoda R. Gilman - RG

RG: The first thing on our outline is the Iowa boyhood and youth. I guess you grew up in Oelwein, Iowa? History RF: No. I was born in Oelwein.

RG: Oh. So you grew up in-- Oral Society

RF: Well, we moved around. I grew up for about three years in a little town near Oelwein named Sumner, Bremer County, Iowa. And then we moved to Des Moines. My father was a wholesale grocer, and he tried two or three businesses.Society So my first eight years are somewhat nomadic. About three years in Sumner. Then we moved to an even smaller town named Westgate. This is all within forty miles of Oelwein. Then we moved toHistorical Des Moines. Then back to Sumner. And then when I was eight years old, we moved to Des Moines. So from the age of eight on, until I went to college about ten years later, Des Moines was really my home.

RG: What could you say aboutHistorical the general ethnic background of your family?

RF: Well, the ethnic backgroundMinnesota is kind of mixed. Fridley is a German-Swiss name on my father's side, but he also had a Scandinavian mother. My paternal grandmother, Celia Sylvester, she was part Swedish and part Norwegian. So that legitimatized me when we came to Minnesota. [Chuckles] One-eighth Scandinavian. On my mother's side--she was Irish, Welsh and German. Minnesota RG: That makes you the result of a melting pot.

RF: It really does.

RG: I take it that ethnicity wasn't a big factor in your --

RF: No. I don't think it was a hot topic of conversation. My mother had some interest in it, but I wouldn't say it was a keen interest. And I don't think it's ever been a keen interest of mine. Obviously the nature of my job with the Society, you have to be somewhat informed. But the

1 patriarch on the Fridley side, Dan Fridley, we know is a miller who came over from Switzerland about 1840. And I've looked into a couple of Fridley genealogies, but we can't get back beyond him. So probably the genealogical research is over in Switzerland on that side.

LK: Nice trip sometime.

RF: Yes.

RG: And you were the middle child?

RF: No, I was the youngest.

RG: The youngest of three. Project

RF: Yes. I have a brother who is eleven years older and a sister who is eight years older, so I was the baby. As far as the religious orientation of the family, again that's somewhat mixed. My mother was a Methodist, though after we moved to Des Moines she joined the Presbyterian Church, which I joined as I came along and was active in it for a fairly briefHistory time. I don't think my father was ever much of a churchman.

LK: What was your brother's name? Oral Society

RF: My brother's name--and he's still living--Robert, and my sister's name is June.

LK: And your sister's married name is? Society Historical RF: June Flowers.

LK: Oh, that's a lovely name.

RG: Do you have any particularHistorical things you'd like to say about your schooling--high school, elementary school? Was it pretty much general small town, and then high school in Des Moines I think? Minnesota

RF: Yes. Oh, I recall in Sumner where I started school at the age of five--we didn't have kindergarten then--that I had some difficulty with school--reading, arithmetic--across the board. And I don'tMinnesota think my early years there were in any way distinguished. But I do remember we had a wonderful second grade teacher, Mrs. Bauman, who used to take us out on field trips, and I think I probably remember those field trips much more than the classroom work. She lived on a farm, and there was a stream running through the farm, and she'd take us out on picnics and wading. But I think it was very much small town, and as you look back you tend to romanticize those. But I remember those experiences with pleasure. After I came to Des Moines--I would have been in the fourth grade--and I had had a very serious bout with scarlet fever, which you recall was fairly popular as a disease then. And that had left me with a heart condition of a fast heart, and it took me about six months to work out of that. And I had fallen behind in school the first semester in the fourth grade. So I remember the fourth grade with some trauma as a very difficult year. But then as

2 I went into the fifth grade, I began to enjoy school. And I think my popular subjects were first of all, mathematics. I don't think they taught much in the way of history or social studies, at least that I remember. But I think I identify the courses I liked with the teachers I liked.

RG: Were you much of a reader as a child?

RF: I think I gradually became a reader. I was not an early reader, but I think by the time I was in sixth grade I'd become a reader. My Scandinavian grandmother, whom I often spent summers with, with her and my step-grandfather--a fellow named John Bumgardener--Celia Sylvester was her maiden name--she used to read to me. And I attribute a lot of interest in history to her, because she was interested in, well, the immigrant experience--what we'd call today. She was a second generation American, and she had a love of American history, literature, poetry. She'd been a school teacher. I think if I have to pinpoint anyone who gave me an impulse toProject read, she'd be the one. I think my mother was a very strong influence more in the sense of conversation. It was a strongly Republican family--conservative politically -- except for my mother, who was an ardent New Dealer. And she traced that back to her father, who was a well-to-do farmer in the Oelwein area. And he lost two large farms during the Depression, and she always blamed that on Herbert Hoover and his administration. But she was the best informed of Historythe family -- kept up with current events. So she enlivened the dinner table conversation a great deal.

RG: I can imagine, if there was that much disagreement.Oral Society

RF: And to this day my sister and brother remain very strong Republicans, so we carry on the division. [Chuckles] Society LK: Interesting family gatherings. Historical RG: That sort of leads to one thing I had been wondering about. Do you feel that growing up in small town Iowa during the height of the Depression of the thirties, that this in any way had an impact on you? Historical RF: Oh I think so. I think it gave me a feeling of fondness for the small town and the rural areas. I remember many very pleasantMinnesota times with my grandmother and step-grandfather. I'd spend summers there.

RG: Did they live on a farm? Minnesota RF: Kind of a small farm, I'd say -- an acreage on the edge of town. But they had a couple cows and chickens and a couple horses, and they grew a lot of crops -- I'd say kind of subsistence farming. And I spent a lot of time with them outdoors and in the fields. I don't think I enjoyed it as much then as I do now looking back on it, but I think it did give me a feeling for what seemed to me was a very solid kind of community, even though I'm sure they were having a difficult time making ends meet at that time, as most people were in that area of Iowa.

RG: But they were getting by.

3 RF: Oh yes.

RG: There wasn't a lot of enormous trauma that you witnessed?

RF: No, no. My grandmother's daughter, Aunt Florence, and her husband, Dale Russell, they lived in Iowa quite awhile, but then they moved to Bemidji, or to Black Duck. And by the time I had moved to Des Moines, they had moved to Black Duck--that's about 1936. So the first part of Minnesota I became acquainted with was that Black Duck-Bemidji area, because I think I spent four summers in Black Duck with them, and one summer we camped out--1936--a very lively year politically in Minnesota, but I was totally unaware of it. So it was, I think, a fairly close-knit family, but kind of an extended family, in a way.

RG: As you became a high school student in Des Moines-- recalling my own Projectadolescence in that period when the teenager was becoming a recognized entity in American society--do you have any particular recollections of that--your fondness for movies or--

RF: Yes, my brother went into the movie business. He acquired a chain of theaters in Iowa. But back then he went to work for another uncle, Uncle Bob Bernard, Historyin northwestern Iowa, and they operated what they called the circuit. And I remember my brother--he was about eighteen when he started, so I would have been about seven, eight--he would drive around to small towns with movie films--these large 35 millimeter films--and then show a movieOral each Society night in a different town, and I'd go with him. I really enjoyed that. So I was introduced to movies, sometimes under duress because I had no other choice. Yes, I enjoyed movies--going to the Saturday movies. We lived near a park in Des Moines--right across the street from a park--so the park was a natural playground, and played most of the sports. SocietyMy sister was a tennis player, and I think she gave me a love of tennis. She taught me how to play tennis, and that turned out to be the sport that I probably played most seriously at. But I think I was a ratherHistorical quiet teenager. I was not particularly social. At times, primarily around sports or going to the movies. But I spent a lot of time by myself too.

RG: Lucile, do you have any questions before we move on to the army years? Historical LK: No I don't. Questions may occur to me later, and we can take them out of sequence. Minnesota RG: As I reconstruct this, you attended Grinnell and then went into the army?

RF: Yes. I went to Grinnell one semester. I graduated [from high school] in February--I was a mid-yearMinnesota graduate--February, 1946. So I went to Grinnell immediately thereafter for one semester. And then the G. I. Bill was very appealing. I think that was my main motivation to enlist in the army, because there was some chance of being drafted as an eighteen year old, but by the time I enlisted, I think the draft had been repealed. So in September of 1946 I enlisted in the army, and that was quite a different world. My first two weeks in the army were very pleasant, because I ended up at Fort Snelling, which I had seen with my aunt and uncle on a trip to Minnesota. But I think I was there about the last two weeks that Fort Snelling was open under the army. I think it went a little longer. But I left about October 1, 1946 for Fort Sheridan, Illinois, and I think Fort Snelling was disbanded about the middle of October. But discipline was lax, and you had a lot of time on your own. So we moved around and saw the sights of the Twin Cities--saw the Cathedral

4 and the Capitol.

But then we moved to Fort Sheridan, Illinois, and that was a very different experience, because I was introduced for the first time to, I would say, the large volume of people--long lines--waiting in the chow line to eat. And well, we were warm and at least had minimal creature comforts--very little more than that. And there was a lot of waiting as to where we were going and uncertainty and some anxiety. So I was there about two weeks, and then they sent me off to Camp Lee, Virginia, near Petersburg, which is a delightful area, but very difficult, tough drilling.

RG: Basic training.

RF: And I was there eight weeks, then came back for a month of a furlough and from there was shipped to Japan. That would be just about Christmas of 1946. And then for theProject subsequent thirteen months I spent in Japan with the military government team in the prefecture--what we'd call a state--of Saga on the Island of Kyushu near Nagasaki. And that turned out to be a very interesting on the whole delightful experience. This was after the war. The Japanese were really hurt economically, but even then you could see the great creativity in those people. They were beginning to rebuild. This was just about a year--a little more thanHistory a year--after the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. We made a side trip--a group of the other soldiers and I--to visit Nagasaki, and that was really a grim, unforgettable experience. I remember a Catholic priest took us to a hospital, and we saw some of the victims. You see,Oral we had Society dropped the bomb on a Sunday morning, and this was a Catholic center of Japan, and the bomb had made a direct hit on the biggest Catholic church in Japan--destroyed the church. I don't think that was by design, but that was certainly one of the tragedies. So that gave me certainly a different view of war and the military life than I'd had before. Society

But I made some good friends among the Japanese.Historical I've kept up a correspondence with two or three. And I was placed in charge of coal production. Here's an eighteen year old soldier having to work with Japanese business people. I must say, they're very patient and courteous. But I did get to go down into the biggest coal mine in Japan, and that was quite an experience. Historical Then later on I was placed in charge of disposing of explosives and military property. So we'd have to go out in the field--this wasMinnesota a rural area. You'd go maybe to the mayor of the town, and the Japanese would identify where any ammunition had been stored or any military equipment --they didn't have much--and then I'd have to go out and inspect it and make a request to have this equipment removed. So I remember one time we walked up on top of a--they call it a mountain, but we'dMinnesota call it a hill in Minnesota --and there was a metal shed which was supposed to have explosives in it, and it turned out it didn't. But on the way down our Japanese guide said, "I didn't want to mention this on the way up, but this mountain is known for its poisonous snakes. [Chuckles] A number of experiences like that.

I got to see the flying fishes in the sea in Japan between the Asian mainland and Japan. We had only twenty-five soldiers and no big army units in this Saga prefecture, so it was about as civilian-like an existence as you could have in the army. As I say, it was a learning experience and I think a good one.

5 RG: Were you just a private or a non-commissioned officer?

RF: I started out as a private and then became a private first class and then a corporal and then a sergeant--I left as a sergeant.

LK: The life of Sergeant Fridley no one has known before.

RG: The secret life of Sergeant Fridley. I had no idea that you--

RF: Allowing for some bias, I'm one of those who believes that the sergeants keep the army running. At least they did then.

LK: I think you'd have good back-up on that. Russell, this being so soon afterProject the atomic explosion, so soon after the end of the war, you've said that the Japanese people were friendly. Did that come from their native courtesy?

RF: Well, I think a lot of it. I think under the surface there was bound to be some resentment and bitterness. You know, there were incidents even in our small unit,History I think, of abuse of some of the Japanese civilians. Some of our group would get drunk and get in fights and I think abuse the women on occasion. But I would say that probably--I may be deluding myself--I think as a group of us left there, we'd established a pretty good rapport with theOral Japanese. Society But I think our situation was very unusual, because you had a small military unit, and you had a lot of Japanese.

One person I've kept up with at Christmas time was a fellow named Yonio Mota Oka--Mr. Mota Oka--and he did everything. He ran the town.Society He had no official position, but he was the interpreter. He was the problem-solver on both sides. And whenever there was a bureaucratic hang-up, of which there are many, as you know, Historicalwith the army or on the Japanese side, we'd always call Mr. Moto Oka, and he would come in unlock the problem. And then there was a remarkable lady, whom I've kept in touch with--she's getting quite old now--Mrs. Waka Bayashi--a very charming person, very petite--and she was our chief interpreter. She'd been, I'd say, in an affluent situation, and she and her husbandHistorical had lost all their property after the Americans took over, and she had to go to work. She used to talk very candidly about what a jolt this was and how disillusioned her husband was by the wholeMinnesota war experience. She had to earn the living. I guess today we'd say he was in a state of pretty deep depression. I mean, he'd come out, and we'd see him socially, but he had great difficulty adjusting. So there were those kinds of situations. But I would say, she and Mr. Moto Oka would talk very candidly to us, but it was hard to break through that Japanese mystique. Minnesota Also, I think that experience helped sensitize me to works of art--the Japanese and their homes, which become kind of havens for them. They gave me a party before I left, and I was invited to Mrs. Waka Bayashi's, and the whole home atmosphere is kind of a work of art. And then picnics out in the countryside up in the mountains. That artistic Japanese talent showed everywhere. And yet the cities were dirty. The streets were made of dirt and so on. The homes were immaculate.

LK: Did you and Carl Jones ever share thoughts on the Japanese?

RF: Never did. Wish I had.

LK: So interested in the workshops and the art of the Japanese.

RF: Yes, that would have been fun. As you know, Lucile, and we'll talk about that later, I had all too little time to get to know Carl Jones -- I think you knew him a lot better -- but enjoyed every minute of it.

LK: Yes, a most stimulating and unusual man.

RG: So then you were twenty-one when you got out of the army and headed back for college and grad school?

RF: Let's see. Yes, I was eighteen when I enlisted, so I was twenty when I gotProject out of the army and went back to Grinnell. And I finished Grinnell in two more years, because I attended summer school at Drake University in Des Moines. Drake University was only about three blocks away, so to make up time I thought I'd lost--I don't think I'd view it that way today--I really finished Grinnell in three years. History RG: Was Grinnell your choice largely because it was close by?

RF: I think so. Oral Society

RG: Did you have other reasons?

RF: Well, I looked around. And I think mySociety mother was an influence here and probably some high school mates. There were about eight of us that wentHistorical to Grinnell. But I did consider Drake, but felt Grinnell was a better school, and I was offered a kind of a modest scholarship from Grinnell. I think the total cost then was $600, and they offered me $50, which helped. But I did look seriously at Cornell and was very impressed by Cornell College in Ithaca, New York. But in the end it was Grinnell and no regrets. Historical LK: Did you and Paul Sharp meet one another during these years? Minnesota RF: No. He came along later. I met him here actually before he went on to Drake. I think I met him through you.

LK: OhMinnesota yes.

RF: Yes, he was at Ames.

LK: Right. Did you have career objectives that early during your early years at Grinnell?

RF: Nothing very precise. I would say my courses in history in high school were disappointing -- the teaching. This fits into a subject Rhoda and I have talked about many times. I had an uncommon number of coaches who taught history and universally poorly -- a couple of good history teachers. But I took a lot of history in high school. And I think I also still liked

7 mathematics to a great degree. On the sciences I had difficulty with physics all the way through, and when we get to Grinnell had great difficulty with physics. But I liked chemistry and biology a great deal. And then I liked English. That probably was my favorite subject in high school. It would be close between mathematics and English. So my career objectives were kind of vague. I thought at one time I wanted to be an engineer when I was still in high school. Another time I wanted to be a lawyer. And in our senior yearbook where they make predictions of where you'll turn out, I think the prediction was that I'd turn out to be a judge. That probably came under the fact I said I wanted to be a lawyer. So I think by the time I graduated from high school I was pretty well set that I wanted to take a lot of history, but I wasn't sure I wanted to major in it yet. And in spite of the teaching, there was a growing interest in the subject.

LK: And Grinnell stimulated that? Project RF: A great deal, a great deal. Strong history department. There are many teachers there I think of. Fred Bauman, who is probably the most dynamic personality. There's another teacher, Homer Norton, who taught English history. He was a Canadian English teacher. Charlie Foster, who came here to the University later on--superb teacher. Speech teacher named John Ryan. English teacher named Grace Hunter. And an economics teacher--and I was developingHistory an interest in economics too by the time I got to Grinnell--an economics teacher named Earl Strong. They all stand out.

RG: So I have had the impression before that you have aOral very good Society feeling about your experience at Grinnell.

RF: Very much so. Society RG: It was successful, and you respected the college. Historical RF: Very much so, and it was an interesting time. When I went there before my army career, the ratio of women to men--because the veterans were just beginning to come back--was something like six women to one man. That had changed dramatically by the time I came back. I wasn't very social, but to some extent--Historicaland you know this, Rhoda--I think Grinnell has a--I don't know if it's that way today, but it certainly was then--I think has a great atmosphere to make you feel at home and to adopt you. Because thereMinnesota are no sororities or fraternities--quite an egalitarian atmosphere. And then I think the veterans added a certain maturity to it. I remember Fred Bauman saying he hated to see the veterans leave--that he'd enjoyed teaching the veterans.

RG: I rememberMinnesota in my own college years they had a real impact on college classes.

LK: It sharpened the competition. I was in graduate school at that time, and the pre-veterans return just seems like, you know, kind of snap, rather easy courses, and a great change with the return of people like Paul Prucha.

RG: No nonsense. They were there to get what was there.

LK: Yes.

8 RG: It was at Grinnell that you met Metta?

RF: I met Metta. I never knew Metta very well at Grinnell. I kind of admired her from afar. But we were in two French courses together, and oh we'd meet on the campus and say hello and so on. But we really became acquainted at Columbia. We were I'd say just an acquaintance at Grinnell.

RG: And how did you happen to go on to Columbia?

RF: Well, in Iowa they have a fellowship program that is attached to Columbia. And I had looked around as to where to go to graduate school, and I still had a little of the G. I. Bill left, which was a great help financially. I think I had another year to go after Grinnell. I think the G. I. Bill paid for all of your tuition, and then they gave you part of your expenses, but they gave you your year and a half plus a year. So that would be, what, thirty months. And when you divide thatProject up, that takes you a long way. So I had looked at the University of Chicago and was attracted to Chicago, and the Grinnell professors, who were strong boosters of the University of Chicago. And then I'd looked I think at the University of Michigan, the University of Iowa. By that time it was pretty clear I wanted to major in history. So I think the Columbia history department probably attracted me more than anything and New York City. I thought that would not only beHistory a change, which it was, but the allure of the big city. So it was a fairly easy decision when this Lydia Roberts Fellowship came along. I think they granted ten to Grinnell that year. And Lydia Roberts had been the heiress of Chamberlain hand lotion. That's a brand. That was big inOral Iowa. SocietyAnd she had left quite a fortune or quite a fund for -- I think all Iowa colleges could compete, but Grinnell got its share and more. So I won one of those fellowships, and that really sealed the decision to go to Columbia. But I think even without that I would have gone. Society LK: How soon did you meet Dumas Malone? Historical RF: I met him fairly late. I went to Columbia one year and then the G. I. Bill ran out and I had to work a year. So then I went to work for the Defense Department as a cryptographer, and you may want to talk about that a little later. So I took a year out and lived in Washington, D. C., and then I went back to Columbia. AndHistorical it was that second year that he became my advisor, and I would say I developed the closest friendship with him, but I had had Henry Steele Commager and Allan Nevins and Marjorie Nicholson in English,Minnesota Mark Van Doren, Gilbert Hyatt. These would all stand out as great lecturers -- Reinhold Niebuhr. I used to go over to Union Seminary and just audit his class. They weren't very strict about who audited and who were the regular students. So that was a marvelous first year. And then when I got to my master's thesis, that's when I worked with Dumas Malone.Minnesota So the second year was kind of his year.

RG: What was the subject of your master's thesis?

RF: The conservatism of Oliver Wendell Holmes -- the Justice. I was intrigued by the fact that this liberal judge, who did so much to liberalize the law, in his own philosophy is quite conservative. It was that dialectic I tried to work out in essay. It was very interesting to do that, because I was attracted to his writing too. He wrote so well. So Malone was a marvelous teacher and friend. And I remember in that very hectic atmosphere at Columbia--really fast pace--with Allan Nevins coming in. He produced a book about every six months and was a nice, friendly

9 person. But when you'd go to see Allan Nevins--I think I had two appointments with him--he'd have a couple hundred in his class--he would read his mail while he talked to you, and you never got the feeling you quite had his undivided attention. Malone was extremely different. He gave a lot of time to his students. We had a seminar one year with only three students in it on the Jeffersonian period. So he'd hold the seminar in his apartment. And I remember his wife, who is a New Englander, would cook some wonderful clam chowder. So we'd combine lunch and the seminar. It was an idyllic arrangement. And then he gave me a couple of research assignments, for which he paid me, to go down to Washington and do some research. I remember one on Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, and I spent a week at the Library of Congress. Of course, that introduced me to a little different world of scholarship and somewhat of a larger scale library. So he was very helpful. He just died a few months ago. I kept in touch with him. He was blind the last eight years. But I heard him lecture about a year ago at the American Antiquarian Society in Richmond, and he was still very sharp at the age of ninety-two. Project

LK: Did you meet Mrs. David Willson?

RF: Yes, I did meet her. In fact, after I came here he said, "You must go over and visit my sister and brother-in-law." And I gave them a call and did that. I met themHistory at a couple parties too.

LK: Yes. She worked for the Forest History Society. Oral Society RF: Oh, is that right?

LK: Lillian Willson, but she was called Molly. Society RF: Malone was a southern gentleman in the best sense--very courteous, urbane, good sense of humor, to some extent would defend the southernHistorical culture, up to a degree, but said coming to Columbia had liberalized him. Then he went back to the University of Virginia for most of his career. But one day at the seminar he was late, and we were meeting in a classroom, and he said, "I've just given a very interesting Ph. D. exam." And the other professor who gave the exam was David Donald, who I guessHistorical we identified with the Civil War then. And he said, "It just so happened that David Donald was born in Mississippi and grew up in Mississippi." Malone said, "I was born in Mississippi and grew up in MinnesotaMississippi, and the Ph.D. candidate was from Mississippi." And then Malone winked, and he said, "We had all the brains in the whole state in one room." [Laughs]

RG: In New York. Were some of the professors that you worked with pretty much in the progressiveMinnesota school of American history?

RF: Oh, I'd say very definitely.

RG: That generation.

RF: Yes.

RG: The newer influences of Hoffsteader and the post World War II had not really come into--

10 RF: No. Hoffstadter was around, but I think he had yet to make his impact. Yes, I would place all of these I've mentioned in the progressive school at Columbia. Now at Grinnell, Fred Bauman, who was a dynamic lecturer, was the one voice of conservatism and kind of anti-progressive too in terms of methodology, but he is about the only exception I can think of.

LK: How did they look upon Allan Nevins? His academic background is so different.

RF: That was interesting because of his journalism, and he didn't have a Ph. D. Well, Malone characterized him. One day he said, "If you want to make a little money, Allan Nevins has a research job that will just take you a couple days." I said, "I think I'd be interested in that." And he said, "I'll call him up and make the appointment." So he did, and I even forget the subject, but I did it all at the Columbia Library. Nevins impressed me as a very kindly, really nice person. But Malone said something very significant, and I think this addresses your question.Project He said, "Nevins is noted for getting as much out of students--research assistants--as he can. Don't let him overload you with an unrealistic assignment, because he just devours information. You know, some of us around here look upon Allan, whom we love, as a high-class reporter, not a historian." And I think that was kind of the view. He popularized history and wrote so well, but that he really--interpretation was not his greatest strength, but writing was.History

LK: Was he into oral history at that time? Oral Society RF: No. That came later. I think he was talking about it, and he would mention the importance of the oral record. But I think that came later. I'd say as a lecturer he was a little disappointing. He had a lot of anecdotes and a kind of a narrative approach to history. But he'd read from his printed books as his lecture. If he didn't have time toSociety write out a lecture, he'd just bring in his book and read it. We wondered about that. Where Commager gave a brilliant lecture -- I think a much bolder thinker. Well, that would be true of David DonaldHistorical and many others. I regret, Rhoda, I never had Hoffstadter. He was around, and I think he was regarded as really coming on very strong, but it never worked out.

LK: I remember Nevins asHistorical a very low key person in conversation, but he did have a gift for turning the conversation toward the person who was asking him questions. He wasn't reading his mail and-- Minnesota

RF: A very thoughtful person, yes. I would agree. Commager had a lot more arrogance, I think, but that made him, I think, a more dramatic lecturer too. Minnesota LK: Was your mind turning to teaching at this period?

RF: I was uncertain about teaching. First of all, I wasn't at all sure I'd be very good at it, but I thought about it. I was still unclear when I came back to Columbia what I wanted to do. I'd taken quite a bit of economics and political science, public administration. Columbia had a course they called Public Law and Government, which was kind of a mix of political science, economics and history, and I worked under that banner for about a semester. So I think I was searching probably for the kind of job I ended up in, but wasn't at all sure what it would be at that point.

11 RG: You mentioned your experience as a cryptographer.

RF: Yes, that was very interesting. I had a friend who had been with me at Columbia--this was still during the Truman administration--and he knew that I was running short of money and probably wanted to take a year off to earn some money. And he said, "The Defense Department is hiring quite a few people--researchers and so on. Why don't you apply?" So I did, and I remember I had a letter saying that I was being considered for a position with--it's not the CIA but the American Security Agency--National Security Agency. I think it's still around. But anyway, would I show up for an interview? So I did and got through the interview. They gave me a polygraph test--a lie detector test--which I presume I passed, and then they assigned me to Arlington, Virginia, which is the headquarters of it's either the American Security Agency or the National Security Agency. I was there about a year, and our main job was decoding intelligence reports. The messages would deal with natural resources and agriculture and so on. There wasProject this continual flow of data in English but in messages to decode them. It was difficult work, but I enjoyed it. I still hear from the supervisor of our unit--a fellow named John Ferguson, who was a master at the craft. He just lived cryptography and playing with words and letters. Every so often he'll send me a whole list of things to decipher to see if I can do it. History RG: You never revealed this during our conversations with Mr. Landsverk. [Chuckles]

RF: That's right. I think I was wise. Oral Society

LK: That would maybe be the origins of your interest in crossword puzzles.

RF: The other part of that experience I justSociety wanted to mention is I was able to take a course in Russian--a very good course, kind of a crash course, six weeks--and never learned to speak it, but at the end of that course I could read Russian newspapersHistorical and some short stories and so on. I've gotten pretty rusty at that, but I can still make my way through a fairly simple Russian piece of writing. So that was kind of a dividend.

LK: An effective teachingHistorical system.

RG: And then you returned toMinnesota Columbia after that year?

RF: I returned to Columbia and finished up my masters, took my doctoral course work but never finished, and I never wrote the dissertation. Minnesota RG: So you were at Columbia a total of about two years?

RF: Two years. That's right.

LK: You covered a lot in two years.

RF: Well, I went through the summer--both summers--so it was almost the equivalent of three years.

12 RG: And was Metta a student there at that time?

RF: Yes. Metta came to Columbia the second year I was there. She was in library school getting her library degree. And we got acquainted then. There were a group of us from Grinnell. We were just kind of thrown together. And we used to have dinner--four, five, six of us--at a Japanese restaurant where you could get a delicious meal for ninety-nine cents. Out of that developed our relationship. I was aware that Metta was going with a fellow at Grinnell from St. Paul--Leonard Leonard--Bud Leonard--and I thought that, you know, that was probably headed for marriage. But during one of these dinners at Columbia, she mentioned that their romance had broken up, so that certainly sparked my interest pursuing Metta. And then I had finished my course work at the end of the summer of 1953. She still had another semester to go. So we had become engaged and were planning to get married sometime after the first of the year. So at the end of the summer I looked around for a job, just kind of waiting until she finished, and I got a job at the HanoverProject Bank down on Wall Street--kind of a low level research job analyzing economic data and the market and so on. So I was just sort of hanging around there when the job offer from the MHS came. So I came back here. In October I started. And then we were married in February.

RG: That was October. History

RF: Of 1953. So my course work ended about August 1. I worked for a few weeks at the bank. Then I came back here, and Metta stayed there, and she cameOral out Societyin February.

LK: How did you learn about the opening at the Society?

RF: Well, that was interesting. It certainly Societystands in contrast to the way we search for people today. Harold Cater was a Columbia University graduate, as I think Cliff Lord was in Wisconsin. And I think they both favored Columbia UniversityHistorical history majors. Certainly Harold did. And I think he did most of his recruiting at Columbia. At least when I was interviewed he made the statement that he looked to Columbia for the best recruits. So I was interviewed by him. I think he took me to dinner--called me up. I had put my name in at the Placement Office at Columbia as interested in teaching researchHistorical--almost anything. And I got a call one day saying that Dr. Harold Cater, Director of the Minnesota Historical Society, would like to meet with me. So he called me up, said he was coming to NewMinnesota York, and could we have dinner? So he interviewed me at a restaurant, and then I didn't hear anything. This must have been, oh, probably in late August. I'm not sure of the month, but it was late summer. So he interviewed me, and I had no idea how it went. I suppose it was about two weeks later he wrote a letter saying that I was one of the three finalists,Minnesota but I came in second. In other words, he made the decision all by himself, I presume, and he hired a fellow named Thornton--I forget his first name--and something happened between those two. I've heard that Harold made sexual advances to him. I don't know, but it could be. And Thornton left, I think, after a week. So then Harold wrote me a letter asking me if I would be interested in the job. I had also given him a copy of my master's essay during that first interview. Well, as fate would have it, I was living in an apartment on Riverside Drive--really sub-letting a room from a fellow named John Kelly who had the apartment--and Kelly was very absent-minded and often would not pick up the mail. We depended on him to pick up the mail in the basement. So Harold Cater's letter plus the copy of my master's essay reposed in the mail room for about two weeks. And he interpreted that--Harold did--that I wasn't interested. But he said that he thought

13 he'd give me a call. So he gave me a call and said, "I haven't heard from you. Did you receive my letter?" And I said, "No." And he said, "Well, that's a surprise." So I checked around and found it in the mail room. So I called him back and said I was interested. So he really hired me without my ever coming out here or seeing the MHS. So we made the agreement. I'd be assistant director. I would start in late October.

LK: Did you save your exchange of correspondence with Harold Cater?

RF: I think I have that.

LK: I couldn't find it in the administrative office files, and I'm especially interested, because Harold Cater mentioned to me at the time you were hired that he was very impressed with your letters. I think you had two letters. So, of course, I wanted to read them in the ProjectMHS archives and could not find them.

RF: I think I have copies of those anyway.

LK: Good. History

RF: I'll try to find them. Oral Society LK: You should get those into the archives.

RF: Okay. Society LK: So you'd seen a little bit of St. Paul when youHistorical were at Fort Snelling.

RF: That's all I knew.

LK: Otherwise you came in cold. Historical RF: I'd gone through St. Paul on the way to Black Duck or Bemidji by train, and that was all. And we'd driven through it, but it wasMinnesota really a new world in a big city.

LK: Yes. Can you recall now your first impressions of the Society and the people there?

RF: Well,Minnesota I didn't have a very clear idea of what a state historical society did. I had joined the Iowa Historical Society primarily to receive the publication. They published the Palimsest, the Iowa Journal of History, and I think maybe two or three books for joining. That turned out not to be the best role model. But I had a little background as to what I thought the MHS did. Harold had boosted it a great deal--that this was a premiere society--and I'd certainly agree with that. I guess I was kind of awed by the place. He obviously had certain favorites. It may be a surprise to you, Lucile, you are one of them. You were considered one of the stellar performers and Mary Berthel and Bertha Heilbron. I think those are the three people he talked about the most. So he had done a great selling job for the Society.

14 RG: What was Grace Nute's position at that time? Was she part time?

RF: Two-thirds--research associate. I met her later--probably a couple weeks later. I think my first introduction was to either Bertha or Mary. It became very clear that he was close to both of them but probably closest to Mary. I think she played the role of confidante, advisor, I think you could say kind of an untitled assistant to the director. And I think she had played that role for Arthur Larsen too.

LK: Yes she had.

RF: There may be others. I don't know about Carlton Qualey or Lewis Beeson. But she was a strong force, and that became evident early. Project LK: Yes. She was a peacemaker, too, on Harold's behalf.

RF: It took me a long time in retrospect to realize the strained relationships that had developed between Harold and many staff members. So I'd say during the early months it seemed to me he had good relations with Mary and with Bertha. He and Bertha sharedHistory a love of classical music. I remember he invited me over one evening with Bertha to his house with his wife, Virginia, and we listened to classical music all evening. It was a delightful evening. But I think as time went on--it probably took me several months--I began to see that thereOral were someSociety serious problems here. Also, I was sheltered from that to a degree in that he gave me as my assignment working with field services, with supervising Arch and moving around the state. Public relations, Ruth Abernathy's area, membership, which didn't seem to be under anybody in particular--well, Phyllis Sandstrom, and she did a great job with it, but she, I think,Society really did it all on her own. So I was kind of constricted in these areas and not in the mainstream of administration for a long time. But that turned out, I think, to be very helpful to me. ArchHistorical introduced me to the state, moved around the state. Ruth had a lot of contacts, and she was very good on the political relationships of the Society to the state. And she was rather slow, I think, to speak her mind to me. I think she was sizing me up as to how I felt about Harold. But certainly after six months she and I, I think, developed a very close relationship, and she Historicalopened up considerably --never quite diagnosing Harold's problems, and that may have been difficult to do, but kind of indirectly she'd point out that he had poor relations with the media, very poor relationsMinnesota with the governor --C. Elmer Anderson--that he had alienated the legislature, and that he had alienated a lot of people, not the least of those being many key staff members, and that he'd become abusive of staff members. But as I say, I think I had a rather pleasant initial six months, and then things began to deteriorate. So I was only here about a year until he Minnesotawas discharged or he resigned, but that was a forced resignation.

LK: Were you attending meetings of the Executive Committee and the Council with Harold?

RF: No. I don't recall I attended any, and I'm not sure why. I don't recall he ever asked me not to attend, but my recollection is, you know, he was the link exclusively with the Executive Committee and the Executive Council.

LK: And any Council members, did you become acquainted with them as individuals during the first six months.

RF: Yes. I think Larry Rossman, who was the Vice President of the Society and who emerged as the most outspoken critic of Harold long before anybody else. In fact, I think Carl Jones had become President when? Late 1953?

RG: In May of 1953.

RF: I remember Carl Jones saying that Larry was kind of viewed as a bull in the china shop and a voice in the wilderness. People thought he was extreme in his criticism of Harold. Harold, I think, was closest to Bergmann Richards. I'd met these people, but I didn't develop any relationship. Vivian Weyerhaeuser, whom he was probably closest to of all. I mean, he talked to her the most, and I got the feeling that he liked to talk over all problems with her. Frank Hubachek of Chicago. Those are the ones that....Well, Leonard Carpenter to some extent, who was a viceProject president, and I think turned out to be very helpful to me. But those were the principal members. Harold, I think, had gone out of his way to attract socially prominent people and prominent business leaders and wealthy people to the Council. And Rossman's criticism was it didn't represent the state. It represented the Twin Cities, and he thought that was a great mistake. History LK: Did you become acquainted with Clarence Chaney at this time?

RF: No, not really--met him. No. I don't think I really developedOral Society any relationships, any friendships or ongoing relationships until Harold was out of the picture.

LK: Yes. I asked that question because Clarence Chaney made an effort, I think, to establish contact with the staff. I was doing oral historySociety interviews with our banking friends, Clive Jaffray and E. W. Decker, at that time, and he asked me to stop by at his office at the bank. And he asked me why it was in his conversations with the staffHistorical he could not get at any specific data. He could get a discontent, but he couldn't get content. Do you have any recollections of that probing that he was doing?

RF: I wasn't aware of it. Historical

LK: Well, I guess he may haveMinnesota held back from coming to you, because you were Harold's assistant.

RF: Yes. Ruth Abernathy was probably my closest informant. Of course, she disliked Harold intensely,Minnesota but I think in time she tried to be fair. And, of course, she'd talk to the press. There was a kind of--I guess we'd call him an investigative reporter today--Will Reeves.

LK: I remember him well.

RF: He had a serious alcoholic problem. It was sometimes hard to tell whether Will was drunk or sober, but a very good reporter. And she'd talk to Will Reeves, and he'd tell her about all this gossip about Harold and that he was a homosexual or that he was bi-sexual or that he was chasing women. It was kind of hard to sort that out. And, you know, she'd tell me about this, but some of it I'd kind of write off because of Ruth.

LK: And because of sorting out Will's opinions--not always easy. When the Council began to act, in reading the minutes it all seemed so sudden. There was a very bland account of meetings, etc. and then all of a sudden soon before the end of the Cater regime it shows up--these prohibitions against hiring and firing staff--heads of divisions--of the archives, of forest history--without the approval of the Council. Were you aware of when the Council made that move?

RF: I think they made it fairly late in Harold's directorship, and I'm not quite sure what the issue was. It may have been reaction against his hiring a number of homosexuals. It was at least stated to me that there was a strong belief that he had hired a couple of assistant directors who were homosexuals. The Dan King issue had broken. Dan King, I think, had been arrested maybe about a month, or a couple months, before Harold left--he was the chief librarian--for molesting a teenager from Mechanic Arts --a male--in the men's room. And I remember Harold havingProject to deal with that question. It may have been a reaction against the King incident.

LK: Now I remember the Dan King incident as triggering the first conversation of any length you and I had, because you asked Elwood Maunder and me to talk things over with you, because Harold Cater was out of town at the time the police action was taking place.History

RF: That's right. Maybe I should review that police action. Should I? Oral Society LK: I think so. That would be very helpful to get it straight in the record.

RF: Well, after Dan King was arrested and Harold was out of town, or I'm sure they would have called him, they called me as assistant director.Society The voice on the other end of the line said, "This is Lieutenant Blade of the Sex Division in the St. Paul Police Department, right down the street, and I'd like to see you right away." So I went down, andHistorical he reviewed the Dan King incident. And he said, "This may come out in the newspapers. I'm not promoting it." It turned out it didn't come out as I recall. But he said, "We believe there is a nest of homosexuals at the Minnesota Historical Society. What do you know about it?" And I said, "Well, I'm not aware of that. This is a great surprise and shock to me." Historical He had a list of names, but he said, "Well, what about your director?" That was like a thunderbolt. And I said, "Well, I'm not aware of any such activity by the director, but you obviously have some Minnesotaevidence there." And he said, "Well, we think we have some very strong evidence and that there's a pattern." He was a very talkative, loquacious fellow, and he said, "You'd be amazed how much of this there is in St. Paul." And he cited St. Paul Seminary and some of the colleges. And he said, "Well, I'm not asking you to do anything but keep your eyes open, and if you seeMinnesota any of this activity, I want you to report it to me immediately." So I said, well, I'd be alert. Then, I think, we had our meeting--what to do. You and Elwood were very helpful there. And I think Ruth, of course, had gotten wind of all this, and there was a lot of conversation. I never had a very clear idea how many staff members were aware of this. But I think we all began to wonder if this was part of Harold's problem dealing with people. And I had had an incident with Harold--never had any indication that he was a homosexual to me--but I had an incident with him in his office I suppose about two months before he left where it seemed to me he had been very high-handed and abusive of Chet Kozlak. He'd denied Chet to go on vacation. Chet had made his plans, and Harold told him he was needed at the Society. And I went in and said I thought that was

17 very unfair, unreasonable. And he kind of flew into a rage. That was the first sign I'd seen of that.

Well, there were a couple of other manifestations of that tendency, and I went in, being thoroughly disgusted, and I said, "Harold, I don't think it's going to work out here for me. I think maybe I should move on and look for another job." And he might have accepted that, but I think he was under fire at that time by the Council. Because Carl Jones, I think, had begun to shift his loyalty to Harold and had serious questions--maybe about Harold's sexual orientation--but I think it was more his handling of money, because Harold had run a deficit of $50,000. That was the first time I was approached by a member of the Council. Carl Jones and Larry Rossman came in to see me and said, "We have serious problems here, and we don't think Dr. Cater is going to work out."

RG: About when would this be? Project RF: I think that was about a month before he was--

RG: In August or--

RF: Yes, or even early September. And Harold had been makingHistory a number of trips around the country. That seemed to raise some eyebrows about, not making the trips, but the cost. But I think out of a $200,000 endowment or a quarter of a million endowment, running it in the red $50,000, I guess it's my judgment that was a more serious issue withOral Carl Jones Society and Larry Rossman than the sexual question.

LK: Did you have any indication that Julius Nolte had bad experiences during the Territorial Centennial, and I'll give you just briefly the Societyreason for that. Carl Jones and Julius Nolte were related through the marriage of their children. Historical RF: Right.

LK: And in one of the interviews with Carl Jones, which I'll give when I'm interviewed, he pointed to a pile in his study--pile ofHistorical files about this high--and said Julius Nolte brought these to me, and we have gone through them, and we've talked over the Territorial Centennial experience, and he and I, more or less--this is paraphrasMinnesotaing--he and I are together on this. Did you have any intimations of this?

RF: No. I enjoyed Julius Nolte, but I probably met him about a year after I became acting director or maybeMinnesota not quite that long, but it was long after Harold had departed. But I was aware of the problems and that they'd had enormous difficulty working together. I was well aware of the problems between Harold and Phil Jordan over the publication of People's Health. Grace Nute, whom at the time had been very supportive of me, and we'd developed kind of a friendship. We'd go out to dinner maybe a couple times during the year and I enjoyed her. She became a critic of Harold too, and this was probably my last six months before Harold left. As I say, the first six months I think I was quite unaware of what was going on. I was aware that Pete Popovich, who had worked for the Territorial Centennial, had become an enemy of Harold's and also had been elected to the Legislature and was out to get Harold, or so I'd heard. But no, I was not aware of the Nolte file. But I'm sure building up were a number of people who were talking to Carl Jones and

18 Larry Rossman. And I think it's significant that Carl Jones really was taking hold of this situation, because Harold had strong supporters on the Council and the Executive Committee. He had Bergmann Richards, Vivian Weyerhaeuser and Frank Hubachek. I'm not sure where Dean Blegen--I don't think Dean Blegen, perhaps, was too active on this. So Harold had a lot of strength there, and I think Carl Jones deserves a great deal of credit for moving in.

LK: Yes. It's interesting to put this network together. This is Pete Popovich working with Julius Nolte in the Territorial Centennial--also with Phil Jordan on the public health project as the legal expert and then into the Legislature. And it was at about the time you're speaking now--rather late in the Cater era--when Bertha Heilbron and Mary Berthel went to Dean Blegen, and I guess rather startled him by saying, "Somebody has to do something."

RG: What was the nature of the difficulty with Phil Jordan over The People's ProjectHealth?

RF: I never understood that.

LK: I understood it was the long delay in publication. History RF: That may have been.

LK: I'm not really sure of this, Russell and Rhoda. It seemsOral to me Society that Phil had the book finished and had understood it would move right into publication and that there was a delay.

RF: I think as we've all found out, Phil Jordan is not an easy person to work with either. Society RG: That's true. Historical

RF: The chemistry between him and Harold, I think, soured early.

LK: Yes. Historical RF: Bertha and Mary--especially Bertha--they were able to maintain relationships, I think, with both for a long time, but I felt Minnesotathey were very fair in their criticism of both men--that it wasn't all one-sided, that Phil was a prima donna and very able, but he wanted to write his own ticket.

LK: Right. And I think that probably Bertha and Mary eased the tensions a bit between Cater and Jordan. IMinnesota know that they [tensions] were bitter, but I don't believe they became as explosive as, say, between Rodney Loehr as head of the Forest History Society and Cater.

RF: That's right, yes. I had not met Rodney at that time, but it was called to my attention that there had been serious problems with Phil Jordan and with Rodney Lohr and to some extent with Grace Nute, who, I think, drifted along and never quite had a direct confrontation that I'm aware of with Harold, but she was certainly a critic and a constant critic of Harold. And she may have been talking to Carl Jones too. I don't know.

LK: And the Cater-Nute association began so well, with Bob Longyear giving a party on the North

19 Shore in which they were introduced, because Miss Nute was spending the summer there. So for awhile it was a very cordial relationship.

RF: Yes. We should mention, too, that--and you may have recollections on this, Lucy, but--you had a very diffuse government situation there. I think I had mentioned most of the strong people on the Council. But you had Council members--primarily Vivian Weyerhaeuser, who had created the Women's Organization, which I think was a well-intended effort to take the Society out into the public and broaden the base and increase the number of exhibitions and the quality of the exhibitions. I think you had the Women's Organization--primarily headed by Vivian Weyerhauser--she was the first president and had been succeeded, of the Women's Organization. But she was the power. You had members of that organization dealing directly with the staff--primarily Chet in his unit. So Chet and others were taking directions on exhibitions and plans from, really, volunteers, and I think that inevitably led to a lot of resentment, confusionProject and so on. And Harold seemed to encourage that. So I think that was a factor. I came to really develop quite a fondness for Vivian Weyerhauser, but it took a long time. I think her judgment in advising Harold was very bad, as to how to deal with people. I remember his telling me that she was comparing how he should act as director to how she dealt with her butler, and I can see that that's-- History RG: Her only employment experience, I suppose.

RF: And then on the other side you have Larry RossmanOral saying, Society"Well, look at the names on that Council--Weyerhaeuser, Pillsbury. Those aren't good names out in the state." He said, "We've got to get this place closer to the people." So I think those experiences had quite an effect on me in devloping my view of the directorship and the role of the director--that I was always wary of, say, a Council member--even an officer of the SocietySociety--wanting to direct staff members. I think that's a lesson that I took very seriously. Historical LK: And the direction of staff members expanded beyond museum staff, since other personnel were called to help out in the museum for major exhibits, and they in turn were directed by Women's Organization members. Historical RF: That's right. Minnesota LK: So it really came to a pretty kettle of fish.

RF: Yes. Can you remember Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Howard Gray? Minnesota LK: Yes I do.

RF: A delightful lady from Rochester. Well, she came up with this extremely ambitious program of lectures sponsored by the Women's Organization, and I think Harold left in mid-stream while she was president of the Women's Organization. But that took an inordinate amount of staff time, and it began to cut in on my time--I thought valuable time--to service the Women's Organization. And then you had this situation of each female member of the Society had one dollar deducted from their membership to go to the Women's Organization. Well, that built up resentment. As soon as a number of women members learned about that, they dropped their membership in the Society. So,

20 you had a whole array of problems going on here.

RG: Do you have any particular women who you recall objected to this situation?

RF: I can't come up with any specifically. I think those I was aware of came through the mail--that I didn't know about this practice, and I object to it. Please cancel my membership.

RG: It was early in 1953--January as I recall--that the Clark papers were discovered. Was Cater's handling of that situation a factor in his fortunes?

RF: That's hard to say. He certainly handled it badly, but I don't think he was particularly blamed for it by the Council. That's my judgment. Lucile was closer to that, and the lawsuit, I think, was underway by the time I arrived. Project

LK: Yes. I agree with you, Russell. I don't think that he was ever taken to task for misrepresentation.

RG: The misrepresentation-- History

LK: To the family, of what had been discovered. Oral Society RG: I see.

LK: We learned about it only because he felt it was a good ploy to say that some valuable papers had been discovered that needed further investigation,Society but never mentioned the magic words . Historical

RF: Yes, he down-played the significance.

LK: Yes. Historical RF: And weren't there three sets of heirs, and the Society had been dealing with one primarily, right? Minnesota

LK: Yes, with Mrs. Vaclav Vytlacil, who was a granddaughter of Hammond whose house was being cleared out. So it was obscure in the relationship among family members as well as these other facetsMinnesota that we have mentioned.

RF: I've always felt that if he'd allowed Lucile to handle that and had followed her advice, I think the Society would have those papers today.

LK: I missed my chance. The offer was made. I must say that--that I would go to the family. And I sensed a little reluctance on the part of Dean Blegen, who sat in on that meeting. It wasn't overt, but I could sense, you know--a junior member of the organization carrying out a mission of this magnitude--and I responded to his reticence as I remember it and turned down the thing. I'm not sure that I....I probably would have lost them, I don't know.

RF: [Chuckles] That I doubt. It would have been well worth a try.

RG: We've talked a good bit about Cater's relationship to the Council members. How about the staff? There was a staff organization formed. At what time did that take shape? Most of what I heard about this period was through June Holmquist, and I only regret that I can't recall more specifics of it. But my impression was that the Staff Organization was definitely a defense group against Harold Cater.

RF: I think that's true. I think we were trying to mobilize defenses wherever we could. I think that was one reason why I leaned on Lucile and Elwood Maunder. I think we tried to spell out whatever scenarios we could. What do we do if this goes public? If Harold survives and stays on, are there going to be mass resignations? You know, we talked about all these things. ButProject certainly, Rhoda, I think that whole series of events that led to a big trauma created a strong bond through much of the staff. I remember Lucile and I used to talk about that long after.

RG: That was very evident when I--even as late as 1958 when I joined the staff. History RF: There was a very strong bond there. I think Harold had probably different relationships. I remember Arch saying that Harold created a lot of problems, but he found Harold a very pleasant person to travel with. Oral Society

LK: Yes, that's true.

RF: Good conversationalist, a lot of ideas, Societycould be very pleasant. I came to view him as almost a Dr. Jeckel-Mr. Hyde personality. He'd be very charming, very courteous, thoughtful of people, and then he could be downright abusive to people, I mean,Historical just unbearably so. And I think there are probably a lot of incidents I'm not aware of where he was abusive, and he, no doubt, drove away a number of staff members. Others had to survive during difficult days.

RG: Are you aware of his Historicalhaving fired anybody unjustifiably?

RF: Well, I think Bob Jacoby,Minnesota who was an assistant director before me. I understand--this is second hand--but he made sexual advances to Jacoby. So I think it's hard to sort out how much of this relates to Harold's homosexuality or not.

RG: I recallMinnesota Chet Kozlak having talked to me about having been directed to do work at Harold's home over the weekend--certainly quite unjustifiable--not a part of his job at all. That is one incident I recall. I haven't heard too many other stories. I gather that Chet had a pretty rough time with Harold.

RF: Oh I think so.

LK: And for the Hubert Smith difficulty, we may have to wait for an interview with Alan Woolworth on that, because I knew it was most stressful, but have never known just what was going on.

RF: One person who interviewed me after I received the job offer, and I'm just trying to get my chronology straight here. In other words, this is after I'd received information that I came in second, Thornton was hired, then Thornton left, Harold made an offer to me. Before I accepted that--I think I said I wanted to think it over, or I'll write you a letter in a day or two--Jim Whitehead, who was another assistant director, interviewed me on Harold's behalf. I think Jim was director of the Staten Island Institute of Science and History or something like that. And Jim Whitehead gave a very favorable view of Harold--not totally, but said that his career in Minnesota had been a positive one and that he felt there was a good challenge there. He did say Harold at times is a little difficult to work with, but you'll find him stimulating, and it'll be good for your career. So I would say of former staff members, there was one instance where I got a favorable reading of Harold Cater.

RG: My recollection is that there was a mention in the Executive Committee minutesProject that you [Kane] took notes on that in about August of 1953, which would have been just before the end, that he had recommended to the Committee the hiring of a chief librarian, who I believe the name was Thornton. Could that be possible?

LK: Yes. History

RG: And the Executive Committee did not accept his recommendation. Oral Society LK: That's right, Rhoda. That had slipped my mind. And that was the prelude to the action of the Council on no hiring, no firing of division heads without consent of Council. Was Esther Sperry gone by the time you came? Society RF: Yes. I think I met her, but she was gone. Historical RG: A recollection that you had, Lucile, that the Executive Committee took action on instructing Dr. Cater not to hire or fire without its permission on major staff appointments. My recollection is that that occurred in December of 1952, was passed on to the Council and ratified early in 1953, so that by August when he recommendedHistorical a new chief librarian and his recommendation was not accepted, that was the first application of that policy. That's again from very sketchy Executive Committee minutes. Minnesota

LK: Yes. It's too bad those Committee minutes are so sketchy.

RG: I recallMinnesota another thing in those minutes that you took notes on--the presentation of statehood centennial plans to the governor, who I believe by that time was Orville Freeman. And Freeman would not accept them from Dr. Cater, and said that he wanted to review them further.

RF: I think that was C. Elmer Anderson.

RG: I can't recall just where I read that.

RF: In 1953 that would have been C. Elmer--even in 1954.

23 RG: Yes, 1954 that would have been.

RF: But Freeman would be elected in November of 1954.

RG: Yes, I see. Okay.

RF: Yes. I have a vague recollection of that that C. Elmer Anderson, who as I've come to know him, is not a particularly combative person--very easy to deal with--that he was thoroughly fed up with Harold Cater, and I gather there was a history behind that. And he would accept no plans from the Society so long as Harold was director.

RG: We were also discussing the creation of the Staff Organization, and I said that I had had the impression from conversations with staff members--particularly June HolmquistProject--that the organization if it was not formed specifically as a defensive alliance against Cater, it was certainly mobilized as that at some time during this last period.

LK: I can remember the organization meeting, and you were there, Russell, so that helps us place it somewhat. And I think it was the first time that the staff had takenHistory its measure of you, if I may speak that way. The proposal was made that you be elected president of the Staff Organization, and you stood up and said, "I am identified with administration." Well at that time, that was a bad word. And yet, after that meeting, no one spoke negativelyOral about Societyit. They said, "That's right." You know, you acted properly. And Gene Becker was elected president. He was the one who had nominated you, so he took his turn. But that was a fairly dramatic inauguration of the Staff Organization. Society RF: When do you place that? I remember the event,Historical but I can't place it in time.

LK: Yes. We were on the third floor in what is now the exhibition room, and I can't place it closer than it was during your tenure as assistant director. But I will talk a good deal about the Staff Organization when I'm interviewed, because I was on the Council--on the Board rather--and served as president during one of theHistorical difficult periods.

RG: I am particularly interestedMinnesota that we get a record of the role that that organization played and that the staff played.

LK: It was largely arbitration, and in that way it had the beginnings of unionism. Minnesota RG: The implication was there.

LK: It was definitely.

RG: I recall also at some point in our conversations early on about this that June Holmquist mentioned that you had been talking of leaving and that some of the staff members informally urged you not to. Is that true?

RF: Yes, that's true, and it stems from that incident, I think, with Chet Kozlak--I think there

24 probably was an accumulation of some others. In fact, I have a recollection of Harold being quite abusive to Lucile one time. I wasn't in on it, but I heard about it.

LK: That's the time he fired me.

RF: Okay. Well, you can talk about that.

LK: Yes, I will.

RF: That made a deep impression on me, and I guess at that time I felt there was really no question here. If you have to make a choice, is your loyalty with Harold or with the staff? --it's clearly with the staff. And my relationships with Harold were very frayed by that time. But I think I also had the feeling that time was running outProject on him and that there were better times ahead. At least I felt that way. I might just mention this.

I had two incidents where I talked to Harold or Virginia, his wife, one before he left and one after. My recollection is that there was an Executive Council meeting, or maybe it was an exhibit opening. It may have been both. I think it was a public event on theHistory third floor of 690 Cedar Street and that Virginia attended. And this is just a couple of weeks before Harold's resignation. And she'd always been extremely cordial to me and Metta. And she came over and looked quite disturbed and said, "I'd like to speak to you a minute." AndOral she said, Society "What do you think Harold's problem is?" Which is a rather blunt way to open up a conversation. And I said, "Well, Virginia, I'm fairly new here, but I've been here long enough to realize that he just can't deal with people. The way he treats people is unacceptable." And she said, "Well, do you think he's ill?" And I said, "I do. I think he needs help." And she said,Society "Well8, I appreciate your comments" or something like that and walked away. And then...maybe this is later in the sequence after Dr. Buck had left, and I think I was still assistant director but moving towardHistorical acting director. This perhaps was three months after Harold's resignation. They invited me over--the Caters--to visit with them. Maybe I should take that up later. There's not a great deal to it.

RG: Go ahead. Historical

RF: I think it was Harold whoMinnesota called up and said, "How are things going?" I said, "Fine." He said, "Well, Virginia and I would like to see you. Why don't you come on over?" So I said, "Well, why don't I come over after work today?" So I went over about five o'clock. And it was one of those visits that seemed kind of interminable. You know, you were sort of glad to be there, but you'd just as soon itMinnesota would be over. And as I recall, we talked about pretty general things. How's Mary? How's Bertha? How's Lucile? How's Chet? I think we talked about a couple of trips I made out into the state. How's Arch and so on. And then the only time we really talked about the Society and how things were going, Harold said, "Well, I want to congratulate you on doing a good job." And I said, "Well, I think it's pretty uncertain who's going to be director of the Society, but I appreciate your comments." And he said, "Well, I wish you luck. I hope it goes your way," or something like that. That's the last time I saw the Caters.

LK: Yes. Did you ever hear from him after that?

25 RF: Never did. I had heard that Vivian Weyerhaeuser helped him secure his next position at Sleepy Hollow Restorations, which is a Rockefeller funded operation. And then I think I received a couple of letters asking where Harold Cater was, and I think--he was a life member--I think we could track him down. Never heard anything direct.

LK: Yes. What do you think were his strongest positive points?

RF: I think his enthusiasm, and I think he did have a personal appeal to some people--good looking person, very neat. He was articulate and bright. I think he certainly was at home with American history. Wasn't his dissertation on Henry Adams?

LK: Yes. Project

RF: But he seldom talked about history. That always struck me as a little odd--once in a while. I guess I'm not the best person to evaluate his strengths given the rather bitter experience I shared. I do think he represents in the history of the directorship quite a change. Apart from all these problems we've been talking about, I think he was the first full timeHistory director, perhaps since Solon J. Buck. I'm not sure Solon J. Buck was full time. There had always been a linkage with the University of Minnesota History Department, and I think the Society in many ways was held back in its development because of that linkage. It was used, I Oralthink, too Society much as the servant of the History Department. With Carlton Qualey, when he came along just before Harold, I think there was a similar arrangement. Carlton was part time, because he taught at Carleton College. I think the appointment of Harold broke that tradition, and that was a good thing for the Society. He had a lot of ideas on how to broaden public interestSociety in the Society and Minnesota history, but I think most of those ideas were not founded on anything very substantial. I think he was overly attracted to the social sphere. It strikes me he would have been moreHistorical at home in an art museum than a historical society.

LK: Do you think he fed to any extent on the ideas of Clifford Lord and Ed Alexander? Historical RF: I think so--certainly Clifford Lord. Clifford Lord, as you and I know, I think was a tremendous force at that time Minnesotaand became a very strong influence on me. I think there was always a lot of jealousy of Clifford Lord and all the things he'd accomplished with the New York State Historical Association and the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. But I think Harold followed Cliff's career very closely and adopted some of the ideas, or tried to. Minnesota LK: I had the feeling that that was true at the time we were experiencing it, but have never been really sure of that.

RF: Well, I think there was always a rivalry between the MHS and the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, and that's, I think, a healthy one. I think in Harold's period Minnesota usually came off on the short end, and that, I think, frustrated him.

RG: He seems to have viewed the Society--and this would have been quite a break with tradition--to have viewed it as a cultural institution.

RF: I think so.

RG: Reviewing the record as I've been doing the last few days, he founded the Women's Organization almost immediately after he came. And of course, the first or second year after his arrival was the Territorial Centennial. And there seems to have been a great burst of energy then. And of course, it fed into something that was happening around the state too. He took advantage of that.

RF: I think that's true, Rhoda. He probably brought a very fresh view of it as a cultural organization, and I think he had a strong interest in the museum part of the Society. The museum was never rated very highly among any of the directors, I think, up until Nina. I'm frank to say I don't think it was one of my strongest areas of interest. I think it was with Harold.Project I think he saw possibilities there, and he tried to use museum exhibitions to reach a broad public. But I think he saw this through far too limited a perspective. I mean, his idea...and you can see why I had some problems with him, I think he liked a very nice tea with the finest kind of silver and china and so on. That was his arena. And I think he attracted people to supporting who liked that kind of arena too. The Women's Organization fitted that very well. History

LK: In one of the reports you [Gilman] and I read, there's a comment about a meeting taking place at the Society, and a truckload of flowers arrived. And youOral know, Society there was the same excitement about that as we would have now over a major academic accomplishment.

RF: I think Harold was a good speaker. I saw him perform a few times. And I think he relished the role of being in the Cliff Lord type of mold,Society this somewhat anti-academic--I wouldn't say populist, but broad--trying to bring broad public interest to the Society. He liked that role, and he liked to go out and talk to groups. Historical

RG: Did he do much, if any speaking around the state? I get the impression that he focused pretty much on the Twin Cities. Historical RF: Yes, very little is my impression. Maybe Duluth. No, he was very much confined to the Twin Cities by interest. I think he enjoyedMinnesota traveling around to see what other state historical societies and museums were doing.

RG: He apparently did quite a bit of that. Minnesota RF: Yes, and he'd bring back ideas and talk about them. I think some of the more pleasant episodes with the staff was hearing Harold bring back a report on a trip, and he did that well.

RG: They were maybe wishing they could have gone. [Chuckles]

LK: I think another positive thing was that he did urge the staff to become members of professional organizations and to participate, which had sagged quite a bit by the time I had come. It was rare for a staff member to go out and read a paper before a national or professional organization.

RF: Yes. I guess you'd say that was a contribution of Harold--that he viewed the professional staff more broadly than his predecessors. I think they viewed them primarily as professional historians and a rather small group of professional historians at that.

LK: So when we study this in perspective, we may call it the end of the Blegenist era when there were people like Arthur Larsen and Carlton, both strongly influenced by the Theodore Blegen idea.

RG: Are you aware that Cater did anything to try to upgrade staff salary?

RF: I'm not aware of that.

RG: He had a lot of budget problems. Project

RF: He may have.

LK: I will talk a bit about that in the interview, because I remember being a bit surprised at the initiation of the classification procedures. It wasn't compatible withHistory some other attitudes toward staff. Oral RG: He did toward the end of his tenure reorganize the Society, asSociety I recall, into double the number of divisions or something. And then you rather quickly brought it back into line.

RF: That's right. He had what--I think he gave a speech on this somewhere--he called a fourteen ring circus. And out of a staff of forty or a littleSociety less, it seemed to me that was sort of like the Mexican Army--a lot of generals and colonels. Yes.Historical I reacted negatively to that, and I think I rolled it back to seven or something like that.

RG: I believe something like that.

RF: Harold was a very creativeHistorical person. I mean, there were times when he was fun to be with, because he'd reel off all kinds of ideas. Most of them, I think, were misguided. But occasionally he'd have a very fresh insight. Minnesota

LK: Yes, and occasionally laughed at his--

RF: Yes.Minnesota He's a very good host--I think especially when Virginia was part of the scene. I never understood that relationship or how it lasted. But they could give a delightful dinner party, and he'd be at his best then, I think.

LK: Yes.

RG: Did they have any children?

RF: Two children -- two attractive children, as I recall.

28 LK: Young Dean -- Dean was their son I think.

RF: That's right.

LK: Was their daughter Elizabeth?

RF: That's right. Good recall, Lucy.

LK: I'm sometimes better with children's names than I am with adults. Did you first meet Solon Buck when he came to be acting director?

RF: That's right. I think he came out immediately, didn't he, after Harold left. Harold left about the middle of October, as I recall. Buck may have attended an earlier meeting ofProject the Council, and he was introduced to me, I think, by Carl Jones, who said that we were very fortunate to have an old pro, you know, one of the leaders of his field, archivist of the United States, and so on. And he introduced us, and that was an extremely interesting, exciting experience. My recollection is that he was on the scene about two months as acting director--Solon Buck. And it was really a mentor-student relationship. I spent a lot of time with him and likedHistory him. I think he was all I expected him to be and more--a little on the staid side perhaps in personality, a little stuffy, but only until you got to know him, a good sense of humor. I remember on any document Solon Buck received, he would--in very poor handwriting--put SJB andOral the date Society he received it--even ephemeral kind of documents.

RG: Very systematic person. Society RF: Very--true archivist. But he had always retained,Historical I think, a deep interest in the Society, and there is no question in my mind that he really turned the Society towards some great decades when he was superintendent. He clarified that, that "in my day we called it superintendent," but he said, "My wife never liked that term because they're janitors in New York State." And he on occasion would come out with a salty story--some good times with him. I personally think he was much more of a builder of the SocietyHistorical than Dean Blegen, but I think they complemented each other very well. It was a remarkable partnership. And I think Blegen probably could smooth over some of the rough edges of Buck--Blegen Minnesotathe consummate diplomat, public relations person, and so on. But I think Buck back when he came--1914, 1913--I think he professionalized the Society, and for the first time I think he brought in professional historians to guide it. So I think in many ways, while we've added to it in my time, I think the basic organization and orientation of the Society to collect, preserve,Minnesota interpret Minnesota history, I think that's Buck's idea.

LK: It must have been a very exciting time, particularly in the early 1920's when he got this aggregation of people together.

RF: I think it was, and it was an exciting time to see most of them still around. I remember he was invited to speak at the Upper Midwest History Conference while he was acting director. I think we went down to St. Olaf. And he talked about his early days at the Society and that he felt there was a need for the Society to develop a broader public. And many of these ideas that we're all familiar with in our time and we may think are fairly original--a newsletter, radio programs, a tour program,

29 county historical societies--I think Buck was working on all those things. I mean, not exclusively. He had a lot of help. But I think he's one of the giants, not only here but I think in the broad field.

RG: I've always been impressed by the fact that he who was academic and had--his principal interests were in political history--showed the vision he did concerning Grand Portage--the need to preserve that and its importance to Minnesota.

RF: Well, I think Grand Portage had a fatal attraction for a number of MHS staff members--Willoughby Babcock, Grace Nute and many others.

RG: Alan Woolworth.

RF: Alan Woolworth, that's right. You're right. Project

RG: I believe it.

RF: No, you're right, Rhoda, and I think that took the Society into archaeology to some extent, which I don't think either Buck or Blegen did a great deal with, butHistory they did it in Grand Portage.

RG: Did you have any particular impressions of Mrs. Buck?Oral Society RF: Yes--a delightful lady. I kept in touch with her after he died and had a couple of lunches with her in Washington, D. C. I think she deserves a lot of credit for his writing. I think some of the books he was author of--not the Grainger Movement but subsequently--I think she did a lot-- certainly a lot of the editing and some of theSociety writing. She, I was told, had a very serious alcohol problem for a time, and they had some serious maritalHistorical problems but stayed together. I remember Arch and I were in Washington, D. C., one time after I'd been appointed director at a conference, and the Bucks had us over for dinner, and that was a lot of fun. They were living near the Library of Congress. He was assistant librarian of Congress, I think for the manuscripts division. And I remember he took us into his den, and I'm probably emulating him here, because he had about four card tables piled full of papers.Historical And he said whenever he needed more space, he just set up another card table. Minnesota LK: You can do that. Elizabeth Buck I came to know quite well, and I remember the first mention--I heard it was from Mary Wheelhouse Berthel--and she said "the beautiful and brilliant Elizabeth Hawthorne Buck." And I never changed my opinion. Minnesota RF: I agree--very attractive into her advanced seventies, I think, she lived, and high spirited, fine sense of humor.

LK: And she contributed so much down into her old age. She was a mainstay of the American Archivist for quite some time--not heralded. She did the work behind the scenes--had an office at the National Archives. But an admirable woman.

RG: Interesting--another bit of women's history.

30 RF: Oh, I think there's a lot of women's history in the Society. We've talked about Elizabeth Buck. We've talked about Mary Berthel. We talked about Bertha. That's something else. I think he brought in talented women--very strong women. He did mention one time that one of his appointments he came to regret. He liked her personally, but that was Gertrude Krausnick, the chief librarian, whom I never met. But he said she couldn't make any final decision. So they'd make an appointment once a week, and she'd come in with this list of decisions, and he'd say yes, no, yes [chuckles]. I think he's very important to the Society--certainly important, I think, in building some confidence in me during an uncertain time and couldn't have been more cordial or helpful. I think he came to favor my appointment as director--I don't know when, because I think they were looking around at a number of candidates. The two that he mentioned they were looking at--this probably is late 1953 or early 1954--were Elwood Maunder, who was director of the Forest History...what was it then? Project LK: Foundation.

RF: Forest History Foundation. And Casey [Merrill] Jarchow of Carleton.

LK: Oh, I didn't know that. History

RF: Dean of Men at Carleton and an active member of the Council, not to be compared with--he wasn't that close to Harold Cater, but he was probably oneOral of the fewSociety connections with academia. Even though he was a Dean of Men, he had been a history professor. One of the few connections the Society had left by the time Harold resigned.

LK: What was the selection process? WereSociety you asked to meet with Council members personally?

RF: I think I just sort of drifted into it. I think itHistorical was a case of being in the right place at the right time. I don't think they thought about a search. They thought about a search, but I think after Elwood said he would not be interested and Casey said he would not be interested--they may have talked to others, but I'm not aware of it--I think they then turned to me, and I think I did have a good support on the staff by that Historicaltime. And Carl Jones, I remember, wrote me a letter just saying that--this is probably May or June of 1955. I'd gone through an evolution there. Under Buck--he was acting director--but then heMinnesota went back to Washington, and they gave me the title assistant director serving as acting director. And then--when was it, April of 1954--I became acting director. So I think by that time probably enough support had solidified, so I was appointed.

RG: WhenMinnesota Harold Cater first hired you, was your title assistant director or administrative assistant?

RF: Assistant director.

LK: That was a change, wasn't it, from the previous.

RF: That's right.

LK: When you took over, did the Council give you a lot of advice? Did they have a program they

31 wanted instituted other than the institution being put back together?

RF: No. I think there were still divisions within the power group there. I had been told that Vivian Weyerhaeuser and Frank Hubachek and Bergmann Richards--Bergmann Richards, the former president of the Society, a Minneapolis attorney--that they made strenuous efforts to defeat Carl Jones and Larry Rossman and keep Harold on. But I think certainly as they learned more about the problems, they gave up on that. No. I didn't receive a great deal of advice. I think Solon Buck gave me most of the advice. Carl Jones had become ill then. Remember, he had a serious heart attack. I think that was a very unfortunate circumstance for the Society. He would have done great things. Well, he did a lot, but he would have done even more for the society. We really had an activist president then, I think in the best sense--tremendously interested in the manuscripts area--I think in all areas. Project LK: Pictures too--his fundraising for that booklet.

RF: He used to refer to the Society as a "temple of history." So he became ill. Rossman certainly offered me advice, and he was never reluctant to give it and I think on the whole, very good advice. I think he influenced me to become acquainted with the whole state.History He was probably the earliest influence in that direction. President James Morrill of the University of Minnesota never gave me much advice but said he was always available. He was a member of the Executive Committee. I think of all the university presidents during my time, he wasOral the most Society interested in the Society. So it was just reassuring to have the president of the University behind you. And when we get to the Grace Nute episode, of her leaving, he plays an important role there. Clarence Chaney succeeded Carl Jones, and he would give you advice if you asked for it, but his paramount interest was the then Minneapolis Symphony. He was presidentSociety of that association. Most of his fundraising energy went into that. And we would make an appointment to meet once a month, and he would always write it down in his appointment book, and I'd usuallyHistorical go over to the Symphony office the in Northrop Auditorium, and I'd really frame the agenda and seek his advice. I don't think a great deal was accomplished when he was president, but he was a sounding board and very supportive. But as I say, I think his energies were so caught up in the Symphony, the Society didn't benefit much, except from his excellent waterHistorical colors--fine painter.

LK: One of our...Lampert wasMinnesota still very much in the picture.

RF: That's right. As far as the selection process, I think it came down to a kind of a review committee. I think Carl Jones and Larry Rossman probably had made the decision to hire Fridley, but I thinkMinnesota they did have a review committee made up of Leonard Carpenter, who I thought was excellent, fine judgment. He came out of the wealthy forest products industry, but had a very broad view. Leonard Carpenter, Dean Blegen and Vivian Weyerhaeuser, I think, were the committee. And then Carl Jones made the appointment.

LK: Yes. Those were momentous months when you think of how critical it was to the directions of the Society. Theodore Blegen we've talked about a little bit, where he stood in all of this. I was surprised that he held his hand as long as he did. Did that surprise you?

RF: On my appointment or--

LK: No, on terminating Harold's appointment.

RF: Oh yes. I was too. I thought he played it close to the vest. I'm not sure how influential he was. You mentioned Bertha and Mary going to him, and I think he had great confidence in them. How much he did I am unsure of. I think Rossman and Jones were clearly the people who brought this turnaround.

LK: Right. Now we get down to your administration of the Society. In all of your work with the state [unclear] in the first ten years, did you see many changes in attitudes in the amount of freedom they gave you, the amount of initiative they expected from you?

RF: I think they gave me a lot of freedom right from the beginning. In fact, I thinkProject I was really seeking more direction, more time, more of an activist Executive Committee. Now that varied somewhat with presidents. As I say, Carl Jones was always available, interested, helpful. And then Larry Rossman, who was never president but vice-president, I think after Jones became ill, he was the most active. And when he'd come down to the Cities, we'd have lunch, and he'd usually offer constructive criticism. And he was the one who started this newsletterHistory of little vignettes from Minnesota history. And I guess this would be the one instance where you had a member of the Council kind of mandating a program. Oral Society RG: As I recall, these were newspaper vignettes that were circulated, that were passed around the state.

RF: Bertha took a very jaundiced view of that,Society that a lot of that was inaccurate and wasn't very good. I think they had an exchange--kind of a polite exchange one time--where she felt these ought to be edited by someone at the Society, and he didn'tHistorical think they needed to be edited. Bertha held her own there, but he offered some criticisms on Minnesota History. He said, "Nobody reads them. The style is too dull," and so on. The journalist versus the historian.

RG: That's very interesting.Historical Didn't he have a lot to do with the beginnings of Minnesota History News? Minnesota RF: More his son, George.

RG: It was another generation of Rossman. Minnesota RF: Yes. See, Rossman died rather suddenly, before Jones. I think Jones died in 1957, and Rossman became ill. He was very active right up to the end. So in answer to your question, Lucy, I think they gave me great latitude from the beginning. I'm just trying to think of the other presidents. Leonard Lampert followed Clarence Chaney's practice of meeting once a month. Sometimes I'd take Bob [Wheeler] over with me. And I remember--and Bob and I used to joke about this--we'd walk into this office at Snelling and Grand--they owned an apartment house--using [housing] the Lampert Lumber Company, a big operation. And we'd walk into this office, and there wouldn't be a paper on his desk, and he'd give us lectures on the importance of neat offices and so on. But he tried a few things. I think our corporate membership program was really Leonard Lampert's idea,

33 and he worked on that. I think the first time we sent out the letters, we got maybe twenty back. So that was a big step forward. Then after Leonard Lampert, we have John DeLaittre. And John, I would say, was not an active president. He was a marvelous presiding officer--just superb. We worked a little on the Civil War Centennial. He probably was most interested in that when we had Bell Wiley come out to speak. And then after him came Walter Trennery. I remember John DeLaittre questioned the election of Walter Trennery, feeling he was kind of an unguided missile. But I spoke for him, and whoever headed the nominating committee did. I think in spite of the Cater period, I think we fell back to a great extent on the Buck tradition that the director plays a very strong role here.

LK: Yes. The CEO.

RF: Yes. Project

LK: I remember rather early you began to come to staff members and ask for suggestions for nominations to the Council and Committee. Were you making a conscious effort to open this thing up beyond the Twin Cities area? History RF: Oh yes. I thought that was extremely important. I'd been influenced by Rossman, and I'd heard about all these other criticisms, and it seemed to me that politically that was essential for the Society, to be identified across the state. You have a lot ofOral things Society happening at that time. I think Neil Mattson came on the scene about 1957, 1958. I met him because he was involved in the Marshall County Statehood Centennial Celebration. And Neil deserves a lot of credit. I think Neil's biggest contribution to the Society was reaching key legislators and making known the Society's needs. Judge Magney up in Duluth,Society he'd been a member of the Council--not too active a one--was another one who said, "Well, in order to succeed as director, you've got to get out of the office in St. Paul and move around the state." AndHistorical I was fully in agreement with that, but I was encouraged to do that by a number of people. And I'd also remembered what Rossman said that on the governing body, I think, we had to broaden that and diversify it. And I think to some extent we succeeded. Historical LK: Yes and even more in the next ten years. Minnesota RF: Now a few times Council members would come forward with a name. I remember Leonard Lampert suggested Ted Fritsche of New Ulm, and that seemed like a good idea, and I think it was. But there were all too few suggestions from the Council. There was an excellent Council member who headedMinnesota the Finance Committee -- C.F. Codere, Charles Codere--

LK: I remember him.

RF: Who was head of St. Paul Fire and Marine. That's what we called it then. And he raised significant money for the time. I think he got the Bigelow Foundation, which had a connection with St. Paul Fire and Marine, and the Tozer Foundation and Homer Clark. I think he raised about $20,000 a year for us, and that was a lot of money.

LK: Oh, indeed it was.

RF: And he was a wonderful person. But again, I think the Council deferred a great deal to the director. The director ought to run the place, he ought to frame the agenda. It's up to the director how he deploys the staff and so on. Probably a few instances of a Council member relaying a criticism to me, which may have come from the staff, but it was very rare.

LK: Yes. Your mentioning Leonard Lampert reminds me of an incident you told me about a number of years ago. Leonard Lampert was advising not only to keep the desks neat, but to look out the window. Do you remember that?

RF: That's right.

LK: I think it'd be very nice to get that -- Project

RF: Well, I think you recall that one better than I do, Lucy.

LK: He was speaking of the hurry--how we'd loaded our lives down with so much activity that you end up accelerating your pace constantly. And he said, really goodHistory planning, it has to have this component--to take time and just stop and look out the window.

RF: That's right. And he had another variation of that. HeOral drew Societyan analogy with his role in the Lampert Lumber Company as President and CEO. He said, "I just don't want to have my mind cluttered with too much detail. I travel around to these Lampert lumber yards. All I do is walk through and look, and then I come back and from all these impressions I formulate the plans for the company." Society Historical LK: That's interesting. A remarkable man. He was not a very impressive looking man.

RF: No.

LK: But as you came to knowHistorical him--at least I was very surprised.

RF: I was too. Minnesota

LK: The strength and independence.

RF: Yes.Minnesota And I would say he added some energy to the presidency. Again, he was part of that Metropolitan Opera group, which Vivian Weyerhaeuser developed out of Minnesota, and he was part of the Symphony group that Clarence Chaney led, so the Society probably ranked about fourth on his priority list. And yet, I think he gave it more time than, say, Clarence Chaney did.

LK: Now in moving away from elitism on the Council, did you ever have exchanges with members of the Society about opening up the whole process of Council selection?

RF: Oh yes, and that, I think, continues to this day. I forget when that first came up -- and I may have brought it up -- that we really had kind of an antiquated system here in which the director

35 played, perhaps, too prominent a role of suggesting Council members and that we ought to have some kind of a system at least to solicit names that the Nominating Committee could review. And I think that came up throughout my directorship and comes up every so often now. But every time that's come up, it's been tabled for further study or further consideration. I think persons like Curt Roy have spoken against it. Who else? Chuck Arneson. A feeling that that may be a hazard for the Society. Personally I would like to have seen that adopted -- at least a limited version. I think I would favor rather than total election by the membership, I think a survey of the membership annually in which they can suggest names and reasons for those names. And I'm sure that's on Nina's mind. We've talked about that from time to time. I think it's needed. I think the Society could be getting out of touch with social change not to do that.

LK: I recall so vividly what happened in the Society of American Archivists when we opened up the process. It had been a Nominating Committee appointed from the existing Council,Project etc., a self-perpetuation. And when it came to be a system something like you mentioned with nominations flowing into a Nominating Committee from the membership, the organization took off, so it's much more imaginative process.

RF: Yes. I think there is a reform needed there. The Executive CouncilHistory as I knew it, and perhaps as I dealt with it, was overwhelmingly interested in programs. To some extent budget, but I don't think ever it wanted to talk about governments very long. I remember a prominent item on the agenda when Neil Mattson was president--that was betweenOral 1970 Society and 1974--was the revision of the by-laws. And Curt Roy headed that committee, and it went through two or three revisions. And finally when it came up for final review -- I forget who made the motion -- one Council member said, "Well, I'll promise to vote for this if you assure me that this will not be on the agenda again." [Chuckles] Society

LK: Rhoda, you mentioned--as we move now downHistorical into discussion of staff--you mentioned how impressed you were when you came to the staff about this closeness, a bit of which we've referred to earlier in this interview. I'd like to hear an exchange between you and Russell on the closeness that existed and somewhat about the dilution of it. Historical RG: Well, perhaps my point of view was, no doubt, shaped by the people I was working with. My first years here were very closelyMinnesota constricted within the Publications Division. And I remember Bertha Heilbron talking about you once--a little about--we were talking about the Cater era, which did come up every now and then, as a bitter memory. Well, obviously it was much closer to the staff at that time. There were people who had keen and painful memories of it. I remember Bertha telling aboutMinnesota how she had been reprimanded by Cater for arriving at a quarter of nine instead of eight thirty and had--I think maybe it was not Bertha that told this, it was someone else who told it.

LK: It was a wonderful story.

RG: Bertha's response was, "Well, I arrive at a quarter of nine." And he could not answer that. [Chuckles] I can understand it.

RF: Oh yes.

36 RG: But the story I really started with was that -- her comment about you as having been very young at the time, but obviously having a genius for administration. That was sort of the, I think, the attitude of many of the staff. They felt that they had been extremely -- that God had been smiling on the Historical Society to have brought you here at the very end of the Cater era, because you obviously wouldn't have lasted much longer than you did. And there was a sense of immense relief, a sense of sureness, confidence in your leadership and judgments, and that certainly was one of my first strong impressions of the Society.

RF: Well, Bertha, of course, is a great stalwart and supporter, and I don't suppose there is any staff member who is more of an indelible character than Bertha. I always felt very close to both Bertha and Mary Berthel for different reasons. I felt Mary had a broader interest in the operations of the Society, and she'd been given that opportunity, but I think kind of welcomed this role of confidante, advisor to the director, and she was more comfortable, I think, with the politicalProject aspects of the job and the interplay of personalities and so on. I don't think Bertha had much interest in that, or if she did, her opinions weren't very definite. And I think she just felt that was beyond her pale.

But as with any director, you pick out certain people that you develop a close relationship with. I think Bertha and Mary were two of those, June, Lucile, Arch in hisHistory way--I don't think for Arch's interest in history. In fact, Neil Mattson once said, "Arch has really done a pretty good job for not being interested in history." [Chuckles] But for getting me around the state and acquainting me with the state.... Oral Society

It was a remarkable period--I think much of it created by the problems with Harold Cater. There was this feeling of kinship and esprit de corps. I remember at the time I felt this is a very good thing to have and I think hard to sustain, especiallySociety when you're beginning to get your act together and the Society is prospering, and just the scale of the place. But I had every good fortune there, given the recent history. I think everybody wantedHistorical the Society to succeed, wanted me to succeed, except maybe Grace Nute. [Chuckles] And even she did in the beginning. But I think that's right. I think it changed as we went along there and the Society became more complicated, and with social change. I think there was more of a desire for staff members to play a stronger role in planning programs and in influencingHistorical policy and so on. You know, that probably gets us into the sixties and seventies. Minnesota RG: I suppose it does. I had very little...as I say, I was closely confined within the womb of the Publications Division for thirteen years. I didn't really see the running of the Society--just very much from that perspective--pretty much, let's say, through June's eyes. Minnesota RF: Sure.

RG: And I was aware that certainly there was a bond between June and yourself.

RF: Oh yes, very strongly.

RG: She had strong opinions, which you didn't always accept, but you always listened to.

RF: Yes, and I should have mentioned June in that group, because she became a force very early,

37 and I think that was the first major appointment I had, of a division head, or we then called them department heads. And I remember with great pride making that appointment. Mary had passed out of the picture, I think, by 1956, so June took hold of that and as we know, I think, quickly broadened that whole program.

RG: One other major appointment that was made in--I believe it was the spring of 1954. You were maybe not even yet acting director, with Jim Dunn.

RF: That's right.

RG: How did that happen?

RF: Well, I think Grace Nute called that to my attention. We were still on goodProject terms, and Jim was close to her, and Jim, I think, was thinking of coming back to Minnesota, or maybe wasn't. He was at the New York State Historical Association, but his heart was always in Minnesota. I began thinking about hiring a chief librarian, and somehow his name came to my attention. And I remember Grace Nute. If she didn't do it, she was a very strong advocate, and she said that she advised Jim under no circumstances should he take a job under HaroldHistory Cater. They were talking even before Harold left. But she would strongly urge him to come to Minnesota. And again, I don't think I looked any further. This seemed to make sense to me. He had a good record. I talked to his boss, Louis Jones, and appointed him. Oral Society

LK: Yes, a very fortunate appointment.

RF: But I think that dramatizes the differentSociety way appointments were made in those days. You know, you made them very quickly. Historical RG: Very quickly.

LK: Dismissals also. We did not have a set procedure for those. Historical RG: I guess one factor that has changed a lot besides the world around and the way these things are done is also the pay structure. Minnesota My recollection of my early years here was that when there was a vacancy, it was very difficult to fill.

RF: That's right. Minnesota LK: Yes. It's hard to think in those terms now, but we were calling library schools and all over to encourage people to apply.

RF: Yes, that's right. Yes, and sometimes we delayed appointments just to balance the budget. I remember I hesitated in filling the assistant director's job. Well, I hesitated from 1955 to 1957 -- almost two years. First of all, I wanted to be careful with that appointment, but I wanted to make sure the budget balanced too. Those were lean years. I remember in the 1955 session -- It's interesting when I've run into Orville Freeman and Arthur Naftalin. They feel they increased the Society's budget so much, and they did help, but it was very modest. I think our big growth begins

38 in 1963, and there are reasons for that. Well, Elmer Andersen was certainly helpful when he was governor, but I think the legislative interest really takes off in 1963. I should have mentioned, Elmer Andersen was a member of the Council who became increasingly active and interested and a financial supporter during the late fifties. I had a lot of experiences with him, right up to today. And I would say he was a very valuable advisor during this early period. And he was, I think, one person--regardless of party and social status--I think the whole Council would listen to. I remember Vivian Weyerhaeuser saying, "He's the smartest member of the Legislature." [Chuckles]

LK: Yes. I think he in turn was influenced by Dean Blegen, whose [unclear] was working for him.

RF: Oh yes.

LK: But I think of him, and much as I think of Ron Hubbs, that there are peopleProject with sustained loyalties to the institution, not just a period in which they served in a certain capacity.

RF: Yes, and a genuine commitment to the humanities and scholarship. And it may be a sign I'm getting out of touch, but I don't see the Elmer Andersens and Ron Hubbses coming up today in the business world. I think it's much more a world of specialists. AndHistory I think that's made our recruiting of Council members of that caliber very difficult.

LK: When we look at this list of what we've called the oldOral guard, Society I would like to ask one overarching question. These people, so many of them, devoted a major part of life to the Society. But with the exception, perhaps, of Lois Fawcett and Grace Nute, I don't remember them as great outreach people who were identified with a profession, as, say, Sue is an archivist, and Lila oral history connections, etc. Society

RF: I think that's true. I've added two names to Historicalthe old guard--Ruth Abernathy and Arch Grahn. I think in his way by the nature of his job, Arch was committed to outreach. And as you say, Lois Fawcett certainly was, as reference librarian. I think a very revered reference librarian, because I think she took more interest in her [unclear] research projects and mine than any she had in mind, and well, she was very winning.Historical But I think that's true, except for Grace Nute, who had her own agenda to a large extent. I think they viewed the institution as more of a learning society where people should come, and they Minnesotawould receive help, but that their first mission was to furthering the cause of scholarship and new interpretations of history and publication and so on. And I think they saw their roles as more confined than we see ours to be.

LK: Yes.Minnesota And I remember Grace Nute, who was past her period of, well, paper reading, chairing sessions and all of that by the time I knew her. But looking back over the record, it was tremendous work for the American Historical Association and the Mississippi Valley.

RF: Oh yes.

LK: Was Lois active in library groups--in associations?

RF: I don't think outside of Minnesota. I think within Minnesota to a degree. Now Esther Jerabek had an interesting connection with the, what was it, the Minnesota Folklore Society?

RG: Yes.

RF: I think she was one of the founders or nurturers of that.

RG: So was Bertha.

RF: Was Bertha? I wasn't aware of that.

LK: Neither was I.

RG: She had strong interest in folk life. That turned up when we sort of looked into the history of the Society's connections with folk life. Bertha was one of the leaders. She hadProject a strong personal friendship with Phil Jordan, and whether that was the chicken or egg, I don't know.

RF: I'd say Lucile Kane was an exception there. I'd identify you with outreach within the profession, but also great commitment to the Society. I think you carried water on both shoulders. History LK: I think I had more of the duality than we will find with the new people, because I was kind of in between. Oral Society RG: Yes. You were in between generations.

RF: You'd be a moderate today, Lucile. Society LK: Yes, I would be. Historical

RG: I'd like to ask a little about Arch Grahn. My impression over the years was, quite frankly, that Arch was sort of a lightweight, and yet it's clear that he played a very significant role in the way the Society was viewed around the state. Would you feel that his talents were political? Historical RF: Yes, I think, well-- Minnesota RG: I don't mean political in the sense of the government so much as political in a broad sense.

RF: I think it's interesting that Carlton Qualey's two major appointments were Lucile Kane and Arch Grahn.Minnesota Carlton once mentioned that he was very proud of Lucile's appointment, and he thought Arch's appointment on the whole was a good one. He thought Arch had earned his job, which was certainly saying he was not as proud of that appointment. But I would say that Arch was one of those people who very quickly tried to cultivate a friendship with me and make me aware that he was an extremely important staff member, and I think I accepted that during the early years. I became, I think, less impressed with Arch as we went along.

But I think you appreciated Arch out in the field more than at 690 [Cedar Street] when you saw how he worked with people, and he brought a certain enthusiasm, and he said you had to have some showmanship. And he could get people to do things and organize societies. Sometimes it seemed

40 to me he organized these societies just to be able to say there is a society in each county and very little more. But he did enlist some strong people like Lewis Younger in Winona. I think Arch picked him out, and he had a certain flair for that and a lot of contacts all over the State.

I think Arch often alienated people because he liked to dwell on his accomplishments and how much he'd done. I think he turned off people. But he'd do this, I think, without any great skill. So I think he accumulated quite a bit of, if not antagonism, skepticism as he went along. He certainly did that with the Council. But I think he did some good work. And Arch deserves a lot of credit, I think, for urging the organization of a county historical society in each county during the Territorial Centennial. And then for strengthening the law that enables county historical societies to appropriate funds--public funds. That was a very big contribution, and I think Arch more than anybody is responsible for that. Project RG: That came in 1963, too, didn't it?

RF: The amendment came. But he got that through, well, before I came here.

RG: It was earlier. History

LK: Arch's attitude toward women would not be acceptable to our current staff. Oral Society RG: That's right. He was rather a fanny pincher.

LK: Oh, I wasn't thinking of that [Chuckles]--never had the experience. But when we would travel together, and stop for lunch or dinner,Society Arch would insist on paying the check even though we were all on expense accounts. Historical RG: You'd have to settle later. [Chuckles]

LK: You'd have to settle later. So we had to have a special kind of bookkeeping. I think the last field trip I went on with himHistorical that was not true. He had come to accept that we were both representing the Society, both on expense accounts. Minnesota RF: No, he certainly wouldn't go over today. Arch always had an interesting--and it continues today--friendship with Ardene, I thought. I thought he'd make all kinds of sexist comments and so on. I won't say Ardene enjoyed all of them, but some of them she did. Minnesota LK: Yes she did.

RF: Of course, her view of the role of the woman was a little different too. I always felt Ardene was a pretty good feminist in practice.

RG: Yes.

LK: She was and probably still is.

41 RG: It's one of those reaching things--the changes in attitudes and what you consider a feminist.

LK: Yes. I think Ardene's change in acceptable garb for women at work underwent quite a change--that she no longer cringed at blue jeans and tennis shoes, less than formal wear--or formal for work wear.

RF: Arch had a lot of information, which would be helpful, I think, to anybody in the administrative offices. Say, his knowledge of newspaper people around the state. You'd name a community, and usually he'd know somebody there.

RG: I guess that's what I meant when I said political. He knew everybody--

RF: That's true. Project

RG: And generally knew who was making things tick.

RF: And I think he measured the success of the Society in terms of attendance at meetings, the amount of publicity, the amount of conversation about the Society,History you know, all of these surface things. And we had a lot of that, I think, during his time here. And he liked to be on programs. He liked to speak. Sometimes he spoke well, sometimes not so well. I remember I got very irritated with Arch when Elmer Andersen was president. That wouldOral be between Society 1966 and 1970, and we had a meeting in Fort Snelling State Park--summer evening, delightful evening, right where the two rivers join across from Pike Island. And it was getting dusk, and Arch had been drinking very heavily, and pretty soon Arch started to make motions--the Council, you know. Elmer handled this very well. That was one of the few times I feltSociety that I was ever really angry with a staff member. And I called him in the next morning and asked him, "Do you realize what a mess you made of that Council meeting?" He was quite unaware of it. Historical

LK: Oh yes, even the morning after. Did Arch start the Institutes for counties for the Society?

RF: Yes, the Regional Institutes.Historical Yes, that was his idea.

LK: Well, that's a pretty greatMinnesota record.

RF: At American Association for State and Local History meetings, I always felt Arch commanded quite a bit of respect from, oh, people like Cliff Lord, Nile Miller of Kansas, his colleaguesMinnesota as field director. And I guess that impressed me to some extent, you know, that there's probably more of a record here than I sometimes think, in how he exchanged ideas with people, and usually it ended up boasting about Minnesota, but I wasn't against that.

RG: Well, it seemed to me that there was quite a shift in the Society's role in relation to county and local--well, there weren't that many county and local societies before the 1940's and 1950's, but perhaps what I'm saying is its relation to the rest of the state. And it looks as though in some ways Arch, perhaps not altogether knowingly, played quite a role in that.

RF: Oh, I think so. I think he did. And he'd be reflective on occasion about where all this was

42 leading. You know, the question would come up, are we creating our own competition out there? And Arch said, "Yes, in many ways I think we are. The way this should have been organized in the beginning was the Chippewa County Chapter of the Minnesota Historical Society." So he had some second thoughts about all of these multiplying organizations. And I think he came to feel as I did, we probably had too many for the good of the cause. But it's pretty hard to tell Bloomington, you can't have a historical society if you want one.

LK: What was really amazing--to look through the directory when we were doing our mailing about holdings on the movies. There are over two hundred local, regional, and county societies.

RF: I think we'd all say, too, Arch brought kind of a unique personality to some of our staff meetings. He was a show-off. I remember we had a venerable Council member. I know Lucile knew him--Henry Benson of St. Peter. Project

LK: Yes.

RF: He'd been Attorney General back in the late twenties. And after Victor Lawson died, who had been a very important state senator in getting the farmer labor--gettingHistory the building built at 690. When he died, I remember I wrote an article for the newsletter and gave Lawson great credit for that--the 1913 Legislature. So Arch ran into Henry Benson, who was also a member of that 1913 Legislature, and Benson said, "I think you gave too much Oralcredit to Society Victor Lawson. I was part of that." Arch said, "Well, Henry, when you die, we'll write an article about you." [Chuckles] He had a touch...

RG: I remember Arch as being very in his elementSociety as a master of ceremonies.

RF: Oh yes. Historical

RG: And sometimes he did very well at it, depending on--he always did the same kind of job. If it was the right kind of group, it worked beautifully--putting people at their ease and getting a laugh. He did a lot of work with theHistorical Tour Program in the early days too, didn't he?

RF: Yes. I think prior to Arch,Minnesota Willoughby Babcock did some work with the Tour Program.

RG: Oh, I didn't realize that.

RF: I thinkMinnesota the tours started under Solon Buck, and I think Willoughby conducted a number of those tours. Then Arch took it over and continued with it. And then I think Bob Wheeler expanded it. But that was considered one of Arch's major jobs.

March 31, 1987:

LK: We have just entered the stage of talking about some of the old guard staff, Russell, and of course, one of the names that has occurred already in this interview is Bertha Heilbron of beloved

43 memory. What are your recollections of her?

RF: Oh, there are so many of Bertha. Because of the location of my office and hers--very close together--we saw a lot of each other--not just because of the location. But I remember her as always very encouraging to a young director. I think Bertha had the image of being somewhat of a formidable person, and she could be on occasion as an editor. I think more than one author characterized her as a genial tyrant, which I think is a pretty good description--that she could work over your manuscript in a very rough way and not spare any of your feelings. But I think you became used to that and appreciated it--that she was really trying to improve your writing and develop your growth. But Bertha had a wonderful sense of humor and liked to be kidded, liked to exchange jokes. She was very social. I suppose I saw as much of Bertha as any staff member during her tenure that coincided with mine and after she retired too. Project I guess I think of Bertha Heilbron as really the very best of the old class, and that's not to exclude some others. But I think she was special and a very strong believer in high standards, a person of great integrity, strong opinions. She expressed them. I think she thoroughly blended her professional career with her social life. The Society was a big part of her existence, I think, both on the job and outside of the job. She had many other interests too--lovedHistory music, liked to talk about it. She would often discuss a concert she had seen. Those are some of the impressions.

LK: Yes. Unusual relationship between Bertha HeilbronOral and Mary Society Wheelhouse Berthel. Did you feel that they were complementary in a way?

RF: Yes, very much so. I felt that I learned a great deal more about writing from Bertha than I did from Mary. Mary, I think, was a superb technicalSociety editor, but not the teacher Bertha was. I think Mary would tend to go along with what you submitted so long as it met her standards. But I think Mary had keener political sense than Bertha in theHistorical sense of--she seemed to be able to develop a closer tie with the directors, and I think the directors looked to her, as I did, for a sense of continuity in terms of relating the many problems the Society had encountered during the Cater era, and Mary was a good repository of lore about the Society's earlier directors. And on occasion Mary could, I think, be a very severe critic,Historical as in the case of Grace Nute. On that one they kind of reversed roles--Bertha and Mary. I think Bertha took kind of a passive role. She shared some of the criticism of Grace Minnesota Nute, but Mary was really the person who spoke out. The issue arose over really two questions: that Grace Nute was not fulfilling her two-thirds time obligation with the Society, and secondly, her manuscript on the history of iron mining in Minnesota was unsatisfactory. So I think they did complementMinnesota each other, and I think they enjoyed each other--working together. I don't think they were particularly close outside of the Society, but they did a few things together.

LK: Yes. Go ahead.

RG: I remember Bertha's references--of course, I worked under Bertha for a year--to a number of people that were important to the Society. She was especially close to Phil Jordan. Were there others? I got the impression she was somewhat close to Dean Blegen also.

RF: Yes. I think Bertha and Mary both were very close to Dean Blegen. Blegen said on more than

44 one occasion to me that he had their confidence, and they had his, so I think they exchanged confidences quite regularly. And of course, they were part of his generation and under his tutelage to some extent when he was assistant superintendent and then after he succeeded Buck as superintendent.

Bertha had a wide circle of friendships. You mentioned Phil Jordan, Francis Lee Jaques and Florence. She knew her way around many of the history departments. Being editor of Minnesota History, that was natural. And then she had what I would call her Friday evening friends who would go to the symphony, and they would carpool. That could be quite an interesting mix of people -- academicians, old friends, business people. And then Bertha was Jewish and I think certainly not Jewish in a very orthodox religious sense, but I think her synagogue life really was quite important to her, maybe more socially than any other way. Project RG: She was a member of Mount Zion.

RF: That's right.

RG: One of the ties that always surprised me a little, given Bertha'sHistory Jewish background, was her closeness to a number of the people up at St. John's University and in the monastery up there--Father Colman Barry and Father Vincent Tegeder. Oral Society RF: That's right. That's another--

RG: Do you know how that came about? Society RF: I think that was just a case of very close friendships, mutual admiration, mutual respect. I remember I attended an event up there with Bertha.Historical It may have been a meeting of the Upper Midwest History Conference. The monks were chanting, and we were all invited in--late afternoon. I sat with Bertha. As we left, Bertha said, "Can you imagine spending your life this way, getting up at 4:00 a.m. every morning and having to chant?" which is a typical Bertha comment. I think she was very fond of St. John'sHistorical--the place as well as the people.

LK: And the sisters of St. Benedict's.Minnesota Sister Grace McDonald told me that they often invited Bertha to do a retreat there. And Bertha was appointed as Sister Grace's official accompaniment--well, the person who had to be with a nun at that time, even when they attended historical meetings. So it was a very interesting thing. Minnesota RF: I think Bertha was an ecumenical Jew in the broadest sense. And I think, too, St. John's appealed to her as an old institution in Minnesota. It was part of the history of the place.

LK: And Merrill Jarchow was certainly devoted to her.

RF: Right. Merrill Jarchow of Carleton College, and I think he was equally close to Mary. They brought him in, I recall, to review Grace Nute's ill-fated manuscript on the history of iron mining. In fact, the two reviewers were Merrill Jarchow and Phil Jordan, and both gave it very negative reviews.

LK: That was an awesome triumvirate, wasn't it--Grace Lee Nute, Bertha Heilbron and Mary Berthel?

RG: It certainly was.

LK: Difficult relationships in a way. When did you first meet Miss Nute?

RF: I think I met her a few weeks after I joined the Society--I think late in 1953. And we got on very well for a year or so. I found her very charming at times, fun to be with, certainly a vigorous person with a lot of interests. But as the iron mining manuscript came to the fore and a decision had to be made, my relationship soured pretty rapidly. Project LK: I think that you mentioned at one time that that was one of the early crises of your directorship.

RF: That's right. Yes. Looking back, I would think that was probably the earliest crisis. Do you want me to trace that a bit? History

LK: Yes. I think that would be interesting. Oral Society RF: Well, let's talk about that history of iron mining that really precipitated Grace Nute's resignation and serious strain in my relationship with her. I hadn't been around the Historical Society more than a few days than I began to hear about Grace Nute and her career in being the author of a number of books on the fur trade,Society The Voyageurs Highway, Rainy River Country, The Voyageur, Caesars in the Wilderness, and others.Historical And she was represented as certainly one of the stellar staff members within the Society, one of the stars. But she wasn't around very much, and that was explained to me that she had an appointment at Hamline University and the Society--a dual appointment--two-thirds on the Society's payroll and I'm not sure how much on Hamline's. It wasn't full time, but I think it was a fairly generous amount of time--and that she had occupied the position of research associate. I thinkHistorical after you succeeded her, Lucile, that position was created. So Harold Cater seemed to view Grace Nute as kind of an independent force, as I found out, kind of an unguided missile, and let her goMinnesota her own way.

She had done a few other things that kind of puzzled me. The Lindbergh Papers, which Lucile will remember, had been acquired--the papers of Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. and a small collection of Charles MinnesotaLindbergh, Jr. And it always puzzled me that these were in the manuscripts vault, but none of us had access to them, including the Curator of Manuscripts, Lucile Kane. They were locked up. But that was explained that that was an arrangement Grace Nute had made. It was only years later I learned from Charles Lindbergh that that was not his intent--to have them placed under the custody of one person. They were to be given to the Historical Society, but that's another story.

So I think we went along while I was assistant director and acting director until October 1954. I would see Grace Nute on occasion. I think we had a couple of dinners together. She took Metta and me out to dinner, and we took her out to dinner--one very delightful evening with Leland Cooper and his wife. So our relationship at least for the first year seemed to be a good one. It was

46 fun to listen to some of her plans. During these visits, she had mentioned some of her other plans for writing -- the history of Lake Minnetonka. I think she was engaged in writing the history of Hamline at that time, and there may have been others. Lucile, you may remember some of the others. But she had a long list, as historians should.

After I became director, it bothered me increasingly that we saw no results from her efforts, and I asked her about this a couple of times. She mentioned that she was ready to present for publication the history of iron mining. And she asked me what I thought of her idea for a title, which was Vermilion, Mesabi, Cuyuna. She wanted to use the names of the three ranges. So there were more delays, but I would place it, I think, late in 1955 when the crisis was precipitated. That came about after she submitted the manuscript, and I read it, and as I recall, it didn't make a particularly negative impression, but certainly not a positive impression. I knew very little about the subject. Project It struck me as though she had strung her research notes together, and it was not up to the caliber of writing for which she was known. Somewhere in that period--and I forget who it was--it may have been a staff member or somebody else showed me a book by Bernard Devoto. It may have been Across the Wide Missouri. In his introduction, he paid great tribute to Grace Nute for her pioneering research on the fur trade. So that was kind of an interestingHistory counterpoint to the way things were developing. But Mary took the manuscript as managing editor and sent it out for review, and she said she didn't even want to read it until she had outside reviews. So Merrill Jarchow read it. Phil Jordan read it. And they both cameOral back with Society a very strong negative opinion--that it had a long way to go, it was not ready to be published, and it should be rejected.

Mary then read it and agreed with the opinion, wrote a report to me. I summarized the report to Grace, and there was an explosion. She cameSociety in--this must have been early to mid-1956--and we talked about what she might do with it, and her response was that she thought the manuscript was in very good shape, and while she was amenable toHistorical some minor changes, she just couldn't devote the time anymore.

So things went along for several months. We returned the manuscript to her, asked her to make some revisions, to rewrite it.Historical Both Phil Jordan and Casey Jarchow, as well as Mary Berthel, had given her a long list of suggestions, and she virtually ignored all of them. Minnesota Well, several more months went by, and we're into 1957. Carl Jones had died in 1956, and Clarence Chaney became president. I brought the question up to him as a potential problem that might reach him or the Executive Committee. But his view was, well that's really a professional matter. MinnesotaI'll let you know if I hear anything. Apparently, he didn't hear anything.

In those years we had our annual meetings in May, in the spring. Leonard Lampert became president in May of 1957. By this time we were becoming restive, Mary and I, and we felt this had to be resolved. So I wrote a memo to Grace Nute giving her a deadline, asking if she could devote the time to revise the manuscript and that we had to resolve this question. So there was no response. So then I talked to Leonard Lampert about this, and like Clarence Chaney, he said, "Well, I don't know anything about these matters. You use your own judgment." So it was our decision--primarily Mary's and Bertha--we consulted with Bertha on this too--that we should really draw the issue. If

47 Grace Nute was not willing to follow the general direction of the Publications Department and the director as Editor in Chief, that it probably was time to terminate her association, and I put that in a memo.

I never got a direct response from Grace Nute on that, but I did hear from three members of the Council, one of whom was on the Executive Committee, Bergmann Richards, former president of the Society, member of the Executive Committee, and an old supporter of Grace Nute; from Frank Hubachek in Chicago, member of the Council, who wondered who this new director was trying to tell Grace Nute how to write; and Dean Blegen, who somewhat to my surprise turned out to be a very strong supporter of the view that Grace Nute should be given wide latitude, and that history was a laborious business, it takes a lot of time to write a book, and I should be more patient. Well, I think that had very little effect on me, and I put it on the agenda for the next Executive Committee meeting. In the meantime, I think Grace was making contacts with other CouncilProject members, but those were the only three I could identify.

So I brought the question to the Executive Committee, and I said that I felt we should give Grace Nute an official ultimatum from the Executive Committee. I was not averse to giving her another chance so long as she could demonstrate that she was willing to devoteHistory the time and effort to turn this manuscript around. That was communicated to her, I think, through Bergmann Richards, and I'm not sure in what fashion, but the answer was from Grace Nute, under no conditions would she accept that. So I think it was Bergmann Richards who alsoOral suggested Society it be placed on the Executive Committee agenda. So two of us had gotten it on there.

As the discussion unfolded at the Executive Committee, I could feel that the Executive Committee was not completely persuaded by my view ofSociety the situation, I think simply because it was the kind of problem that they were not familiar with. But things took a very fortunate turn when President James Morrill spoke up, and I'll always rememberHistorical that. He said, "Well, this is the kind of problem that shouldn't be before the Executive Committee. This is a professional matter. This is up to the director. I move that we take no action on it and return it to the director, and he's authorized to deal with the situation as he sees fit." Bergmann Richards argued with that, and they voted on the question. I think the vote wasHistorical six to one, Richards being the one vote. So I left the meeting, as you can imagine, somewhat pleased by it, though it was still kind of an unpleasant task to carry out. Minnesota So I wrote Grace Nute a letter stating she could not continue with the Society under the conditions that she had defined. No one else had. And she asked for a meeting with Leonard Lampert and myself to review my memorandum. So we had the meeting within a few days, and it was a very unpleasantMinnesota meeting. She said that I didn't know anything about publications and writing. And as Leonard said afterwards, she seemed to represent me as a dumb businessman. But that really was the end of Grace Nute's long career with the Society, and she resigned a few days after that. And as you can understand, I think my relationship with her from that time on was very distant, though I recall when we had that party for her a few years ago before she moved to California, I enjoyed having about a five minute visit with her, and I thought she had mellowed a good deal. That was pleasant.

RG: I remembered you telling a story about a comment that Leonard Lampert made to her, I presume during an interview, something to the effect that none of us is indispensable.

RF: I think that's right.

LK: It sounds like him.

RF: And June Holmquist had come into the picture during all of this in a very prominent way, because I think Mary had either retired by the time of the meeting with Leonard Lampert or was about to retire, and I recall June mentioning that Grace Nute had dropped by to see her and gave me some uncomplimentary reviews on this whole thing -- something about that he's still wet behind the ears, or something like that, as director. So she was feisty.

LK: I remember June worked very hard in taking another look at the manuscript to see if there was any way that a new approach could be made to it. Do you remember Frank Hubachek'sProject comment to you?

RF: I think I've forgotten that.

LK: When he visited you long afterward and made very polite commentsHistory and said, "But I haven't forgotten the other--"

RF: Oh yes. That's right. Then I gave him a ride to Minneapolis,Oral Society I think.

LK: Yes. When he said he hadn't forgotten it, you replied, "Neither have I." [Chuckles]

RF: That's right. Society Historical LK: That's a latter day follow up. Russell, Miss Nute had such a marvelous, innovative career, tremendous talent, tremendous energy. What went wrong in this mid-passage when the manuscript that she wrote on the history of Hamline was not--I don't believe it was accepted. I believe it was completed. Historical RF: That's right. Minnesota LK: And the Minnetonka book, she did a whole lot of research, but that was never finished. And the book on Lindbergh, I don't believe she had begun to write that. But after one success after another, a whole series of things that just did not come to fruition. Do you have any thoughts on what happened?Minnesota

RF: Yes I have a few. I think she's the kind of personality who either dominates or repels people sooner or later -- attractive, a lot of charm at times, but I think a very rigid person, a very self-centered person. I think that ego sooner or later turns off a lot of people. It certainly did me. As to why her writing deteriorated, I'm not quite sure. I remember talking to Theodore Blegen about this years after that issue when we were on opposite sides, and he said that he felt the best book she ever wrote was The Voyageur, that that was a book she really wanted to write, and she did it whenever she could find spare time and so on, and that he thought she chose these other topics just kind of as second choices--she'd get fired up about the topics, but then she'd lose interest in

49 them. But you're right, it certainly is a story of decline in terms of productivity and I think the quality of her writing.

LK: Well, I think I know about burnout. You know, most of us find it very hard to recapture the very edge of enthusiasm that one might sustain for a number of years. But in her case it was so marked--both the production and the decline.

RF: Yes. I think she was a personality who would just collide with other strong personalities, and you have the inevitable result. Years after she resigned and I became acquainted with Charles Lindbergh, he gave me some information on that ill-fated project that he had funded--I think he sent her to Sweden, paid her way, made a grant so that she could begin a biography of his father. That was a project he was always keenly interested in. As we know, Bruce Larson is the one who eventually wrote the biography. But he, I think, on the whole thought quite highlyProject of Grace Nute. He felt that the project to write a biography of his father fell apart because Grace Nute antagonized his sister, Eva, and some of the other relatives. Her personality was a factor, because Eva was also a strong, feisty personality, but she also over-emphasized some of the original findings of her research, notably the fact she felt Lindbergh's father was illegitimate, and that caused a certain amount of anguish within the family. It didn't bother Lindbergh. HistoryAnd I think he always felt that that could have been handled--the family's feelings could have been assuaged--but that Grace Nute's approach was just to hit it head on. She was very insensitive in human relations. And I think that's true. Oral Society

LK: Yes. Willoughby Babcock--

RG: Excuse me. I'd like to ask what happenedSociety with the Lindbergh Papers. You mentioned that they were locked up. Historical RF: Well, after the Lindbergh Papers, I think, Lucile, we just went in there and broke the lock and took the grate up.

LK: We got the key, I believe.Historical

RF: We got the key, okay. Minnesota

LK: Oh, they were in rather bad shape, because they hadn't been cleaned properly and so on. But then we incorporated them into the Lindbergh Papers. Minnesota RG: Was there a confrontation with Grace Nute about the key?

LK: No, not with me. Russell had paved the way.

RG: When did this occur? Was this before or after the iron mining publication?

RF: I can't really place it. I think it was during, and it may even have been after her resignation, which I think came late in 1957.

50 LK: Yes, and it was certainly after the difficulty over the James J. Hill Papers, because there were many difficult relationships that came from that.

RG: What was that difficulty?

LK: Well that I will include in my interview, because it involves Helen White and the--well, some very basic concepts, too, on how to handle the Hill Papers. But we'll leave that for my interview. That will take awhile.

RG: Okay.

LK: Now Will Babcock, Willoughby, as he was known very formally by most of the staff, I remember him as being very much overshadowed by Mary, Bertha and Grace. Project How did you feel about him when you first met him?

RF: Oh yes. I think he was overshadowed in terms of accomplishment. If you measure it in productivity and publication or in recognition by historians, he was very much in the shadow. But I think Willoughby occupied kind of a unique niche for me. I becameHistory very fond of him. I always felt he was extremely helpful in whatever you asked him to do. I think Willoughby's odyssey was a long one. As I recall, when I became assistant director, he was the senior member of the staff in terms of service. I think he preceded Mary and Bertha byOral a year orSociety two. He had moved around the Society in a number of positions. He had been archaeologist, museum curator, I think held a research position or two. But when I came to the Society, he was in charge of the newspaper department and the microfilming program. I don't think he ever quite suited any of these, but he did the best he could. He was a treasure-trove ofSociety information, and I guess that's how I viewed Willoughby, as many people did, that he was an encyclopedia of trivia about Minnesota history--not just trivia, but there's a lot of trivia, intermixed withHistorical knowledge. But if you wanted to know about, say, archaeology--and we didn't have much going with archaeology at that time--or you wanted to know whether there was a newspaper published in a certain community, Willoughby almost from memory could come up with those answers. I'd say Willoughby was a plugger, a plodder, did his job, not particularly in any Historicaldistinguished way, but gave it his best and certainly was exceedingly loyal to the Society. I think that characterizes that group--that earlier generation--that they had a tremendous affection for the institution,Minnesota and I don't think they were as self-critical as our generation. That would be true of Bertha and Mary too.

LK: Yes. It was a primary identity even more so than the professional identity. Minnesota RF: That's right.

LK: When June Holmquist and Sandy [F. Sanford] Cutler came, I remember a change in staff attitude toward Willoughby--their respect for him. They called him Will instead of Willoughby. I was an overlap person, so instead of somewhat a figure of fun as Will had been, in their eyes he was a valued person. Did you sense that--the change in staff attitude?

RF: Well, I think so. I think that's true. I think some of the younger staff members you've mentioned, some of them, perhaps, had a greater appreciation for Willoughby than, say, Mary or

51 Bertha did.

RG: I recall Bertha being very abrupt about him after--I was editor of Minnesota History, and I would see an article from him, which was essentially a folder full of research notes. I asked Bertha about Willoughby's publishing record, and she said, "He's submitted many things. We've never published any of them. He just doesn't write them, and he expected me to write them." She really dismissed him rather as sort of a hopeless case.

One of the things that I wanted to ask about Willoughby, it always struck me that the man had sort of a secret life that was associated with his professional life. I was very struck when I first came with the number of young Mexican-Americans that he had employed and their attitude toward him of deep loyalty and admiration. Do you know how that got started? Project RF: I really don't, Rhoda, but I would share your view there, and it's an interesting point, that I think Willoughby, you could say, hired the first minorities on the Society staff certainly in our time. And I think they had an abiding feeling of loyalty for Willoughby. They were primarily in microfilming or in the newspaper department, but I think he did hire three or four-- History RG: Two of whom are still with us.

RF: Yes, two are still with us. Oral Society

LK: Yes. And another facet that the old guard never mentioned, but the new guard did, was his musical talent--a long-standing member of the Apollo Club I learned belatedly. And when we did the first television programs under, I believe,Society it was Molly Priedeman [or] under Ruth Abernathy, Willoughby was on the program for a Civil War scene, and again some people said, "Oh, Willoughby, how will he do on television?" He wasHistorical a star for the whole series, because he sang so beautifully and had the sense of the media.

RF: Yes. Well, he was a caricature in a way, too, of the historical society curator. Historical LK: Yes, the antiquarian. Minnesota RG: Little old man in--

RF: Exactly. Minnesota LK: That's a good image.

RG: I also remember during his retirement years when he was working on the research project down in the kitchen of the Weyerhaeuser--of the dining room. I recall that was the only place we could find space for him. But his wife helped him constantly on that, and it was the first time I had become aware of his wife and his deep affection for her, of the very close relationship they had. That also was an almost visual caricature, because she would have almost made twice of him--much larger, much taller and bigger.

52 RF: Yes. I knew her, not well, but I was with them a few times, and I always came away with the feeling that that was a good match, especially for Willoughby. I think she was very good for him, and I think that was a fairly late marriage.

LK: It was a late marriage. We learned later that Willoughby had a powerful mother--a scholar, a translator, collaborated with A.C. Krey on William of Tyre--her translation and Krey's editing--and you could almost see Willoughby emerging from what must have been a cloud.

RF: Yes. I think another facet of Willoughby--Rhoda mentions his hiring Mexican-Americans. I think Willoughby, among the staff as I knew them when I came, had a keen interest in the whole state and in historic sites, not that he ever particularly occupied a position, except archaeologist, to further that. But Willoughby was one of many who had this great fondness for Grand Portage and did some work there in archaeology, as Solon Buck did and Mary Berthel did andProject I think Bertha to some extent. I think Grand Portage was kind of a haven for them--that they looked forward either to doing some work there or visiting there in the summer. That was the outpost. And Willoughby felt that very strongly.

LK: Yes. Well, I'm so glad that we have made these comments aboutHistory Willoughby, because he's certainly less well known than the triumvirate who preceded him. Now another person of beloved memory, Lois Fawcett. Oral Society RF: Well, Lois Fawcett, I guess, is the quintessential reference librarian in my mind. I think what distinguished her--I said this in our last interview--is that she had that uncommon quality of becoming more interested in your research project than any of her own, and she reflected that, I think, throughout her career. But she had a Societytremendous faculty, I think, to receive people in the reference library, regardless of how serious or how trivial their interest seemed to be. She treated them all alike and I think became a very beloved Historicalfigure in that post and worked extremely hard. I never knew Lois too well. I would see her frequently, but I guess I would give her extremely high marks for not only her professionalism, but for her contributions to the Society and to the public relations of the Society. Historical LK: It's interesting, your comment that you didn't know her too well. I felt that too, in spite of all the years I knew her. PerhapsMinnesota her great dignity, a combination of friendliness and great reserve, that may have had something to do with that. I know the people who worked with her--the assistants who learned librarianship under her guidance--thought the world of her and had a very warm feeling for her. Minnesota RG: You mentioned that reserve. I guess that's one of the things that I'd also like to ask Russell about in general in the transition. My impression is that the older generation of the Society observed much more formalism in their relationships with each other than the generation that came along with you, Russell. I guess one of the things that has always impressed me about you is the firm way that you place everybody on a first name basis without any question. I myself appreciated it very much, and I think I've noticed it happening over the years. Certainly when I came to the Society, the younger staff members wouldn't dream of calling each other Dr. Nute or Miss--sometimes Miss Fawcett, however--but not like--

53 LK: Very much so.

RG: There were still pockets of that formalism, but either one of you, I think, could comment on that transition.

LK: I think it was gradual, wasn't it, Russell?

RF: I think so. I think it was part of the time. But I think my style was to call people by their first names, although I don't think I ever graduated to calling Willoughby Will [Chuckles], which may say something about our relationship. Yes, I think there was a generational change there, Rhoda. But certainly it was common to hear Lois Fawcett refer to Theodore Blegen as Dean Blegen or Dr. Blegen. I don't think she ever called him Ted. And yet, I think with Bertha and Mary there was a fairly informal approach to people. AndProject I think Harold Cater maybe made a contribution in that area. I think his style was to deal with people fairly casually as long as he was on good terms with them.

LK: Yes. I think Esther Jerabek was a formal person. Most of the staff--perhaps all of them--referred to her as Miss Jerabek, and I probably knew her tenHistory years before I called her Miss Jerry or Esther. So generational it probably was, with the exception--Russell's right--of Bertha and Mary. Did you know Esther Jerabek well? Oral Society RF: I knew her even less well than Lois. When they retired, Metta and I took them out to dinner, and I suppose that's the best visit we ever had. And then we took them to the Guthrie Theater one time during its early years and had a very good time, and I think some of that reserve melted away. Society LK: Yes, she could be delightful, but perhaps, even more reserved than Lois Fawcett, through--I think in Miss Jerabek's case, through a native shynessHistorical in addition to the reserve of her generation. Well, it was a great group, and then came the new group.

RG: I think one we haven't mentioned in the old group on my list is Arch Grahn. Russ mentioned that he had traveled aroundHistorical the state with Arch quite a bit, so you must have known him pretty well.

RF: Oh yes. Well, Arch wasMinnesota certainly informal. [Chuckles]

RG: Definitely.

RF: I thinkMinnesota that Rhoda alluded to that. [Chuckles] And I think Nina has mentioned that when she first met him, he closed the door and tried to hug her and kiss her and so on. Nina didn't take particular -- she was kind of amused by all that.

LK: Managed that all right, I'm sure.

RF: Yes. In the last interview, I mentioned Neil Mattson's comment, which sums up Arch pretty well, that Neil said, "Well, given the fact Arch was never much interested in history, he did very well." I think Arch's contribution was moving around the state, somewhat proselytizing for the Society with newspaper editors, county historical societies, trying to energize local groups. And I

54 think he had a mixed success there. I think Arch had a real talent to ferret out leaders in small communities. I think he had a formula there--the newspaper editor, the history teacher. If you had a college or university nearby, contact the history department. I think he did some amazing things. He also, I think, was the person who identified some of the possibilities for historic site acquisition. I think he was the first contact with the Ayers that lead to the acquisition of the Mille Lacs Indian Museum. The Kelley Farm, I think he made the initial contact there, the Mayo home in LeSueur, and many others. So I think Arch's contribution was in public relations. I think he had his problems relating to other staff members and really conveying philosophy of the institution that was coherent and well thought through.

RG: I think certainly many of the more scholarly staff members never took him at all seriously. He was an ex-vaudeville man, wasn't he, when he joined the Society? Project RF: I think so--photographer.

LK: I didn't know that.

RG: He definitely had been on the stage. I know he told me aboutHistory that one time, though he may have exaggerated somewhat. I remember him in charge of a few of the earlier tours. He was in his element there--leading a tour. Oral Society RF: Yes, that's right.

RG: He was really a showman. Society RF: He once said, Rhoda, "Much of our work is show business." So I think you're right on. Historical RG: He approached it that way.

RF: He did have a very good relationship with Mary Berthel, as I recall--much less so with Bertha. But I think Mary Berthel kindHistorical of enjoyed him, enjoyed his humor. Certainly he had a close friendship with Ardene Flynn that continues today. And I would say Arch did a lot for me in acquainting me with the state Minnesotaand just introducing me to a countless number of people. I think as my career unfolded and his too, we became somewhat less close, because Arch could create problems as well as opportunities.

RG: ThatMinnesota was the next question I was going to ask. How do you feel he was as -- his political instincts, given the fact that the field program is a very political sort of situation?

RF: Oh, I think on balance I would still say he made some important contributions, but I think he alienated potential supporters too. And that became more and more true, or maybe I just became more aware of it as I worked with him. I think this showmanship approach to local history had really run its course years before he retired. His last years here, as I'm sure you both know, he was kind of on the shelf there. We had organized what became the FHA division. Field services had been placed under that, and I think Donn Coddington severely limited Arch's scope, with my approval.

RG: Well, times had been changing too. The caliber of people who were involved in local societies was changing.

LK: Very much so.

RF: And this trend toward democratizing history and broadening the view of local history to include ethnic groups and minorities and so on, I don't think Arch was very sensitive to that. He may even have been in opposition to it. He certainly was not sympathetic with it, and so I think time kind of passed him by.

LK: But he was certainly in wonderful physical condition in his last years. Project RG: He still is, given his age.

LK: Yes. I am amazed at how young Arch looks.

RF: Lucile once made a comment I remember. We took a trip withHistory Arch. I forget where, but I remember Lucile saying that you really don't fully appreciate Arch's work with the Society until you get outside of the Society and see his rapport with the local groups. Certainly he retained a wide circle of friendships and I think supporters too. Oral Society

RG: In relationship to his later years, I remember Arch once telling me that his ambition--the way he wanted to die--was to be shot by a jealous husband at the age of eighty-five. [Chuckles] It's very typical Arch. Society Historical LK: Yes, it does. And now that tremendous infusion of talent, the new people. You're a new person, Rhoda. Will you lead off?

RG: I guess the two names that I would think of first are Bob Wheeler and June Holmquist, not necessarily in that order. TheyHistorical were very different but certainly both had an impact. Either one.

RF: Well, let's take June first,Minnesota because chronologically she precedes Bob by about a decade. I think June joined the staff around 1950--maybe 1949.

RG: No, not that early. Minnesota RF: 1951?

RG: I believe it was 1949. Come to think of it, it was.

LK: Well, go ahead. I'll find the date.

RF: I guess in my mind June is one of the really creative forces within the Society. By that I mean I think she really affected direction of the publications and research program. I remember Mary Berthel and Bertha was part of a conversation reminiscing about the time they interviewed June,

56 and that led to hiring her as editorial assistant. And Mary said, "We interviewed June, and then she interviewed us." [Chuckles] I thought June did very well working with those two. I think that showed her sensitivity to people, which sometimes some would question. But I think in June you had a first rate intellect, highly disciplined person, one who would try unorthodox ideas in a field that was overlaid with a lot of tradition and habit, and that was an appointment I was very proud to make when she succeeded Mary Berthel. It was a great deal of fun just to see June take that program and broaden it and expand it.

I think, too, June was an excellent teacher. Her style was maybe that of a drill sergeant at times. In fact, I think Dean Blegen once described June's administrative style as being akin to a military officer, and he meant that as a compliment. But I think all you have to do is look at the results--the increased number of publications, the breadth of the publications, the quality. Let's take They Chose Minnesota, certainly at one extreme a very encyclopedic, scholarly treatmentProject of a broad subject, and at the other pole would be some very popular publications on historic sites and so on. So I think June was very open to new ideas. At the same time, I think she imposed on her program strict standards. She certainly was always looking out for quality. And she would be the first to admit that she made a couple of misjudgments along the way too--that there are a couple of duds in this package of publications. History

As time went on, I think June had her problems with some of the changing currents within the Society. I think the desire for more staff participation, I thinkOral that Society ran against her somewhat autocratic administrative style. And I think she looked forward to the time she could employ her talents in research. I always felt that one of our losses in encouraging June to become an administrator and with her growth as the administrator, was that we lost some opportunities for really some excellent writing. She did someSociety good writing but not much of it, because I don't think she had much time. Historical LK: And there was a comment she made once about being an editor--managing editorial projects and writing yourself. She said, "You have to look at so much bad prose in the course of managing a publications program, and you have to do so much work to bring it up to standard that you lose some of the sense of your ownHistorical writing, of your own style."

RG: My impression was that MinnesotaJune really loved editing, more in many ways than writing. That may be one reason she didn't push harder to do some of her own writing.

RF: That could well be. The point I wanted to make--I think she was a very good writer, and I wish sheMinnesota had had more time to employ that.

RG: I guess I always had the impression, well I knew that June was extremely devoted to you, Russell, in terms of having lived through the years of the transition from Harold Cater and the conflict with Grace Nute, and so on. I guess I had the sense that you depended on her a good deal for basic advice in terms of, well, her hard-headed practical judgment of political situations and general policy questions.

RF: Well, I think that's true to a great extent. I think you could say that about Lucile too. Yes, I would often go to June just to toss around an idea, get her impression of somebody. I didn't always

57 accept the advice, but she always gave it, and there was no question how she felt about something.

LK: Yes. I think that that was one of the great values. She mentioned hierarchy and relative responsibility and the need for order and delegation, lines of authority and acceptance of relative responsibility, and that young people looked at me as if, what world did you come out of? And I think that the point that you made is a good one. June did accept hierarchy.

RF: I was saying, Rhoda, that I feel I've done an inadequate job on this question of the institutional view of this earlier generation in that I think they accepted--maybe as an article of faith--they certainly seemed to approve of a fairly well structured hierarchy from the director on through the institution. And I think in June--with all the positions we've held, all of us--we've gone through a good deal of institutional change with a clear desire expressed on the part of a good many of our younger colleagues that they want to have more of a voice in the place, more participation.Project And I think that presented June with some problems, because I think she accepted the hierarchy and fairly autocratic mode of administration. And I think some of her disaffection in her last years with administration was due to that.

RG: I would agree with that. That certainly agrees with my observations.History It was hard on her.

LK: To the point that it became, well, not in a major sense, in a minor one, an emotional problem--that anger was triggered, and anger was very hardOral on her, Society and that in turn made her dislike administration more.

RG: Yes, June was on the surface very tough. Underneath she was a very emotional person. I always felt that one of her handicaps was thatSociety she was such a perfectionist. She expected perfection of herself as well as others, and that made her uncertain sometimes of her decisions. This never appeared on the surface. Occasionally I mentionedHistorical this to people who knew her only casually, who were very startled, because it certainly was not apparent. But when you got to know June very well, there was a lot of insecurity there.

LK: A vulnerable person, Historicaland I think that to understand it thoroughly, you'd have to know even more than I know about her family background and her act of will in getting to school under circumstances that were not easy.Minnesota

RG: That's right.

LK: ButMinnesota I think she was always vulnerable to that--that she needed a status and an authority. We all do to some extent.

RG: I always thought it was rather ironic that she was in her later years a pillar of you might call authoritarianism around the Society when she had actually led the charge in getting rid of Harold Cater as a newly arrived staff person.

LK: And was a rebel in some ways too in, you know, what people thought of her. She had no great concern about that, in a way.

58 RF: No, I don't think she was socially ambitious or had any pretensions to win a popularity contest.

LK: Right.

RG: I would like to pursue a little the question of the publications program. It seems to me that in many ways, the beginnings of change in that program were started before June actually succeeded Mary in that Bertha had already taken the step of adopting a whole new format for Minnesota History, which was quite a radical change at the time.

RF: That's right.

RG: It always amazed me that Bertha was the one to have taken that. I know her keen interest and appreciation for pictures as a historical source was, perhaps, part of that. Did youProject have any observations on that, Russell?

RF: I think you stated it very well, and I agree with it. I think Bertha was a vehicle of dramatic change there. Certainly in the field that was a radical move--to redesign Minnesota History and to include photos. I think we talked about this a little before, didn't we,History how history departments by and large, especially at the University, looked askance at dealing with photographs as documents of history. It seems to me today that's accepted, and Bertha was a pioneer. Oral Society I think June certainly inherited that from Bertha, and I think she learned a good deal from Mary too.

RG: June told me at one time that she felt that Mary was the better creative editor, but that Bertha was, as you have said, the better teacher, theSociety better technician in many ways than Mary. Historical RF: Well, I think Bertha once said about the same thing to me. She felt Mary was a far superior editor to her in a technical, creative, as far as the craft of editing goes. But I think for ideas I would always look to Bertha as the bolder thinker and certainly to June as a much bolder thinker than Mary. Of course, Mary had had a broader experience. She'd edited Folwell's history, and didn't she have a career at the UniversityHistorical of Illinois?

LK: Yes she did, with Alvord,Minnesota I believe.

RG: That was Clarence Alvord?

LK: Yes.Minnesota She was very well trained I think Solon Buck told me--well trained when she came to the Society and increased her skills there.

RF: One other aspect of June, and this goes back to your question, Rhoda, of how I depended on her for advice in launching out in some new directions. I think June had a vision of some directions the Society should go in. Maybe I feel that because I agreed with her. But I think of that early historic site survey. That was just kind of an idea whose time had come. We didn't have much money, but she and Jean Brookins took that out and moved all over the state and did it with great thoroughness, which I think as we've been saying is a hallmark of June. If you undertake a project, complete it.

RG: My recollection in going over some of the old records on that was that you had a thousand dollars to do that statewide survey.

RF: That's right--amazing.

RG: That was one of the questions I was going to ask. How did it happen that you chose June to do that? Was it simply because you saw the outcome of that as a book?

RF: Yes. I think I related that as a research project to the institution. I mean, this came along I think before the outlines of the acquisition of historic sites had crystallized in my mind. So I viewed it as a research effort, and it would translate into a book. Project LK: And Bob Wheeler. I think it's interesting that you should bring their names up together, Rhoda, not that they were closely associated in thinking.

RG: That's right. They, I think, represented different trends in policy, but they certainly both seemed very important. History

RF: Well, Bob Wheeler's coming to the Society, I think, came about this way. I mentioned in our first interview that I kept the position of assistant director Oralvacant forSociety a couple of years after I became director. Part of that was a financial consideration--that we had some serious budget problems that we had to work out of. Secondly, I wanted to redefine that position. I think I took that very seriously, because I remember Dr. Buck saying that he thought one of the mistakes Dean Blegen made was not filling the job of assistantSociety director, and he felt the institution lost continuity, and that may have been responsible for this very rapid turnover of a series of directors. So that stuck in my mind and was certainly a factor. LookingHistorical around as to what package of talents was needed, I felt we needed someone who could promote the Society, and the vehicle here would be publicity, someone who could promote membership, a person who could relate to the state very broadly. And I think it was Arch Grahn who brought Bob Wheeler to my attention through History News. Bob had taken overHistorical the local history column, or whatever it was called, in History News, a publication of the American Association for State and Local History--the monthly newsletter. And I was impressed by Bob's writingMinnesota and by the touch he had to deal with the passing scene of local history. And then I'd met him at a couple of conferences of the American Association for State and Local History. As I recall, there were three candidates who emerged for the position. One was Robert Olson, son of Sigurd Olson, who I was very impressed with, but he dropped out of considerationMinnesota before a second interview. He decided to go in the Diplomatic Corps of the State Department. A second candidate was Dick Erney of Wisconsin, but that was never really pursued very seriously, because he made it clear that his destiny was in Wisconsin. And then Bob was the third candidate. So we had Bob come in for two interviews, as I recall. I thought he had the qualities needed and hired him sometime in 1957. I forget when.

RG: It was about September. He came just about six months before I did.

RF: And as we defined the job, he spent, I would think, half of his time on promotional activities and publicity. I would say the first five or six years I think Bob was extremely productive and

60 talented. He redesigned the annual meeting. He expanded the tour program. We did have some increased funding here as a result of the statehood centennial. I think he developed an unusual tie with the local media, particularly the print media, but also radio and television. He also was in charge of relations with the state--maintaining the building and all these exciting things that assistant directors did in those days. He did that conscientiously, but I always had the feeling that that was probably the lowest priority, and I didn't particularly disagree with that.

So I think Bob's major contribution those first few years was getting visibility to the Society, conducting I think a brilliant publicity effort. Much of this, I think, was just due to Bob's ability to win the confidence of people. He concentrated very heavily in the Twin Cities, I think almost exclusively as far as any sustained effort. But at the same time his love for northern Minnesota was very apparent. I remember on more than one occasion I accused him of having an aversion to the prairies of southern Minnesota. It was difficult to get him out into southern Minnesota.Project And I would guess if you looked at the field trips Bob made, northern Minnesota was just overwhelming. And then that led, I think, in the early 1960's to his love affair with underwater archaeology--again another highly creative project--where he met Dr. E.W. Davis, who developed the process that made taconite commercially feasible and wedded modern technology to historical research. As we all know, that became a very absorbing interest for Bob. History

I would say, I think, Bob's career took a diverging path at that point--that while I was very excited by underwater archaeology and some of these other projects,Oral I began Society to feel that Bob was losing interest in his main assignment, which was helping to administer the Society. And then his health problems developed during the mid to late sixties. Again, I think that caused him to be less effective as an administrator and probably to be more effective in doing his own thing--really undertaking pet projects. The fur trade becameSociety more and more of an absorbing interest. I will say that I think that underwater archaeology program enjoyed a tremendous success in laying the basis for some of the most successful conferences we'veHistorical had here. I think that first Underwater Archaeology Conference, the North American Fur Trade Conferences--Bob had a real genius, I think, to put those together. They also provided a vehicle for statewide publicity and publicity beyond Minnesota. So he always retained that creative flair, I think, to come up with a fresh idea and fashion it into a programHistorical of broad appeal.

As time went on, I think Bob, Minnesotatoo, became less and less in touch with some of the new currents running within the Society. For the last ten years, he really didn't function as associate director, which he had become, in any broad-based way. He was kind of off to the side doing those things he wanted to do. Minnesota LK: I feel that he tried to regain touch with the mainstream program by seeking out division heads, talking about the programs, asking in what respect he could be helpful. Did you sense that--that he wanted to turn the clock back a bit?

RF: I think so. I think there were attempts there, and that ebbed and flowed, I think, with his health, which was very bad at times. Also, there was some strain in our relationship, I'd say, oh, from the early seventies--those last five or six years. I think for most purposes I kind of wrote Bob off as far as giving him a major administrative task, because my feeling is that he would probably pass it on to somebody else. On more than one occasion I found that was true.

LK: Yes, and the Society had certainly grown so enormously in that time that the administrative load was becoming overwhelming.

RF: Yes. I think Bob was a very popular figure within the Society--certainly major segments of the Society--I suppose to some extent with those areas he was most identified with and most interested in. Remember the testimonial event when he retired? I thought that showed a real outpouring affection for Bob.

LK: Yes.

RG: I guess I would have said that most of that was from outside the Society rather than from the staff itself. Project

RF: That may be true.

RG: Certainly I think that there were a lot of people that were fond of Bob as a person. I think often there was a distinction between Bob as a person and as an administrator.History

RF: That's a good point. Oral Society RG: That certainly was true of June. I was going to ask you, one of Bob's first initiatives, as I recall, was the starting of Minnesota History News. I guess you must have felt that there was a need for a members' newsletter. Do you want to comment on that? Society RF: Yes. I think that impulse really came from HistoricalBob, and I thoug ht well of the idea. He really developed that, and he did it on a shoestring, because the budget was still very lean. That's when George Rossman came into the picture and said, "Well, as kind of a memorial to our father, you pay us a hundred dollars an issue, and we'll publish it."

That was a very generous contribution.Historical That went on for ten or fifteen years -- I think long after the Society was clearly able to defray that cost. It was Bob's creation. Minnesota RG: I guess one of the first times I was aware of tensions within the Society was over the question of why publications should not have a responsibility for that newsletter. As you say, it was on a shoestring, never had sufficient staff, and sometimes the result showed it. Minnesota RF: That's right.

RG: And I often wondered why you didn't take steps to put that under publications.

RF: Well, I think for two reasons. One was financial. I don't think June would have taken it unless she could change the printer, and that would have increased the cost substantially. I guess secondly, I felt that it deserved its own niche as part of the incipient public relations department.

LK: And it certainly did have, especially in the beginning, a vitality that in a way reminded me of

62 Harold Cater's early reports--many, many things going on and, you know, it's that sense of excitement.

RG: Enthusiasm and informality.

RF: Yes, and it attracted, I think, interest within the staff, too, to publish shorter pieces. I don't think we were particularly successful in carrying that out, but I remember Dean Blegen's article on the LaVérendrye Stone. And I know it was Bob's hope and mine that we could do more of that. We didn't do very much. Also, I had always hoped we could have more editorials. In the end, we did more of that with Minnesota History. But those were some of our plans for the newsletter.

One other area I think Bob made a very strong contribution in is in an advisory capacity--well, not strictly advisory--but he was a strong booster of the Society moving into historicProject sites, acquiring sites, developing programs, and so on. He clearly brought that from his Ohio Historical Society background, where he was field representative--quite a different position than Arch. It sounds like a similar position, but I think in that capacity he functioned more as a publicist for historic sites and other outreach programs. But because Ohio had developed such a successful historic sites program, he counseled me early on that the Society ought to move into this Historyarea. And as we know, the opportunities were there, and the time was right. But as I say, it wasn't just as an advisor, because he actually went out and found some of these sites too--the Northwest Company Fur Post, Forest History Center. There may be others, but those are two thatOral Bob isSociety certainly identified with.

RG: Yes, I always thought of Bob as being essentially a museum man. He also from way back was a strong proponent of a new and larger museum associated with the main building, as I recall. Society RF: That's right. Historical LK: Well, that certainly came to the fore in our Long Range Planning and Policy Committee. Bob was a strong voice for a greater museum orientation.

RF: That's right--I think a Historicalmuch stronger voice than I was, for example.

RG: To what degree did BobMinnesota have responsibility for overseeing the administration of the Society's museum over the years? I'm thinking of the earlier years.

RF: Well, I think in theory he had the responsibility. I think in practice he didn't spend a great deal of time withMinnesota it. So I think probably as much of that came to me as to Bob. But I certainly looked to him as part of his job description, which we probably never wrote out when we hired him, that that would be an important element of his supervision.

Another dimension of Bob's career, I think, is cementing very strong relationships with the Canadian institutions, with the thread being the fur trade, but it went beyond that. The Royal Ontario Museum became a partner in the underwater archaeology program. I think Bob identified research collections during his trips into Canada. I think his fondness for northern tours to Baffin Island and the Mackenzie River--you name it--York Factory and the very popular response those tours had, that was all part of his love affair with the north.

LK: Yes, and I think gave Miss Nute some pleasant new ties, because Bob and Miss Nute became friends.

RG: I recall that he invited her to speak at the first fur trade conference in 1965. I believe that was the first time she had had any formal association with the Society since her leaving.

RF: I think that's right. Yes, he and she had a common interest, I think, in history outdoors and history as an adventure and learning history while traveling and hiking and canoeing. They loved that.

RG: Yes, I think that's very characteristic of Bob. It never was any secret to anyone that you didn't share his enthusiasm for fur trade history, and to some extent, northern orientation.Project Some of us wondered over the years why you didn't rein him in.

RF: Well, I think that's a valid criticism.

RG: I didn't mean it as a criticism. History

RF: I think he devoted too much time to it, given the overall mandate he was given as assistant director. But I guess my tendency is to give people prettyOral broad latitude, Society and certainly I did Bob. I was not uninterested in fur trade history, but you're right. I didn't have the deep commitment that he and Curt Roy and many other had, or even Rhoda has. [Laughs]

RG: Well, we'll get to that later. Society Historical LK: When we interview you.

RG: I do recall that once you--I don't know during what year it was--but that you did participate in one of the outdoor excursions up on the border lakes and came back with a broken wrist. Historical RF: Oh yes. That's right. I blamed Bob for that. Yes, that was following the Voyageur's Highway, the historic canoe routeMinnesota all the way from Grand Portage to Saganaga, and I did make it through the hardest part of the trip--miserable trip and terrible weather. But, you know, in retrospect you romanticize those things. But when we got to South Fowl Lake where the waterways broaden and the canoeing becomes somewhat easier, of all things I fell on the land, on a rocky beach,Minnesota and broke my wrist. It was the most enjoyable broken bone I've ever had. I broke my collar bone when I was a boy, and that was very painful. But this one was an impacted fracture. The bone wasn't separated. So they hailed a plane and got me to Grand Marais where I'd left my car. The hospital looked at it in Grand Marais and just bandaged it up, and then I drove home one-handed. And I remember poor Metta's expressions when I walked in the house and she said, "What happened to you?" I had this bandage on. And I said, "Oh, I broke my wrist." She said, "Well, Scott just fell out of a tree, and he's all banged up." So he looked worse than I did.

RG: It created quite a sensation on the staff when we learned that you had driven back alone all the way from Grand Marais with a broken wrist.

LK: In a stick shift at that. While we're talking about the museum, it might be a good spot to ask for your recollections of Sandy Cutler--delightful man.

RF: He was. Sandy was already on the staff when I came, as museum curator. Sandy and I had a common bond, because we'd both been products of the Columbia University Graduate School History Department. I guess I remember Sandy as a person with broad interests, certainly as many interests outside the Society as within. I don't think of Sandy in terms of making a major impact on the institution, but I do think he was a well qualified person, and if he had chosen to stay with the Society, I think he might have made quite a contribution. But as we all know, his love was to go into the Episcopal--what do we call it, ministry, priesthood--become an Episcopal priest, and he did that really soon after I became director. So we had a brief association--very pleasant. I always found Sandy extremely supportive and encouraging, fun to be with, interested inProject politics. As far as moving the museum ahead, I think he brought a certain stature to that, but I don't think a great deal happened, because he was here so briefly.

LK: Yes, and he was not a trained museum person. I think that was something that somewhere along the line in these interviews we should comment on--that weHistory got trained librarians, trained this or that and we seemed so reluctant to get trained museum people.

I think Sandy showed his mettle in the Cater era when ourOral humorist, Society always the person who could make a group or individuals laugh, showed a very stern side to his character, very supportive to other staff members who were in difficulty during those years. We hear from Sandy once in a while. Society RF: Yes, still do. Historical LK: Now, Gene Becker.

RF: Gene Becker also was here prior to my coming and was in charge of what we then called the picture department, but he Historicalhas long since graduated to the audio-visual department. Gene, I remember with fondness--lovable guy. I think he had some pretty serious personal problems, health problems, problems at home andMinnesota was a low energy person. I guess my recollection of Gene is that he was very agreeable to responding to requests, but you often had to remind him two or three times. And he'd miss appointments, and he'd be behind in his work and behind in developing photos and so on--not, I think, a strong performer, but a very likable one. Minnesota LK: Yes, and perhaps had a chance in his later years to show what he could do, because he was a fine technician--not an administrator. But he later began to have time within a larger unit to restore daguerreotypes and the kind of preservation that later became very much in the mainstream of the Society's experience.

RF: Somewhat like the museum in that I don't think that area occupied a very high priority until somewhat later on. So his resources were very limited.

LK: Yes. I think he's a person that we will all remember. Part of the problem may have been our

65 tendency to start a new activity and create a division that came so strongly with Harold.

RF: That's true.

LK: And both Bill Bowell and Gene, perhaps, were not administrators. Here we have a two-person unit, where the person in charge had to be a Renaissance pers6on--to do the work, to administer, to think ahead, to do the reporting, etc.

RG: Did Gene directly succeed Bill Bowell as head of the picture?

LK: I believe so.

RG: Then there wasn't an assistant--sort of semi-clerical position as an assistant?Project

LK: Right.

RF: One of Carl Jones' strong interests was photographs and visual materials of all kinds, and he raised a sizable amount of money for that day -- something like twelveHistory or fifteen thousand dollars so we could actually bring on an additional person. And I think that person turned out to be Helene Thompson, who you both remember. And then we were able to transfer that position to state funds. So I think what Carl Jones launched there was extremelyOral important. Society It shows how we can start something in the private sector, and then the state would take it over. We may be in an era where the reverse is. I don't know.

LK: [Chuckles] True. And with the additionSociety of Helene Thompson, we had in that division the extremes. Tommy had such high energy and GeneHistorical extremely low energy. Well, the person who, perhaps, made in the long view a greater impact was Hermina Poatgieter.

RF: Right. Again, Hermina was already on board when I came, as editor of the Gopher Historian, and I found Hermina at all times a very interesting person to chat with. She was very bright and well read, interested in a lotHistorical of topics. But with Hermina there was a certain remoteness that I don't think injured our association, but I don't think I ever had the relationship with Hermina, say, that I had with Mary Berthel or Bertha.Minnesota I think Hermina made a very significant contribution. I think what she set out to do with the Gopher Historian--even though we published it three times a year, we never seemed to be able to get over that hurdle. She attempted some things there with thematic issues, regional issues under the Gopher Reader, that I think reached a broad audience and got very favorableMinnesota responses from teachers.

LK: Yes. And then her language skills, too, were quite an asset.

RF: That's right--very definitely. I'd forgotten that. That certainly was a strength. I think Hermina had some personal problems too, that--I don't know if it impeded her work--but at times I became concerned about her, that she seemed to be somewhat depressed at times, and other people would tell me about that. But I think Hermina's leaving the Society clearly was precipitated by Viki Sands' heading the new Education Division, reorganizing it and wanting to take the Gopher Historian in a different direction and looking for a different set of skills. So they came to a parting of the ways, I

66 think, after a year or two. So far as I know, Hermina is still pursuing some interest. I run into her at restaurants once in a while.

RG: She's moved to Oregon now.

RF: Oh, has she? I wasn't aware of that.

RG: Gave up on the Minnesota winters.

RF: Is that right?

LK: Yes. Well, Hermina I will remember, because a finer punster I have never known. Project RF: That's true.

LK: The subtlety in timing, perfect.

RG: I'm interested in your responses to Hermina. I was aware thatHistory there was the same, somewhat parallel feeling, between June and Hermina--respect but never any closeness, not quite, a little awkwardness. My recollection is that June told you at oneOral time that she was not supervising Hermina, that you were. Society

RF: That's right. I think that whole area--you know this better than I, Rhoda--has at times been kind of an orphan within the Society administratively; that is, publishing for young people, for school age children, even though the readershipSociety at times has been very large, exceeding Minnesota History. I guess what I'm saying, I think even to Historicalthis day under Jean Brookins, I don't think the Publications and Research Division has quite accommodated to the role of this kind of publication within the overall publications and research program of the Society. And I guess it was Viki's contribution and insight, was, here's an important area that we're not doing enough with, so let's create another division, which comes back to your point, Lucile. When we have a project create an administrative analogue. Historical

LK: Right. That's the way toMinnesota do it.

RG: I guess maybe that had roots in the very early years of your administration. You mentioned that with Bob and others, that you would give them the job and let them do their thing. And I guess it just struckMinnesota me that that was to some degree your basic administrative style--encouraging to some degree entrepreneurship.

RF: Yes, I think that's right.

RG: And it certainly flowered in a great many strong programs.

RF: June Holmquist once said that this is the most peculiar institution. Somebody gets a great idea, and then they take off, and in their trail comes a whole series of projects. I think she was saying in a rather indirect way, which is unusual for June, that we need a little tighter control over

67 these new ideas, and we need to sort our priorities.

LK: Well, I think it's really a tightrope, isn't it?

RF: Oh it is.

LK: And perhaps we're experiencing and will experience in the coming years some of the tensions that come from that--individual action, institutional imperatives.

RG: And the very nature of the institution has a variety of audiences.

LK: Yes, and a variety of personalities and levels of skill. Bob Brown, another example of--oh, right, state archives, what is it, where does it belong. Project

RF: Well, Bob Brown I knew as state archivist. He was also on board as state archivist and chief administrator of the Minnesota State Archives Commission. I always had the feeling that Bob was a favorite of Harold Cater's, though in private conversations Harold would make a lot of critical comments of Bob, especially about his alcoholism. I guess I rememberHistory Bob in kind of two lights. I thought he was a dear person -- very likable and a fine technical archivist, knew his craft, knew his trade and a pretty good politician, I think. We never had any particular differences. I was a member of the State Archives Commission. But I recall thatOral very Society early in my career, even before I became director, I questioned whether State Archives should be separate, and I may have gotten that view from Dr. Buck, because as Lucile knows, the archives program had once been part of the Society, and then it was separated, and I think Lucile and I maybe hadSociety a few differences on this too. So it was kind of part of my growing hidden agenda that if the opportunity came, I felt archives should come back to the Society. And that opportunity came long after Bob'sHistorical death when Frank Burch was state archivist.

So I guess I would characterize Bob's career as one of guiding the State Archives, not in any distinguished way. I guess his greatest contribution was winning the confidence of people like Stafford King, the State Auditor,Historical who was on the State Archives Commission, and Arthur Naftalin, Commissioner of Administration. At that time the budget was still under the Commissioner of Administration. I think Bob didMinnesota a very skillful job at cultivating Arthur Naftalin and Stafford King, and maybe others and persuading them to increase the budget for State Archives, and he did that, I think, rather dramatically.

LK: Yes.Minnesota I remember hearing Arthur speak on behalf of the State Archives budget. He did it with real commitment. So I think that early growth -- you're right -- came from the support of Arthur and Stafford King, who was no mean supporter.

RF: I think Bob's alcoholism was very serious and, no doubt, contributed to his early demise.

LK: Yes. It was a tragic deterioration of health, and the program was increasingly difficult for him to administer. But as the state's first archivist, I think he certainly won a place in the Society's history.

68 Elwood Maunder, what a different personality we have here.

RF: Yes. Well, this is becoming repetitious, but Elwood was also here when I came and had been here a year or two as director of the Minnesota Forest Products History Society.

LK: So many names. I think it was originally Forest Products History Foundation, and then Elwood changed it.

RF: Elwood very early struck me as one of the strong promoters within the Society's program. And for a time, the program seemed to be very compatible. I guess I came to question whether we had the tail wagging the dog here at times, because certain publications would come out under the title of the whatever this was -- Forest History Foundation -- or jointly with the Society, and it never went through the same kind of review that other publications did. So I think it Projectwas inevitable, with Elwood's ambitions to make the Forest History Society into more than it was. I think it was inevitable that we had an amicable divorce between the Foundation and the Society. I think Elwood wanted independence. He wanted the freedom to give this more of a national identification, and he certainly did that. History I think I mentioned in the last interview that Elwood was a very serious candidate to succeed Harold Cater, and I think he had a lot going for him, particularly, I think, support from Dean Blegen and Leonard Carpenter, who was in the lumber business and aOral vice president Society of the Society, Vivian Weyerhaeuser. Fred Weyerhaeuser, Vivian's husband, was the single strongest supporter of the Forest History Society. So I think when it came down to Elwood having to decide whether he wanted to become a candidate for the position--he would have been a very strong one--but he decided against it. He felt he would continueSociety with the Forest History Society. And then it was, I think, only a matter of months that we concluded the divorce and moved the Forest History Society--I forget where they first moved. Do youHistorical recall, Lucile?

LK: West Seventh Street, I believe, a nice set of offices.

RF: That's right--out near HistoricalFort Snelling, near Gannon's Restaurant. That's right.

LK: Yes. Minnesota

RF: I think Elwood did very well with that for a number of years. His interests, I think, were never in building an archives, and I think that in many ways was a wise decision, but it also was a handicapMinnesota in that he never had a basic collection, had a modest research collection to point to. But I think Elwood really made his name with oral history.

LK: Yes he did.

RF: And served as kind of a clearing house for research projects in the field of forest history. And I forget, how long was he there, Lucy, twenty years with Forest History Society?

LK: Must have been.

69 RF: And then retired a little early as I recall.

LK: Well he again, like Sandy Cutler, was a strong force in helping with staff stability during the Cater era and I think helped us a bit in our transition.

RF: Certainly was -- very helpful to me. I remember discussions the three of us had, and sometimes June Holmquist was part of those.

LK: Right.

RF: How do we keep the roof on this place? [Chuckles]

LK: Those were grim days, but the discussions helped. Project

RF: Yes. Elwood had a religious background that was kind of interesting, in the Methodist Church. He was a strong churchman on the liberal wing of the Methodist Church, and I thought that came through in his personality. He was a born missionary and a very effective spokesman for whatever cause he took up. History

LK: There was a priceless moment at lunch one day whenOral Elwood was declaiming one of his new enthusiasms and Helen White was with us, and she was on the sameSociety track. I've forgotten whether it was on unidentified flying objects or what. But Elwood looked at Helen with such a curious look and said, "P.K.?" And Helen said, "Yes, that's true."

RF: I think Elwood, too, was probably the Societymost overt political activist within the Society. He used a lot of discretion there, but he would take up all Historicalkinds of causes. One was opposing the expansion of the airport--Wold Chamberlain Field--and the noise issue, which we have today, was part of that. And then I remember he agonized over whether he should put up a lawn sign supporting Eugene McCarthy, which in those days would be quite radical, given the composition of his board--all Republican. But he finally said, "What the hell. I'll put up the sign." Historical LK: I think he usually came down on the side of what he felt was right rather than expedient. Minnesota Jean Brookins, her introduction to the Society was in publications, and was it through the survey that you first came to know her well?

RF: Yes.Minnesota I don't think I ever got to know Jean particularly well--I mean, we were close together--until her second term with the Society, which continues. But I got to know her as an assistant to June really and through the survey and I guess always viewed Jean as a very competent, able editor in that period. That was about it.

LK: I think her relationship to June was interesting--the personalities so different, Jean perhaps even more retiring than she is now and June's very strong personality. I remember June saying to me one day, "I had a talk with Jean, and as a result of that talk, I think I've got myself a managing editor." She was telling Jean that if she was going to administer a program, she had to come down four-footedly and say what she thinks, etc. I think Jean is very much that way now--very direct and

70 at times outspoken in a very good sense.

RF: Yes. I think my association with Jean, as I say, became much closer after her return from Fargo.

LK: Evan Hart--again so brief an experience.

RG: Alan, I think of as the two brief--

RF: That's right.

LK: But Evan Hart--so brief and yet, what an impact he had on many of us. Project RF: Well Evan Hart's coming to the Society I think was due more to Bob Wheeler than to me, although I approved hiring him as our first head of historic sites. We had known Evan Hart through the fur trade, and he had a summer place up at Sandy Lake. His father had published in Minnesota History on the excavations of the Northwest Company Fur Post up there. We knew him as an artist. We'd see him at these various conferences--very talented artist. AndHistory I guess that was a decision that was made somewhat impulsively on Bob's recommendation, that we didn't have much of a historic sites program yet. I forget when we hired him. Early seventies? Oral Society LK: It was early.

RG: Mid sixties. Society RF: Mid sixties, okay. We had acquired three orHistorical four historic sites, and I guess in retrospect, his talents didn't quite fit the job description, or the job description was pretty loose. He did some good work in a very short time and I think worked with Bob much more closely than with me on some of these early conferences and, oh, some of the graphics, signing historic sites and designing graphics and that sort of thing. But as Lucy said, he was here so briefly, I don't think you could say he had a chance to make an impact. Historical

LK: From the viewpoint of theMinnesota staff, we liked him so much that I think it drew our interest into historic sites more than it might have been--very fine personality.

RF: It was certainly a shock when he died. Minnesota LK: Yes it was.

RF: He looked so well.

LK: Right. And then Alan Tolbert was his successor. Is that right?

RF: Yes.

RG: Right--Tall Texan.

RF: Alan Tolbert, as I recall, was the first time I utilized a search committee that went out of the state.

RG: I was on it.

RF: I remember--Rhoda and June and who else?

RG: Bob Wheeler. We were headed down for a visit to the University of Oklahoma Press and met Alan and the other finalist for the job.

RF: That's right. So when the search committee came back and had made a strong recommendation to hire Alan, I met him, agreed with them, made a very favorableProject impression. We hired him. I think the results turned out somewhat differently. Extremely likable, genial person. I don't think he ever viewed this assignment as particularly long range. I would have to say I was disappointed in his performance. He was with us, what, two years?

RG: Not more than that. History

RF: I can't really point to any concrete accomplishment of Alan's. I'm sure there were some. But he does occupy a place in the annals of the Society, whichOral Bob Wheeler Society mentioned, I think at a staff meeting one time--that Alan Tolbert was the first staff member to rent an airplane for a field trip and fly. I think he learned to fly while he was here. He may have been the first and last. [Chuckles] Society LK: In the foreseeable future anyway. Historical

RG: I think one of the perspectives that none of us quite realized at the time was how young the man really was. He was tall. He had a rather mature manner, but he really was only in his mid-twenties I think. Historical RF: That's right. Minnesota RG: And while some people in their mid-twenties can do it, others don't grow up that fast.

RF: Well, I think we had every reason to make that appointment. Minnesota RG: Well, it looked good at the time....Everybody makes mistakes in hiring sooner or later.

LK: And we had other experience of hiring young people and hiring people without previous specialized training and had good luck. But a longer-range person was James Taylor Dunn.

RF: Yes. Well, Jim Dunn came to my attention when we were looking for a librarian to replace Dan King, and we have already traced Dan's rather unhappy career with the Society. Again, I took my time on that appointment, and I am not sure I even interviewed any other people for the job than Jim Dunn. I may have. Russ Barnes, who had held the position earlier and then left for the Hill

72 Reference Library, I recall expressed interest in exploring returning to the Society. I think he had had a very unsatisfactory board meeting. But I never pursued that. From what I learned about Russ and the negative attitude he conveyed, I was convinced that he was not the answer.

Two people called Jim Dunn to my attention. One was Grace Nute. And this was when Grace Nute and I were still speaking. The other, I think, was Bertha, who knew Jim Dunn and felt that here was a librarian with the credentials we needed, and he wanted to leave the New York State Historical Association. So I correspondence with Jim, and as we know, as now, he'd make his annual pilgrimage to the St. Croix. And I had a couple of interviews with him and asked other staff members to interview him. You may have interviewed him, Lucile.

LK: I don't remember. Project RF: I know Bertha did. It seemed to me here was a person who had worked in the field of historical societies. He got very strong recommendations from his boss, Louis Jones, and I think was somewhat torn as to whether to leave the New York State Historical Association. And Jim was very candid about relaying this, and he said that Louis Jones told him that it was the individual that matters, not the institution, as far as change. The institutions wouldHistory go on, and the individual should do what he wants to do. So he gave Jim his blessing, and Jim was hired here, and I think Jim made some significant contributions both as librarian and as an author of local history. Oral Society I guess as a historian I would say Jim was very much the narrative historian in contrast to the interpretive historian--kind of in the old school that way. But he had a real talent for ferreting out information and working it up in to an interesting narrative. I wouldn't say Jim was one of our brilliant writers, but he was readable. He didSociety a good job, and very persistent in his pursuit of collections of all kinds. I always had the impression he worked well with the other department heads, division heads. As an administrator, I thinkHistorical Jim was so-so, and that's not all that unusual in that era. But he made notable contributions, I think, in book acquisitions and refining our acquisitions policy, which always needs refining.

He had certain pet areas, butHistorical I remember one --Jim felt that even though it was beyond the borders of Minnesota, that we should collect strongly in the area of the Red River and the Canadian--the Winnepeg area and that sort ofMinnesota thing. And I suppose the collections reflect some of his pet areas, but I thought he did that very well with quite limited resources. When you think we didn't have any state money for books up until 1965, what meager resources he had to work with, I thought he stretched the dollars very far. And I think Jim commanded respect from his colleagues, from other librarians.Minnesota Certainly our relationship was very close, very amicable, and continues to this day.

LK: I've heard him called a very fine book man. When we speak of his knowledge of books, his love of books and his administrative responsibilities, it reminds me of something June said once. She said, "There is a tension here--that we're all small divisions, and we're responsible again for substance, for being work persons ourselves within the divisions, for knowing the technicalities. We're not big enough to hire specialists in all these areas. And yet, we're administrators too, and we end up being"--I'll paraphrase it, petty administrators--doing what is necessary, but without some of the long range administrative views that later came to be common in the Society.

73 RG: You mentioned Jim's interest in the Red River. I'm sure that probably traced to his descent from James Wickes Taylor.

RF: That's right.

RG: I remember Jim as being very much a Minnesota and St. Paul person--his long family associations here--and I think that did tend to dictate a great many of his interests. I don't know how it affected his collecting policy. I wasn't close to that at all.

LK: I felt he was a knowledgeable person in the area of definitions of collecting policies, and also pragmatic -- what is possible, what is not -- from the budgetary viewpoint, space viewpoint, etc.

RF: Yes. I think his personal interests, Rhoda, ran very heavily to St. Paul andProject the St. Croix, as Bob's did to the north woods.

LK: Get some balance in.

RF: But I think he surmounted that in terms of book collecting. IHistory think it was pretty broad gauge. And I think Jim precedes the formation of the acquisitions committee. I think that's a creation of Lila's, or maybe it precedes Lila. My memory is not clear on that. But in his way, I think Jim kind of foreshadowed that in that he did a lot of consultation withOral other Society staff members, such as I know you, Lucile.

LK: Yes he did. Society RF: He'd come in and talk to me and talk to Bertha.Historical So that he had a consensus approach to collecting. It wasn't just his decision, but he felt he should consult widely.

RG: I remember Jim as being very accommodating to the interests of staff.

RF: Very much so. Historical

RG: And this is, perhaps, an Minnesotaolder era. The personal research interests of staff members were always taken into consideration in the collecting policy, for better or worse. There may have been times when it shouldn't have been, but I guess I associate Jim with that.

RF: I thinkMinnesota that's true.

RG: And, of course, with his intense interest in the Zeppelin Papers, his cooperation on that project.

RF: I think he was open to almost any suggestion, and I think if he felt it was valid, he'd try to be helpful.

LK: Yes. I'd heard him called a man with an antique touch because of his respect for family traditions and, of course, for pictures, for museum objects. He loved the old, the traditional, but he

74 certainly was a modern man too.

RG: A bit of an antiquarian.

LK: A bit of an antiquarian, right. It didn't dominate his professional performance, but it was there in a delightful way, I think.

RF: And that continues. One of his current enthusiasms is to write or help write a history of Marine on the 150th anniversary of the founding of Marine. [Chuckles]

LK: I see that as great patience, but to Jim I think it's a delight.

RF: Wouldn't you say he shares that interest with Helen White in the St. CroixProject--that fanatical devotion to a rather small geographical area?

LK: Yes, right. In both cases with some very good, interesting results. A person I guess we all remember is Larry Oliver. History RF: Larry was something else. [Chuckles] He brought a unique style and background and viewpoint. I remember Viki Sand saying that she always remembered the orientation session that Larry gave her when we hired her--that he brought her intoOral this small Society office, which became the deputy director's office--I guess now the director's office--Nina's still there--

RG: It used to be our whole business office. Society RF: And sat her down and laboriously went throughHistorical all these rules and regulations, most of which Viki forgot. But she was struck by the intensity with which he wanted to outline the rules and regulations, the payroll, and so on. Larry was a very ponderous accountant, accurate, very devoted to the Society. He usually would have a comment on the annual meeting or some event that he almost always relayed to me. So I think his interest went beyond his office. Historical But I guess one characterization of Larry was from an employee over here at the Summit National Bank where the Society had itsMinnesota money for a long time--its private funds--a fellow named Ted Nordholm. Oh, it must have been a couple years after Larry retired and I ran into Ted. He said, "Whatever happened to Larry Oliver?" And I said, "He's moved to Wahpeton. He's retired in Wahpeton, North Dakota." And he said, "He was a very fussy fellow--very picky." I guess that sums upMinnesota the impression Larry gave others. Another impression was Sam Rogers, our treasurer for a long time who worked closely with Larry and was a rather free-wheeling banker, and he'd comment on Larry's financial reports. He said, "Those are extremely well done. He gets those right down to the cent. I'd be satisfied if he only accounted right down to the dollar." [Chuckles]

RG: Did you hire Larry?

RF: No. Harold Cater hired Larry. He precedes me. I think as time went on, it's pretty clear that the job grew around Larry and grew beyond Larry. And with the coming of John Wood, I think that changed dramatically. Larry was very helpful to me in some of the early legislative sessions, but I

75 was always uneasy as to his testimony, that he might say the wrong thing--not that we wanted to withhold information, but we didn't want to tell them too much. And it really got us into trouble one time when we went before the Senate Finance Committee. I think John Wood had joined us by that time. No, he hadn't. Through Stafford King, we had worked out an arrangement where the Society could receive its state money directly in one check. And that was a long-time reform I'd been wanting to work on. Given the very bad image we had from the Cater era, that took a long time to work out. But Stafford King was always friendly to that, and in the 1960's, prior to Wendell Anderson's governship beginning in 1971, the state auditor controlled state finances in that no check could be written without the auditor approving it--really a powerful position. And Staff had always felt that the Society as a semi-state agency like the University should receive its money the way the University did. So somewhere along the line in the early to mid-sixties he just issued an edict from the auditor, and that saved a lot of paper work--gave us more flexibility and to some extent increased our income, because the state was very rigid. If we had balances,Project we had to return them and so on.

Well, we had an appropriations hearing--and John Wood had joined us by this time--and the question came up of our appropriation for microfilm, newspaper microfilm. And one of the analysts in the Department of Administration--see, AdministrationHistory really determined the budget recommendation which the governor approved, but Stafford King released the money--so one of these very enterprising analysts had turned up the fact that the Society had a rather sizable inventory of microfilm and that we did not need as much money as Oralwe were Society asking. Well, I was somewhat surprised to learn that myself, but I thought we should go ahead and work out of this problem. We certainly needed the microfilm. But in testimony, Larry not only corroborated the fact that we had this surplus--and he couldn't do anything else than that--but he went on to say that the Society has really wasted a lot of microfilm, which was Societytrue, and that we'd contracted with local vendors, you know, the lowest bid--the state had forced us into that. Historical Well, that really led to an uproar in the hearing. And I think it was Carl Grittner, who was basically a supporter--he said, "Well, I think we should hold up this whole appropriation and look into this situation." And they came over and examined the inventory of microfilm and corroborated the fact the Society didn't need as muchHistorical money. They reduced the appropriation, but they also felt that this indicated the Society needed tighter auditing from the state auditor. So we lost that flexibility, but we were able to restore it, I think,Minnesota in 1973 when the Legislature enacted it into law. But that was the sort of thing--Larry's judgment at times--that made me very uneasy.

LK: Yes. I imagine he was appalled when he saw the events that followed. Minnesota RF: Right. He operated from a pretty narrow base, and as we know, John Wood doesn't.

LK: Yes. [Chuckles] And so many of the funds Larry was operating with were so small.

RF: That's right.

LK: Like a quarterly appropriation for supplies and expense in one division, like fifty dollars, so his mind was scattered over a lot of those tiny, tiny sums of money.

76 RF: Yes. He lacked not only John Wood's vision and ability, but his political skill. We had another problem, oh, I think around 1961, when someone came up with the finding that the Society employees could not be covered by social security, because the law didn't permit it. I remember I had to go over and talk to Ona Croom. Do you remember?

LK: Yes I do.

RF: She was a delightful lady. She headed the state employees retirement association. And she was quite willing to pay out the money--she'd want to put this in writing--to cover the social security payments and then go back to the next Legislature to remedy it. Well, that's the sort of problem John Wood is so gifted at, and yet it was beyond Larry, and I felt the need to negotiate it. It wasn't that big a problem. But for his time I think you'd have to say Larry did a competent, capable, dedicated job. Project

LK: Yes. And he had health problems too, did he not?

RF: Yes, high blood pressure. History LK: Yes and I think interfered with performance toward the last.

Well, to go from a person with narrow vision to one with Orala broad, Society there is Tom Deahl.

RF: Oh yes.

RG: Speaking of microfilm. Society Historical RF: Tom Deahl came to us in an unorthodox way--you might say off the street. He walked in one day, and I think he talked to Bob first and then talked to me. And here was a case, I think, where enthusiasm colored our better judgment. But he had all kinds of ideas about what we could do to improve our microfilming program and move into the late twentieth century. We were looking for someone to succeed Willoughby,Historical weren't we?

LK: I believe so, yes. Minnesota

RF: So we hired Tom Deahl. And I'd have to say, I think he did usher in some interesting ideas, most of which never came to fruition. But he did propel us in the direction of recording off of radio. InMinnesota retrospect, that was an ill-fated project, because he'd record twenty-four hours of radio and rock music and so on, and I just don't think it had any focus. Even if it did, I think he created such a gigantic mountain of tapes there that we could never have dealt with it. So we terminated that after a while. I think Tom did educate us as to some of the early applications of the computer, and he improved some of the equipment in that area. But I think Tom very clearly proved to be a difficult person to work with. He certainly was for me to work with after a time--rigid, not given to listening to others. And he became disenchanted, I think, with the Society and certainly with me, and the reverse is true too. So he left us. Kind of hard to sum up his career beyond that for me.

LK: Tino has mentioned quite often what he learned from Tom in approaching things from a

77 systems viewpoint. Has Tino spoken to you about that?

RG: Tino was very loyal to Tom and a very good friend of Tom. They still are in touch, visit occasionally. Of course, they deal through Philadelphia now and have been for years. But I guess from that perspective I've always had the sense that Tom was well regarded by the people under him. He set up a good functioning system. I also remember the intense antagonism between him and June Holmquist. The root of that I never really knew.

LK: I think that was personality.

RF: I think so.

RG: It was just a personal antagonism that was, I say, very antagonistic. Project

LK: Yes. Tom and I had program conflicts when we went into the preparation of microfilm editions. We made it all right, but our personalities again, and sometimes objectives, weren't in sync, which I remember so clearly because I slammed the door, and I said, "Damn," and the report went throughout the Historical Society. [Chuckles] History

RG: I remember the battles that Helen White had with Tom Deahl. Oral Society RF: Oh yes.

RG: They are among the Society's folklore. Society RF: I think Bob maintained a closer relationshipHistorical to Tom Deahl than I did. I still hear from Tom Deahl. He wrote me a letter after I resigned as director just offering his consulting services if there was anything he could do. So I passed that on to Nina. He also sent me a copy of two speeches he's given at conferences, one of which said that the era of the public library is dead, because the computer has changed the way you gather and preserve information, and there's a lot of private entrepreneurship going on. Historical It was kind of an interesting talk. That seems to be one of his favorite topics. He said the research library has a bright future because of the unique material. Minnesota RG: He was always fascinated by technology and the implications of it. I think in justice to him, he had a broader--he had an interest in the social and theoretical implications of technology too. But if what we needed was a technological person to get the microfilm program going, I guess maybe weMinnesota had him at the right time.

LK: Yes. I find myself looking back on that era with a more positive attitude than I had at that time.

RF: He's kind of a transitional figure in his way.

RG: I personally got along with him fairly well. I could certainly see why he irritated people. That was not hard to guess at all.

78 LK: Alan Woolworth.

RF: Well, in Alan Woolworth I think we have some similarities with Willoughby Babcock's career. I hired Alan Woolworth in the late 1950's to succeed Sandy Cutler, hired him on the recommendation of G. Hubert Smith, who had been an earlier predecessor of Alan's in that capacity, and he received favorable comments out of North Dakota--the National Park Service. I guess my view there was that we needed a research head of the museum. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake, but for the time it seemed to make sense. I would admit to disappointment with the results of Alan's career. We moved him out of the museum. I think we moved him into Historic Sites for a brief period of time. We had him over Archaeology, and I think then he became a research associate, where he still is pursuing that.

I guess I would say that Alan has a lot of knowledge, and that's a similarity withProject Willoughby Babcock. And I think he goes beyond Willoughby in that he's been more disciplined in organizing it and probably publishing a little more than Willoughby. But I think Alan's weaknesses showed fairly early--his difficulty in maintaining relationships with other staff members--with his own staff, with Chet Kozlak, with Janis Obst and others--to the point where Bob Wheeler or I had to umpire some pretty serious disputes there. I guess I would identify Alan asHistory one of the bigger mistakes I've made. There may be a place for him within the institution, but I don't think we've ever quite found it, and it's still a problem. Oral Society LK: I wonder if we're coming rather close to finding it now. In Publications when the job description was rewritten, instead of research and writing I think it's focused on research now. And when administration of publications watches for the teaming idea, like teaming Alan and Gary Anderson. Also, I think increasingly peopleSociety are beating a path to his door asking for his expertise--exhibits people and I think reference staff to some extent. So it is a place. Historical RG: Alan over the years did a great deal of work with the Indian Claims Commission representing, I don't know, various tribes I suppose. Do you know if that ever led to any conflict with the Society? Historical RF: Oh yes. Yes, there's some memos on file there. That disturbed me a great deal, that first of all, he was carrying out, I think, veryMinnesota extensive research, I came to think somewhat on his work time. I'd have difficulty substantiating that. But also that he could be viewed as a representative of the Society. I brought this up to some of the attorneys on the Society's Board, but I think their view is more relaxed than mine--that they felt he's a professional, you have to give him a good deal of latitude, Minnesotaand until he really creates a serious problem, there's not much we can recommend.

RG: I think his fellow archaeologists have been less easy in their view than the attorneys.

RF: I think you're right.

RG: I have heard this from outside the state as well as in.

RF: Yes, I think that's true, and to be very candid, I think his wife, Nancy, has contributed to that problem. One of his positive contributions has been, I think, the archaeological work he did in

79 Grand Portage under contract between the Society and the National Park Service. I remember I went up there to some event and scheduled a tour of the archaeological project, and we were only into the tour five minutes and Nancy took it over. I finally had to tell Nancy that I really came up to review this project with Alan and not with you. And I think that's a persistent problem. Alan, I think, also has done some interesting work with the Indians. I think he made a major contribution and showed good sensitivity to the Indians during our problem in returning the remains of Little Crow to Flandreau.

LK: Yes.

RF: And I think he won the confidence, probably had the confidence of the Wakeman family and attended the funeral of Little Crow, which I gather was something of a Presbyterian service, which always amazed me. [Chuckles] His grandson, I think, is a Presbyterian minister,Project or at least he was a Presbyterian.

LK: Yes. And I think Alan has written up that episode.

RG: I hope he has. History

LK: Some of us encouraged him to anyway. Oral Society RG: His record in getting along with Indian people is rather spotty.

RF: I agree. Society RG: It depends on the individual. Historical

RF: I certainly agree with that. Jean Brookins has mentioned that Alan has been helpful with some of their publication projects, and she relies on him in certain areas.

LK: Particularly he was helpfulHistorical to Gary Anderson with the Little Crow biography. Gary spent a long time in Alan's office using the Nute files. And then with the narratives that will be published, Alan has done a great deal withMinnesota the biographical research, and of course, he is the one who had the transcripts of many of the narratives. I know it has been a problem for Publications on just, you know, how to fit program to person, to watch for opportunities. And I guess that's usually a part of institutional history. It comes up in one way or another. Probably in modern times we're a little less tolerant Minnesotaof that than in the past.

RF: I think so, yes.

LK: Now, Russell, I see you have notes on your copy. Were there other people we should be talking about?

RF: Well, we talked about Ruth Abernathy last time, I think probably sufficiently. I had no other staff members on my list. We could go on, but I'm satisfied with your list.

80 LK: All right. We have only Chet Kozlak left.

RF: Chet was represented to me when I came in October, 1953, as one of the stars on the Society staff by Harold Cater, and I think that reputation was deserved. Chet had come to the Society after a career as a comic strip artist--some success--in New York City. I think he'd gone through a nervous breakdown, as I was told--some health problems--had recovered from that and then had worked with the Women's Organization. Lucy, you correct me if I have my facts wrong, because this was all told to me second hand--and had been the primary person in conceptualizing, designing the hunting and fishing show and the toy show and some highly visible loan exhibits that--

LK: Yes, Maple, Pine and Pewter, which was a very fine one.

RF: And then as I worked with Chet in the museum, still while Sandy Cutler wasProject museum curator, he designed some of the early exhibits, which I suppose you could say were really visual textbooks almost--a lot of use of artwork. The section on explorers comes to mind, where he would design a very attractive, colorful map that would trace the explorations of Carver, LaVérendrye, and so on and a minimal use of artifacts --but still some use of artifacts--highly thematic in its approach. AndHistory I think for its time, it was worth doing and successful. At least the schools seemed to respond pretty well to it. Chet, I think, also made a significant contribution to the Mille Lacs Indian Museum, getting that launched. He spent weeks up there working with the Ayers, creating theOral exhibits, Society the life-sized dioramas. I think some of his very best work is at the Mille Lacs Indian Museum. And Chet also was a person we received a lot of requests for, to loan him out, and I was really permissive in that. He helped the Winona County Historical Society, and I remember we made an extended loan--I think the Society picked up all the salary cost and the CapsersSociety picked up all the other costs--for the exhibit on Madeline Island--well known to Rhoda. Historical RG: Which had recently come to fruition. Bella Capser's--

RF: That's right. I was going to say, you never know where that's going to lead, but-- Historical LK: Yes, a handsome gift to us. Minnesota RF: I think that bequest is due to Lucile's friendship, I think, with the Capsers, Chet's work and I like to think my friendship with Bella, which--

LK: Yes,Minnesota and with Leo too.

RF: Yes, with Leo too. I think her interest in the Society in many ways developed more after Leo died, but you knew her better than I did.

LK: I think she was able to speak afterwards. [Chuckles]

RF: A liberated woman.

LK: Right.

RF: But that's true I think. There's one of those things you just can't foresee that's kind of a nice dividend. Chet also, I think, was quite productive and effective during the early years of the historic sites program developing, which I would pinpoint. Well, I mentioned the Mille Lacs Indian Museum. That would be his first project, the late fifties, and then moving on into the early sixties, even some of the early exhibits at Fort Snelling. I think again you have health problems overtaking someone here and causing him to become much less effective. I think for long periods of time the Society carried Chet, and he became less productive. I mentioned his work with Alan Woolworth I don't think was particularly happy, and that, I think, was a negative factor--probably more of a problem created by Alan than Chet, though. It's hard to pass judgment on that. Chet's a person who needed a lot of supervision, a lot of reinforcement, a lot of reassurance. And as you mentioned with June Holmquist, I think if we'd go back into Chet's childhood development, it would probably illuminate some of the reasons why. A very likeable person, a very gentle, kindProject person. He had trouble saying no I think.

LK: Yes. He said that about himself.

RF: These outside projects were not all approved. I would find onHistory occasion that Chet had gotten himself into an assignment, and he made it more complicated, and he would explain this at great length. I think he had trouble organizing an idea and did the best he could. But I'd go down into the lower terrace there and find this pile of research booksOral with pages Society marked and so on, but I'd find Chet in kind of a state of paralysis. He didn't know which way to turn. I think he always had trouble with the research end of his work.

LK: Yes. Society

RG: Speaking of June Holmquist, I'm remindedHistorical that she was the one who suggested, as I understand it, that Chet be moved to Publications, that there was some way she could make a [unclear]. She also had somewhat the same benevolent attitude, I think, toward Gene Becker over the years. I wonder if you would have any response to that. Historical RF: Yes, and I think that may have been true of Alan Woolworth, though maybe I foisted Alan on her. But she was receptive anyway.Minnesota I think that's true. I think she felt that Chet could make a contribution there and probably got him to be, I wouldn't say highly productive, but more productive than where he was in the museum. With Gene Becker I can't really add any more there than you can, except I know there was a friendship there. And I remember when Gene and Marge were havingMinnesota some marital problems, to my surprise one day June said, "Gene is living with Don and me." And I guess he was there several weeks.

LK: For awhile, yes.

RG: The first time I ever met Gene Becker was in the Holmquist apartment where he was staying because he and Marge had had a fight. That was in 1952. That goes back a long way. I remember June also working out Gene's budget for him, trying to help in working out a rationale for asking for more help and that sort of thing, trying to get him to be an administrator, which he simply really couldn't do.

LK: And with his annual reports, trying to teach him how to organize information so he could get in some kind of a--

RF: June did a lot of that with people.

RG: This was another side of June that many people aren't aware of anymore--the role she played in carrying some people a long way.

LK: Yes. There was a touch of maternalism. I think it's good to have on the record, because she is, I agree, one of the misunderstood persons.

RF: And I think also June would spend long periods of time with scholars, butProject also unknown students of history who'd come in to see her, and that doesn't mean she wouldn't terminate the conversation. But I think if she saw a possibility, she'd stay with them.

LK: Yes. History RG: One that came to my attention when June died, I hadn't realized, was Tom Thompson came in and talked to her. He was still in high school, and he was interested in doing a research project on the Mississippi River. And she encouraged him to go ahead,Oral and Societyhe did--eventually came back to the Society and started working. I think of all the staff members I encountered after her death, he was the most moved.

RF: Is that right? Society Historical RG: Really in tears when he heard the news, and he gave her credit for bringing him to the Society.

LK: She was so proud of Tom--how well he had done in the bookstore and then, of course, in his museum assignments. Historical RF: While we're on that--and I appreciate your comment, Rhoda, about that testimonial event for Bob Wheeler, where I think youMinnesota quite rightly made the observation that much of the outpouring of affection there came from people outside the staff. I think I somewhat emphasized the staff because of people like Doug Birk, who were visibly moved.

RG: DougMinnesota was devoted to Bob.

RF: And then at Bob's funeral again. I think Bob had certain relationships within the staff like that. Archaeology was one area.

LK: Right.

RG: We started talking about June and Bob in the same breath sort of. I recall a continuing tension there, but it was never on a personal level.

83 LK: Never.

RG: June really was very fond of Bob personally. I remember at the time that you were considering leaving, she was concerned about how Bob might get caught in this, just as a person. She never felt that he was material for director of the Society, and she questioned his wisdom in almost everything. However, she was very fond of him.

RF: Yes.

LK: Well, that is certainly true with respect to Chet. And I think that the coloring books were just a grand idea for the expression of his talent.

RG: Gave him an opportunity to-- Project

LK: And she provided him with research help so that the thing he didn't do so well was done for him.

RF: I didn't complete the Chet story, in that Chet's position, as I thinkHistory you both know, was one of those we eliminated during the round of budget cuts in the early eighties, and that was a very difficult situation for Chet. It would be for anybody. But I think Chet felt we were picking on him, and I guess we were to some extent, feeling that he just wasn'tOral productive. Society And that's a position that is moved around the Society, and if we had to eliminate a position, that was one of them.

LK: Yes, and that was a hard time for the Publications Division too, because we were still in the aftermath of June's departure. Society Historical

April 6, 1987:

RG: This is an interview withHistorical Russell W. Fridley conducted on April 6, 1987, by Lucile M. Kane and Rhoda R. Gilman. Minnesota LK: Well, the Historic Sites Program is certainly one of the great ones in the Society today. How did it all start?

RF: I thinkMinnesota I came to the Society with a very receptive interest in historic sites. And I think that was further developed by both the need for the state to deal with its historic sites, which I found in a state of neglect, and I think also circumstances that developed. As I began to become acquainted with other states and saw what they were doing, I quickly formed the opinion that Minnesota should be doing as well or better with its historic sites. And I was struck by the fact that most of the action taken by the State Legislature to preserve the historic places of all types seemed to revolve around two themes, with few exceptions. One was the Sioux War of 1862, and the other was forest fires up around Moose Lake and Brook Park, Cloquet, Hinckley. That's a slight exaggeration, but it seemed to me those two events assume a significance out of all proportion when you look at the other aspects of Minnesota history.

And then the public media from time to time would come out with an editorial. I remember Jim Klobuchar from the Minneapolis Star--the Star was then separate from the Star and Tribune--had a long column about the neglect in which he found the Charles A. Lindbergh home in Little Falls. At the same time, I was traveling around the state a good deal with the Director of State Parks, U. W. Hella--Judge Hella--and to a lesser degree with the Commissioner of Conservation, Dr. George Selke. And Selke, who came in as Freeman's Commissioner of Conservation, I think brought to that position a good deal of vision beyond the immediate concerns of the Conservation Department, and one of those interests was preserving historic places. So during the 1950s, from 1953 on, as I knew the MHS, I think I was forming in my mind some kind of a plan for historic sites, but it went under some major revision because of events that developed.

One of those events was--or I should say, lack of events--was the fact that the ConservationProject Department, which still was the dominant agency in holding state historic sites, never seemed to give them a priority. And Hella and I worked out what was for a time a mutually satisfactory agreement, and that was that the Department of Conservation, specifically the Division of State Parks in that department, was the logical agency to manage the land and the buildings. For example, the Lindbergh home is in Lindbergh State Park. And theHistory Historical Society would fashion the interpretive program, and this would free the Historical Society of building and land management problems. The Historical Society in turn would bring its expertise to the program. That began to unravel by the late 1960s. As I say, for oneOral reason, Society Hella never gave the historical properties as a priority in his budget, and secondly, as I began to become familiar with the State Legislature, it became increasingly clear that they associated the budget with the agency that held the real estate. We had at the time.... Society Let me get my dates straight. In 1961, Elmer Andersen came into office as governor, and we had in the governor's chair a person intimately acquaintedHistorical with the MHS, deeply interested in Minnesota history, and his budget message reflected that. I think he recommended five additional positions, but none for historic sites, because we didn't ask for any. The idea was still aborning. Yet, I think the public climate was forming to push the Society into more activity in this area. I think some of the reporters--I mentioned KlobucharHistorical--were commenting about the sad state of our historic places. The Society had also broken with a 104 year tradition of not acquiring historic real estate-- Minnesota [Tape interrupted]

LK: Yes, breaking with tradition. Minnesota RF: The Society had broken with tradition in 1958 as part of the Statehood Centennial effort of the Society to acquire its first historic property, the William G. LeDuc House in Hastings. That had been the subject of some debate within the Executive Committee. I think there was a feeling still that the Society should not get into the land and building management business. At the same time, I think the Society was in an expansive mood. Lucile will remember that the Statehood Centennial provided somewhat of an increase in the Society's budget. It had authorized the Society to begin the archaeological excavation of Fort Snelling, and obviously I was keenly interested in all of these things.

85 Well, with the coming of Elmer Andersen as governor, the opportunity presented itself to really create a program for the first time, for the state to create a program and fund a program for historic sites. I should mention, too, that we have the Holmquist work of the survey of historic sites that I think sensitized a good many of us to how much we had out there in the way of historic places. So Elmer Andersen came into the Legislature with what was known as the Outdoor Recreation Program or the Natural Resources Program, a fund created out of an extra penny a pack cigarette tax to help acquire state parks, upgrade state parks and wildlife areas, wetlands and so on--no mention of historic sites. As that bill went through the Legislature in 1963....

I think I'm fogging up the sequence here. Elmer Andersen came in as governor in 1961, and he was defeated in 1962. But we had that unique situation of the recount, so Elmer Andersen continued until almost late March of 1963 as governor, where normally he would have gone out of office on New Year's Day. That really gave him the opportunity to formulate and presentProject the program to the 1963 legislature, even though Karl Rolvaag came in as governor. So the Legislature was in an especially strong position to amend that legislation. At that time, the conservatives came back into power. It so happened that probably the single legislator most supportive of the Society was Richard Fitzsimons of Argyle, Minnesota, up in the Red River Valley, and he had shown his interest long before coming in the majority in helping the Society Historygather increased financial support. And he had a keen interest in historic sites. Probably he had even more interest in archaeology than in history. But Fitzsimons, as fate would have it, chaired the House Appropriations Committee. Oral Society

On the Senate side we had an increasing interest developing, and I credit Neil Mattson with a lot of work here, because Fitzsimons came from his district, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee also came from Neil's district, SenatorSociety Don Sinclair. And although the Senate was slower to move and at that point showed less interest, it was still receptive. And the most powerful Senator over a long period of time, Gordon RosenmeierHistorical of Little Falls, I think was beginning to feel that the Society had been shortchanged in terms of state funding. So it was during that 1963 session that I think the Society made a real leap forward. And Fitzsimons, Rosenmeier, several other legislators, but they were the leaders. Aubrey Dirlam, who became Speaker of the House later on, he had been sensitized by hisHistorical brother, Dick Dirlam, of Redwood Falls, who was President of the Redwood County Historical Society. So what I'm trying to say here in perhaps a verbose way is I think we had the beginning ofMinnesota somewhat of a citizen effort here working both within the Legislature and outside, and that was to grow.

It happened that this natural resources bill would come before Fitzsimons for funding. And at that time FitzsimonsMinnesota called me up, and he said, "I think here's an opportunity for the Society to get some extra money. How can we use it?" And I went over and chatted with him, and I said, "Why don't we really make an effort to create a historic sites program?" And he said, "Well, how would we do that?" I said, "Well, you're creating an Outdoor Recreation Commission. I suppose we ought to perform a study and identify those sites most eligible for development by the state and to be administered by the Society." And he thought that was an excellent idea. He said he'd talk it up in his caucus and with some of the liberals, which he did. And he took it over to the Senate side to Gordon Rosenmeier and to the Majority Leader, John Zwack. I think it just so happened there we had a very strong set of legislators, many of whom were leaders--bipartisan--who were enthusiastic about this idea of creating a financial base for a historic sites program. So they just wrote it in with

86 a few words.

But still, State Parks had a voice in this in that the appropriation went to the Department of Conservation rather than the Society. So I well remember all the paper work we had to dislodge this, I think it was $80,000 for the biennium to begin laying the basis for this program. We were emancipated from that two years later in 1965. But most of that initial $80,000 was devoted to producing the three so-called MORRC reports--Minnesota Outdoor Recreation and Resources Commission reports--one dealing with historic sites, one with archaeology, and one with Fort Snelling. So I would characterize this effort in a very large way as growing out of the Legislature. And if I had to single out one house, more out of the House than the Senate, but the Senate responded very warmly.

By 1965, we had produced these reports, and the Minnesota Outdoor RecreationProject Resources Commission through its Executive Director, F. Robert Edman, had sent out the message that they were looking for a large major project. Was there one historic site that we could really make the showcase for this program? Well, the choice was not difficult. Fort Snelling had been under very limited development there, and I proposed that there should be a full-scale restoration, reconstruction of the Fort. And in 1965, the first large appropriationsHistory-- they may not seem large now, but $100,000 seemed large then--the first appropriations to create staff for the Historic Sites Program, very little, but some money for archaeology to revive the archaeological program, and I think the appropriation was $100,000 to begin the restorationOral of Fort Society Snelling. That $100,000 really triggered, as you both know, about a decade and a half project that runs into the millions when you factor in federal money and some private money. I think at the same time, we had the Fort Snelling highway problem that came along--'56, '57--that resulted in the tunnel compromise. That did a lot to dramatize historic preservation,Society I think, in the public consciousness.

But I guess what I'd say over all is that out of theHistorical Statehood Centennial, out of growing interest on the part of members of the Society's governing body, out of the survey that June Holmquist and Jean Brookins did, out of legislative leadership and out of a very friendly reception by governors from Elmer Andersen probably on down to Al Quie--we were fortunate to have a string of governors that really gave theHistorical history program a very high priority. I think that's the genesis of it.

LK: Yes. Well, that is very good.Minnesota

RG: Would you say a little bit more about the issue of the Fort Snelling tunnel? I recall a lot of discussion. Minnesota RF: Sure.

LK: Press coverage.

RF: Try to stop me. [Chuckles] Well, that broke very suddenly and dramatically I think in 1956. And bear in mind, you had a very green, new director at the Historical Society who was caught with this dramatic announcement by what we then called the State Highway Department, now the Department of Transportation, under the leadership of Mike Hoffman, the Commissioner of Highways, who was in the old school and believed that the best way to build a highway was to

87 figure out the two points between which it should run and draw a straight line. That's really not an exaggeration. He figured that the best route--he and his engineers--to construct a new bridge from St. Paul--the Seventh Street bridge, now the Fort Road bridge--to Fort Snelling would be to move it upstream two or three hundred feet, and he would actually move it outside of the Fort just beyond the Round Tower, but then run a cloverleaf around the Round Tower. And it was that cloverleaf around the Round Tower that I think really caught the imagination of the public. Because in the minds of most people, including myself--I think the Round Tower was Fort Snelling to many people.

We had this archaeological effort underway from 1958, which proved that there was a lot of Fort Snelling still surviving underground. So this became very much of a battle, not only among state agencies, but in the public arena. Judge Hella was immensely supportive of the preservation effort, as was Dr. Selke. You also had another force involved there, which I know mayProject bring back memories to both of you, in that the Metropolitan Airports Commission wanted to expand. And they had an Executive Director/Executive Secretary whose name escapes me. But he complicated the picture by suggesting that the Federal Government deed Fort Snelling--Old Fort Snelling was still under the jurisdiction of the Federal Veteran's Administration. And the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission suggested that they deed allHistory of the Fort to the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and they would make a park out of old Fort Snelling. Well, there was enough suspicion in the minds of the public to not take that very seriously, because the Metropolitan Airports Commission was a subject of greatOral controversy Society--many of these problems sound very current--of noise and traffic congestion and so on. I would say that the media really rallied around this issue, as did some of the patriotic organizations. I remember the Daughters of the American Revolution, which at the time was led by Mrs. Marie Brodwell, very supportive. Mrs. Allyn K. Ford came forward, whom, Lucile,Society you'll remember.

LK: Yes. Historical

RF: And then the county historical groups, all of those in the Metro area rallied around and many around the state. I remember the St. Louis County Historical Society passed a resolution. So all of these things were developing,Historical and Governor Orville Freeman was hearing about this problem. George Selke was very close to Orville Freeman, but so was Frank Marzitelli, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Highways. MinnesotaAnd Marzitelli was very supportive of the plan to run the cloverleaf around the Round Tower. And we had many sessions in the Governor's office and with Marzitelli. The most dramatic one I remember was when it appeared that Governor Freeman was not going to get involved in this issue, and MarzitelliMinnesota felt that the highway plan would prevail, and I remember George Selke--he was a very electrifying speaker on occasion, a psychology major--he got up and very emotionally said, "Well, I think if it comes to a choice between moving the airport and saving Fort Snelling, I say move the airport." And we began to redouble our efforts and finally reached Governor Freeman on that. And Freeman did sanction what was something of a compromise, but sufficiently so that the site of Fort Snelling could be preserved and the tunnel could be built. Marzitelli did succeed in shortening the tunnel by a couple hundred feet. But I think over all we felt that historic preservation probably did very well on that. I think that battle did a lot to galvanize the whole preservation movement. In 1963, we saw the State Archaeology Act passed. In 1965, the State Historic Sites Act was passed, which actually built in protections for state owned and county owned historic sites. I guess I look

88 back on that episode as quite a watershed.

LK: Yes. And Marzitelli was such a political pro that you had quite an encounter there.

RG: Is that 200 feet what resulted in the cloverleaf around the Chapel--

RF: That's right.

RG: Separating the Chapel from the Fort?

RF: That's right, Rhoda. The Chapel would have been joined to the Fort. I'm not sure our people would be any more pleased with that today in view of subsequent history. [Chuckles] Project You mentioned Frank Marzitelli, Lucile, who is, as you say, a very clever operator. He's still on the scene. And he became a latter-day preservationist, playing a large role in helping to secure the preservation of the old Federal Courts Building.

LK: Yes, that's what I remembered him for. History

RF: So he had a conversion later on. [Chuckles] Oral Society LK: That's an interesting turn-about. It was interesting the amount of out-state support you got for the whole historic sites effort, in spite of focusing on Fort Snelling as a flagship.

RF: Yes. Well, I think one of my rationalesSociety other than inherent interest in the program -- one of my rationalesHistorical for taking the Society into this area is it seemed to me that such a program was not only needed, but that it would give the Society a statewide base.

LK: Yes. Historical RF: Political base. And I think it did that. I think that's open to debate in the 1980s. But I think as long as we had an expanding budget,Minnesota that this was a highly visible program. I think it was easier to secure money for the historic sites. But I think that growth also helped the other programs of the Society. As I say, in the eighties, when you have to reduce budgets and you have to deal with retrenchment, that formula may not hold. Minnesota LK: But a great deal was accomplished during those years.

RG: I'm interested that you mention the political overtones of the obvious need for the Society to get support from around the state. Do you feel that this has in some ways shaped our administrative attitude toward the sites -- that we tend to encourage them to develop their own source of support within the communities that they exist in?

RF: I think that's very true, Rhoda. Certainly that wasn't present in my thinking back there in the middle sixties, and I guess I was one of those who learned along the way that you don't establish a

89 historic site in isolation, that it really has at least two lives. One is the life in the larger state context and with the MHS. The other is with the immediate community. And we felt this most acutely when we've closed some historic sites. We realize that these parochial feelings come out very strongly and are expressed strongly. But on the more creative side, I think we have developed a system that has given site manager a lot of latitude to develop programs in that area. And some have interpreted this latitude rather narrowly, some very broadly.

RG: In some ways, it seems to me there are two possible models for a historic sites program. I think of the National Park System as being one extreme, where the site is not in any way connected with the local community except for the bare essentials of connection, and the policy of rotating the director of the site very regularly so that that person's whole career and interest is associated with the system as a whole rather than the particular site. Project RF: That's true.

RG: I think we have pursued the opposite policy but not entirely consistently perhaps.

RF: I think that's true. Yes, I think the National Park Service almostHistory adopted a military model, including wearing uniforms.

RG: Yes. Oral Society

RF: Where they view this as almost a world unto itself in terms of an insular kind of professionalism, yet, I think they're experimenting more. I think they've had to experiment more in forging stronger links to certain communities.Society

RG: It doesn't work very well with historic sites.Historical

RF: That's right.

RG: It works better with remoteHistorical natural parks.

RF: That's right. I omitted oneMinnesota very important influence on me through all of this, and that was looking to other states as models. Closest at hand, of course, is Wisconsin, and Cliff Lord had always impressed me for what he had done, both at the New York State Historical Association prior to his coming to Wisconsin as Director of the State Historical Society. And Cliff Lord, I think, used a somewhatMinnesota different formula, but it was close enough to what seemed to me to be a very workable one, and that was to adopt certain themes. Well, I think Cliff probably adopted the sites and then tacked on the themes in most cases. [Chuckles] But I think at the time Wisconsin had five sites. They've added a couple since under his direction. But that struck me as for its time a major breakthrough for a state historical society. That wasn't quite as dramatic as I thought as I traveled to other states. Ohio had an even larger state historic sites system. North Carolina had one. Pennsylvania had one. I think those were the states that provided the models for me. I think where Minnesota improvised was being the first state to utilize natural resources legislation and funding to secure the funding and to look to the state to underwrite most of the program. I think Wisconsin, in a period of euphoria, had sold their program on the basis that they could really fund

90 the operations with very little state support, and I think they've suffered from that ever since. Also, I don't think Wisconsin after Cliff Lord ever gave historic sites very high priority. And I think that's a difference between the two societies.

RG: Do you see the Historic Sites Program as something that tends to pull the Society more away from academia and more toward a popular approach to history?

RF: Certainly in the eyes of academicians it does. Yes, I think it does but in a positive way. What it does, I believe, is, with creative programming and a highly professional staff, which I think we developed--I think as you say, Rhoda, somewhat unevenly, but I think that's been the thrust--I think it adds a dimension for not only enjoying history but for studying history. And I've been disappointed that more academicians don't agree with that. I guess in my contactsProject with the History Department at the University of Minnesota I was struck by not only the indifference that most of the American historians showed toward the Historic Sites Program, but even the disdain expressed. That may be less true today. On the other hand, you found people like Kenneth Bjork at St. Olaf, a really very highly regarded American immigration historian, strongly supportive. But he's more the exception than the rule. As the program moves along though, I thinkHistory we've been able to introduce into our Historic Sites Program other academic disciplines. The geographers have been very strong supporters of historic sites, and I think our ties with geography are closer than with history. Also, you've had certain fields of American history. Take the KelleyOral Farm. Society The agricultural historians are increasingly drawn to it. So the historic sites have enabled us, I think, to draw on more fields of expertise and strengthen our scholarly position.

RG: And notably, the anthropologists aroundSociety them.

RF: Yes, yes, definitely. Historical

RG: It occurs to me that the Society's involvement with archaeology and with historic sites almost necessarily went hand in hand. Historical RF: That's right. I'm glad you mentioned that. Another person who certainly was one who encouraged the development ofMinnesota a Historic Sites Program was Eldon Johnson, for a long time the State Archaeologist. And he wrote much of that early MORCC report on archaeology, and I think Eldon more than anyone identified archaeological sites that should be acquired by the MHS--the Grand Mounds, Stumne Mounds, Morrison Mounds--I think those all came from Eldon Johnson. Minnesota RG: Cottonwood County Petroglyphs?

RF: That came from Leota Kellett, who was the director of the Brown County Historical Society.

LK: Having participated with Skip Drake in preparing for the programs at the Forest History Center, I wondered too if the staff of Historic Sites has not turned more and more to scholarship. Those conferences, those discussions of what the lecture series should consist of, and the exchange of use of source materials, of bringing in Deborah Miller, bringing in Mark Haidet, make me wonder if perhaps they aren't thinking in terms of fundamental scholarship now.

RG: I think that's been a development of the last ten years. Don't you agree, Russell?

RF: I would agree, and I think a very welcome one. In the early years I think we probably formulated job descriptions not all that different from the National Park Service. We were focusing on a manager who could deal with land problems, building problems, construction plans and this sort of thing. I think we've worked through that with many of our major sites, and it calls for a different set of qualifications.

LK: Yes.

RF: And I think our scholarly standards have increased. Project RG: As Dick Dunsworth used to say, "They were grass cutters." [Chuckles]

RF: That's right.

RG: Maybe you'd want to comment a little on some of the peopleHistory like Dick Dunsworth who certainly played a role in our Historic Sites Program. Oral RF: Right. Dick Dunsworth, Curt Roy, Walter Trenary, RodneySociety Loehr--there's an academician with a keen interest in historic sites. I think they gravitated to historic sites out of personal interest, also because they like to move around too. Certainly--

RG: Don't forget Jean Dunsworth. Society Historical RF: Jean Dunsworth, yes, and Jean Chesley is another one--Jean Chesley perhaps more for archaeology than history. This was a tailor-made assignment, I think, for people keenly interested in Minnesota history who also liked to visit historic places. And you had added to that the grants program that developed in 1969. So early on we created a Historic Sites Committee to deal with questions of, well, how to sayHistorical no was one of their big functions, because the Society was receiving more offers of historic sites, but also to begin thinking about standards for acquisition, which local groups merited grants. The countyMinnesota groups were rather slow to get into the historic sites business. That's not true today, but I think the Society's grants program helped further that. So this Historic Sites Committee in the beginning both dealt with the issues related to historic sites and the Society's overall program and to the approval or denial of grants applied for. Minnesota RG: Was the Society under considerable pressure to accept sites for political reasons?

RF: I can't remember more than a couple of instances where the Society was under direct political pressure from a governor or legislator, but we certainly were pressured by county groups and individual citizens. The one incident I remember--two incidents. Early in the development of the Historic Sites Program, the late sixties, there was pressure from Clay County--two legislators in Clay County, and I can't even remember their names--to acquire the Georgetown Fur Post site. And that campaign was led by Glenn Johnson, the then president of the Clay County Historical Society. And he had legislation introduced for the Society to acquire it. And I received calls from

92 legislators, and I think even a couple of unpleasant letters urging the Society to acquire that site with kind of some veiled threats--I don't think they were anything I took very seriously. The other came later with the downturn in funding, say in the early eighties, when a couple of citizens in St. Peter wanted the Society to acquire the Traverse des Sioux site, and I guess in a sense we have acquired it, because it's been made a state monument. But we really haven't developed any program there. But a lawyer named Malcolm McKenzie, I think in a very civil, decent way put pressure on the Society. I mean, he let us know what he was doing. He went to his legislators. But the funding picture was not all that encouraging, so we had a ready answer there that we could use. I do think, Rhoda, that in retrospect that this committee that Dick Dunsworth headed initially...and then we split it. Horace Chamberlain headed historic sites, and Karen Humphrey headed grants. Karen still carries on chairing grants. I think if we had it to do over again, and I can only speak for myself, I think we would have been more selective in choosing a few of the sites. I doubt if the Comstock House would have made it, but it came very early, and we were trying to build Projecta system. We were trying to make an impact. Also, I think we have too many sites associated with the Sioux War. We don't have enough twentieth century sites. But this wasn't the perspective back in the fifties and sixties. I remember Walter Trennery opposed the Society going after Split Rock Lighthouse because he didn't think it had enough history. He thought it was a boondoggle, and it wasn't old enough. It was a twentieth century site. History

LK: And we didn't have a self study at that time to listen to consultants on the subject. Oral Society RF: That's right.

RG: One site that always raises interesting questions is the Forest History Center. Now that comes rather late in the development of our program.Society That is, in fact, not a historic site.

RF: That's right. Historical

RG: Was that a response to the statewide interest in interpreting centers, or was it a response to internal interest? Historical RF: I think it was more of a response to internal interests but also to the opportunity to secure significant private funding throughMinnesota the Blandin Foundation. You're quite right. That's a fabricated historic site. And Bob Wheeler, I think, more than anyone conceived it, led the effort, raised the money, did some of the early planning. I think the other side of that is that we never found a historic site to illuminate the story of lumbering and the forest in Minnesota that was intact sufficientlyMinnesota or could even be reconstructed to meet the need.

RG: So it did supply a vacancy in the [unclear] network.

RF: I think it did, and it also helped nudge us toward thinking not so much in terms of individual sites but overall themes and developing regional museums, interpretive centers. So I think it's a very important step on the road to more interpretive centers.

RG: And as it's conceived now, a good bridge and leg into the twentieth century with our interest in what has happened to the people and the land.

RF: But internally it was certainly a passion of Bob Wheeler, as we all know.

LK: Yes.

RF: Externally, the Blandin Foundation had expressed interest in funding a major project in that area and I think the need to interpret forest history. Skip Drake, the site manager there today, says that if we were to redo that project strictly on the basis of where to locate it to attract the greatest number of people, he would locate it on I-35 just south of Duluth.

LK: Many suggestions. We still have to acquire a major flour milling site, do we not?

RF: That's right. Project

LK: We have written about Pickwick and many of the small mills, but for the major industry-- maybe the Pillsbury A Mill will eventually come to us.

RF: There were a couple of sites that we accepted. One I think youHistory would not say it was a site, but it was a regional museum, before my time here--Lucile probably remembers it--the Earle Brown Collection-- Oral Society LK: Yes.

RF: Of horse-drawn vehicles. And you'll find that in the minutes. And he placed a condition on there that the Society had to provide a building.Society I think this came along in the late forties. Then in the mid-fifties, about the time we acquired the LeDucHistorical House--perhaps just after--we had an offer from the Sweatt family connected with Honeywell to acquire the Lamberton Home in Winona, which was a similar vintage house to the LeDuc House. And as I recall, the Executive Committee passed a resolution approving the acquisition of that site if we could work out some kind of endowment which the family seemed to be offering. That did not come off, and I think we all breathed a sigh of relief a fewHistorical years after that it didn't. But I think you can tell, the Executive Committee, the presidents of the Society, the director of the Society, and, I think, many staff members were eager to acquireMinnesota sites and put together this program.

LK: Yes.

RF: So Minnesotaour early efforts were to go on our own after this breach developed with state parks to acquire historic sites of statewide significance. I think the system was completed in 1969, or virtually completed, when five major historic sites in state parks were transferred to the Society to be administered by the Society, and of course, I think we acquired some of our most important sites that way.

RG: That was a key move. How did that come about?

RF: That came about I think through continuing frustration in working with State Parks where we had hammered out an agreement that the Society would, for example, administer Fort Snelling, but

94 subject to the overall conditions of the Department of Conservation. We weren't so frustrated with the idea behind that, but the Department of Conservation never seemed to develop these overall guidelines. And we figured what use is this agreement if it doesn't amount to anything. Also, State Parks had developed, I think, some serious problems with the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation and Resources Commission, with both members of the Commission and with the staff, especially the Executive Director, F. Robert Edman, who is a strong supporter of the historic preservation program. So I think the climate was ripe there for the Society to make its move. And Gordon Rosenmeier, Senator Rosenmeier, who was, I think, the most powerful member of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, Aubrey Dirlam, the most powerful member of the House, both on this Minnesota Outdoor Recreation and Resources Commission, they agreed to be lead authors. Rosenmeier proposed the legislation. Durlam responded enthusiastically. And they agreed to be lead authors. It was a difficult fight though, because Hella had supporters within the Legislature, and it was somewhat of a divisive issue. But given that authorship, Hella and IProject still talked. We'd even have a cup of coffee once in a while during the breaks. He said he didn't think he could overcome that authorship, and it proved out. So that really, I think, established the State Historic Sites System as a very comprehensive one. From that came Fort Snelling, Fort Ridgely, the Lindbergh Home, Upper Sioux Agency, Grand Mound, which had been authorized as a state park but-- History

RG: The Meighen Store also, or was that later? Oral Society RF: That came later. And then there was a second phase. Hella, I thought, would fight us on Fort Snelling, because he was very possessive of Fort Snelling. But the one he fought us on was Split Rock Lighthouse, which was also in the bill. I made the judgment there, consulting with others, that let's give on Split Rock Lighthouse, andSociety we'll come back another time, which we did. After Hella, his successors, I think, were very supportive of this program. Don Davison, who became Director of State Parks after Hella and who just retiredHistorical when I did, became a strong ally of this. In fact, at times he said we relieved Conservation of a burden.

RG: Would you say that politically, at least in public, the Society kept a pretty low profile in this, to move to transfer the sites?Historical

RF: Yes, I would say so. ThereMinnesota were a few news stories more in the local papers, say the Fort Ridgely area, about the Society and State Parks getting into a public fist fight. But no, our profile I think was very low. And I think there was a wide measure of acceptance in the Legislature. Hella also contributed to this breach. I think it was in the '65 session, he tried to divert the appropriation by lobbyingMinnesota -- the appropriation to begin the restoration of Fort Snelling -- he tried to divert that to repairing a dam in Flandran State Park. Well, I think local legislators had to choose at times. And I think fortunately we had enough coming down on the side of history compared to a project of repairing a dam. It certainly wasn't a hundred percent, but we had enough support. And I think this made the Society much more visible within the Legislature. So I think it had some ongoing value, and it tended to dramatize history.

LK: It's interesting in the literature of the seventies and early eighties concerning historic sites at the Falls of St. Anthony that the term "natural resources" is used.

95 RF: That is. That is.

LK: I was a little taken aback at first, thinking of a historic site as a natural resource, but it is commonly accepted.

RG: Russell, you've often cited the destruction of the Donnelly House as one of the most significant historic site losses. That, of course, occurred in the late 1940s.

RF: That's right.

RG: And didn't have any direct affect on the Historic Sites program, but do you feel that it influenced your thinking on the necessity for-- Project RF: It certainly influenced my thinking, even though I never saw it. But sharing your admiration and enthusiasm for Ignatius Donnelly, just looking at photographs, it just seemed to me that architecturally it was a fascinating house in its deign, and it reflected this inquisitive, inventive free spirit of Ignatius Donnelly. And I often lament the fact that that house did not survive, because think of how universal we could have been in our interpretive program.History You could go in so many directions with Donnelly.

LK: [Chuckles] Yes. Oral Society

RF: But I think it also had an impact on people like Governor Elmer Andersen, who said that the destruction of that house really converted him to historic preservation, and there were many others. Society RG: It was a rather dramatic loss, especially sinceHistorical the family had fought for so long to have it preserved.

RF: Another one that was interesting in the Hastings area--Hastings, I think, has had a lot of missed opportunities before the LeDuc House--another one was the old spiral bridge. Many people regretted that that couldn't beHistorical preserved. Though I think our Historic Sites Division wonders about the maintenance problems if they had the bridge. Minnesota RG: Bridges are tough ones. They don't seem to survive.

LK: Both Clara and Frieda Claussen, who are daughters of the designer of the Hastings spiral bridge, stillMinnesota speak of it, but they've forgiven the Society. They have remembered us in their wills.

RF: Very good.

LK: But in that family, on each visit, somehow the subject of the spiral bridge would come out.

RG: Maybe this is a good time to move to discussion of the Donnelly Project since we have Donnelly in mind.

LK: Yes, it would.

RG: When did that really get started?

RF: You're referring to the plan to reconstruct the library?

RG: No, I'm referring to the research grant for Michael Butler.

LK: That's where Rhoda came in.

RG: That to me is the Donnelly Project.

RF: Oh yes, okay. All right. See, there were many phases. That as I recall, came in the late fifties. I'm not sure. Michael Butler--Lucile will remember this better than I do--MichaelProject Butler did an undergraduate research paper at Harvard, wasn't it--

LK: Yes.

RF: On Donnelly. As I recall, he spent a few weeks with us and Historyworked feverishly and wrote an extensive thesis. Really, I think it was the basis of a full fledged biography of Donnelly. I think Lucile called this to my attention, and I know she called itOral to June Holmquist's attention, and we wanted to read the thesis. And we were all, I think, tremendouslySociety impressed by it--by the research, by the judgment behind his conclusions about Donnelly, and also we were certainly impressed by the quality of the writing, given his age, especially impressed. So June and I talked about the need to encourage his work, and it was sort of like the Fort Snelling Project. Here we think we had a first-rate historian--to be sure, a very young Societyone, but he seems to be developing rapidly, and let's try to get some money to fund a full-fledged biography.Historical Well, I think you all know the outcome of that. This dragged on and on. He did expand the thesis. He did spend more time here. He did produce several chapters, but he never finished the project. I lost track of him a long time ago, but I think he went into the State Department, didn't he, the Diplomatic Corps?

LK: I don't know. The lastHistorical I heard about him was when June and Don and I were in San Francisco. I think he was teaching in a California college at that time. Minnesota RG: I think he was at the University of California at Davis, wasn't he?

RF: I see. Minnesota LK: Yes. And June called him up. This was after we had not heard from him for a couple of years.

RG: This was part of a continuing effort to get him to give the Society his research notes, as I found out.

LK: Yes.

RF: June kept after him, and I forget what the tally on the total grant was, but I think it approached

97 $20,000 over several years, which was a huge amount of money to invest in one project. I think, in retrospect--June isn't here to speak for herself, but I think she agreed--I think we felt in many ways we would have been better off to have taken his undergraduate thesis and work from that. It was that good.

RG: How did this relate to....The Society had recently turned down a manuscript by Martin Ridge. Is that correct?

RF: I think that's true. I wasn't intimately involved in that, though I was apprised of the decision. That was essentially June's decision.

LK: I hadn't heard about that, as a refusal. It very well could have been. We, I think, made it quite clear at that time that we weren't particularly interested in biography. Am I correctProject about that?

RF: That's right.

RG: We seemed to have had a sort of ambivalent attitude towards biographies. History LK: Yes. And I think that June, and I certainly agreed with June, that Michael Butler seemed to have such unusual characteristics of mind that were demonstrated in that paper. And I was not at all surprised when the Society took the gamble, and it probablyOral was Society worth the gamble. Although June did say at one point when Rhoda was working with Michael, "I think we chose the wrong author." [Chuckles]

RF: Yes. I think June did, as we all know, Societyhave, I would say, an informed bias against biographies. I think she questioned the market as well as the significance of biographies in the overall program. I don't think she closed the doorHistorical entirely. Obviously she didn't on Donnelly. But I think her overall philosophy was go slow on biographies.

LK: Yes. Historical RF: But as Lucile said, I think Butler really approached biography in the highest sense in terms of contributing fresh interpretationsMinnesota to the study of history. And that is, he wrote a history of the period around Donnelly as well as about Donnelly as an actor in the period.

RG: That definitely was the direction of his research during the last year I worked with him and I think perhapsMinnesota was part of his downfall, because it became such a huge subject that it mastered him. He didn't master it.

LK: I think it is interesting, too, that in a way he was a purest. He did not want to read a great deal in secondary sources--comments and interpretations of Donnelly. He wanted to read the original materials and have it, a direct impact on him.

RF: I think Rhoda and I have exchanged comments on this through the years. We've raised the question, how many historians have had their health broken by Donnelly? [Chuckles]

98 LK: Or as Don Wood said, "How many historians have had to go through their Donnelly period?" [Chuckles]

RF: He makes a tremendous impact, I think, for an immigrant to Minnesota to find Ignatius Donnelly.

LK: Yes.

RF: And then as Lucile used to mention during my early years here that, in terms of individual papers, that was the premier collection for a long time.

LK: Oh yes, just rich in so many ways. And I think June may have been influenced in her attitude toward biography in that it didn't seem in our Rice-Ramsey-Sibley days as if thereProject were too many really outstanding people.

RG: That's right.

LK: Magnetic characters like Donnelly. History

RG: That's right. Oral Society LK: So we let Floyd B. Olson be taken by the University of Minnesota Press, and he was a--

RF: Joseph R. Brown has had his supporters but no biography. Society LK: Yes, right. Historical

RF: I guess the list has lengthened since.... [Chuckles] On Martin Ridge, I really can't shed a great deal of light on that, but I do think that Martin's manuscript had a problem in that we were always comparing his manuscript to Michael Butler's over a period of years, and that may have been the reason for rejecting it. Historical

RG: I don't recall specificallyMinnesota whether it was rejected or whether he was just discouraged enough so that he did not present it in a finished manuscript. I really don't know.

RF: He may have chosen his publisher without bringing it to the Society. I forget who published it. Minnesota

RG: Well, the Society's education program, as you pointed out earlier, had very early roots in the 1940s and certainly took off during the Territorial Centennial with the Gopher Historian program. But at the time I came to the Society in the late fifties, it really consisted mostly of a publication, The Gopher Historian, and an occasional teacher institute. How do you see that developing?

RF: Yes. Well, I think you described it as I first knew it. When Lucile does her interview, she may be able to offer more detail on the earlier attempts to develop an education program beyond The Gopher Historian. I am dimly aware that during the Territorial Centennial, say the period of

99 1948-49, and prior to Hermina Poatgieter becoming the editor of The Gopher Historian, I think there were attempts to develop chapters, Gopher Historian Chapters. I think most of those faded away.

LK: Yes.

RF: But I recall meeting two or three people--I haven't met any for a long time--who said that they were a member of a Gopher Historian Chapter out at Brown's Valley or somewhere.

LK: That's right. In South St. Paul, Kathryn McAuliff kept up her Gopher Chapter.

RF: Yes, she did. And we did have this Teacher's Institute that was largely guided by teachers and the Women's Organization. I don't think it reflected a broad interest in the Women'sProject Organization. But teachers who were active in the Women's Organization, like Matilda Heck and Mildred Lockreed--it was very much a St. Paul Public Schools promotion. I think working with the staff they developed an annual meeting of uneven quality, but that seemed to have a lot of energy behind it for several years. Certainly the centerpiece of the program was The Gopher Historian. And I think it also reflected Hermina's interest. I think among Hermina'sHistory interest was not that of an outreach program, traveling around the state, organizing chapters. I think she felt she could do more by publishing a quality magazine for use in the schools. That went along until around 1970, I think, with the adventOral of Viki Society Sand, when Viki came to us as a very young, energetic idea-person fresh out of college, out of Moorhead State. I think Bob Wheeler brought Viki to my attention. We were both impressed by her and thought that the time had come to broaden this program. And I guess as we look back on Viki's fairly brief but colorful tenure with the Society, that she perhaps had more of anSociety impact on events such as the annual meeting -- expanding that into an annual history conference, which is really revival of an old idea, though I think Viki clearly took us in another direction withHistorical the curriculum units, the multi-media units. And under her aegis, three of those were developed. I think Viki also changed somewhat the tone and the approach of the Gopher [Historian] reader, which became Roots, and you know a lot more about that than I do, Rhoda. Historical RG: Well, from my own perspective, and I have put this in a number of reports, I feel that fundamentally Viki didn't deviateMinnesota too much from the line that had been set by Hermina, and it was somewhat inherent in the situation. We had a very small staff and a very well-trained staff. We were capable of turning out good material, but we didn't have the person-power to do a lot of outreach. So I think essentially the thrust of Viki's fundamental program was not that different. The toneMinnesota of it certainly was, as we said at the time, "Changing times, changing people." Also, Viki had a very healthy respect for Hermina, a certain mount of personal fondness for her and quite a bit of respect. It's just as well that Hermina was at the stage of retiring when Viki took over, because I think there would have been friction. But it was not a matter of Viki coming in and overturning everything quite as much as it appeared to be.

RF: No. I think that's true. I think her rhetoric outran her performance.

LK: Yes.

100 RG: Right. Viki tended to give that impression much more than the actuality.

RF: And she had an ability to enthuse all of us, I think, and to come up with fresh ideas. The implementation didn't always work out.

RG: One thing I have been curious about, that perhaps you can shed some light on is the circumstances of Viki's hiring. My recollection was that the job was offered to someone else, who I believe went to California and decided not to take the job, that Viki was the second one on the list as I recall. Viki herself had a recollection of being interviewed for the job and then not hearing another word for a month, maybe more, and suddenly being called quite unexpectedly, being contacted to come in for a second interview, and being hired. She was rather startled by the whole thing. I think it was that-- Project RF: I have no clear recollection on that except Bob Wheeler was the person who conducted the interviews and I think scaled down the candidates to three. And I'm not sure whether the job was offered to someone else or not. It could well have been.

RG: If memory serves, the person it was offered to was Bob Baker'sHistory niece or daughter or some connection.

RF: Could have been. Oral Society

RG: That probably had little or nothing to do with it. It is simply that I had remembered the--

RF: Yes. I'm not privy to those details. I recallSociety Bob brought me the list of three people, and he favored Viki, and then I got into the next interview.Historical I agreed.

LK: He had other people on the staff interview her too. I know Helen White was one. So that may have contributed to the slowdown process in hiring too--people coming to an agreement. I was interested in what you said, Russell, about the early origins of the education program. I think Dean Blegen had considerable interestHistorical in this. Have you ever heard him talk about it?

RF: Yes. I'm glad you mentionedMinnesota that. I think we could even push it back to Solon Buck, who probably had less interest than Dean Blegen. But I think Buck had some ideas for what we'd call today education outside of the academic curriculum. And we had an annual history conference during the seventeen years he was superintendent. I think that grew into a very significant event under TheodoreMinnesota Blegen. And if you look at some of the reports or the early issues of Minnesota History, there's always a report either printed--I think almost always printed in Minnesota History on the annual History Conference. And they would take it around the state to Moorhead or Rochester, Duluth, not always hold it in the Twin Cities. And I think Dean Blegen had a real commitment to that kind of program. I'm not sure how much time he gave it as superintendent. He certainly didn't have the resources to work with during the Depression.

LK: Right. And his own study guide or list of readings. And then the radio talk program, that was a little startling.

101 RF: Yes. That's right, that's right.

LK: It was so early and so many people on the staff involved in it. So when we study the roots of our education program, we will be going way back.

RF: And the Dean always maintained that he wrote history for the general public, not for the scholars.

RG: If memory serves, Solon Buck wrote a textbook of Minnesota history for elementary school.

RF: That's right.

RG: It is a horrendous example, especially dealing with the Dakota War. [Chuckles]Project

RF: The story I get on that by Mary Berthel and Bertha Heilbron is that Elizabeth Buck wrote more of that than Solon Buck did, but he gets the credit. [Chuckles]

RG: Interesting. History

LK: [Chuckles] But I think a lot of people recognized Elizabeth,Oral too, as a very fine author. Now we've talked quite a bit about publications. Do you think, Russell,Society there is anything we should add about June Holmquist's evolution of the program after Mary and Bertha passed on the--

RF: I think we covered that in the last interview. There's certainly a lot to say about it. I think June brought a less traditional view to the program,Society and I think June was an expansionist. I think she diversified the program. As we had mentioned,Historical there are certain areas she did not want to take the program into. Biography was one. Historical fiction was another. We flirted for a time with an encyclopedia of Minnesota history or a dictionary of Minnesota biography, and in a way, our biographical project did a lot of work toward that end. But I think when you get into those areas, as prosperous as we were in the 1970s, I think we felt we never had enough money to carry through those projects. Those wereHistorical some on her list that I think she'd liked to have seen come to fruition.

LK: And her interest in cartographyMinnesota too. I think she didn't live to see the results of that.

RF: One area I think Bob Wheeler pioneered was the reprinting of important paintings either in Minnesota history or associated with Minnesota history. I think it reflects Bob's interest that most of them Minnesotacame from either the Provincial Archives of Canada or the National Archives in Ottawa, the fur trade paintings of Francis Hopkins.

But there's a case, I think, where not a member of the governing body of the Society but an interested member, a fellow named Scott Benton, who is in the public relations field, brought an idea to Bob, and together they raised the money to, I think, issue the first four. We've continued that, perhaps, on an irregular basis. But I think that was another expansion of publications.

RG: I see Bob as having been repeatedly trying to push our publications program, not necessarily push June, which didn't work very well anyway, but to push the Society into getting into different

102 media--the reproduction, paintings. He also pioneered the tape of Voyageur songs--

RF: That's right.

RG: Which is so far as I recall the only musical piece that ever came out of that.

RF: And that's another example of Dean Blegen's involvement, who wrote the booklet.

RG: That's right, which still sells very well. Another, of course, is the area of film. And again I think Bob was more adventuresome there. He'd go out and raise the money. But my recollection is that June interpreted publishing as strictly the printed page and was very hesitant about getting into anything else. Project RF: I think that continues.

RG: Yes, it seems to.

LK: I think June at times thought about microprint, the microfilmHistory for, say, archaeological works of very limited circulation possibilities. Oral RG: We have [unclear]. Society

LK: But we certainly never went into it in a major way.

RF: I think I always viewed the publicationsSociety program as much of a keystone of the Society as any single program. You could certainly argue that theHistorical collections are as important. Interpretation is what really matters in the end. I mean, we can debate that endlessly, but I think there was a very strong view on the governing body, the Executive Council, held by many of the most active members. Certainly Walter Trennery was probably the most eloquent where he said, "Whatever we do," he said, "if we give the public more circuses,"--he was talking about, I suppose, some of our annual meetings or our historicHistorical site festivals --"we're going to be known by the publications." And he continually expressed that. And I think that's part of the place still. Minnesota LK: Do you think that's true?

RF: Well, I think it's true for many of us. Certainly I believe that. But I think we have diversified in termsMinnesota of what we do in the way of programs. It would probably be hard to reach as much of a concensus on that today. It would be an interesting poll.

LK: Yes, it would. I don't know if any of our membership polls have brought up that question.

RG: I don't think they have as I recall.

LK: Yes. But probably that question would be of greater internal interest than external -- just what we see, the pivots in the program.

103 RG: Quite possibly. In relation to our publication program and our manuscript collecting--I guess I think of it as a fairly closely related subject--is our relation with the academic world, particularly the University of Minnesota. We have, it seemed to me, to tread a fine line between publishing for the ordinary reader and publishing for the academician. Have we been under pressure over the years to do more academic publishing?

RF: To some extent in the early years. I certainly haven't felt any pressure the last fifteen, twenty years.

RG: I guess I'm referring to the earlier years since that's our focus.

RF: Yes. I think when the Minnesota history program was stronger at the University,Project that is, when it was taught on a regular basis in the College of Liberal Arts, you had forceful advocates of it like Phil Jordan. Later on Clarke Chambers, Rodney Loehr. I think what's happened there is the subject has been dropped or it's become more specialized. It's narrowed in terms of its focus and in terms of the number of students it reaches. So I think the University has really abdicated in that area. I think if the University were more active in that area, we'd probablyHistory feel more pressure.

RG: That may well be. I seem to recall a time when there was a fair amount of distrust at the University, particularly when they were--maybe it was whenOral Clarke Society Chambers was forming his--

LK: Oh, his social welfare group.

RG: Social Welfare Archives. Then Rudy SocietyVecoli formed the Immigrant Archives. Did you ever feel there was an effort to take over the Society? Historical LK: Well, we had some interesting meetings around 1960, didn't we, Russell?

RF: Remember that dinner? Historical LK: Right, right. I think we have several feelings about this. Why don't you express yours, Russell, and I'll express mine atMinnesota some length when I'm interviewed.

RF: Well, I think Lucile had educated me in terms of manuscripts collection toward a very comprehensive program for the Society, that the Society should not pull out of many areas, should not neglectMinnesota many areas, or should not concede many areas to other collecting institutions. That probably wasn't too difficult a policy to follow either, because there weren't that many active collecting institutions.

LK: Not at that time.

RF: But we were aware of the Norwegian-American collection at St. Olaf College. I think the Society had conceded to the University literature and architecture and fine arts, a few other things. But you had coming along there in the 1960s as I recall, three centers which were pretty much tied to a single faculty member. You had Tim Smith, who wanted to develop a Labor Archives. No,

104 was Tim with labor or social welfare?

LK: Tim was with....No, Clark was with social welfare.

RF: Hy [Berman] was labor.

LK: Hy was labor, and what was the third field? Oh, ethnic history.

RF: Yes.

LK: The one that succeeded so largely.

RF: And I think some competition began to develop there. But Lucile and I remember,Project I'm sure, vividly the night -- I think we took them to dinner. But at times I think we felt that they had invited us to dinner, and we were a captive audience. Hy Berman, Tim Smith, Clarke Chambers. I don't think Rudy Vecoli was in the picture yet.

LK: No, he wasn't. History

RF: And they hammered away at the Society moving at leastOral part of its operation to the University campus. This was their concept. It's done in Wisconsin, why notSociety here, so that the Society would be very accessible to the faculty, the students and so on. And I thought they got fairly vituperative at that meeting, in exerting pressure.

LK: Yes. Society Historical RF: That this was the only solution to a very friendly and creative relationship with the University History Department. I don't think much ever came of that--it was a lively discussion--except the University did go ahead and develop the Social Welfare Archives and the Immigration History Archives. The Labor Archives never really amounted to much. Historical LK: No, I think that we had a better understanding with Hy than we did at that time with Clarke and Tim. But there is this too,Minnesota that Clarke and Tim were approaching this from a national viewpoint, and it was part of the hang-up. Because if we were to commit ourselves to a national program of collecting social welfare archives, what would have happened to all the rest of our responsibilities? Minnesota RF: That's right. And fortunately we had the Forest History Center experience behind us, where we knew what the problems were.

LK: That's right. And labor was not as susceptible to such a promotion because Wisconsin was already a national center for labor history records, and Wayne State was coming up fast.

RF: That is, not until Rudy Perpich. [Chuckles] Also, as I recall, Lucile, we had made a couple, at least one excellent acquisition of labor papers. The Minneapolis Central Labor Union, I think, was coming in so--

105

LK: That's right and the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly we had coming our way at that time too. But I wonder, Russell and Rhoda, if this episode, which seemed to focus on collecting, was not indicative of a broader attitude of the University toward the Society at that time.

RF: I think so.

RG: I guess that's what I was trying to get at. I would agree. I was only on the fringes of things at that time, so I'm very interested in what really happened then.

RF: I think it also signalled the specialization of the field, even a field of as modest a size as Minnesota history. That is the trend we're so familiar with today, to create centers around single subjects. I'm very aware of this with my main [current] assignment, the MargaretProject Chase Smith Archives. We have one collection--we have a whole center going. I think we've seen it perhaps less so in Minnesota, but it seems to be a galloping trend.

LK: Right. History RF: The presidential libraries and all this sort of thing. And as just the volume of history has grown, I think these opportunities also gain momentum. Oral Society LK: And I think on the other aspects of the relationship, we did have that tradition of Solon Buck and Dean Blegen teaching in the University of Minnesota and part time director of the Society. And I sometimes wonder from comments I heard in the forties when I was in graduate school if the University didn't consider the Society as kindSociety of a fiefdom . Historical RF: Oh, I think it did. I think the Society probably had its growth stunted during that period for that very reason.

LK: A question we're going to ask Carlton Qualey-- Historical RG: Right. Minnesota LK: You know what was so special about that relationship? All right, you say the University of Minnesota, is it the premier educational institution in the state? And then what are the satellites, and did they include a historical society? Minnesota RG: But Chambers and Smith and Berman were really the new generation at the University in the fifties then.

LK: Yes, they were.

RG: They represented a whole new approach both to American history, I think, and perhaps a new attitude toward the Society.

LK: Yes.

106

RF: Well, I think we had more frequent contact with them just as individuals, and I think friendships developed much more readily, say, than with Phil Jordan or Ernest Osgood.

LK: Right. It was interesting, in fact, to see the relationships between those--well, not Tim Smith- -he left so soon--but between Clarke and Hy. I think they came to have a great respect for the Historical Society and were very good about working out things on a cooperative basis and not as one unit dictating to the other unit or challenging it as I think we were challenged in 1960.

RF: And another trend that developed with the downturn in enrollments, or perhaps I should say the increased competition for university students and college students, I think, was the heightened interest--it's hard to gauge how genuine it was in all places--but the heightened interest in attracting students to new programs like museum studies and editing and archival studies.Project

LK: Yes.

RF: The University of Minnesota hasn't done a great deal of that, but in other states there have been full blown programs that continue today. And I think that bothHistory as a recognition that our professions have come of age, and also it's a recognition that they have a problem holding up their enrollments. Oral Society LK: A bit comparable to the Depression in which so much talent that would have come out of the graduate schools into academic roles spilled over into the Park Service and into the National Archives and Historical Society. Society RG: Well, that's certainly been happening again in the seventies and eighties. Historical LK: Yes, yes.

RF: Yes. And you mention the National Park Service and the National Archives. Certainly, Minnesota was well representedHistorical way out of proportion to its population.

LK: They were. Minnesota

April 17,Minnesota 1987:

RG: This is an interview with Russell W. Fridley conducted by Lucile Kane and Rhoda Gilman on April 17, 1987.

LK: Russell, in our previous talks about the programs of the Society, we discussed a little bit the Library through personnel, the museum exhibits and so on. But there's one big area we haven't covered, and that is the collections aspect, surely one of the most critical in those divisions. How did collecting policies change during your first ten years, or did they?

107 RF: I'm not sure the collecting policies changed all that much. I think my judgment would be that each division--or did we call them departments then--each of the collecting units pretty much determined its own collecting policy, but gave the director the opportunity to review the policy and enter into the discussion, sometimes even influence the discussion. I think we talked about the need to unify the collecting policy and have an overarching institutional policy. But I think a lot more progress has been made toward that in, say, the two decades following my first decade. And, of course, we're still into that discussion.

LK: Yes, we may be for a long time. It's surely one of the most difficult questions for an institution to face. Can you remember many discussions about appraisal standards? I know we talked a lot about what we should collect, but I don't recall much discussion about grades of material, what we shouldn't collect. What's your recollection? Project RF: Well, the issue kept coming up. I recall Dr. Solon Buck, when he had that brief period as acting director before I became acting director, he commented on the collecting policy as pretty much a laissez faire approach in his day--that he actually tried to encourage the department heads, such as the librarian, curator of manuscripts, to formulate a collecting policy for their individual areas. And certainly Grace Lee Nute, I think, did that. But Dr. BuckHistory mentioned his disappointment that the librarian, I think Gertrude Krausnick at the time--

LK: Yes. Oral Society

RF: Tossed the ball back to him to determine the collecting policy. And he mentioned that on occasion he would see materials coming across his desk that he would call ephemera. You've probably run into some of those. And he wouldSociety bundle up these materials, label them ephemera and just throw them in the library collection. The issue came up, but I don't think we ever really formulated a policy that you could call a consistentHistorical policy. One other observation there. I think the scope of the individual collecting units varied a great deal. For example, in your area, Lucile, I think Manuscripts was a much more aggressive collector and viewed the collecting orbit more broadly, both in terms of what happened in Minnesota or how Minnesota influenced nationalHistorical politics. Of course we had, laid on that, the ongoing interest in the fur trade. Where I think Library had a narrower view--to collect selectively in Minnesota. I think the Newspaper Collection wasMinnesota circumscribed by the boundaries of Minnesota, with some exceptions. So the collecting policy, I think, really came down in a large sense--certainly there was consultation--but in a large sense to the head of the collecting unit.

LK: Yes.Minnesota I wonder if in spite of a long professional tradition, that formulating a library collecting policy might be the most difficult of all--the necessity for maintaining a working library, for gathering things that help people in the various disciplines on the staff carry out their jobs, satisfy the genealogists on a national and international scale, and then all of the other aspects. I've often wondered about that.

RF: Oh, I think in any area it's very difficult. And certainly it is in the library -- just the bulk of material that's being published these days, just managing the flow of material makes the job increasingly burdensome.

108 RG: Neither of you has mentioned museum objects and/or pictures, both paintings and photographs. I think those are three areas that are particularly vexed ones right now. Do you want to comment on that?

RF: Yes. Museum objects I don't think I probably stayed very close to, as I've mentioned earlier. I don't think the museum has been a keen interest of mine. Certainly the photographs, the sketches, the paintings have been a keen interest. And I for one have felt that we should augment the collection of the Society in terms of its video dimension, because I just think we live in a time when the video record is more and more important. And I think the last twenty years show that the public's interested in studying Minnesota history through pictures and painting and video tapes and so on. But again, I don't think we have a policy that's very coherent.

RG: It starts me looking back, that many of the priorities, collecting priorities,Project were determined by individual interests, not necessarily of the people doing the collecting but their awareness of other research interests on the staff. I think this was quite a strong pattern when I came here and probably had been even stronger in the past. Obviously we're outgrowing that now.

RF: I think that's true, Rhoda. The interests of, I think, the divisionHistory head, the department heads, the needs that they received from other staff members' personal research areas, I think those are all factored in in the policy, probably much more so than sitting down and saying, "Let's take a look at the next century and what's going to be important." Of course,Oral that's Society not an easy question to answer.

LK: It isn't. It isn't. Society RG: There has been a tendency, I think, to collect to the strengths of the Society. If we have a major collection in one area, to continue buildingHistorical that. And certainly there is rationale for that. Does this militate against the kind of broader look that you have mentioned?

RF: To a degree. I think my interest, and I think Lucile's certainly, is an excellent example of that. My interest has been to keepHistorical the Society's collecting scope broad. But I think under the exigencies of budget and specialization and just resources, it's had to narrow some. And then you've had other institutions or organizations comeMinnesota into the picture that, as we talked last time, the Immigration History Archives at the University. They introduced both a competitive element, but also an element to relieve some of the burden on the Society. I think there's another issue here that's pretty fundamental, and that--when you mention paintings, brings it to mind--and that is I think there's been an Minnesotaongoing debate within the Society--well, this would be true of manuscripts too. How important is it to collect the original item compared to the information? And one change that I noticed after Lucile moved out as State Archivist, I think, has been a tendency on the part of what was then the Division of Archives and Manuscripts to give a lower priority to collecting the original item. Where I think in your day, Lucile, you steered a middle course, which I agreed with -- that is, when we have the opportunity to collect original items of special significance, we should collect the original document. Today I don't find that there's a very strong voice for that within the Society. In other areas of the Society, obviously paintings, I suppose you could take a photograph of a painting, but there isn't much art in it. If you want to collect a painting, you either collect it or you don't. So I think the intrinsic value of the historical item versus the information contained in it is an ongoing

109 debate, and you find supporters of both sides. But I think probably there has been a trend toward preserving the information compared to the original.

LK: I think that the recent communications in the Corker point up a question that we discussed very often. That is, the real diary comes on the market. You know that you're in the ten to twenty thousand dollar league. How about that twenty thousand dollars in the budgetary perspective? Do we have that to spend on one item no matter how important? So I think some of these same questions might be discussed more and more often.

RF: I think, too--and I read those series of articles with great interest in the Corker--that is, should we be collecting art? I think one reason we've collected more art over the last ten or fifteen years, I think first of all, Lila, Nina and I are all interested in that, but also, we've collected much less in the way of books and manuscripts. I think when you were Curator of Manuscripts,Project we spent more money collecting, purchasing original manuscripts. When you left that position, I can't recall more than a half a dozen acquisitions since of original manuscripts. So there's been more money, not necessarily allocated to art, but more money in the pool, and art has soaked it up. There hasn't been much competition. History LK: Yes.

RG: I recall also that Jim Dunn, head librarian, was veryOral eager to Society collect rare editions.

RF: That's right.

RG: Whereas, I remember some discussionsSociety over the question of whether a copy would be -- again preserve the information. Don't you feel that that really goes to the very heart of what the Society is, whether it's a private cultural institution or an Historicalarm of the state in the sense, seeing that the broadest range of state resources are being preserved?

RF: Well, I'm not sure I would go all the way on that. I think you can make the case that the purchase of a rare item of extraordinaryHistorical value perhaps will reach more people just because there's keen interest in it than, say, spreading the resources over a number of items of lesser significance. But I guess I see your point. IMinnesota think it's time the Society looked at how it allocates its resources for acquisitions.

RG: I guess that question in my mind comes out of my experience in the historic resources survey, which, ofMinnesota course, was looking at the resources of the state rather than the resources of the Society per se.

RF: Yes. Let me illustrate my reservation there. When I came to the Society, one of the very recent acquisitons of art, and I think relatively few, is the purchase of the J. C. Wild painting, "Fort Snelling." As I recall, the Society paid four thousand dollars. This is early 1950s. I guess I would argue that that acquisition was justified, not only in terms of what a fine item it was artistically, but as the years have unfolded, you look at how many times that's been used as an illustration and has become really a very significant document. So I don't think it's as easy a question.

110 RG: None of them are easy questions.

LK: No, they aren't.

RF: I think one other factor here--it's a fascinating area--and that is I think the Society thirty years ago, even twenty years ago, depended much more on gifts of all kinds of historical documentation than it does today. These things have acquired monetary value, and the Society, I think, has had to compete more with them. Certainly when I first came to the Society, it would have struck me as rather odd that we would spend money to purchase a museum item.

Today we don't do a lot of it, but certainly it comes across the Acquisitions Committee all the time. And I should give credit to Lila Goff, I think, in creating an Acquisitions Committee first in the library and now with the merger of Archives and Manuscripts in a larger division.Project I think that the Acquisitions Committee has democratized the process and somewhat ordered the process of at least giving a number of people a chance to recommend on what should be acquired.

RG: Another aspect of collections policy is the question, and is again one that is being debated rather warmly right now, is the question of conflict of interests in Historypersonal collecting going along with collecting for the institution. Do you feel there was much of that being done when you came here? Oral Society RF: No, I don't think -- Certainly, there was some of it, and I'm not sure I'm aware of all the examples. But I would say maybe I could think of a half a dozen staff members I was aware of who had personal collections in areas that they were tied to in the Society. I think that policy is a wise one. I think again it's easier to formulate theSociety policy than to apply it, right.

LK: I think people had a much less rigid approachHistorical to, well, definition of duties and responsibilities. And it was not unknown in our earlier years for people to have kind of, sometimes, a custodial attitude. At least one person believed that she could, you know, collect things and hold them for her own use for a bit, and then they did find themselves into the public collections. Historical RG: I strongly-- Minnesota LK: But that was common, fairly common nationwide.

RG: That's true. It was a different generation. Minnesota LK: Yes.

RG: I strongly suspect that many of these collections found their way to the society in the end. There was never the guarantee of that, of course.

RF: That's true. Many collectors have been great allies of the Society. Others have been competitors.

LK: Yes. I think we've been fairly lucky in that respect.

111

RF: I think so. But as you say, Lucile, there was not only a different era. I don't think we took issues like job descriptions as seriously as we do today or policies. Part of it, I think, is just the scale of the institution. It seemed to me when I came to the Society with thirty-six employees, I thought it was a pretty large place. But in retrospect, it was fairly small. And I read with great interest Ann Morgan Campbell's "Swan's Song" in the Society of the American Archivist's magazine. You know, she's just retired as executive director of the SAA. And she characteristically has a rather tart comment there about job descriptions and committees, that they may be all right for large organizations, but for the SAA, they're counterproductive. [Chuckles]

LK: They have some elaborate ones too. I think maybe in the old days, Russell--we can talk about the olden days now--a certain amount of dedication to the institution was assumed. It has some elements of the private club. People came, they stayed a long time, and to coverProject the duties that some of them performed would have taken more than two pages.

RF: That's true.

LK: Because they filled in and in some ways were very flexible, Historydid what was needed to be done.

RG: I think it's probably true that for our whole society, that there has been a trade-off between that kind of personal dedication to institutions as a privateOral club and Society the opening up of institutions to a broader scope of people both on staff and serving. After all, we've lived through the sixties and seventies.

RF: That's right. Society

LK: We did indeed. Sometimes it wasn't easy. HistoricalIs there anything else we should talk about in relation to the collection policies? I know it's a tremendously big field. We didn't talk about appraisal, Russell, and I think of that particularly with respect to the museum collecting. Sometimes the institution being called the community attic. It was so hard to say no. Historical RF: Yes. I suppose I received in the course of a month one or two calls as long as I was director from some citizen or maybe outsideMinnesota of Minnesota who just found the Society's name in the phone book and thought, here's an appraisal agency who will not charge me anything.

LK: Yes. Minnesota RF: So they would call up and ask, "What is a copy of the New York Tribune worth that has the story of Abraham Lincoln's assassination?" And I'm sure Faustino Avaloz is used to having that call referred. But certainly that's one of the functions of the Society, I think, to try to educate the public about what it is not, that we're not an appraisal agency. I received more calls in the area of, I'd say, first, museum objects, secondly, manuscripts--not much in other areas. But those were referred on to other people.

LK: Yes. And thinking of appraisal in another sense, I think institutionwide it might have been hard to say no. I can remember when I think the criticism began to be much more stern on

112 accepting manuscripts. And some potential donors would say, "Oh, you aren't collecting anymore." As if it had been a wide open process. You have something old you want to give, bring it in, the Society will accept it.

RF: No, I think the art of saying no is one of the most valued.

LK: Yes. It's become highly developed now. Now the county historical societies certainly have played a role in collecting. Was that the main thrust of the field program, to work with the county historical societies to help them with their collecting and advise them on museums?

RF: Those were certainly two of the major functions. I suppose that reflects Arch Grahn's areas of interest. I suppose first of all, Arch always was up to the challenge of trying to organize a society in each of the 87 counties, and I think at least for momentary periods he succeeded.Project Secondly, I think it was to assist them in developing a floor plan or even some rudimentary building plans. This is before architects really became involved, because most county societies couldn't afford them. Thirdly, I think, was how to develop a collecting policy again, I think a very primitive policy by our standards today, and how to care for those collections, how to house them. And the mistake repeatedly made that I observed as I moved around the state was theHistory lack of providing storage space and not only the space, but the temperature and humidity controls to care for the collections. I think that's still a very major problem today in many counties. But I think we have enough examples of new county historical buildings, at least we have some roleOral models Society out there. It's only until recent years we've had those. I think of Stearns County, for example.

LK: Yes. What do you think are the failures, if any, in our policy toward the county and local historical societies? Society

RF: Oh, I think there are many. I think one veryHistorical difficult area is nurturing them, but not necessarily in the MHS's image, without compromising our standards. And I think at times there's a tendency to do that--try to help create them in the State Society's image with not enough attention to their lack of resources, their volunteerism, their leadership that comes and goes, and also, perhaps, a lack of sensitivity to their uniqueHistorical interests. I've always been impressed by Glanville Smith in St. Cloud, whom I think died just recently. He was an essayist of note and had really I think an outstanding ability to interpretMinnesota local history through writing. And when he headed the Stearns County Historical Society in the late 1940s, and he was still on board in the 1950s, he came up with the heretical idea that the county society didn't nned a building and didn't need a collection. It should really be more of a great books approach to history, that it should be a discussion society and feature lecturesMinnesota and promote writing and so on. Well, I don't think he succeeded particularly well, except he did that. I think we should allow for more individuality. I think we tend, perhaps, to force a model too much. I think our successes have been in the area of forging a very strong tie with the county societies. And I think we've done that to show that we've invested resources in terms of personnel. I think the grants program, which has had successes and failures, has really helped stretch the county dollars very far. So a lot of good things have been accomplished. But I guess I would say there is still quite a gulf there in the view of a county historical society's view of its mission and the state society's. I think there always will be, and probably diversity is good. So there are some communication gaps out there.

113 RG: Russell, it was in 1963, I believe, that the Enabling Act for County Historical Societies was passed. Surely that would be one of the areas in which we have been successful in helping them.

RF: That's right.

RG: Did the Society play much of a role in getting that passed?

RF: Oh yes. I think Arch Grahn more than anyone. And I believe, Rhoda, that amended the Act. I think the original Act was passed either in the late forties or early fifties. What the 1963 Act did was to remove the ceiling as to how much public funds a county or the commissioners could appropriate. And I think that's still the most liberal law in the country. I hasten to add it hasn't been abused. I don't think any county has appropriated too much money. Project LK: Yes. Some of the leadership of the Minnesota Historical Society has come from the county historical society leaders, has it not?

RF: Yes. History LK: I think of Jean Chesley in particular. Oral RF: Jean Chesley and I think in earlier years Dr. Lewis Younger Societyfrom Winona. I think you could say Don Shank. While he has so many involvements, certainly one of his major involvements was the St. Louis County Historical Society. I'm sure we could cite some staff members from county societies. And I think there's a rising tide of professionalism in the counties. When I came to the Society--that's over thirty years ago--perhapsSociety there were three or four full time directors of county societies. Perhaps you would say none of them hadHistorical professional credentials. Today there are I think at least twenty and some very impressive people out there. I think of Kathleen Muny in the Brown County Historical Society. I think they speak well for the grass roots organizations.

LK: Yes. Historical RG: Larry and Barbara Sommer. Minnesota RF: Yes.

LK: I think of it as a difficult question, because in discussing it with Arch at times, I'm sure I took an offensiveMinnesota position that it was a constant retraining process because of the volunteerism--that you could set up all kinds of seminars, issue publications, but you were never done, because people were here today and gone tomorrow. Do you see a great deal more stability coming to county institutions?

RF: Oh, I do, but I think the quality of leadership ebbs and flows with the people who come along, especially where you do not have a professional paid staff. And there's no doubt that at times I've felt as others have, that perhaps we could devote our limited resources in a better way than giving artificial respiration to some of these organizations.

114 LK: That's what it's like, yes.

RF: And I think other states feel more strongly about that than we do here. Wisconsin with its state historical society, I think, has been more doctrinaire in preaching what county societies should not do. One thing--I'm not sure they do this anymore, but my guess is they probably do--they've taken a much harder line in setting forth their guidelines about what county societies should do. And I think it's a more limited view than our official line, such as it is. They've discouraged the collecting of manuscripts and public records. Well, I think we've discouraged the collecting of public records too. And I think they've given a great deal more emphasis in working with the regional repositories. And of course, that was a movement that came along in Minnesota as well. But I guess I for one have never felt we should exclude county historical societies from developing a regional collection any more than we should exclude an academic institution if they have the professional expertise and could meet our standards for a partnership agreement.Project I think Wisconsin saw the counties as having a much more limited role. And at times I think they've paid a political price for that too.

RG: Do you feel that the Minnesota Historical Society has benefited politically from its ties with county societies? History

RF: I would say on balance, Rhoda--I wouldn't want to over-emphasize it, because I think many county societies want to do their own thing and are not particularlyOral Society interested in being part of a statewide network, other than a very loosely knit network. But I would say yes. I think there have been enough examples of leaders, supporters, as we mentioned council members, coming out of the county societies for me to feel it has been a plus in developing our statewide program. I don't think I'd rank them as high as, say, the historic sitesSociety program. I think the historic sites program has been a more dynamic element in creating a statewide base. Historical RG: Have county societies generally regarded the extension of our historic sites program as an element of competition or support?

RF: I'm not aware of a greatHistorical deal of friction out there on the part of county societies. I'm sure there are instances where they may feel we are invading their turf. But at least my experience has been that they've welcomed the developmentMinnesota of historic sites.

RG: That has been the impression I have gained in the times I've been around the state. I am aware that our relations with county societies often do require walking a political tightrope. I remember one particularlyMinnesota warm night up on the iron range. Are there any other incidences you can recall?

RF: Oh yes. I can recall a meeting in Moorhead a few years ago where the--a very civil meeting but different views--where the Clay County Historical Society and the President of Moorhead State University, Roland Dill, and a number of others beat on us to keep the Comstock House open. We were virtually on the threshhold of closing the Comstock House. And I still think that was probably a good idea. But we relented on that and agreed to work with them, and they agreed to raise some funding. So we developed a creative compromise there to keep the Comstock House going. I'm trying to think of points of friction with county societies.

115 LK: I think the regional research centers triggered some.

RF: Yes. There is a real point of [unclear]. [Chuckles]

LK: She says feelingly.

RF: Yes, and I think there are two sides to that argument, as I said. I would not argue that scholarship will not be better served by collections in the state universities and also in the two branches of the University of Minnesota at Morris and Duluth, but I don't think we should exclude county societies. And to me the most positive approach that any of our regions started with was the one in the St. Cloud area, the Central Minnesota Historical Collection, which was the earliest. There I thought we had a good meeting of the minds of the academic institution, St. Cloud State University, a number of the county historical societies, a very harmonious or a Projectvery cooperative brand of leadership under Don Miller, who was president of the Kandiyohi County Historical Society, who was reaching out to both parts of this partnership. But I think where that fell apart is that unfortunately we had very weak leadership within the state university, and the St. Cloud center never developed the way it should. It had the advantage of being the first. But I felt in the beginning--those first two or three meetings--we really had a cooperativeHistory climate, and some good things could have come out of it. I think another area, certainly, that counties had resented was the regional centers. They felt neglected and left out and so on. Oral Society LK: Yes. I wonder if the difference might be that a historic site doesn't take anything from the county societies, and the regional centers are reaching out to bring materials in.

RG: They are collecting agencies. Society

LK: Yes. Bill Lass, I believe, worked very wellHistorical with the Blue Earth County Historical Society in defining respective spheres and limits.

RF: I think there's a lot to what you say. Historical LK: But it's an interesting question. Minnesota RG: Another area of competition where we have reached out has been the state historic preservation program. I recall a number of years back where there were heritage commissions being formed in many counties almost in competition with the Historical Society, really representingMinnesota different generations. And it appeared to me to be creating a rather uncomfortable position for us.

RF: I think you've described it very well, Rhoda, that there is a generational difference there that you can discern whenever you get those two groups together. I've been encouraged that more county historical societies have become involved in historic preservation in the last decade, say, than the previous decade. I think maybe one reason the state society has been welcomed into preserving historic sites and developing a statewide system is that the counties seemed ill prepared to venture into that field--a few exceptions, not many. Winona certainly had an extensive program, and early. But preservation, I think, called for a different view of historical resources and how do

116 you utilize those resources--much less of an inward looking view and antiquarian view. And that's been a new constituency that we've serviced. And I think we've enjoyed it, because it has brought in new energy, younger people with somewhat differing objectives.

LK: Well, all of these things we've been talking about really are broadly public relations. I can remember when we thought of public relations chiefly in terms of publicity. How has that whole concept changed, Russell, from Ruth Abernathy down to the present? Well, why not go beyond the present? This is our last interview. [Chuckles]

RF: Sure. Oh, I think it's changed in so many ways. You mentioned Ruth Abernathy, who I guess gave me my introduction to public relations as practiced at the Society. And still I think we always have a semantic difference as to what's the difference between public relations and publicity and membership promotion and fundraising. I guess public relations is the overarchingProject term. But I guess I was taught an important lesson by Theodore Nydahl. I mentioned this in an earlier interview. When my first instinct during the very early years, both as assistant director and acting director and director, was to try to reach out to the whole state through various programs and publications and so on. And I guess I still feel that. But Theodore Nydahl refined that for me when he said, "Well, your most important constituency is the Legislature.History You ought to focus on the Legislature." And I think I somewhat shifted gears, at least to realize that you have a number of constituencies out there--not only the Legislature, you have the membership, you have the academic community, you have the media, you have the preservationists,Oral who Society are one of the later developing groups but I think a very potent group. And you have to think in terms of the needs of each of these constituencies, and they may even be in conflict to some extent at times. So that a public relations program, I think, is continually changing and undergoing review. And while there may be some basic principles that still apply, each of theseSociety areas has to be given great care and attention. And I think as the Society has grown, each division has taken on its own public relation challenges. I'm not sure we ever arrived at the point of investing Historicalenough resources into a professional approach to public relations. I think I brought a certain skepticism of that, that often this was proposed in the budget, but I never gave it a very high priority. Well, in recent years I think we've done that.

LK: One great advance wasHistorical made. We used to raise the question, "Why is the news of the Society so heavily concentrated on the society page?" Somehow that was moved over into general news or whatever category it naturally Minnesotafell into. How was that accomplished?

RF: Well, you would know better than I. Prior to 1953 I think that bothered me as it did you, to find the Society's image so involved with the society page, certainly it rankled officers of the Society likeMinnesota Carl Jones, certainly Larry Rossman and others who felt that we shouldn't object to being on the society page for legitimate reasons, but history was a far more important enterprise and had many more uses and values and that we should get it into the mainstream. So I had a keen interest in that, and I think Bob Wheeler did some very creative work in his early years with the Society to do that. But you're right. There was a great resentment against that. And I think the media, the reporters responded with sympathy to our desires to move history on to the front page or the other pages, the editorial page. We tried a number of things.

RG: Surely Bob Wheeler's image of the historian as outdoorsman is potent in that.

117 LK: Yes.

RF: And the projects identified with him.

LK: Right.

RF: Also, I think we benefited from the resentment against Harold Cater, who was viewed because of his close association with Mrs. Vivian Weyerhaeuser and others, that he was viewed as interested in the Society being identified this way as a high society plaything. So that reporters like Will Reeves, who hated Harold Cater, when they were approached by a new director and new staff members and so on, they bent over backwards to help us.

LK: Yes. Project

RF: It wasn't that difficult.

RG: It was Harold Cater, as I recall, who created the Women's Organization. History RF: That's right. Oral RG: We haven't so far as I remember in these interviews mentionedSociety that anachronism.

LK: Now I have one more question to ask about public relations.

RG: All right. Then we can-- Society Historical LK: And that's an indulgence. Let's talk about the future. In all of the stories about the Society, you know, on radio and television in the past have been so positive, and they've been upbeat, you know, growing, growing, growing. And I thought about the future so strongly when I was standing in a reception line last Saturday night and people behind me were discussing the Society, and they said, "Did you read the storyHistorical in the paper about that multi-million dollar building?" And somebody else spoke up and said, "That institution is growing like wild. Is there any way to put a cap on it?" [Chuckles] I'm not into HistoricalMinnesota Society affairs, so I can't tell what the direction of the publicity is heading to, but is it possible that we could be advertised as being too big?

RF: Well, I've heard those sentiments long before the History Center plan was conceived--not often, butMinnesota you would hear those in the Legislature. I remember a liberal representative, Norm Wallace, from Detroit Lakes, a liberal senator, back in the 1950s saying, "Well, why are we appropriating all this money to the Historical Society?" You know, maybe we had a staff of forty- five people. He said, "I think we're throwing good money after bad." So I think that voice is always around, but it hasn't been very numerous. I suppose you can make that argument that an institution perhaps can grow too big. Can we do all these things as well as two or three institutions? But I guess I've been converted to the Minnesota model or the Wisconsin model, that we're better off to have a strong centralized program than to have it fragmented.

LK: Yes.

118

RF: So I listen to those comments, but I don't take them too seriously.

LK: Very good. Now the Women's Organization.

RF: Rhoda is--

RG: Well, it just struck me in reading some of the old minutes and news for members from the 1940s and 1950s, the Cater era, that the Women's Organization was very characteristic of that period and has scarcely been heard from since.

RF: That's true, though it has shown durability to survive. I've taken, as you know, a somewhat benign attitude toward the Women's Organization. I've tried to work with them,Project and I think I probably spent a lot more time with them than most of my female colleagues on the staff. At one time I felt that it should be converted into a Friends Organization. And I agree with you, Rhoda. It it an anachronism. But the powers that be in the Organization would have none of it. They like it the way it is, and they think they have a role. And they've done a few things. Certainly in the overall picture of the Society I think it's a very small factor, and I thinkHistory still a problem as to its future mission.

RG: You refer to the powers that be. Who do you mean Oralspecifically? Society

RF: Well, whoever is president at the time. I guess when I brought the issue up, it was--I can't even remember her name. All I can say is she had a brother who was a state senator, Baldy Hanson, who had no interest in the Women's Organization.Society But I can't come up with her name. It's not an issue that I've brought up the last few years. I guess I've capitulated on that one. There have been a couple of periods I think when the organization wasHistorical quite vital, when Melva Lind was president, Dean Melva Lind of Gustavus Adolphus College. She raised, I thought, the scholarly level of programs. And another one was Margie Houston, who conceived the Betty Crocker symbol for General Mills--I think really a remarkable woman. And she promoted the membership, not only the Women's Organization, butHistorical for the Society. One thing we did do--I guess the only structural alteration I made very early--late fifties--was to discontinue the policy of mandating that one dollar dues for a female member of theMinnesota MHS go to the Women's Organization. That struck me as highly discriminatory, ill-advised, maybe even illegal. So they went on their own then and became a somewhat more independent, an auxiliary organization. It'll be interesting to see what Nina does with it. Minnesota LK: Yes, it will.

RG: Times have changed and perhaps almost come full circle in the attitudes toward a group limited solely to women.

LK: Yes. The auxiliary thought that was so dominant in the nineteenth century, early twentieth for that matter.

RF: It's certainly not an unknown species in other states. I think our view may be a little more

119 radical than most states. Because you move into some other state historical societies, they have a women's organization or an auxiliary.

RG: That may reflect the predominance of the professional women on the Society staff.

RF: Could well be.

RG: And I think that there is a built-in stress factor there between the professional woman and the auxiliary.

LK: Did any leadership come from the Women's Organization to the Society proper, as it did come from the county historical societies to Society proper? I know we started out with Vivian Weyerhaeuser serving on the Council. Project

RF: Yes. I guess she'd be the example. And as Rhoda mentioned, I think it was probably Harold Cater's idea. He went to Vivian Weyerhaeuser, and she became the first president. And then early on she became a vice president of the MHS. We still have to achieve a female president of the MHS. There have been, I think, leaders of the Women's OrganizationHistory who've gone on the Council, Mrs. Howard Gray, Dewita Gray.

LK: Yes. Oral Society

RF: Melva Lind. Probably three or four other. But it is a separatist group, as Rhoda points out. By and large professional women working in the field of history or not even in the field of history, or I think women interested in the Society. SocietyI think most women seriously interested in the Society and its programs join the Society -- maybe incidentally the Women's Organization. But it's kind of a side issue. Historical

RG: That's right. Even like Karen Humphrey or Mary Ann McCoy have never been associated.

RF: That's right. Historical

RG: I'm not aware of the Women'sMinnesota Organization ever pushing in any way for more study of women's history.

RF: I think that's true. I don't know if they're for it or against it. [Chuckles] Minnesota LK: It was a traditional role of the auxiliary, the decorating of tables and--

RG: During the Cater era, however, they appear to have had very substantial responsibility of putting on museum exhibits.

LK: Oh, they did.

RF: Oh yes. I think they were practically running the Society at times.

120 LK: Yes.

RF: And I think reflects on the vacuum of leadership. I will say this. I think our historic sites program have attracted the Women's Organization where we're meeting here, at the Hill House. I think perhaps some of their most concrete support of single, say, the acquisition of objects or restoring of an item in the Hill House or the Ramsey House, they have helped in those areas, purchasing books for the library.

LK: Yes. Much like the Colonial Dames, have served us in a way without a direct affiliation.

RF: Yes, and I would say a word. I certainly want to make clear that I am at opposite ends of the general view of the Daughters of the American Revolution on current issues. But I would have to say that the DAR performed some very effective work. Before most organizationsProject either male or female or co-ed, say on projects like rescuing Fort Snelling, preserving Fort Snelling. I suppose those are perhaps less social organizations, more patriotic, but there's some of both. They take history very seriously.

LK: They do. History

RF: And we may not always agree with their view of it, but they are a strong force. Oral Society LK: I wonder if we would have lost the Faribault and Sibley houses if they had not intervened.

RF: Oh, I think we would. Society LK: From the descriptions of the structure, it seemsHistorical that we might have.

RF: That's a very worthy example. I think they produced an outstanding leader. She's still around at the age of 97, Marie Brodwell, who is an early state regent, and I thought brought a very enlightened view, well, to the study of history through the DAR. And her interest has continued long after she became inactiveHistorical in the DAR. There are some single accomplishments out there that I don't think we should overlook. Minnesota LK: And what did the statehood centennial do for us?

RF: Not much. [Chuckles] No. My experience with centennials and bi-centennials, I think, has been amongMinnesota my unhappier adventures. No. I think it miscarried, first of all, because it was politicized in the way it was set up as a special commission. I think the people who were brought into it, very able in their fields, Tom Swain and Don Padilla and others, were basically promoters of the flashier kind of event. And we had projects, you remember, of the centennial train that cost $600,000. I don't know what else. So that the official body that steered the statehood centennial I don't think made any enduring contributions to the cause of history. There were a few. I think the Gopher Reader was an outstanding accomplishment. The restoration of Fort Snelling was begun, and the tour program was expanded through some good work by Bob Wheeler. I do think the general climate that the event nurtured around the state did a lot for history. Because you had county historical societies energized. I think we were energized to make history more visible. I

121 think the response of the media. And I'd say the same thing for the bi-centennial of the American Revolution. Again, I think the state program was just so politicized and was guided by unhistorical people, that history was shortchanged. But it did create a climate that has brought attention to the importance of history and historical organizations. So in those areas I think we clearly benefited.

LK: In the research I'm doing right now I'm covering dozens and dozens of community histories, and I think in that area we owe a lot to the bi-centennial. That seemed to have stimulated a lot of publication and some of it quite good, particularly in broadening the social outlook.

RG: That's one thing that county historical societies have often been strong in, the social history. They have very little else, so they concentrated on it.

LK: That's right. Project

RF: I'm still involved in the coming bi-centennial of the American Constitution. Nina has asked me to stay on that commission, I think, I tell her until she has time to go on herself. That's sort of interesting, though, in that the political appointments by the governor and by the president strike me as highly political. Most of them are to repay political debts, withHistory some exceptions. On the other hand, you find groups coming forward like the Minnesota Commission on Black Minnesotans, who see an opportunity through the bi-centennial of the Northwest Ordinance to interpret the role of the Black in Minnesota. And you know, I think that's to be welcomed.Oral Society It seems to me they feel more a part of this than they have in previous centennials or bi-centennials. I don't know what that says, but I think it's a welcome development.

LK: Yes. It certainly is. Through all of yourSociety first ten years, Russell, you were dealing with a divisional structure or departmental structure that probably peaked at fourteen. What were your thoughts in those first ten years, if you can recall Historicalthem, on the ultimate of a divisional structure?

RF: I think my views changed somewhat--maybe not so much the first ten years, but the first thirty years. I think you were a very strong influence, Lucile, in persuading me with little difficulty to keep the Manuscripts DivisionHistorical separate from the Library. There had been an unhappy history there.

With the organization of the administrativeMinnesota divisions of the Society, I think I took a go-slow approach there during the very early years, first of all educating myself about the Society, observing what programs seemed to me to be strong, which ones deficient, which ones somewhat duplicative in terms of function. I guess you weigh the lesser number of divisions against the greater creativity that comesMinnesota out of giving your front line who head these x number of divisions more latitude. Those that seemed to me to be strongly led, I don't think I ever entertained the thought of making very much of a change. As you go along, I think you want to try some things. And as the institution evolves, you see opportunities to consolidate or expand. I think what I came to--and this happened long after the first ten years--was basically organizing the Society in terms of its fundamental functions. We had two collecting divisions, Archives and Manuscripts, or before Archives came back, Manuscripts, the Library. We had an Outreach Division/Historic Site Division that embraced what were previously independent departments. Publications and Research, and we introduced Research fairly late into the title. That is probably the one that was least affected by any of my divisions. And then the Education Division, I think, is the youngest division. It seemed to me as

122 the institution grew, and you always tie this to your talent available, we had opportunities there to create a division that would be less encumbered by tradition and collections than in the past. And in many ways I think that became our most experimental division. Nina and I, before my retirement, reduced that number further by consolidating Archives and Manuscripts with the Library and what became -- What do we call FHA now?

RG: Historic Sites and Museums.

RF: Historic Sites and Museums subsumed part of Education. So we're really down to three divisions. At least, that's my latest count. That may be too few, but I'm sure Nina Archibal will go through a similar process and probably change the structure somewhat. But I think you go with your strengths in terms of talent to lead, financial resources, creative support within those divisions. And I think it's probably good to change. I guess I was slow to change, probablyProject slower than I should have been at times. And then resignations give you some opportunities or retirements. It's not easy to make those changes, and there are fortuitous circumstances to keep in mind too.

LK: Right. History RG: The twelfth division that you didn't mention, Russ, is the Business Office.

RF: That's true. I tend to forget that one. [Chuckles] Oral Society

RG: That has grown immensely in the last ten years.

RF: Right. Society Historical RG: Before that in my recollection, your policy was to keep the divisions more or less autonomous. I guess my own feeling, and I'm sure many others shared it, including you to some degree, was that there was relatively a sparse central core in terms of central administrative services, certainly a very small amount of staff and, for example, no personnel office, no public relations office for the whole Society.Historical How do you feel about the changes that have produced the very large business office we now have? Minnesota RF: Oh, I have mixed feelings about it. I guess I'm enough of a mossback to feel that maybe we've overdone the development of paper work in all directions. That may be a simplistic criticism. I'm concerned that our bureaucracy at times gets in the way of the speed with which we accomplish things, theMinnesota effectiveness with which we meet deadlines. Certainly some of this is mandated by state and federal law and laid on by administrative regulation, by occasionally a directive passed down by the Executive Council or Executive Committee. So there's a whole host of details there. Sometimes I think we're overstaffed in that office. I think it's a welcome development to see the personnel area really blossom under Pat Gaardner. I think that was overdue, and probably we're the [unclear] on that line.

LK: One of the great things that has happened.

RF: And certainly I don't minimize John Wood's great talent and creativity. But I guess in relation

123 to the rest of the institution, it seems to me it may be a little too large.

RG: Well, I'm sure all of us are nostalgic for the days when if you wanted the job done, you just went ahead and did it. But it's probably a part of our growing world, the growing size of the institution.

LK: Did the job of director change very much as you found that you were not communicating with, say, fourteen division heads? You were communicating with seven or six or five or four. How did that change your job?

RF: Oh, I think to some extent it made me more remote from--maybe not from the staff as a whole, but I think the leadership in key points of the staff. And then the, oh, the problem we're all familiar with, I think the dispersal of the Society around the Twin Cities and aroundProject the state through Historic Sites. Yes. I missed that intimacy that I think we had with the fourteen units where I was sort of the man in the middle. And then as you add an assistant director, it changes, because the assistant director takes on certain functions and relationships, which helps you, I think. It helps you move the institution in many directions, but I think at the same time you lose something in the intimacy of relationships. History

LK: It was, I think, such a gradual change that many of us didn't realize that here something major was happening in the history of the institution. Oral Society

RF: And I think as the institution grew, there was another factor in that, not that I didn't have discretion in determining a good deal of this, but I think I chose to be outside of the institution more than in the early years because of the statewideSociety program developing. So I moved around the state a lot, and there was a public relations factor in that too. So I think that figured in the decision to create fewer divisions, have fewer people directlyHistorical accountable to you.

LK: Right. And that really is a good comment on something that you and I had wondered, Rhoda, if this decision to be out to Historicalbuild statewide support was a conscious decision.

RF: Oh yes. It was both a consciousMinnesota one and one I enjoyed, too. [Chuckles] But I think it's interesting to see Nina's early months both as--well, especially since she has become director as I've chatted with her--I had a good chat with her yesterday--that she--I thought we had an excellent division of labor there and communicated very well, and she was the inside person for most things, not that Minnesotashe couldn't do the other. But it's interesting to see how much she's moving around the state now, that she's outside. But, of course, she doesn't have a deputy director either, and she is carrying kind of a double load there. But there are certain forces, I think, that just propel you in that direction.

LK: Right. And some of it is the Legislature. Do you think that your being so visible in the state was a major help with the Legislature?

RF: I think it was more so in the 1960s when we were really struggling to put together a statewide historic site system and when the grants program was starting up. I think as other staff members

124 were added, they assumed many of these functions, and there was less need for the director to be out in the state. I think you always have to stay close to the Legislature, at least to those key members who determine the financial fate of the place, and I guess I continued with that. But it's a much more complicated picture now, because many staff members have to have contact with legislators, and the Legislature has changed, because often the staff of the Legislature is as important as the individual legislators. So you have many more bases to touch on here.

RG: There has also been a great deal of turnover and change in the character of the Minnesota Legislature in recent years. I've been wondering how that has affected your work with the Legislature over the years. Just looking back, do you see a trend or a change there?

RF: Oh, I do. I think my work was less effective with the Legislature--but see, there are others that have to make this judgment--but I think around the time of 1980, it certainly wasProject less effective with Governor Quie, who is a nice person and always very friendly. But after a string of governors so interested in history, I think we came on one who had a modest interest, and at the same time I think the interest in the Legislature in history and in the Society was diminishing. And I think that trend continues today. I mean, in spite of the History Center, my concern is what kind of support will they give this quantum leap for the institution? I think that's reallyHistory an overriding issue that we all think about.

RG: In mentioning the various constituencies of the Society,Oral one Society that appears to me to have been of increasing importance recently--in fact, I was scarcely aware of it in earlier years--and that is the foundation world. The Society never in the fifties and sixties really appealed for foundation grants as I recall. Society RF: Very modestly. Historical RG: In my perception, that's one of the things that Nina has brought to the Society.

RF: I think that's true. And to some extent, that's even true in the federal area, though I think we've been more aggressive in seekingHistorical federal funds than private foundation funds. You have a dilemma there, a couple of dilemmas. One is I think there was a reluctance on the part of the Executive Committee, and I shared it, to Minnesotabe too aggressive seeking private funds, feeling that if we were too successful with private funds, they might feel we needed less state funds. Another dilemma is that because we are state supported, in the minds of many foundations, especially those in Minneapolis, we were simply not a high priority for foundation support. But I think Nina will bring a lot of savvy toMinnesota both those areas, and she has already.

LK: Have any other serious questions come from the Legislature on our dual nature as a private and public institution, any to match the earlier battles?

RF: I can't think of any coming from the Legislature. The Legislature has usually been more of a help than a hindrance. I think we talked about Staff King emancipating us from having to go through the state accounting system and making our appropriation directly, and then our inept performance on microfilm when they brought us somewhat back in. And then in 1973, we appealed directly to the Legislature. I don't think we ever talked to Governor Wendell Anderson or

125 his staff to write it into the law that the Society would receive its funding direct. And the Legislature was extremely receptive to that. I think the timing--I think that was the time to do it. I think since that's in the law, I think we're in pretty good shape there.

Where it comes up, Lucile, is when you have a new statute, as we did around 1960, that made state employees eligible for social security. And the Attorney General ruled that it not include the Society. Then we had to go back and have the law amended. And it does come up primarily in that area of benefits that we have to watch very carefully, and I think John does a superb job of it, so that the Society is not left out, because we are always an anomaly in that we always need to include a separate sentence to cover our employees. But I can't think of any problem that we haven't been able to resolve. I think it's a great strength of the Society. I've always admired the fact that we're older than the state, and we're neither fish or fowl. We're semi-state. We're confusing at times, but I think that gives us a lot of freedom as an institution. Project

RG: We fly when it suits our purpose and swim when the water is high.

RF: Exactly. History LK: Yes, good analogy.

RF: And I told Nina if she forgot everything else I told her,Oral she shouldn'tSociety forget the legal nature of the Society. It's worth fighting for. Or as Dr. Buck said--I think I mentioned this in the previous interview--that his definition of the Society is, "It's publicly funded and privately governed, and the problem is to keep it that way." Society LK: [Chuckles] Yes. If we haven't before, it is worth repeating. Who are some of the legislators who gave you strong support in really raising thisHistorical budget in a remarkable way?

RF: The combination of governors and legislators. I would say the initiative would have moved back and forth. Certainly in the 1960s when the conservatives came back in power--I think that's kind of a misnomer, becauseHistorical I don't think they were that conservative--a lot of creative programs came out of that ten years. I'd have to say Richard Fitzsimons would be at the top of the list, Gordon Rosenmeier fairly closeMinnesota behind in the Senate, Aubrey Dirlam, who became the Speaker of the House. Just their interest, their influence, I think, had the effect of broadening the interest, making this a very interesting, high priority program for the state. So not only were they interested, I think they influenced a lot of other people. Elmer Andersen when he came in as governor in 1961, heMinnesota gave us a very strong boost. But I would still say the primary growth in the sixties came through the Legislative initiative. In the seventies--well, up until 1963, we were just struggling maybe to make modest gains. In the seventies I think--well, in the late sixties, Governor LeVander was a big surprise to me. I shared with many people the disappointment that he became a candidate for governor in 1966, and he turned out to be a liberal Republican. And that was true in terms of his budget. I don't think we probably ever had a more progressive budget for the time--certainly in our area, education. So he was a big surprise. Wendell Andersen was a history major, and I don't know how much he pursued it, but certainly was an extremely strong supporter. And then I think the DFL majorities in the 1970s. Probably of all the legislative periods, I think they were more receptive to more programs and new programs and new legislation and so on. There would be a

126 whole host of people there -- Nick Coleman, Martin Sabo in the House. I'd hesitate to list them, there were so many. But I think as fiscal problems began to crowd in on the state, the Society began to suffer, suffer unduly. I think in an expanding budget I learned that programs like ours do well if we're doing a reasonably effective job of reaching the Legislature. But in a retrenchment period--and I would add, I don't think Governor Quie gave the Society any priority at all. Governor Perpich did when he came back in 1983. But then I think his interest waned some. So I'm not sure the Society is a priority today. And again, I separate the History Center from the program. So in times of retrenchment, I think programs like the Society really are very vulnerable.

LK: Yes, an ominous note for the future as we build up our needs to such a high level. We thought that we had built them up to a high level when moved to 1500 Mississippi, and that's a--

RF: So my opinion would be, and you lose touch with this very rapidly, and NinaProject and John Wood might have a different opinion. I think in the sixties we were struggling to find our champions in the Legislature, and you were very involved in that, Lucile. I think in the fifties we were struggling. In the sixties we found some very strong ones. In the seventies we found even more. In the eighties I think I'd be hard put to find a legislator who really gives the Society, who is very single-minded about the Society in championing our cause. On theHistory other hand, we're a strong institution. We've built a lot, so, I mean, we'll survive.

LK: Yes. Oral Society

RG: You mentioned Lucile being involved. Over the years there have been a number of staff members who have had personal ties to the Legislature. I think of people who came to us from a good deal of political activity, particularly VikiSociety Sand, Lila Goff. Have they, do you feel, had any particular influence in helping with the Society's budget, with the understanding of the Society's programs? Historical

RF: Oh yes. I think a number of staff members who--I think the staff has really been very responsible not to go off on its own, but a number of staff members have helped John Wood and me through the years just inHistorical flagging a potential problem or mentioning, "Here's a new legislator that you ought to cultivate and meet." I guess if I had to single out one person, it would be Lila Goff's husband, Bob Goff, whoMinnesota was very close to Nick Coleman and very close to the DFL leadership early in the seventies. I think that came apart in the late seventies. But Bob Goff is an extremely able, I think, able, persistent, enthusiastic advocate of the Society.

RG: HeMinnesota was on our Council.

RF: He was on our Council, right. And then when he and Lila married, he chose to drop off. But I've had any number of legislators tell me that the person who has really influenced the Legislature, the DFL, well, both sides really-- Rosenmeier and Goff are very close--the person who has really helped the Society become known within the Legislature is Bob Goff.

LK: Interesting. I didn't know it was as pervasive as--

RF: See, he was on Rolvaag's staff too. He was in the Governor's office. And then he supported

127 Sandy Keith, so he left.

LK: [Chuckles] The well known Sugar Hills.

RF: But Bob's really a student of government as you know.

LK: Yes.

RF: The workings of government.

LK: He's had deep interest in history.

RG: I'm interested in your opinion that the staff has been quite responsible in thisProject area. It is a potentially rather a tricky one--

RF: Oh, it is.

RG: Where you have staff members who are deeply and emotionallyHistory involved in the political arena. I know that over the years this has been--the whole Hatch Act approach has been interpreted very liberally by the Society. I never felt that there was anyOral discouragement of political activity by staff members. At the same time, the question certainly has been Societyraised in staff discussions as to how far it was appropriate for the Society staff to become involved in party politics. It obviously has not been an active problem. Do you have any feelings about that, as to why it hasn't been a problem? Were we just lucky? Society RF: No. I think we have a governing body there,Historical especially the Executive Committee, that's very enlightened on that. And probably most of my directorship, maybe even to the end, the majority of--at one time the large majority was Republican. It was hard to find a DFLer. That's changed. But I think the Republicans, the conservatives, felt this was in the interest of good citizenship, you know, as long as we didn't go out and campaign in the name of the Society. This is your business. And I've been very comfortableHistorical with it. The only area where I've encountered serious problems with staff members--and even there, maybe that's an overstatement--let's say staff members have written letters. I don't think anyMinnesota have testified against the Society. But that's been the area of archaeology, where twice we've made an attempt to bring the appointment of the State Archaeologist under the Director of the Society and also secure greater funding. But I'm sure, as you both know--certainly Rhoda does--the archaeologists have always resisted that, including Eldon Johnson,Minnesota the State Archaeologist, with whom I've had very cordial relations. And that may respond, Lucy, to your earlier question, "Can we get too big?" I think the archaeologists felt we could. On the other hand, I think the price they paid there was that funding for the state archaeology program suffered seriously. I think we'd have a much larger funding base for archaeology if we could have gotten together.

But there were two attempts--I think one was in the early seventies, one in the late seventies--where we had bills in to bring the appointment of the State Archaeologist under the Society. And certainly the Society was conceding something, because we were going after money that, at least some of which, could have been applied elsewhere. At the final hearings, the archaeologists come in and

128 testify against us. I don't think any of our staff members did, but the wife of a staff member, Nancy Woolworth, did. Staff members attended the hearings, and they asked me if that was all right. I said, "Sure." But I think I could clearly tell that they were not in agreement with our legislation. So I guess at that point we--well, the compromise was that the state archaeologist would be appointed by the Board of the Society, not the Director--but we lost the funding. That's all.

LK: Yes. Well, they had to have--one incident on all the possibilities for conflicts of interest speak very well for both staff and management.

RF: And you look at Wisconsin where I think you had something of an internal revolt, uprising some years ago when--I think it came out of the archivists, the archival area--they objected to investing too much money into Old World Wisconsin. Project LK: Oh yes.

RF: Personally, I think they had a good argument. And then I think there was opposition about closing a couple of state historic sites. Well, that triggered all kinds of problems, including an audit by the Legislature and restructuring the Board of the Society. So nowHistory the Governor, I think, appoints one or two members, the Speaker of the House appoints a member, etc.

The direction things have gone in Wisconsin is unfortunate.Oral I think Society it politicizes your governing body. If you're lucky, you may receive some excellent appointments, but I think down the road it will create a problem. I think we've avoided that.

RG: As June Holmquist used to say, "OnceSociety you get their attention, you may be sorry."

RF: Well put. Historical

LK: Very well put. Our relations with academic institutions. We've talked a little bit about our relations with the History Department, of something of a crisis over collecting. Were there other disciplines within the UniversityHistorical in addition to the History Department and Archaeology that you work with closely? Minnesota RF: Yes, and before we leave the History Department, with all the the problems I think we've talked about in previous interviews, I think I felt we were making more progress rebuilding relationships with the History Department at the University among the non-American historians, in other words,Minnesota the European historians, than we were among the American historians. And I think much of that problem revolved around Phil Jordan. In the early years, Rodney Loehr. As we know, later on Rodney became an extremely strong, faithful, enthusiastic supporter of the Society, served on our Executive Council a long time. The other disciplines I always felt really bore no grudges against the Society personally or institutionally. I think we've had active involvement on the part of the Geography Department, the School of Architecture, Political Science Department, Business School. We haven't had a lot of activity, but I can think of a couple of members. And there are probably some other departments I've missed. But it has been an irony at times that we seem to have had more researchers in Archives and Manuscripts from the University of Wisconsin than we have had from the University of Minnesota.

129

LK: Yes, and the out-state colleges and universities have been heavy users at times.

RF: I think the very strong support, teaching history--and Rhoda knows a lot more about this than I do--has been among the state universities--Mankato, St. Cloud, Bemidji.

RG: Yes. In the early years when I first came to the Society, I was not aware of any very strong ties to the state universities, the state colleges then. Private colleges was where we had our strong ties. I believe that has changed somewhat, not that we have less with private colleges, but that we have picked up a lot of good friends in the state university system.

RF: I think that's right. Project LK: Did the centers help us somewhat there in building the relationships with the state universities?

RF: Oh, I think so, but I think the ties were being forged long before that. I think it brought them closer. And, of course, it gave them a vested interest in us. History

LK: Yes, it certainly did. [Chuckles] And I think we all developed great friendships with some of the people like Casey Jarchow over a long period of time.Oral Society

RF: Yes. Well, during this very cool period with the University of Minnesota History Department, and as I say, most of that revolved around Phil Jordan and his possessive feeling toward controlling the teaching of Minnesota history, I can thinkSociety of any number of teachers in private colleges in the state universities and the state teacher's colleges whoHistorical were very strong supporters, maybe not so much in terms of teaching a course or institutionally, but just individually.

LK: Yes.

RF: Maybe I had more closeHistorical friendships in the earlier decades than the latter--it would probably be a wash. But maybe you're always impressed by the people you get to know early in your career. But I think of St. Olaf, and weMinnesota had any number of strong friends there--Agnes Larson and Kenneth Bjork--and I think that's continued. At St. Thomas we've always had strong support.

LK: Yes. Bob Fogerty is our stalwart person there. Minnesota RF: UMD--Maud Lindquist and Arthur Larsen, former superintendent of the MHS. So not only did you have one, but often you had three or four, and they believed in Minnesota history.

LK: Yes, very gracous friends over the years.

RG: You taught a course in Minnesota history at the University at one point, didn't you?

RF: That's right. I taught a course in Minnesota history twice. I taught at Hamline one quarter, I think before they phased out the course, around 1960, and then about ten years later I taught two

130 quarters at the University of Minnesota, Minnesota history. But interestingly enough, the person who revived that course was the chairman of the department, Stewart Hoyt. His specialty was medieval history. And I think without his interest, it never would have happened.

RG: Wasn't Harold Deutsch chairman about that time?

RF: That's right.

RG: I recalled that because at a meeting of I believe it was the Upper Midwest History Association I asked him about who was teaching Minnesota history at the University to try and make conversation, I presume, and he gave me a rather startled look and said, "Well, Russell Fridley." And to me this is rather indicative in some ways of how quiet you have been at times about your own activities. That was the first I knew that you were teaching at the University,Project and yet, my office was adjoining yours, and certainly I saw you almost every day. Not until now did I ever know that you taught a course at Hamline.

RF: Well, it was such a transitory course. [Chuckles] History LK: The American Association of State and Local History certainly absorbed your interest for a long time. How did you get your beginning in that group? Oral Society RF: That was a very interesting experience. Of course, I joined it as soon as I joined the MHS and attended the meetings, the annual meeting. I'm not sure how or why I got involved on the Board. The Council--I think that was 1958--I always suspected that Cliff Lord had a big hand in that. And once you got on the Board, there are a numberSociety of opportunities that present themselves if you want to take on more work. And they had the rather unusual tradition -- I think it's been abandoned in recent years -- of making the secretary the presidentHistorical-elect. I don't think I've ever encountered another organization like that. So along around about 1966, I think I was nominated to become secretary. Henry Brown of the Detroit Historical Society was the president. And then I succeeded to the presidency in, let's see, 1966. Henry would have been president in 1964-66. That was a period, I think, of great growthHistorical for the field of state and local history. Federal programs of the Great Society were just beginning to get underway. So that was enjoyable. And then I thought the two annual meetings just by chanceMinnesota happened when I was president, happened to be in very interesting places, Toronto--I think our first Canadian meeting--and Washington, D. C. So it was a busy time with a great deal of activity. And I remember Bill Alderson, the executive director of the Association at the Toronto meeting, coming up at the business meeting and giving me the agenda, and he said,Minnesota "I want you to know that this is the first meeting at which the AASLH has achieved a budget of one hundred thousand dollars." And we thought that was huge, and it was.

LK: Yes. I wonder what it is now.

RF: It would be over a million now.

LK: Yes. They certainly had an ambitious program even when their funding was small. Did you visit a lot of other historical societies during the period of your intense work with the Association?

131 RF: Quite a few. I remember I had my one and only trip to Alaska, talked to the Alaska Historical Society in Anchorage. I went to Oregon, Nebraska, Milwaukee. Those are the ones that come to mind.

LK: Yes.

RF: North Dakota. How could I forget that? [Chuckles] And South Dakota.

LK: Yes. They needed a lot of advice in that period.

RF: South Dakota still does.

LK: Well, the North Dakota Society has worked hard, but they've had so littleProject to work with. We have talked about Wisconsin quite a bit during our conversations as an institution that's really quite closely associated with us and to which we have looked in various periods for various things. Were there other, not quite model institutions, but institutions you looked to?

RF: I don't think as institutions in terms of their structure or the rangeHistory of activities. I think we've always--at least I've always--looked to Wisconsin as the most like us and probably having the greatest serendipity between us. Ohio, I guess, would also be one. But they have a more political Board, because the governor appoints half the Board. ThatOral was another Society assignment. I forget when that came along. But it was American Association related, when Bob Wheeler and I--Bob being a former staff member at Ohio--were asked to go out and investigate on behalf of the AaSLH the firing, I think, of--I'm not sure they even admitted that it was a firing--but the resignation of the director, I think, Dan Porter. And that turnedSociety out to be kind of an abortive mission, but an interesting one. I mean, we came up with a lot of problems. We rendered our report, but I don't think the report had any affect. [Chuckles] OtherHistorical institutions, Lucy, I would certainly have a fellow feeling toward and always find a visit rewarding, but I guess I would identify more with the individuals. Before I leave Wisconsin, I think Alice Smith has always been kind of a unique person, still today, and we keep in touch. But it isn't so much the position she held. I think it's Alice Smith. Historical

LK: It's Alice. Minnesota

RF: North Carolina, Christopher Crittenden. I always found him a role model. Pennsylvania, S.K. Stevens. In New York I certainly wouldn't find a role model in terms of their structure, but I think Albert Corey,Minnesota probably more for his work among local societies. In the archival field, of course, I had one close to home, Lucile Kane. But I think of Mary Bryan in--

LK: Oh yes, yes. Did you know her.

RG: Yes.

RF: A great politician as well.

LK: Yes.

132

RF: And there are a whole host of friendships and associations. But those would be the institutions that.... Well, I guess I'd include Kansas to some extent. It isn't quite in the league of the others, but they seem to run things well in Kansas. It moves along.

LK: Were you and Nile Miller contemporaries?

RF: Yes.

LK: I remember him with considerable regard.

RF: I think Tom Vaughn out in Oregon--not so much the institution--but he has kind of a unique style. Project

LK: Yes, he has.

RF: I always found him very stimulating. I think among the women in the field, and this was certainly a male dominated field for a long time, except in MississippiHistory--what was it, Alabama, wasn't it--there were two states down there anyway where you had a matriarchy very early. Oral LK: Yes. Society

RF: But I think of Martha Bigelow in Michigan, who has, I think, done a very creditable job. And I think there are a lot of comers among the women in the field now. Society LK: It's quite remarkable right now, at least-- Historical

RG: [unclear] say, Nina will be scheduled the president of the AASLH.

RF: Yes, but they've abandoned that procedure. Historical RG: They have abandoned it. Minnesota RF: In fact, she was offered the vice presidency, and she chose secretary, but I'm sure she'll get there. [Chuckles]

LK: BeforeMinnesota too long.

RG: I was going to say, I'd recommend her, but she has her hands full in Minnesota.

LK: Yes, she has. Well, we've been calling off the names of some great people, archivists and society administrators. There are other very fine people that you met in the course of your work, and we both murmur the name of Oberholtzer as one of the--

RF: Yes, and before we leave the institutions, Lucile, I think all of those Minnesota-connected people at the National Archives--

133

LK: Oh yes.

RF: Bob Bahmer, Elizabeth Buck, and you know them better than I. And they're in the National Park Service. It was quite astounding to find the chief historian of the National Park Service is Herb Kaylor.

LK: Yes.

RF: When I came into the field, and director of the National Park Service, Conrad Wirth, from Minneapolis. So for an MHS director, it was fairly easy to find your way around. All you had to do was ask who was from Minnesota. Project LK: And interestingly enough, at least in the archival field, you walked into this very beautiful situation of, instead of being a stranger, of being entertained. And these were the people of the depression who gravitated into archival work and into the National Park Service from the University of Minnesota. History RF: Oliver Holmes, another Minnesotan. And I think you only have to meet people like that to realize what a reputation precedes our gene ration. Oliver Holmes made it very clear that he thought the two outstanding historical societies in the countryOral were Society Massachusetts and Minnesota.

LK: He called them "the two M's."

RF: And yet, I can't think of two more differentSociety institutions in many ways. Certainly the manuscripts collections tied them together, but inHistorical other features they're so different.

LK: They are. I think he was thinking of the directorship of Steve Riley, too, a very outstanding person, mentioned in the same breath with your name. Well, we can't mention all of the people in Minnesota that had an influence on you. Would you say just a few words about Ober? Historical RF: Oh yes. Well, Ernest Oberholtzer is one of those revelations who people the north country of Minnesota. I'm sure there are Minnesotasome others up there. I had always wanted to meet Dorothy Molter, the lady who lived on the island.

LK: Yes. Minnesota RF: Bob Wheeler did get to know her, but I never did. Well, Ernest Oberholtzer and Lucile and I had this introduction to Oberholtzer. He had become somewhat of a legendary figure through conversations with people like Sigurd Olson and wilderness preservationists here in the Cities. But he'd been given some adverse comments by Judge C.R. Magney, who was chairman of the Council of State Parks. And they had been on opposite sides of the fight over the Grand Portage Road, where Magney won out. Oberholtzer and Sigurd Olson did not want the road to run as close to Lake Superior. Magney not only had his prestige, but he had the Indian community behind him and Congressman Blatnik. So I was really looking forward to meeting Ernest Oberholtzer and didn't quite know what to expect. And I forget what year that was we made the expedition to Mallard

134 Island.

LK: It was very early sixties, I believe.

RF: Yes. And, of course, he's one of those unforgettable characters, to find this person who is represented as being somewhat of a hermit, a loner, living up on this island to welcome you so warmly and to find this incredible sense of humor, Harvard educated, accomplished violin player and just a delightful conversationalist. It seemed to me all we had to do was turn on the tape recorder and at four hundred pages flowed out.

LK: [Chuckles] Just like that.

RF: And then I had a couple of trips with him. He never drove. He always hadProject to hitchhike into town. He lived near Ranier. So I had a couple of trips with him when I took him to International Falls one time. He'd take the bus down here. And I said, "Well, I have to make a trip up there. Why don't you go with me?" So I brought him out to our home, and our son, Scott, was quite small then. I think he was six or seven, and he was infatuated with butterflies and moths. And he was capturing butterflies and moths. And somehow he made Ernest OberholtzerHistory aware of this, and Oberholtzer immediately showed a great knowledge of moths and butterflies. And Scott, I remember asking him, he said, "How do you find those moths?" And Oberholtzer said, "I don't find them. They find me." Oral Society

LK: We could say that for young people he was the Pied Piper.

RF: But I can't think of a more enjoyable fieldSociety trip, and I think we accomplished our mission too.

LK: I think we did, and enriched our lives. I've Historicalnever forgotten it. Charles Lindbergh is another really fine person. He became an important friend to you, did he not?

RF: During his last decade of his life, and I've enjoyed the friendship with Anne Morrow, seeing her a few times, and we exchangeHistorical a letter now and then, and I think she's equally extraordinary. Yes. We had been trying to reach Charles Lindbergh for various reasons. And I think it was Arch Grahn that first brought him toMinnesota my attention. I don't think I was even aware of Lindbergh's growing up in Minnesota until I came to the MHS. But Arch is the one Lindbergh contacted after Lindbergh's mother died in Detroit, and she had much of the original furniture from the Little Falls home. So it was transferred back, but characteristically all by letter and telephone. He was still elusive. Minnesota So Arch, I think, said, "Well, we ought to try to get him to come out, and maybe he'd talk to an annual meeting." And of course, I lit up at that suggestion, and I wrote Lindbergh. And there's a letter in the papers from my office, a very skillful letter by Lindbergh, this about 1958. In fact, I think we tried to get him for the centennial, Statehood Centennial Annual Meeting, in which he said he'd love to, if he gave such speeches, he couldn't think of a more worthy organization, but that he and Mrs. Lindbergh had chosen a style of life that precluded that. So that settled that. And it was really Bruce Larson that gave us the opportunity to meet Lindbergh through his work, his biography of Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. And we first met up at Red Lake Falls at his sister's home, Eva's home. And then that led to, I think, a good friendship and a working relationship. He came out several times and, I think, wanted very meticulous, very accurate restoration of the Lindbergh

135 home. Our first site manager there, you'll remember, was a former Catholic priest, John Rivard. And I remember when Lindbergh came through after John Rivard had only been on the job a few months. John Rivard had the family Bible displayed on kind of a pedestal as you would in a church. And I asked Lindbergh, I said, "Is that an accurate way to display the Bible?" And Lindbergh kind of modestly said, "No. We read the Bible, but we didn't display it." A number of little vignettes like that.

LK: I remember you had invited the staff for a breakfast in the Weyerhaeuser Room to meet Lindbergh at one point. It was a great thrill for many of the staff members. Any other people, friends and associates who stand out, especially from those first ten years?

RF: Oh, there are so many. Well, certainly one that--and I think you and I were together when we first met him--Elmer Benson, which led to a long friendship. Project

LK: Oh yes.

RF: And Frances Benson. And I remember we ate delicious sweet rolls in their kitchen. History LK: Yes, we did.

RF: And I think Benson was just coming out of a period Oralof illness, Society and he became somewhat more vocal, more active. I guess to me he'll always typify this independent, maverick, Minnesota political spirit.

LK: I think it comes through in the oral historiesSociety we did at that time. Historical RF: And quite apart from his role as a politician, I really developed great affection for him and his qualities. I think he was a superb person--doctrinaire and opinionated. But he's the kind of politician who, I think, really believed in his principles, and he'd stand by them, and he'd go down with them. I can't think of too many politicians like that. Historical LK: It's probably too early to say, but I do feel that the papers that we brought in at that time will change quite a few views on Benson.Minnesota

RF: Yes. I think we had a role in that, rehabilitating him.

LK: It'sMinnesota nice when it works that was.

RF: There were many other political figures, and, of course, that reflects one of my interests. Just an afternoon in Northfield--and there were two or three of us along--I can't remember who the others were--but we met Anna Dickie Olesen. Her formidable personality came across. She'd been converted to Catholicism, I think, since she had run for office, but she was full of opinions.

LK: I never met her.

RF: Some of the literary figures--Sigurd Olson, Fred Manfred--some of the journalists and just

136 some of the characters around the state. There are any number of those. [Chuckles]

LK: Strong characters we became almost accustomed to.

RF: Bob Wheeler had an assortment of friendships, and he shared some of those with me. I remember when he was with the Society only a few months--this would be late 1957 or early 1958--he introduced me to the Crane Lake area. And there was a lumberjack named Joe Witchahowsky, who was Polish obviously, and his wife was Finnish. And they had us in for dinner--no electric lights, all in the pioneer style. Those are some of the things you remember.

LK: Yes. Well that north country has a magic, and in my interview I'll tell about my first field trip which was to Orr, Minnesota, and quite an eye opener all in all. What were your ambitions for the MHS, not only during the first ten years, but over the thirty, thirty-two [years]?Project

RF: Oh, I think that's a hard one to sum up. I guess to make a contribution to what already was a very sturdy, highly regarded institution, broaden its scope, its linkage to the people of the state, and be a force in the cause of history, however ill-defined that is. History LK: Yes.

RF: And I think personally to find a satisfying experience,Oral and it Societycertainly has been that.

LK: It's interesting there is a duality of the public and private and a duality of the academic, of the scholarly, the outreach, these aspects we've been talking about over our interviews. Society RG: At one point in the mid-sixties, Russell, youHistorical almost left.

RF: That's right.

RG: Have you ever regretted that, or are you glad you didn't? Historical RF: Oh, I'm glad I didn't, but that was an interesting experience. Again, Cliff Lord is behind that. I guess he served as somethingMinnesota of a mentor, and he would turn up in all of these different places. At the time, I believe he was president of Hofstra University in New York City, Long Island. And Cliff was always one to take on all kinds of extra jobs. And he headed the committee to strengthen the state history program. Minnesota I came to apply for a position which was under the State Department of Education, and it was a very attractive position in terms of salary, responsibility. We met with the Commissioner of Education, who has a very wide ranging role in New York. Almost anything you define as education or cultural in the way of institutions, it seems to be that department has some kind of regulatory function as well as dispensing funds. So I went up there and had an interview, and then they invited Metta and me to come back and told me that there were three finalists, I think, and that I could have the position, and I accepted the position somewhat too rapidly.

But when I came back to Minnesota, I began thinking about what I was heading into and what I was

137 leaving, and I guess two feelings came on very strongly. One, that I realized what a Minnesotan I'd become and secondly, how much freedom we really have here, because in spite of their ambitions, and I think it was very genuine, that they wanted to strengthen that program, I began to feel that this would be an extremely difficult position to have much effect in because there were layers on layers of bureaucracy in the State Education Department. So I just had a reversal in feeling, you know, declined the position, told Walter Trennery I'd reconsidered. Fortunately he hadn't hired anybody else, so here I stayed. But it was an interesting interview.

LK: And I think brought the institution up short for just a bit too, which was good for all of us. We get a little bit too complacent with satisfaction with management. Well, to wind it up, Russell, do you have observations on your feelings about the job of director, your feelings in those first ten years? Project RF: Oh, I think all my feelings are positive. There are momentary frustrations and some bad days--not too many. I guess if I were going to define the position I was seeking, it would be hard to improve on this one. As you go along, I think you always look back and tend to gild those early years probably a little more than you should. Those were difficult years, those first ten years. I think in restoring the Society's good name in many quarters, certainlyHistory in the media, I think in broadening our support and I think restoring morale on the staff, I think we had a great team effort for that. Oral Society LK: I do too.

RF: And I think that earlier crisis knit us together for a long, long time. Society LK: It did. Historical RF: I think as we worked out of that, opportunities developed and new problems came to the surface. I don't think I feel any of those ever sent me into a state of despair.

LK: No. Historical

RG: It is hard to imagine youMinnesota in a state of despair.

LK: Even secretly, and I think we've spoken about this before, that the feeling is memorable and we, at least I, can't quite say when it began to dissipate--probably with just the increase in numbers of staff andMinnesota expansion of program and kind of a dilution.

RF: Well, and I'll be candid to say that I had this job, it seems to me, a very long time and certainly was treated well in it by virtually everyone--maybe not that legislator from Douglas County [chuckles]. He wanted the Society investigated for my pronouncements on the Runestone. But I think by 1980 I'd reached a period of some re-examination of how long I wanted to remain in the position. I think I'm honest to say I think I lost some effectiveness in the eighties. I don't think the eighties are easy for any director, but I think you do lose your effectiveness after a while. So I think as the eighties went along, that restiveness, that feeling that it was time for a change was stronger. And that came to a head last year.

138

LK: Yes. Thank you, Russell.

Project

History

Oral Society

Society Historical

Historical Minnesota

Minnesota

139