The Birth of Minnesota / William E. Lass
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 267 TheThe BBIRTHIRTH ofof MMINNESOTAINNESOTA tillwater is known as the WILLIAM E. LASS birthplace of Minnesota, primarily because on August 26, 1848, invited Sdelegates to the Stillwater Conven- tion chose veteran fur trader Henry Hastings Sibley to press Minnesota’s case for territorial status in Con- gress. About a week and a half after the convention, however, many of its members were converted to the novel premise that their area was not really Minnesota but was instead still Wisconsin Territory, existing in residual form after the State of Wisconsin had been admitted to the union in May. In a classic case of desperate times provoking bizarre ideas, they concluded that John Catlin of Madison, the last secretary of the territory, had succeeded to the vacant territorial governorship and had the authority to call for the Dr. Lass is a professor of history at Mankato State University. A second edi- tion of his book Minnesota: A History will be published soon by W. W. Norton. SUMMER 1997 267 MH 55-6 Summer 97.pdf 37 8/20/07 12:28:09 PM pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 268 election of a delegate to Congress. As a willing, Stillwater–St. Paul area. The politics of 1848–49 if not eager, participant in the scheme, Catlin related to the earlier dispute over Wisconsin’s journeyed to Stillwater and issued an election northwestern boundary. Minnesota had sought proclamation. Then, on October 30, the so- an identity distinct from Wisconsin beginning called Wisconsin Territory voters, who really with the formation of St. Croix County in 1840. thought of themselves as Minnesotans, duly That vast entity, which originally encompassed selected Sibley as their delegate. all of present-day Minnesota east of the Missis- It might seem that this intriguing incident in sippi River and south of the Canadian bound- the history of Minnesota’s political birth would ary, provided St. Croixans an opportunity to be well researched and documented. Such pursue their own brand of popular sovereignty. is not the case, however. Historical writing on From August 1846 to May 1848, when Wisconsin the subject has been fraught with errors, was going through its statehood-admission assumptions, inadequate research, and faulty process, residents of the Stillwater–St. Paul area conclusions. New evidence clarifies events and clearly showed that, despite residing in provides a fresh perspective on Minnesota’s Wisconsin Territory, they did not want to be political origin.1 The birth of Minnesota proved to be a pre- view of territorial politics. Sibley’s nonpartisan 1 stance and rivalry with Henry Mower Rice were Standard histories that cover the Stillwater important themes throughout the 1850s. Like- Convention and related events include Theodore C. Blegen, Minnesota: A History of the State (Minneapolis: wise, the strong competition between St. Paul University of Minnesota Press, 1963); William W. and Stillwater presaged continued squabbling Folwell, A History of Minnesota (rev. ed., St. Paul: and the siting of two major territorial prizes: the Minnesota Historical Society, 1956), vol. 1; Edward D. capital and the penitentiary. Furthermore, even Neill, The History of Minnesota: From the Earliest French though Minnesota seemed remote from Wash- Explorations to the Present Time (rev. ed., Minneapolis: ington, D.C., national politics cast a long shad- Minnesota Historical Co., 1882). ow. Catlin, Rice, and Sibley all understood the patronage benefits they would reap, pending the outcome of the presidential election of 1848. This linkage of national and regional developments later assured that much in Minne- sota would be determined by politics as usual. The Stillwater Convention was not the first event to coa- lesce political activity in the 268 MINNESOTA HISTORY MH 55-6 Summer 97.pdf 38 8/20/07 12:28:09 PM pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 269 included in the state. During both of Wis- St. Paul, and the prized Falls consin’s constitutional conventions Stillwater of St. Anthony within the was the hotbed of St. Croix separatism. William State of Wisconsin. Its Holcombe, a lumber-company agent and acceptance by the con- St. Croix County’s lone delegate to the first con- vention in January stitutional convention, initially attempted to 1848 unleashed a have the northwestern one-sixth of present-day storm of resentment Wisconsin excluded from the state. He obvious- from settlers living ly wanted that area to become part of another west of the St. Croix state, which would extend westward to the Mis- River. sissippi and be centered in the St. Croix Valley The two-to-three with Stillwater as its likely capital.2 thousand nascent The delegates overwhelmingly rejected Hol- Minnesotans gener- combe’s extreme position, but they agreed with ally agreed that they his premise that the St. Croix Valley should be wanted to be exclud- united rather than divided. They stipulated that ed from Wisconsin, Wisconsin’s northwestern boundary should run but the precise nature southward from the rapids of the St. Louis River of the exclusion caused near Lake Superior to the head of Lake Pepin political infighting be- by way of a point 15 miles east of the eastern- tween the two main commu- most position of Lake St. Croix. The rejection nities—Stillwater and St. Paul. of the constitution by Wisconsin’s voters, how- The Holcombe-Brownell adherents, ever, barred the establishment of this boundary. whose greatest strength was in Stillwater William Holcombe never gave a name to the area he and nearby settlements on the west side of the Holcombe, wanted excluded from Wisconsin, but on St. Croix, wanted a new state centered on the about December 23, 1846, only a week after the con- river, which would enhance Stillwater’s capital stitutional convention adjourned, Morgan prospects. St. Paulites generally preferred the 1859 Martin, Wisconsin’s territorial delegate to Con- river as Wisconsin’s northwestern boundary, gress, proposed the creation of Minnesota which would make their city, because of its Territory. Martin, closely associated with Wis- more interior position, a more logical capital. consin fur traders including the influential This rivalry showed clearly in the election of Hercules L. Dousman of Prairie du Chien, delegates to Wisconsin’s constitutional conven- apparently believed that a new terrritory on tions. On both occasions the candidates of Wisconsin’s western flank would hasten a major St. Croix separatists were Stillwater men op- land cession by the Dakota Indians, who conse- posed by Joseph Bowron of St. Croix Falls on quently would be able to pay off their debts to the east side of the river, who favored a state traders such as Dousman. Although sparse pop- boundary following the river. St. Paulites sup- ulation in the Minnesota area doomed Martin’s ported Bowron.3 bill—the legal minimum for territorial states Despite their disagreement on the eastern was 5,000 residents—it nonetheless caused fur- boundary of the future Minnesota, residents of ther political stirrings. Stillwater and St. Paul united to face the seem- Holcombe’s grandest boundary proposal was ingly terrible fate of being swallowed up by vigorously revived in the second constitutional Wisconsin. After the second Wisconsin constitu- convention by his successor George W. tional convention asked Congress to approve Brownell. To his dismay, the convention was the Rum River line, Minnesotans petitioned to dominated by expansionists who wanted Wis- organize Minnesota Territory in order to curtail consin to be extended northwestward to a line Wisconsin’s ambitions. Partly because of their running from the mouth of the Rum River to a protest, Wisconsin was limited by a boundary fol- point near present-day Duluth. Such a bound- lowing the St. Croix River, but the effort to orga- ary, which was duly approved as the preference nize Minnesota Territory in 1848 failed for lack of the convention, would have placed Stillwater, of population. Thus, with the admission of 2 Here and three paragraphs below, William E. Lass, “Minnesota’s Separation from Wisconsin: Boundary Making on the Upper Mississippi Frontier,” Minnesota History 50 (Winter 1987): 309–20. 3 On Bowron, see W. H. C. Folsom, Fifty Years in the Northwest ([St. Paul]: Pioneer Press Co., 1888), 163. SUMMER 1997 269 MH 55-6 Summer 97.pdf 39 8/20/07 12:28:09 PM pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 270 Wisconsin as a state on confidant, assured him that if there was a con- May 29, 1848, the resi- vention to select a delegate, he would be chosen. dents west of the Sibley’s and Fenton’s scheming included an St. Croix, who the day assessment of the likely opposition. Regarding before had lived in William Holcombe, popular because of his role Wisconsin Territory in Wisconsin’s first constitutional convention, but who preferred Fenton judged, “Capt. Holcombe will not run to be called Minne- against you. He is too innocent a man, but if he sotans, were left in should run he is a used up man.”6 a political no-man’s Apparently following McKusick’s advice, land. Because their Sibley did not move prematurely. He was, how- legal status was ever, one of the leaders in protesting the Rum unclear, they feared River line. Sibley seized on this popular issue that local officers, in- with the apparent aim of closely identifying cluding justices of the himself with those who opposed inclusion with- peace, lacked authority in Wisconsin. In this, he contradicted both and, therefore, that all Fenton, who as a member of the second consti- civil transactions, such as tutional convention had championed the Rum contracts requiring notariza- River line, and Sibley’s longtime fur-trade part- tion, could not proceed.4 ner Hercules Dousman, a zealous Wisconsin ex- Henry pansionist.