The BIRTH MINNESOTA Scollections.mnhs.org/.../55/v55i06p267-279.pdf · December 23, 1846, only a week after the con-stitutional convention adjourned, Morgan Martin, Wisconsin’s

SUMMER 1997 267

The BIRTHof MINNESOTAThe BIRTHof MINNESOTA

W I L L I A M E . L A S S S tillwater is known as the

birthplace of Minnesota,

primarily because on

August 26, 1848, invited

delegates 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 atMankato State University. A second edi-tion of his book Minnesota: A Historywill be published soon by W. W. Norton.

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 267

MH 55-6 Summer 97.pdf 37MH 55-6 Summer 97.pdf 37 8/20/07 12:28:09 PM8/20/07 12:28:09 PM

election of a delegate to Congress. As a willing,if not eager, participant in the scheme, Catlinjourneyed to Stillwater and issued an electionproclamation. Then, on October 30, the so-called Wisconsin Territory voters, who reallythought of themselves as Minnesotans, dulyselected Sibley as their delegate.

It might seem that this intriguing incident inthe history of Minnesota’s political birth wouldbe well researched and documented. Suchis not the case, however. Historical writing onthe subject has been fraught with errors,assumptions, inadequate research, and faultyconclusions. New evidence clarifies events andprovides a fresh perspective on Minnesota’spolitical origin.1

The birth of Minnesota proved to be a pre-view of territorial politics. Sibley’s nonpartisanstance and rivalry with Henry Mower Rice wereimportant themes throughout the 1850s. Like-wise, the strong competition between St. Pauland Stillwater presaged continued squabblingand the siting of two major territorial prizes: thecapital and the penitentiary. Furthermore, eventhough Minnesota seemed remote from Wash-ington, D.C., national politics cast a long shad-ow. Catlin, Rice, and Sibley allunderstood the patronagebenefits they would reap,pending the outcome of thepresidential election of 1848.This linkage of national andregional developments laterassured that much in Minne-sota would be determined bypolitics as usual.

The Stillwater Conventionwas not the first event to coa-lesce political activity in the

268 MINNESOTA HISTORY

Stillwater–St. Paul area. The politics of 1848–49related to the earlier dispute over Wisconsin’snorthwestern boundary. Minnesota had soughtan identity distinct from Wisconsin beginningwith the formation of St. Croix County in 1840.That vast entity, which originally encompassedall of present-day Minnesota east of the Missis-sippi River and south of the Canadian bound-ary, provided St. Croixans an opportunity topursue their own brand of popular sovereignty.From August 1846 to May 1848, when Wisconsinwas going through its statehood-admissionprocess, residents of the Stillwater–St. Paul areaclearly showed that, despite residing inWisconsin Territory, they did not want to be

1 Standard histories that cover the StillwaterConvention and related events include Theodore C.Blegen, Minnesota: A History of the State (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1963); William W.Folwell, A History of Minnesota (rev. ed., St. Paul:Minnesota Historical Society, 1956), vol. 1; Edward D.Neill, The History of Minnesota: From the Earliest FrenchExplorations to the Present Time (rev. ed., Minneapolis:Minnesota Historical Co., 1882).

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 268


SUMMER 1997 269

included in the state. During both of Wis-consin’s constitutional conventions Stillwaterwas the hotbed of St. Croix separatism. WilliamHolcombe, a lumber-company agent andSt. Croix County’s lone delegate to the first con-stitutional convention, initially attempted tohave the northwestern one-sixth of present-dayWisconsin excluded from the state. He obvious-ly wanted that area to become part of anotherstate, which would extend westward to the Mis-sissippi and be centered in the St. Croix Valleywith Stillwater as its likely capital.2

The delegates overwhelmingly rejected Hol-combe’s extreme position, but they agreed withhis premise that the St. Croix Valley should beunited rather than divided. They stipulated thatWisconsin’s northwestern boundary should runsouthward from the rapids of the St. Louis Rivernear Lake Superior to the head of Lake Pepinby way of a point 15 miles east of the eastern-most position of Lake St. Croix. The rejectionof the constitution by Wisconsin’s voters, how-ever, barred the establishment of this boundary.

Holcombe never gave a name to the area hewanted excluded from Wisconsin, but onDecember 23, 1846, only a week after the con-stitutional convention adjourned, MorganMartin, Wisconsin’s territorial delegate to Con-gress, proposed the creation of MinnesotaTerritory. Martin, closely associated with Wis-consin fur traders including the influentialHercules L. Dousman of Prairie du Chien,apparently believed that a new terrritory onWisconsin’s western flank would hasten a majorland cession by the Dakota Indians, who conse-quently would be able to pay off their debts totraders such as Dousman. Although sparse pop-ulation in the Minnesota area doomed Martin’sbill—the legal minimum for territorial stateswas 5,000 residents—it nonetheless caused fur-ther political stirrings.

Holcombe’s grandest boundary proposal wasvigorously revived in the second constitutionalconvention by his successor George W.Brownell. To his dismay, the convention wasdominated by expansionists who wanted Wis-consin to be extended northwestward to a linerunning from the mouth of the Rum River to apoint near present-day Duluth. Such a bound-ary, which was duly approved as the preferenceof the convention, would have placed Stillwater,

St. Paul, and the prized Fallsof St. Anthony within theState of Wisconsin. Itsacceptance by the con-vention in January1848 unleashed astorm of resentmentfrom settlers livingwest of the St. CroixRiver.

The two-to-threethousand nascentMinnesotans gener-ally agreed that theywanted to be exclud-ed from Wisconsin,but the precise natureof the exclusion causedpolitical infighting be-tween the two main commu-nities—Stillwater and St. Paul.The Holcombe-Brownell adherents,whose greatest strength was in Stillwaterand nearby settlements on the west side of theSt. Croix, wanted a new state centered on theriver, which would enhance Stillwater’s capitalprospects. St. Paulites generally preferred theriver as Wisconsin’s northwestern boundary,which would make their city, because of itsmore interior position, a more logical capital.This rivalry showed clearly in the election ofdelegates to Wisconsin’s constitutional conven-tions. On both occasions the candidates ofSt. Croix separatists were Stillwater men op-posed by Joseph Bowron of St. Croix Falls onthe east side of the river, who favored a stateboundary following the river. St. Paulites sup-ported Bowron.3

Despite their disagreement on the easternboundary of the future Minnesota, residents ofStillwater and St. Paul united to face the seem-ingly terrible fate of being swallowed up byWisconsin. After the second Wisconsin constitu-tional convention asked Congress to approvethe Rum River line, Minnesotans petitioned toorganize Minnesota Territory in order to curtailWisconsin’s ambitions. Partly because of theirprotest, Wisconsin was limited by a boundary fol-lowing the St. Croix River, but the effort to orga-nize Minnesota Territory in 1848 failed for lackof population. Thus, with the admission of

2 Here and three paragraphs below, William E. Lass, “Minnesota’s Separation from Wisconsin: BoundaryMaking 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.

William

Holcombe,

about

1859

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 269


confidant, assured him that if there was a con-vention to select a delegate, he would be chosen.Sibley’s and Fenton’s scheming included anassessment of the likely opposition. RegardingWilliam Holcombe, popular because of his rolein Wisconsin’s first constitutional convention,Fenton judged, “Capt. Holcombe will not runagainst you. He is too innocent a man, but if heshould run he is a used up man.”6

Apparently following McKusick’s advice,Sibley did not move prematurely. He was, how-ever, one of the leaders in protesting the RumRiver line. Sibley seized on this popular issuewith the apparent aim of closely identifyinghimself with those who opposed inclusion with-in Wisconsin. In this, he contradicted bothFenton, who as a member of the second consti-tutional convention had championed the RumRiver line, and Sibley’s longtime fur-trade part-ner Hercules Dousman, a zealous Wisconsin ex-pansionist. In a blunt letter, Dousman accusedSibley of being short-sighted and acting detri-mentally to fur-trade interests. Dousman alsowondered if Sibley was thinking clearly. A RumRiver line would actually be to Sibley’s advan-tage, he reasoned, because it would assure thatthe capital of the new territory would be placedwest of the Mississippi, where Sibley’s Mendotahome was located in what had been Iowa Terri-tory.7 Despite Dousman’s condemnation, Sibleyobviously thought he had to support the goal ofhis potential constituents.

C oncern for their legal status afterWisconsin entered the Union ledsome St. Croixans to questionwhether they could be arbitrarily

stripped of their status as Wisconsin Territoryresidents. The origin of what historian WilliamWatts Folwell called the “benign fiction” thatthere could be both a state and a territory ofWisconsin has been a mystery. Edward D. Neill,author of the first general history of Minnesota,credited John Catlin, the territorial secretary,with the idea, and Folwell, too, stated that the

Wisconsin as a state onMay 29, 1848, the resi-

dents west of theSt. Croix, who the daybefore had lived inWisconsin Territorybut who preferredto be called Minne-sotans, were left ina political no-man’sland. Because theirlegal status wasunclear, they feared

that local officers, in-cluding justices of the

peace, lacked authorityand, therefore, that all

civil transactions, such ascontracts requiring notariza-

tion, could not proceed.4

T he threat of being included withinWisconsin followed by the crisis pre-cipitated by being excluded from itwithout Minnesota territorial status

created political turmoil and offered opportuni-ties for the politically ambitious. During the cir-culation of petitions denouncing the Rum Riverline, Henry Hastings Sibley became more activein his quest to be elected congressional dele-gate from the future Minnesota Territory. Asthe factor of the area’s largest fur-trading com-pany since 1834, he was widely recognized asone of the leading businessmen in the UpperMississippi region.5

Sibley had expressed an interest in politicssoon after the first call for the organization ofMinnesota Territory. In early 1847 he attemptedto gauge his acceptability as a territorial delegateby soliciting opinions from likely backers. JohnMcKusick, a prominent Stillwater lumberman,responded that he would support Sibley but cau-tioned, “Since the thing is a little way off, Ibelieve it good policy, to not agitate such a ques-tion too long before the time.” Daniel G.Fenton, a Prairie du Chien lawyer and Sibley


Henry

Hastings

Sibley, from

an 1849

portrait

4 Lass, “Minnesota’s Separation from Wisconsin,” 319–20.5 John McKusick to Sibley, Feb. 2, 1848, Henry H. Sibley Papers, microfilm edition, Minnesota Historical

Society, R[oll] 4, F[rame] 694. For details of Sibley’s business career, see Rhoda R. Gilman, “Last Days of theUpper Mississippi Fur Trade,” Minnesota History 42 (Winter 1970):122–40; Erling T. Jorstad, “The Life of HenryHastings Sibley,” (Ph. D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1957), 1–203.

6 Fenton to Sibley, Mar. 17, 1847, and McKusick to Sibley, Apr. 22, 1847, both Sibley Papers, R4, F502, 523;Lass, “Minnesota’s Separation from Wisconsin,” 317–19.

7 Lass, “Minnesota’s Separation from Wisconsin,” 317–19; Dousman to Sibley, Jan. 28, 1848, Sibley Papers, R4,F685.

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 270


because Congress had certainly not “intendedto deprive the citizens of the United States,beyond its limits, of the protection of existinglaws.” Local officials outside of the state,Buchanan wrote, obviously retained their posi-tions, but on the vital question of the generalterritorial officers such as governor and secre-tary, he offered only “no opinion.” Finding thisanswer unacceptable, Catlin merely ignored itand assumed the position of acting governor ofWisconsin Territory. Irvin, however, was so of-fended by Buchanan’s reasoning that he up-braided him. “It is equally clear,” he contended,“that the general offices remain in official exis-tence with the government, and go with itwhere ever it may be formed.”11

M eanwhile, some leading resi-dents of St. Paul and Stillwaterwere considering the graveeffects of the recent divorce

from Wisconsin. Sibley recalled that merchantHenry Jackson hosted a meeting in his St. Paulstore to consider some politicalaction. The St. Paulites evidentlyturned to Sibley to representtheir views. During theirconversations Sibley andhis supporters recog-nized the need to actin unison with Still-water. Subsequently,St. Paulites andSibley initiated anAugust 4 meeting inStillwater. De- spiteHolcombe’s con-siderable interest,Stillwater was politi-cally comatose. Thecommunity grand- ly cel-ebrated IndependenceDay with a parade, patrioticoratory, and a picnic—with-

SUMMER 1997 271

8 Folwell, Minnesota, 1:238; Neill, Minnesota, 491–92. 9 Holcombe to Tweedy, Apr. 28, 1848, John Hubbard Tweedy Papers, State Historical Society of Wisconsin,

Madison.10 Holcombe to Tweedy, Mar. 4, 1848, Tweedy Papers; Catlin to Dodge, June 28, 1848, in John Porter Bloom,

comp. and ed., The Territorial Papers of the United States, vol. 28, The Territory of Wisconsin 1839–1848 (Washington:National Archives and Records Service, 1975), 1168; Dodge to Catlin, July 20, 1848, John Catlin Papers, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin.

11 Buchanan to Dodge, July 18, 1848, quoted in Dodge to Catlin, July 20, 1848, Catlin Papers, also publishedin The Works of James Buchanan, ed. John B. Moore (1908; reprint, New York: Antiquarian Press, 1960), 8:126;draft of Irvin to Buchanan, Aug. 24, 1848, Catlin Papers, also published in Bloom, Territory of Wisconsin, 1169–72.

12 H. H. Sibley, “Reminiscences: Historical and Personal,” Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, vol. 1 (St.Paul, 1902), 395; Prairie du Chien Patriot, July 16, 1848.

scheme was “fathered by Catlin.” As to the veryfirst person to have the idea, Folwell speculated,“The fertile intellect of Joseph R. Brown wasquite capable of the feat,” but “no record of hisinitiative has been discovered.”8

There is, however, absolutely no proof thatBrown and Catlin conceived the notion. New-found evidence indicates that Holcombe wasthe first person to write about the possible con-tinuing existence of Wisconsin Territory. Morethan a month before Wisconsin’s statehood,Holcombe wrote to John Hubbard Tweedy,Wisconsin’s territorial delegate, “The questionhas been seriously considered here, whether wedo not still remain under the Territorial Gov-ernment of Wisconsin after the State [of]Wisconsin shall be admitted into the union.”9

Holcombe’s wording suggests that the idea of acoexisting state and territory originated in theSt. Croix Valley and was a common topic.

Tweedy, a Milwaukee Whig, never endorsedHolcombe’s notion, but Catlin, a Democrat, wasinstrumental in attempting to resolve Hol-combe’s concern about the apparently govern-mentless area west of the St. Croix. Holcombe,as clerk of the St. Croix County Board of Com-missioners, was openly worried about the legalstatus of county officials and pending courtcases. In June, Catlin, perhaps inspired by senti-ment from St. Croix County, informed thestate’s new Democratic U.S. Senator, HenryDodge, that Madison’s legal profession as wellas legislators and people from various parts ofthe state believed Wisconsin Territory still exist-ed. Catlin asked Dodge to obtain an opinionfrom the U.S. State Department. When Dodgeapproached Secretary of State James Buchanan,he also presented a letter on the same subjectfrom David Irvin, who had been a Wisconsinterritorial judge and who, like Catlin, was afriend and Democratic Party cohort.10

Buchanan responded that the territoriallaws were “still in force over the territory notembraced within the limits of the State,”

The

influential

Hercules L.

Dousman

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 271


13 Copy of notice in Sibley Papers, R5, F74. It was later published in “Organization of Minnesota Territory,”Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, 1:35.

14 Lambert to Sibley, Aug. 28, 1848, and manuscript copy of petition and convention minutes, both SibleyPapers, R5, F72, 74–80; Rice to Hercules Dousman, Sept. [?], 1848, Green Bay and Prairie du Chien Papers, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin; Henry L. Moss, “Last Days of Wisconsin Territory and Early Days of MinnesotaTerritory,” Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, vol. 8 (St. Paul, 1898), 76. The minutes were published inthe Prairie du Chien Patriot, Sept. 13, 1848, and the Annals of the Minnesota Historical Society in 1851. They werereprinted and the petition was published, with punctuation changes and rearrangement of names of signers, in“Organization of Minnesota Territory,” 35–40.

15 Dodge to Sibley, June 8, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F7.16 “Organization of Minnesota Territory,” 39–40.

been elected. Samuel Burkleo of Stillwater waschosen convention president and, probably toavoid friction between St. Paul and Stillwaterdelegates, two secretaries—William Holcombeand David Lambert—were chosen. Lambert, alawyer in his late twenties, had moved toSt. Paul from Madison about two months earli-er. In Madison he had been a newspaper editorand a friend of major Democratic politiciansincluding Henry Dodge and John Catlin. Inrequesting that Sibley, as a personal favor, intro-duce Lambert to Minnesotans, Dodge describedhim as “a gentleman of talents.”15 Lambertstruck up an immediate and close friendshipwith Sibley and by the time of the StillwaterConvention was one of the aspiring delegate’smost trusted aides.

Joseph R. Brown dominated the conventionwith a flurry of motions and chaired the com-mittee that drafted the memorial to Polk. Hehad a hand in all of the convention’s majoractions including the unanimous election ofSibley as delegate. Describing themselves as “cit-izens of the territory north of the north-westernboundary of Wisconsin, and of the northernboundary of Iowa,” the delegates urged Presi-dent Polk to recommend to Congress “the earlyorganization of the Territory of Minnesota.”16

The Stillwater Convention was conducted onthe premise that the delegates were from thearea of Minnesota and were choosing Sibley astheir spokesman. If, as Holcombe had writtento Tweedy in April, St. Croix Valley residentswere discussing the coexistence of Wisconsin asa state and a territory, then some of the Still-water Convention delegates must have beenaware of that contention. They did not necessar-ily know that Holcombe had solicited an opin-ion from outside the valley.

While Holcombe was obviously intriguedabout the possibility of a continuing WisconsinTerritory, he was not in a position to suggest itat the August meeting because he lacked credi-ble authority. His degree of awareness of Cat-lin’s scheming is not known. There are no

out any consideration of current politics.12

The only surviving record of the August 4conference is its call for a convention to be heldat Stillwater on August 26 for the purpose ofconsidering “an early territorial organization.”Perhaps those at the first meeting intended totake some more definitive action but decidedagainst it because of the small turnout. Only 18men, including Sibley, his brother-in-lawFranklin Steele, Holcombe, and Joseph R.Brown, a close friend of Sibley’s and the earlypolitical leader of St. Croix County, signed thenotice calling for the Stillwater Convention.13

Traditionally, historians have claimed that 61men participated by invitation in the StillwaterConvention. Indeed, the minutes stated thatthe memorial sent to President James K. Polkwas signed on August 26 “by all the delegates tothe convention, amounting to sixty-one signa-tures.” While 61 men signed the memorial, thatdoes not prove there were 61 delegates. Thepetition and proceedings were not written untilafter the convention, providing ample opportu-nity to garner post-adjournment signatures. OnAugust 28 David Lambert, one of the conven-tion secretaries, sent Sibley the Polk memorial“with the original signatures” and promised tosend “a copy of the proceedings of the Conven-tion as soon as I can procure the signatures ofall the officers.” Furthermore, three of the con-vention’s committee members—Levi Hurtzell,Franklin Steele, and Orange Walker—did notsign the petition, which clearly indicates thatthe convention participants and the petitionerswere not entirely the same. Lambert’s letter alsocasts doubt on the delegates’ statement that thememorial was signed the day of the convention.Shortly after the meeting, Henry Mower Rice,who was monitoring it in absentia, claimed thatonly 38 men attended, and years later Henry L.Moss, a member of the convention, estimatedthat more than 100 had participated.14

Whatever their number, the members of theStillwater Convention styled themselves “dele-gates,” leaving the impression that they had


pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 272


SUMMER 1997 273

extant communications between the two beforethe August meeting, but it is noteworthy thatwhen Catlin reached his conclusion that Wis-consin Territory still existed, it was Holcombethat he notified.

Holcombe never declared himself a candi-date for the delegacy, but his actions suggest hehad such ambitions. He was clearly anti-Sibleyand was quite bitter about the convention,which he saw as a Sibley power play. About aweek and a half later he wrote to Catlin:

Mr. Sibley seems to have been anxious forsome time to procure Ter[ritorial] organiza-tion and is willing to undertake his office athis own expense & to procure his appoint-ment, got up the convention without intimat-ing in the notice that a Delegate was to beelected or appointed. . . . It is very evident thewhole plan was concocted before he crossedthe Mississippi river as he brought about 30Frenchmen who are entirely under his con-troul [sic] . . . by which means got himselfappointed.17

Holcombe certainly recognized that Sibleyhad outmaneuvered him. Living in Mendota atthe junction of the Mississippi and MinnesotaRivers, Sibley was not a resident of the old Wis-consin Territory and consequently was regardedby some in the St. Croix region as an outsider.18

Sibley evidently felt this estrangement when hefirst aspired to the delegacy, which probablyaccounts for his effort to enlist the aid ofStillwater’s John McKusick. To further his politi-cal career, Sibley needed support in bothSt. Paul and Stillwater. Holding the conventionin Stillwater indicated his determination to as-sert his political ascendancy on enemy ground.

T he Stillwater Convention strategywas derailed when Holcombereceived Catlin’s letter proclaimingthe existence of Wisconsin Territory.

This letter, first published by the MinnesotaHistorical Society in 1851, has long been asource of confusion because the publisher erro-neously stated that it had been read at aStillwater meeting on August 5, which by convo-luted reckoning had somehow occurred before

the August 4 assembly. Historian Neill also con-cluded that the Stillwater Convention delegateswere aware of Catlin’s pronouncement. Newlyfound correspondence in the Catlin papers atthe State Historical Society of Wisconsin provesthat Holcombe did not receive the letter, writ-ten in Madison on August 22 and hand carriedby Joseph Bowron, until September 5—wellafter the convention had adjourned.19

In this missive, accompanied by a copy ofBuchanan’s opinion, Catlin informed Hol-combe that since Wisconsin Territory still exist-ed west of the St. Croix, all general territorialofficers had retained their positions. He, as act-ing governor, was prepared to issue a proclama-tion calling for an election to choose a territori-al delegate. Before he could do this, Catlinwrote, the citizens of Wisconsin Territory wouldhave to request his assistance and ask for theresignation of Tweedy, the old WisconsinTerritory’s delegate, who still held the position.Catlin assured Holcombe that this plan wouldwork because “if a delegate was elected by colorof law, Congress never would inquire into the

17 Holcombe to Catlin, Sept. 6, 1848, Catlin Papers.18 Jacob Fisher to Sibley, Sept. 24, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F110–11.19 “Organization of Minnesota Territory,” 33, 35; Neill, Minnesota, 491–92; Holcombe to Catlin, Sept. 6, 1848,

Catlin Papers.20 “Organization of Minnesota Territory,” 33–34.

Daguerreotype of John and Clarissa Catlin,

about 1842

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 273



legality of the election.”20

Although he recognized that Catlin’s andBuchanan’s opinions gave him an opportunityto challenge Sibley’s selection, Holcombe con-ferred with Lambert before acting. Sibley’sfriend happened to be passing through Still-water on September 5 on his way back toSt. Paul. Lambert told Holcombe to convene apublic meeting to consider Catlin’s proposals.21

Within a matter of hours Holcombe assem-bled some Stillwaterites. He read and explainedthe Catlin and Buchanan opinions, which themen accepted without reservations. Actingquickly, they passed a motion asserting the rightof “the citizens of this Terri. thus cut off by theadmission of the said state of Wis.” to be repre-sented by “a Delegate of their choice.” Further,they resolved that Tweedy be requested toresign as delegate and that Catlin issue theproclamation for a special election “at as early aday as possible.”22

Hastening to St. Paul with copies of theCatlin and Buchanan letters, Lambert managedto convene a meeting involving Sibley onSeptember 6. He and Sibley dominated thecommittee charged with drafting resolutions.While their actions were like those taken atStillwater, the St. Paulites made one importantdistinction. Recognizing that Wisconsin Ter-ritory still existed, they agreed “that it is thesense of this meeting that no measures shouldbe taken to procure the passage of an act forthe separate government of Wisconsin, but thatevery means should be used to effect a full andcomplete organization of the Territory ofMinnesota.”23

Did the St. Paulites fear domination byCatlin and his Wisconsin crowd? Quite possibly,yes. Lambert was undoubtedly aware that Catlinwould have preferred a continuing WisconsinTerritory whose political patronage would becontrolled from Madison. While Lambert had acertain loyalty to Sibley and to St. Paul, he alsopromoted himself. Sending Catlin the results ofthe St. Paul meeting, he reminded him thatthey had discussed the possibility of Lambertbecoming Catlin’s “private secretary” in theevent Catlin became acting governor of a fully

functioning Wisconsin Territory.24

Considering the slow St. Paul–Madison mailservice (9 to 15 days one way, according toHolcombe), Catlin responded quickly to thepeople’s will. Holcombe and Lambert both sentthe resolutions of their meetings to Catlin onSeptember 6, and only 12 days later Tweedy ten-dered his resignation. It is possible, of course,that Catlin or some of his supporters presumedthe outcome of the meetings and had previous-ly approached Tweedy about resigning. Beforethe meetings, two of his supporters in Wiscon-sin told Sibley that Catlin as acting governorhad decided to visit “the territory,” where hewould proclaim a special election to choose aterritorial delegate.25

While Sibley had no choice other than tobecome a party to Catlin’s scheming, he and hisboosters were hardly delighted with this newdevelopment. For example, Sibley’s brother-in-law Thomas R. Potts wondered, “What is thiselection for? Have the people repudiated theproceedings of that [Stillwater] convention?”Sibley’s friends also realized that Catlin’s inter-vention could raise the potentially dangerousissue of Sibley’s residency at Mendota in oldIowa Territory. They believed that the House ofRepresentatives would not carefully scrutinizeSibley’s claim to represent the Minnesota areabut would look critically at his credentials as thebona fide delegate of Wisconsin Territorybecause he had not lived there. When formerjudge and Wisconsin territorial governor JamesDuane Doty first apprised Sibley of Catlin’s ini-tiative, he urged Sibley to move east of theMississippi while he still could without raisingobjections.26

W ith the delegate position nowopen to challengers, the Sibleycamp was well aware that someStillwaterites, who resented the

“man from Iowa,” preferred a St. Croix candi-date. Worse yet, by mid-September rumors werecirculating that Henry Mower Rice, a fellowMendotan, would contest the delegacy. Fear ofRice was so pervasive that Potts even suspectedthat Rice, whom he confided to Sibley “is acting

21 Lambert to Catlin, Sept. 6, 1848, Catlin Papers.22 Minutes of Stillwater meeting, Sept. 5, 1848, Catlin Papers.23 Minutes of St. Paul meeting, Sept. 6, 1848, Catlin Papers.24 Lambert to Catlin, Sept. 6, 1848, Catlin Papers.25 Holcombe to Catlin and Lambert to Catlin, both Sept. 6, 1848, and Tweedy to Catlin, Sept. 18, 1848–all in

Catlin Papers; Fenton to Sibley and Doty to Sibley, both Sept. 4, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F88, 93.26 Doty to Sibley, Sept. 4, 1848, and Potts to Sibley, Sept. 14, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F93, 97.

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 274


SUMMER 1997 275

in a low and underhand manner to preventyour being sent to Washington,” was the ring-leader of the seeming plot to undo Sibley.27

Before announcing his candidacy, Rice hadnot indicated any interest in territorial politics.He was in Washington, D.C., in the spring of1848 when St. Croixans were making their lastfutile effort to win boundary concessions fromWisconsin and to get Minnesota Territoryformed, but he did not get involved. Likewise,he was living in Mendota at the time of the Still-water Convention but chose to stay home andridicule the proceedings. Writing to Dousman,he stated: “At the mass meeting held at Still-water . . . a central and corresponding commit-tee was appointed (God knows for what, I dont)and Mr. Sibley was appointed special Agent togo to Washington and get the Territory orga-nized (or baptised) I dont know which, but[he] presumes some great good will be theresult.”28

Rice’s entry into the race disturbed Sibley.Rice, who had sometimes worked as Sibley’spartner, was really more closely associated withDousman, having worked with him at Prairie duChien for about seven years. Rice was believedto have a considerable following, and Dousmanwas a man of great influence in trading circles.Fears of Rice’s success were heightened afterCatlin arrived in Stillwater on October 9 andproclaimed election day to be Monday, October30. Concerned Minnesotans would have pre-ferred an earlier date so that the results couldbe sent out before the last steamboat left theUpper Mississippi. Catlin, however, was boundby a Wisconsin Territory law that specified atleast 20 days’ notice of a special election.29

Of necessity, Catlin was in close contact withcounty clerk Holcombe about establishing vot-ing precincts. Holcombe and Morton S. Wil-kinson, a prominent Whig and Stillwater’s firstlawyer, were known to be working against Sibleyin the Stillwater area, claiming that he favoredremoving the federal-district land office fromSt. Croix Falls to St. Paul rather than toStillwater. They also played up the notion thatSibley was not sympathetic to the people of the

St. Croix, and they questioned his possibleeffectiveness because he chose to run as a non-partisan. Rice and Sibley were both Democrats,and Holcombe, Wilkinson, and some othersfavored a candidate who would campaign as aparty regular. Wilkinson, especially, was offend-ed by Sibley’s posing as a candidate “for abenefit of all,” because he believed that waspolitically impossible.30

Catlin was ostensibly impartial, but some of

27 Potts to Sibley, Sept. 14, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F97.28 Rice to Sibley, Mar. 25, 1848, Sibley Papers, R4, F742; Rice to Dousman, Sept. [?], 1848, Green Bay and

Prairie du Chien Papers.29 Potts to Sibley, Sept. 14, Oct. 3, 1848, Fenton to Sibley, Oct. 4, 1848, and Moss to Sibley, Oct. 10, 20, 1848—

all Sibley Papers, R5, F97–98, 118–19, 124–25, 133, 166; William R. Marshall, “Henry Mower Rice,” Collections ofthe Minnesota Historical Society, vol. 9 (St. Paul, 1901), 655–56.

30 Fisher to Sibley, Sept. 24, 1848, J. B. Covey to Sibley, Oct. 5, 1848, and Jas. W. Boal to Sibley, [Oct. 20?],1848—all Sibley Papers, R5, F110–11, 127, 161.

Henry M. Rice, heroically posed on this

carte de visite or small, mounted photo

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 275



his actions seemed to favor Rice. In addition tohis association with Holcombe, who openlyopposed Sibley, Catlin favored extending votingrights to the “French” and adding precincts atSauk Rapids and Crow Wing, two actions likelyto produce substantial support for Rice.References to the “French,” made frequentlyduring the campaign, appear to be euphemismsfor unnaturalized French-Canadian traders andperhaps some métis. Catlin recognized thedubious qualifications of these men as votersbut contended that the greatest tally possibleshould be garnered as a way of strengtheningthe position of the delegate-elect in Congress.31

To counteract Catlin, Sibley generally leftthe nastier side of politics to Lambert, hisunofficial campaign manager. Responding toLambert’s information about Catlin’s inten-tions, Sibley objected that Congress would prob-ably not accept any delegate elected by someunqualified voters. If Sibley won, Rice couldconceivably “contest the seat on the ground ofthe illegality of the election.” Furthermore,Sibley believed that Rice had “either in hisemploy or under his immediate influence, alarge number of men who are not legal voters,and who would to a man cast their votes forhim, and thus neutralize those of the old set-tlers.” Sibley cannily instructed Lambert to “sug-gest these objections, as emananting from your-self,” because he did not want to appear as anopponent of the French and risk losing theirvote.32 Evidently, a man for all the people hadto be cautious.

Catlin, Holcombe, and the St. Croix CountyBoard of Commissioners frustrated Sibley’sdesire not to add to the electorate. On Octo-ber 19 the commissioners established the addi-tional precincts of Sauk Rapids and Crow Wing.This news, which reached Sibley at a time whenRice was reportedly gaining in Stillwater, forcedSibley to abandon his behind-the-scenes pos-ture and object directly to Catlin. Arguing thatthe establishment of the precincts did not meetthe legal requirements of timely notice, Sibleycontended that any votes from Sauk Rapids andCrow Wing should not be counted. Catlin knewwhat everyone else in the area knew—Rice hada fur-trading post at Crow Wing and would fare

well there. Demonstrating considerable politicalsavvy, Catlin never really answered Sibley’sobjection. Instead, he noted that the commis-sioners had determined the precincts and thecounty clerk would canvass the returns, soSibley should send his complaint to them.33

A cting Governor Catlin, accompa-nied by his wife, Clarissa, lived inStillwater, apparently entirely at hisown expense, from October 9 until

at least November 6. What were Catlin’s motivesfor his seemingly generous actions? Historianshave never dealt with this question, and thusthe acting governor appears to be interestedmerely in furthering the cause of frontierdemocracy. A series of letters in the Catlinpapers provides a new perspective.

Catlin hoped that as acting governor hewould be recognized as the ex-officio superin-tendent of Indian affairs and, as such, would bepaid an annual salary of $2,500. Henry Dodge,the last territorial governor, had held this posi-tion, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs had abol-ished it when Wisconsin became a state. Duringthe time Catlin claimed to be acting governor,he worked through Senator Dodge in an unsuc-cessful attempt to have the Indian superinten-dency restored. Catlin and his intimate politicalassociates, Dodge and Judge David Irvin, alsosaw the continuation of Wisconsin Territory as apatronage opportunity. They assumed congres-sional recognition of the territory would followthe election of the Democratic candidate LewisCass of Michigan as president of the UnitedStates. These circumstances, they surmised,would result in Catlin being appointed a federaljudge in the new territory and some of theirWisconsin associates being named to other ter-ritorial positions. While thus plotting, Dodgewrote to Catlin, “I will do every thing in mypower to assist my friends.”34

Since Lambert was aware of Catlin’s desirefor the Indian superintendency, it is quite likelySibley knew about Catlin’s and Dodge’s schem-ing. This may account for the coolness thatexisted between Catlin and Sibley. Whatever thereason, Sibley never welcomed Catlin’s partici-

31 Lambert to Sibley, Oct. 11, 1848; H[enry] Jackson to Sibley, Oct. 14, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F135, 151.32 Sibley to Lambert, Oct. 12, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F137–38.33 “Proceedings of the Board of Commissioners of County of St. Croix, Wisconsin Territory: Oct. 5, 1840–May

12, 1849,” 135, in Washington County Historic Courthouse, Stillwater (hereinafter cited as St. Croix CountyProceedings); Sibley to Catlin, Oct. 23, 1848, and Catlin to Sibley, Oct. 27, 1848, both in Catlin Papers.

34 Dodge to Catlin, Sept. 26, 1848, and Lambert to Catlin, Oct. 16, 1848, both in Catlin Papers.

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 276


SUMMER 1997 277

pation. His seeming support for Rice onlyserved to add to Sibley’s frustration over a cam-paign beset with problems, including Dous-man’s strong support of Rice. Dousman, whowas reportedly still irritated with Sibley foropposing the Rum River boundary, thoughtRice would be the most effective spokesman forthe old traders.35

In the nearly three weeks between Catlin’sproclamation and the election, Rice wasthe aggressor. In Stillwater he easily gained thesupport of such men as Holcombe andWilkinson, who claimed that they really wanteda St. Croix candidate. Their actions indicate,however, that they were more anti-Sibley thanpro-St. Croix. Rice presented himself as anadvocate of moving the land office to Stillwaterfrom St. Croix Falls and, according to someof Sibley’s informants, bought loyalty by mak-ing some timely real estate purchases in Still-water. Despite the urging of some of hisfriends, Sibley never went to Stillwater andnever clarified his stand on the land-officequestion, yet he was not greatly hurt by eitherthat or his Mendota residency. The “man fromIowa” criticism could just as well have beenapplied to Rice as Sibley. Also, former governorDoty, at Sibley’s request, examined the 1836 actthat established Wisconsin Territory and ren-dered the opinion that it did not require resi-dency of any territorial official, including thedelegate.36

In the last days before the election, Sibley’ssupporters feared Rice was gaining in Stillwater,but their greatest concern was possible electionfraud in Crow Wing. Fortunately for Sibley,Joseph R. Brown was lumbering in the area andwas named by the county commissioners as oneof the precinct’s three election judges.37

Despite his apprehensions about Rice’s pos-sible shenanigans, Sibley easily won the delega-cy with 236 votes compared to 122 for Rice and19 write-in votes for Stillwater lumbermanSocrates Nelson, who was also a county commis-sioner and county treasurer. As expected, Riceeasily won Crow Wing, but he carried only oneof the seven other precincts. Sibley prevailed in

Stillwater by slightly more than a two-to-onemargin and in St. Paul by more than four toone. The election’s most amazing outcome wasthe unanimous vote in three precincts. Nelson’svotes probably came from his lumber-campemployees, but Sibley’s sweep of Marine Millsand Lake St. Croix defy explanation. Yet whenHolcombe canvassed and recorded the vote, nocharge of election irregularities was raised.38

Although historians have portrayed this elec-tion as significant, until this time they haveknown only the general outcome, not the actual

vote count. This is understandable. The lack ofany newspapers in the future Minnesota pre-cluded the contest from being publicized. As itturns out, both Holcombe and Catlin carefullynoted precinct-by-precinct tallies, but theirrecords had remained undetected.

Sibley’s allies could best be described aspoor winners. They charged that Rice’s men

35 Lambert to Catlin, Oct. 16, 1848, Catlin Papers; Fenton to Sibley, Oct. 4, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F124.36 Covey to Sibley, Oct. 5, 1848, and Doty to Sibley, Oct. 15, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F127, 155.37 St. Croix County Proceedings, 135; Christopher Carli to Sibley, Oct. 22,1848, and William H. Forbes to

Sibley, Oct. 23, 1848, both in Sibley Papers, R5, F171, 173.38 St. Croix County Proceedings, 136; an identical copy of the returns “filed in the office of the Secretary of

the Territory of Wisconsin, Nov. 4,1848” is in the Catlin Papers. On the vote of the St. Anthony Falls precinct, seeDaniel S. B. Johnston, “Minnesota Journalism in the Territorial Period,” Collections of the Minnesota HistoricalSociety, vol. 10 (St. Paul, 1905), 296.

ELECTION RETURNSOctober 30, 1848PRECINCT SIBLEY RICE NELSON

Stillwater 57 26

Marine Mills 37

Rice River 19

Lake St. Croix 47

St. Paul 59 14

St. Anthony Falls 12 30

Sauk Rapids 12 8

Crow Wing 12 44

Rush Lake (no returns)

Totals 236 122 19

SOURCE: St. Croix County Proceedings, 136

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 277



attempted to buy votes on election day andpressured an inebriate to switch his vote fromSibley to Rice. Lambert warned Sibley that heshould not relish his victory because Rice, antic-ipating future contests, continued to enlist sup-port after the election.39

Catlin issued Sibley’s election certificate onNovember 4 and reported this action toSecretary of State Buchanan two days later,shortly before leaving Stillwater for Madison byway of Galena, Illinois. Writing to Sibley afterreaching home, he effused graciousness whilerelating his lobbying efforts on Sibley’s behalfand offering ideas to justify Sibley’s seating bythe House of Representatives. Catlin was obvi-ously worried about congressional acceptanceof the notion of a still- existing WisconsinTerritory. He realized that many agreed withthe judgment of a Whig newspaper editor inGalena, who had concluded that “it was sup-posed, that the said Territory of Wisconsin, as adistinct organization, had been wholly extin-guished, snuffed out, and its very ashes scat-tered by the winds, that claim relationship withforgetfulness.” However, Catlin, Sibley, andother regional Democrats believed their casewould be helped by the imminent victory oftheir presidential candidate, Lewis Cass. Muchto their dismay, Cass, who was very popular inthe Northwest, lost to his Whig opponent,Zachary Taylor.40

This result, as events transpired, did notgreatly affect Sibley. He was subsequently seatedin the House of Representatives as the delegatefrom the presumed Wisconsin Territory butrefused a territorial budget. By this action therepresentatives clearly showed that Sibley hadmerely been granted a temporary position toenable him to proceed with lobbying for thecreation of Minnesota Territory. During theMinnesota territorial drive in late 1848 andearly 1849, Sibley was assisted by Rice, who trav-eled to Washington and lived there at his ownexpense. This action prompted historianTheodore C. Blegen to regard Rice and Sibley

as friendly rivals. Interestingly, a contemporaryaccount offers a sharply different perspective.Lambert and Louis Robert, staunch Sibley sup-porters, insisted that Rice’s motive for going toWashington was “to beat Mr.Sibley out of hisseat and to defeat the organization of theTerritory of Minnesota at the present session forpurely selfish reasons.”41

In the short run, their prophecy came topass. Rice effectively seized control ofMinnesota Territory’s Democratic Party and in1853 succeeded Sibley as delegate. Sibleymounted enough of a political resurgence to bechosen the first state governor in 1858, but theparty was still dominated by Rice, whom the firststate legislature chose for the U.S. Senate.Sibley’s old foe Holcombe served as lieutenantgovernor during Sibley’s administration. (Thiscoincidence does not indicate any harmonybetween the two, since the governor and lieu-tenant governor did not run as a ticket.) Lam-bert, who seemed a rising political star in 1848,soon passed from the Minnesota scene. OnNovember 2, 1849, while steaming up theMississippi from Galena to St. Paul, he becameintoxicated, leaped into the river, and drowned.His end was apparently not too surprising, asthe new Minnesota Pioneer reported that he had“suffered some wounds in domestic relations,which made him misanthropic, reckless andmiserable.”42

Catlin’s presumed governorship was his lastimportant political position. His hope of beingnamed a federal judge was ruined by Cass’sdefeat. As the Minnesota territorial bill was pro-gressing through Congress, Catlin finallyresigned himself to the end of WisconsinTerritory, writing to Sibley, “It is not probablethat I shall visit the Territory again to exerciseany authority. I still think however that the posi-tion taken by me & yourself has facilitated theorganization of Minnesota and will be of greatbenefit to that frontier.” Subsequently, Catlinbecame president of a Wisconsin railroad andthrough it and Texas land investments became

39 William Dugas to [William H.] Forbes, Oct. 31, 1848, and Lambert to Sibley, Nov. 15, 20, 1848—all inSibley Papers, R5, F184, 217, 221.

40 Catlin to Buchanan, Nov. 6, 1848, Catlin Papers; Catlin to Sibley, Nov. 4, 21, 1848, Sibley Papers, R5, F202,225–27; Weekly North-Western Gazette (Galena), Oct. 11,1848, and Joseph R. Brown to Sibley, Nov. 12, 1848, andLambert to Sibley, Dec. 18, 1848, both in Sibley Papers, R5, F210, 281.

41 Robert M. Brown, “Office of Delegate for Minnesota Territory, 1848–1858” (master’s thesis, University ofMinnesota, 1942), 23–27; Blegen, Minnesota, 162; Lambert and Louis Robert to Potts, Feb. 13, 1849, SibleyPapers, R5, F495.

42 Minnesota Pioneer (St. Paul), Nov. 8, 1849.43 Catlin to Sibley, Feb. 19, 1849, Sibley Papers, R5, F524; Catlin biographical sketch, in

“U.S.—W.P.A.—Wisconsin, Wisconsin Biographies,” State Historical Society of Wisconsin.

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 278


SUMMER 1997 279

wealthy.43

I t is an odd and perhaps little-known factof history that the election that launchedthe careers of Minnesota’s two most fa-mous frontier politicians was held in

Wisconsin Territory. Somehow over the yearskey information about Minnesota’s politicalbirth lay undiscovered or was lost, and, as aresult, popular images of Rice and Sibley wereformed. Historians have generally portrayedRice accurately as a smooth, gracious, manipula-

tive deal maker. Sibley, on the other hand, hasbeen made to appear as a political innocentuntouched by any taint of self-interest, whosesole motivation was to work for the politicalgood. It is now clear that, like Rice and Catlin,Henry Hastings Sibley—one of the fathers ofMinnesota’s political birth—also acted for theusual, mortal economic and political reasons.This recognition does not make him a lesserman, but rather a more believable one.

The map on p. 268 is by Alan Ominsky; the photograph on p. 273 is courtesy the State Historical Society of Wisconsin,WHi(X3)35743. All other illustrations are in the Minnesota Historical Society collections, including the signatures, taken from

letters in the Henry H. Sibley Papers or signed photographs.

Stillwater in 1856, from the letterhead of Henry M. Nichols

pages 256-266 8/20/07 11:39 AM Page 279


Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use. To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory

http://www.mnhs.org/mnhistory�

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Minnesota History magazine - Request permission for commercial or educational use�

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory�

http://www.mnhs.org/�

Documents

The BIRTH MINNESOTA Scollections.mnhs.org/.../55/v55i06p267-279.pdf · December 23, 1846, only a week after the con-stitutional convention adjourned, Morgan Martin, Wisconsin’s