HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
THE BEGINNINGS OF MILWAUKEE
Mr. B. F. Williams, of the firm of Williams and Stern, lawyers, of Milwaukee, visited the Historical Library in January in search of material concerning the building of the first courthouse in Milwaukee, to be used in an injunction suit to prevent the removal of the Milwaukee County Courthouse from its present site. A member of the Library staff assisted him in his work, and found among the Society’s manuscripts and pamphlets much material concerning the first days of American occupation in Milwaukee. The village of Milwaukee (east side) was organized in September, 1835, with Solomon Juneau as president; the village of Kilbourntown (Milwaukee west side) was organized about the same time with Byron Kilbourn as president. In January, 1838, the two villages were united by an act of the Wisconsin territorial legislature.
Morgan L. Martin, of Green Bay, was the real founder of Milwaukee. In 1833 he noted the advantages of the site for a harbor, and secured from Lewis Cass, secretary of war, an order for its survey. Meantime Martin made a proposition to Juneau, the only settler on the site, to take an undivided half of his claim, Juneau promising not to sell any of his share without Martin’s consent. Martin in this transaction evinced both wisdom and generosity—generosity in giving Juneau a chance to share the profits of the enterprise (for many men would have bought his claim outright for a small sum); wisdom in binding Juneau not to dispose of his share without advice. The result proved the value of Martin’s foresight. In 1834 the preëmption act made Juneau’s claim substantial. About this time Martin bought the preëmption right of Peter Juneau, which lay south of Solomon’s claim. The Michigan legislature, of which Martin was a member, erected Milwaukee County in 1834, and in 1835 organized the same, with the county seat at the village of Milwaukee.
In the meanwhile during 1834 many Americans visited the site of the future city and saw its possibilities for growth. Among these was Byron Kilbourn who secured a claim to the west side of Milwaukee
River. Martin and Juneau, early in 1835, proposed to Kilbourn to unite their interests. Kilbourn ignored this offer, and proceeded to develop his town alone. Meanwhile both town sites were surveyed and their plats put on record. Martin and Juneau began to develop their property, by opening and grading streets. One block in the heart of the town was set aside for the courthouse, and nearly $12,000 (a large sum for that time) was spent in erecting a suitable building. The ground around the new public building was given to the village in perpetuity, for the use of the county courts.
A large number of letters from Juneau to Martin are in the possession of the State Historical Society, and are interesting as revealing the growth of the village, and the personality of its proprietors. Although Martin and Juneau had transactions involving many thousands of dollars, there never was any disagreement between them. Neither did they have a written contract, each one relying upon the honor of the other. And when hard times fell upon the little settlement in 1837 and later, each partner bore his share of misfortune cheerfully and without a word of accusation or disagreement. Even after the union of Milwaukee village and Kilbourntown in 1838, a considerable rivalry was maintained between the two parts of the town, which in some measure has persisted to the present day.
Louise P. Kellogg.
THE SENATORIAL ELECTION OF 1869
In 1869 Wisconsin elected a new senator to represent her in Congress. It was conceded on every hand that James R. Doolittle, whose term expired March 4, 1869, had misrepresented the state’s sentiment in his support of President Johnson during the impeachment trial, and that he had no chance of reëlection. This situation brought out a number of candidates, most of whom were “new” men. Among the tried and true candidates the most prominent were Cadwallader C. Washburn, then congressman for the southwestern section of the state, and Horace Rublee, vigorous editor of the chief Republican newspaper at Madison. Ex-Governor Salomon was also in the field, but his candidacy was not taken very seriously. The new men who were most prominently talked of were Otis H. Waldo
and Matt H. Carpenter, both of them Milwaukee lawyers. Waldo was the elder of the two, a man of ability and power, and a Republican from the foundation of the party. Carpenter was of Democratic antecedents, a recent adherent of the reigning party. His strength lay in his brilliant oratory, keen wit, and deep knowledge of men. Erratic in his methods, but meteoric in his cleverness, he persuaded and enthralled his hearers when opportunity was afforded him for speech. Carpenter had made a national reputation by his arguments in the Supreme Court on the Reconstruction issue. The president-elect, General Grant, and his advisers were favorable to Carpenter’s candidacy, which gave the Milwaukee lawyer a strong endorsement with Wisconsin Republicans.
The senatorial campaign opened in June, and largely governed the elections for the ensuing Wisconsin legislature. By December the situation had become acute, and all parties were lined up for the contest. The preferences of every legislator-elect were canvassed and recanvassed; and each candidate presented his claims and qualifications to the prominent members of the coming legislature in personal letters. The State Historical Society has recently received a gift of a few letters relating to this campaign addressed to the Honorable Andrew Jackson Turner, of Portage, then an influential figure in Wisconsin politics. Three of these letters, written in the early winter of 1868-69, are from Carpenter, who bespeaks Turner’s support at the coming legislative session. Turner, however, had given his pledge to Horace Rublee, and had been by him chosen manager of his campaign. December 9, 1868, Carpenter wrote to Turner from Washington: “I recd your favor just as I was leaving home, postponing me in your affections to Mr. Rublee. But I think this will make no difference. I am sure the conflict will be between Mr. Washburn and myself & that he will be elected, if I am not. You say that you shall support me next to Rublee, and I desire to thank you for this.”
The most interesting letter of the lot is that of Rublee himself, written November 23, 1868. In it he canvasses the entire legislative personnel, telling of the predilections of each member and concluding: “In my judgement Carpenter cannot be elected, & I certainly think he ought not to be elected.”
As all the world knows, Rublee was wrong. During the legislative session, Carpenter’s manager arranged a public meeting in which all the candidates were to set forth their views on the questions of the day. This meeting was contemptuously dubbed by Rublee “A Spelling-down”; none the less, neither he nor any other of the candidates dared refuse the invitation to speak. Carpenter’s great powers as an orator stood him in good stead, and at the Republican caucus held soon after the speech-making contest, he was triumphantly nominated, and elected, in due course, by the Republican majority in the state legislature.
The intimate picture these old letters afford of the log-rolling days before the direct election of the senators by the people, gives them historical value for students of political methods, and lays bare the reasons that induced the modern revolt against “machine-made” representatives in the upper house of Congress.
Louise P. Kellogg.
“KOSHKONONG” AND “MAN EATER”
Lake Koshkonong is one of the most beautiful sheets of water in Wisconsin. In primitive times the region adjacent to it must have constituted a perfect paradise for the red man. Even yet, notwithstanding its settlement by whites for nearly three generations, this is one of the favorite resorts of Wisconsin sportsmen. The Indian name “Koshkonong” has usually been explained as meaning “the lake we live on.”[132] The letter which follows, recently presented to the State Historical Society by H. L. Skavlem, of Janesville, offers both a new rendering of the Indian name and a new interpretation of it. No less interesting to those who care for Wisconsin’s primitive history is the new rendition offered of the name of Man Eater, the Rock River chief who dwelt on the shore of Lake Koshkonong a century ago. Mrs. Kinzie, the author of Wau Bun, saw Man Eater or “Mee-chee-tai” on at least two occasions. Over against the sad picture which Peter Vieau paints should be set her
description of him as “a most noble Indian in appearance and character.”
Portage, Sept. 2, 1900.
Mr. Buckley, Attorney, Beloit, Wis.
Dear Sir:
Having forgotten your initials I am compelled to address you as above.
Some months ago you wrote me concerning “Man Eater’s” village and why he was called “Man Eater.” I had no knowledge of the origin of his name, but the location of his village was easily ascertainable. Your inquiry aroused a desire to know more of the famous old Indian and I have made many inquiries myself, but without results, until the thought occurred to me to address a note to the venerable Peter J. Vieau, of Muskego, which I did through Mr. D. M. Fowler, of Milwaukee. I copy from Mr. V.’s reply, through an amanuensis:
“I never knew a lake of that name 'Kosh-ko-nong’ but I know 'Kosh-kau-no-nong,’ meaning termination of a lake or river, a dam or any obstruction making an ending, a stop, an absolute end.
“Well, then, I never knew a chief of that name, but I knew one of the name of 'Mee-chee-tai.’ He was not a full-blooded chief, but was considered as one among the Indian tribe. He was half Winnebago and Pottowatomie. He was a powerful man and a terror among the tribe. He was looked upon as a sorcerer, and lived at that time as I recollect in the neighborhood of Kosh-kau-no-nong. He used to do his trading with Jacques Vieau, my father, when my father opened his trading post in Milwaukee as early as 1795. It must be the same man Mr. Turner refers to 'Mee-chee-tai’; it means 'Heart-Eater.’ Now then the above statement can be substantiated by my sister, Mrs. May Vieau Lavigne, visiting with me at present. She knew him well, too.
“'Mee-chee-tai’ was killed by his son in a drunken frolic about the time of the speculation in Milwaukee in '35 or '36. He killed his wife and his son 'Shaw-gun-osh’ tried to save his mother, and killed the old man his father, and that ended his fearful career. He was considered a good Indian when sober. Father used to think much of him. He was honest in his dealings. He was a great juggler, performed great tricks, &c.
Yours P. J. V.”
Did you ever see any reference to this Indian in any place other than “Wau-Bun”?
Very respectfully,
A. J. Turner.
THE ALIEN SUFFRAGE PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF WISCONSIN[133]
According to the organic law of Wisconsin Territory, enacted by Congress in erecting the territory in 1836, only citizens of the United States were eligible to the franchise (section V, proviso). About the year 1840, immigrants from Germany, the British Isles, and Norway became an appreciable factor in the population of the territory; but the naturalization law requiring a five years’ residence disfranchised this large group of settlers. The situation grew tense by 1843, especially since the question of statehood was being discussed, and seemed likely to come to a head in 1844. Moreover, the matter was complicated by the Native-American agitation throughout the country. Many openly advocated a twenty-one year provision for naturalization, and Wisconsin’s foreigners grew restive under this possibility.
It seemed quite certain that the Wisconsin legislature of 1844 would pass a law providing for a referendum on the subject of statehood. In December, 1843, a large public meeting of German citizens was called at Milwaukee who drew up a petition for the right to participate in this referendum. This was signed by 1,200 persons, and was probably the largest petition ever presented to the territorial legislature. It became impossible to ignore the demand of the foreign settlers. The Whig and Democratic parties were struggling for the control of the territorial offices. Wisconsin was normally Democratic by an overwhelming majority, but the Tyler administration had appointed a Whig governor, and patronage went with the administration. The Whigs were accused of alliance with nativism; it therefore became them to prove the falsity of the charge. The Democrats felt certain of the foreign vote. The legislature, therefore, on January 22, 1844, passed “An Act in relation to the qualification of voters for state government and for the election of delegates to form a state constitution,” which provided that “all free white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, who have resided in said territory three months shall be deemed qualified, and shall be permitted to vote on said question” and for delegates to a convention to frame a constitution.
The referendum vote which was taken in September, 1844, proved adverse to the question of a state government. There is no means of ascertaining how many foreigners voted upon the question, but the entire vote was very light, and the alien voters seem not to have influenced the decision, which was anticipated by all parties in the territory.
About the same time the territorial legislature passed the act above referred to, General Henry Dodge, Wisconsin’s territorial delegate in Congress, presented to that body a petition signed by 300 citizens in the western part of the territory praying for a repeal of the proviso in the fifth section of the organic law of Wisconsin, and for the passage of a law granting suffrage to every free white male inhabitant of the age of twenty-one years within the territory, foreigners included. This is the petition referred to by G. F. Franklin in his Legislative History of Naturalization. The names of the signers of the petition are not available. We conjecture that they were those of the Cornish miners of that region, rather than of the American settlers, because in after debates, the southwest section of the state opposed the law allowing aliens to vote.
The law of 1844 was at once attacked, and was made the basis of an attempt to defeat several prominent members of the legislature who had voted for it. This was especially true in the northeast section where the reëlection of Dr. Mason C. Darling, a prominent Democrat, was opposed because of his advocacy of the alien voting law. It was claimed that the law was unconstitutional, violating both the Constitution of the United States and the organic law of the territory. Dr. Darling came out with several long addresses on the subject, basing the right of aliens to vote on the twelfth article of the Ordinance of 1787, and on the inherent right of a sovereign state to form its constitution as it thought best.
Dr. Darling was reëlected, but the legislature of 1845 had hardly begun its session when a determined effort was made to repeal the law of the previous session. In the course of the debates Dr. Darling offered a clause on the declaration of intention as an amendment, and another member amended the three months to six months. Both of these changes were accepted by the friends of the bill as compromise measures to mitigate the opposition. Dr. Darling said in
his argument that he considered the intention declaration as of no consequence, except as an evidence of actual settlement. This compromise saved the bill, and the amended act, approved February 8, 1845, reads: “No person shall hereafter vote upon the subject of state government, or for delegates to form a state constitution, who shall not have resided six months within the Territory, and as an additional qualification shall be a citizen of the United States, or shall have declared his intention to become such; as the law requires.”
Thus the matter rested until the legislature of 1846 arranged again to submit the question of a state government to the people. An attempt was made by the Whig party to amend the law of 1845 and allow only citizens to vote. The suffrage provision was complicated by differences concerning negro, half-breed, and Indian suffrage. On the test vote the law of 1845 was maintained by the strong majority of 19 to 7, nearly all the Democrats voting in its favor.
The constitutional convention met in October, 1846, and the question of alien suffrage was much debated. Upon the ground that the acts of 1844 and 1845 were both unconstitutional, petitions poured in, especially from the Southwest, to limit the franchise to citizens of the United States. The foreigners also availed themselves of the right of petition, and the able German delegates in the convention created a favorable impression for alien suffrage. As finally adopted, the article granted suffrage to one-year residents, and “all white persons not citizens of the United States, who shall have declared their intention to become such, in conformity with the laws of Congress for the naturalization of aliens, and shall have taken before any officer of this state * * * an oath to support the constitution of the United States and of this state.”
The constitution of 1846 was rejected by the people. In the discussion, then, of the provision for alien voters it played but a small part. The friends of the constitution set forth its liberality to foreigners and the fact that it acknowledged the equal rights nature bestowed upon foreign and native-born citizens alike. Opponents of the constitution set forth on the one hand the over-liberality to the alien element, and on the other hand the requirement of an additional oath as an illiberal burden to foreign residents.
In the constitutional convention of 1847-48 the subject of the foreign franchise occupied a large share of the time of the delegates. The delegates from the western counties came with a deliberate determination to limit the franchise to citizens of the United States. The admission of foreigners to suffrage placed the West in a permanent minority, as the lake-board and middle sections of the territory had the bulk of the immigrant population.
The original proposition as brought in by the committee restored the residence requirement to six months, retained the intention of citizenship clause, and omitted the special oath. The examples of New York, Ohio, and Illinois were cited. One member urged that the one-year requirement was necessary in New York to ascertain the permanent character of the residence, while all who came to Wisconsin came for permanent homes and six months was long enough to prove residence. The effect of the shorter period would be to encourage foreigners to file their intentions sooner. It was admitted that the six-months provision was carried in committee by a very narrow majority.
The attack on the article on alien suffrage was begun by an amendment to limit suffrage to citizens. It was alleged that the article as reported by the committee was unconstitutional and would cause Congress to reject the constitution. In reply the similar provisions in the constitutions of Ohio and Illinois were cited. The new constitution of Illinois was cited by both parties to the controversy; one claiming the change had occurred because of dissatisfaction with the more liberal provision; the other that Illinois’ new constitution had not yet been acted upon. Charges were freely made of demagoguery—that the Democrats were toadying to the foreign vote. In reply, the Democrats appealed to the liberality and progressiveness of their party policies, and declared that the aliens, being taxed, were entitled to vote. The citizen amendment was defeated by a vote of 53 to 16; and the suffrage article as originally reported by the committee was incorporated into the constitution. With the amendments required by the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the provision was part of the organic law of Wisconsin until 1912.
Louise P. Kellogg.
[132] So given by Mrs. John Kinzie in Wau Bun, The Early Day in the Northwest, (Caxton Club ed. Chicago, 1901) 252. Isaac T. Smith in Wisconsin Historical Collections, VI, 424, explains that the Winnebago name “Koshkonong” meant “the place where we shave.” He adds, however, that the Potawatomi name for the lake meant “the lake we live on.” This interpretation is also given by Rev. Alfred Brunson in Wis. Hist. Colls., I, 118.
[133] This résumé was prepared in response to a recent request received by the Historical Library for information on the subject.