The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-04-11
(From the Faribault Herald.)
The Boundaries Of Mimnes0fa.

l Ca
! ison between the State of Minnesota. as nro.
posed to be formed by an east and west d.
vision and as proposed by Congress with a
north and south division, has been entirely
confined to the shape and natural resources
of the two. We hope that we have sue
ceeded in showing that in both respects the
north and south division is to be preferred.
Let us continue the comparison: We nave
found, and the fact cannot be disputed, that
the portion of our Territory lying south Of
the latitude of As Q or As Q AS is well adap-
ted to farming uses, and that it's character
and business must and would be essentially
and almost exclusively agricultural. This
is to say, Minnesota would be State of far
mers, all engaged in the same pursuit, and
naturally possessing the same habits of
thought and action. The tillers of the earth
in our country have always, and justly, been
held in the highest estimation. The indie
pendence of the farmer is proverb. So far
as indispensable wants are concerned, no
other occupation furnishes its followers with
the necessaries of life to the same extent
But no man will contend in this day of art,
science, invention and progress, that any one
class in society is free from dependence,
greater or less, upon every other. 1t is only
necessary to refer to everyday experience
to prove that the highest perfection of the
race is to be found in those countries where
all tastes and varieties of talent find congo
! NAL occupation, where the farmer, the me-
chanic, the manufacturer and the merchant
expend their energies side by side, mutual
contributors to the common stock of pros
perity. If a whole community is composed
! Of farmers, raisers of breadstuffs, that com
munity must look beyond its own bor;:er for
consumers. To apply this to the present
case, an exclusively agricultural State formed
out of part of this Territory must find
market for it's productions in some other
State or Territory. In the next place it is
important to inquire whether any bond other
than this unity of occupation would bind
together the different sections of the east
and west line State. 1t has been insisted
in favor Of that State, that it would possess
the navigation of the Mississippi on the east
and Of the Missouri on the west, and that
an intimate connection would necessarily
exist between its parts, because from ITS uni
formly agricultural character, there would
be NO clashing of diverse and conflicting in
terests. There would be a harmony of le-
gislation by which the welfare of the whole
would be promoted, because the same laws
and policy which were wholesome for one
would precisely meet the wants of the other.
Let us see. If the Missouri is available for
navigation, what inducement would the in
habitants of that part of the State living
nearest to the Missouri, have to come to the
Mississippi? Precisely the same which tt osc
living nearest the Mississippi would have to
go to the Missouri, that is to say, none-
ckouv 4.
inlet as naturally in the Missouri as the
eastern in the Mississippi. There could be
no great amount of trade between the two.
for all would be farmers, and farmer can
have no need to buy of another that which
1t is his own daily occupation to raise So
that in sober reality, the eastern and west
ern sections are as much divided in regard
to their channels of trade, business and
travel as if the Rocky Mountains or Lake
Superior lay between them.
Let us look at the other proposed State
We have before found that the southern and
northwestern portions of the north and
south line State are eminently adapted to
agriculture, that the eastern and northern
parts abound in water power-that the
northeast is a reservoir of timber-that the
lake shore is mineral region, and that the
possession of the head of navigation on Lake
Superior, of the Mississippi, St. Croix and
Red rivers, hold out the promise of CONNER
cial prosperity. Here then we find room for
a diversity of trades. The prairie farmer ex-
changes the produce, of which he raises
surplus, with the lumberman for lumber, the
very article of which the farmer stands most
in need. The exchange is equally advanta-
geous 10 the lumbernan. The same princi-
pie prevails between the farmer and the
miner, the manufacturer and the merchant.
and between every one OF these classes and
every other. Interests arc blended, and in
working for its own best ends, each is pro-
noting the welfare of the other.
1t has always been said that whenever
Minnesota raises surplus, that surplus must
seek mar ct at great disadvantage. II
we travel through Wisconsin, Iowa or ILL
nOis to compete with them for the eastern
or southern demand, we must deduct trans
portation from the price Of grain upon the
ground. This is obviously true. But it is
certain that we must rely on eastern and
southern markets for our sales or for our
productions through the same channels of
transportation as our neighbors. We have
found that on our north lies mining, lum-
boring and prospectivelya manufacturing dis
trict. In supplying the wants of these, ILL
nOis and Iowa it disposed to enter the list,
must transport through our Territory. The
part of Wisconsin bordering the St. Crox,
1.-THE valley cxcepted) i'm fact, almost the en-
tire tract lying between the Wisconsin and
st. Croix rivers is we'll known to be very in
ferior farming land. Take ont a narrow strip
Of country along the Mississippi and st. Croix
and the fertile part of Wisconsin is cut off
from our northern market by barrier of I'M
productive barrens. Does not our geograph-
ical position here in the south enable us
TO defy competition in the pineries, in the |
mines and among the water powers We |
are nearer TO them than any other producing |
region. Grain which they purchase OF us
will cost them no more than the grain of
Iowa or Illinois with transportation to a |
greater or less amount added. The advan-
tage is reciprocal. We can sell them grain !
cheaper than our neighbors, and they can sell !
us their products cheaper than to our neigh |
bors. The system of exchange is perfect
1t supplies the most urgent wants of both |
parties with the least expense inaccompllsh-
ing the exchange 1t is the principle of
home market completely realized. But it is
urged that all the benefits which are to be |
change of commodities, must necessarily ac-
crue, no matter whether State line inter-
venes between the exchanging parties or not;
that State line so far as trade and business
are concerned, is an imaginary line like the
Equator or the Tropic Of Capricorn. There
is no tariff, no Gordon of custom houses be-
tween one State of our Union and another
in fact, no barrier to the frcest communica
ton between the inhabitants of the two and
the channels of traffic and travel, whether
running through two or thirty-one States,
are the same as they would be under one
States jurisdiction. This is all very plausi-
BILE, but unfortunately not altogether sound
Grant however, that it is all true, and if it
proves anything it proves as much for and
against one division of our Territory as an
other. If the establishment Of State line
between the north and south would occasion
no injurious separation Of interests which
ought to be united, then it must be equally
certain that line dividing the east from the
vest would do no more harm. The question
If boundaries never could be decided on
such consideration. These prove as much
or one side as for the other, so that as be-
wecn the two they prove nothing at all
But it cannot be that State line is mere
v mark unOn tho man Jf;t Ia ;,pv,ortont !