Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
November 29, 1884
St. Paul Daily Globe
Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota
What is this article about?
Editorial critiques South Dakota advocates for pushing Dakota division, warns it may alienate Congress, and highlights Democrats' preference for unified statehood admission, possibly with Montana, despite Republican dominance.
Clipping
OCR Quality
85%
Good
Full Text
Holding to the Inevitable.
The Grand Forks Herald has been one of the most urgent advocates of division in the north, but now seems inclined to accept the inevitable, whatever it may be. It says:
Few of the South Dakota papers are already urging upon the attention of the next legislature the question of calling a South Dakota constitutional convention and declaring for division, etc., with the dire alternative that in case congress does not grant admission into the Union, then South Dakota will have statehood on an independent basis.
This is all the first sort of vacuity and if followed up to any considerable extent, can only result in disgusting congress and defeating the very object we all desire. It may be extremely hazardous play to say that a Democratic congress will divide Dakota and make two overwhelming Republican states, when it can hardly have the assurance to refuse us statehood as a whole.
If it should so determine, it may be easily seen what a lamentable disruption the air castles of South Dakota statesmen will sustain, and to that extent they will merit our commiseration for their past and threatened follies.
Jolts the state.
The Democrats in Dakota are quite as good citizens as the Republicans, and must be conceded to be as honest and to have as high an appreciation of what is needed for the interests of the territory as any class of citizens. They evidently do not see anything to the prejudice of the territory in the result of the national election or the policies of the Democratic party. Although only about 15,000 of them stood up to be counted as Democrats, they have done more jubilating over the party victory than have the 50,000 Democrats in Massachusetts. So far as there is any expression from them on the subject they are generally in favor of the admission of the territory as one state rather than stay out and ask for division. They regard Dakota as hopelessly Republican, but think it could easily be brought in with Montana, the latter as a Democratic state. Thus is the most they are hopeful of.
The Grand Forks Herald has been one of the most urgent advocates of division in the north, but now seems inclined to accept the inevitable, whatever it may be. It says:
Few of the South Dakota papers are already urging upon the attention of the next legislature the question of calling a South Dakota constitutional convention and declaring for division, etc., with the dire alternative that in case congress does not grant admission into the Union, then South Dakota will have statehood on an independent basis.
This is all the first sort of vacuity and if followed up to any considerable extent, can only result in disgusting congress and defeating the very object we all desire. It may be extremely hazardous play to say that a Democratic congress will divide Dakota and make two overwhelming Republican states, when it can hardly have the assurance to refuse us statehood as a whole.
If it should so determine, it may be easily seen what a lamentable disruption the air castles of South Dakota statesmen will sustain, and to that extent they will merit our commiseration for their past and threatened follies.
Jolts the state.
The Democrats in Dakota are quite as good citizens as the Republicans, and must be conceded to be as honest and to have as high an appreciation of what is needed for the interests of the territory as any class of citizens. They evidently do not see anything to the prejudice of the territory in the result of the national election or the policies of the Democratic party. Although only about 15,000 of them stood up to be counted as Democrats, they have done more jubilating over the party victory than have the 50,000 Democrats in Massachusetts. So far as there is any expression from them on the subject they are generally in favor of the admission of the territory as one state rather than stay out and ask for division. They regard Dakota as hopelessly Republican, but think it could easily be brought in with Montana, the latter as a Democratic state. Thus is the most they are hopeful of.
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Constitutional
What keywords are associated?
Dakota Division
Statehood Admission
Partisan Politics
Democratic Victory
Territorial Unity
What entities or persons were involved?
Grand Forks Herald
South Dakota Papers
Democrats In Dakota
Republicans
Congress
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Dakota Statehood And Territorial Division
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Aggressive Division Advocacy, Supportive Of Unified Statehood
Key Figures
Grand Forks Herald
South Dakota Papers
Democrats In Dakota
Republicans
Congress
Key Arguments
Advocacy For Division Risks Disgusting Congress And Defeating Statehood
Democratic Congress Unlikely To Divide Dakota Into Two Republican States
Democrats Prefer Admission As One State, Possibly Paired With Montana