University of New Mexico.

New Mexico historical review (Volume 34) online

. (page 20 of 27)
Online LibraryUniversity of New MexicoNew Mexico historical review (Volume 34) → online text (page 20 of 27)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

reminded the Nobel audience not so long ago. A fulfilled de-
sire of Mrs. Blankenship's last years was a pilgrimage to hear
Billy Graham. Perhaps it would not be amiss to suggest that
a pilgrimage to the world of the Blankenships, a view once
again of faith with works, is also a source of spiritual

University of New Mexico KATHERINE SIMONS

The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona 1861-
1862. By Robert Lee Kerby. Los Angeles 41 : Westernlore
Press, 1958. Pp. xix, 136. Bibliography, index. $7.50.

Originally submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for a master of arts degree at the University of Notre


Dame, this is a creditable work and the best printed summary
of the Civil War in New Mexico. The author places the mili-
tary operations in a background of grand Confederate strat-
egy to seize the Southwest for immediate possession of
military materiels and ultimate expansion to the Pacific
coast. However, the study contains a number of questionable
judgments and a few peccadillos.

Mr. Kerby presents the view that the Confederate cam-
paign in New Mexico was significant, and that if successful
the necessary resources might have been won to assure Con-
federate victory in the War. Furthermore, this western cam-
paign was bound more closely to slavery expansion "than any
other operation of the Rebellion. ... It was not a mere
sideshow." Since the author is not a native of the Southwest,
but was born in New York City, he cannot be accused of too
much local pride, which makes his judgment more deserving
of respect, but the fate of the Southwest and the Confederacy
rested upon the eastern battleground, not on what happened
in New Mexico; the industrial strength of the North was
more important in the long run than a supply of gold from
the Far West or possession of west coast ports.

The New Mexico legislature did not have a "propensity
for concentrating troops around the capital" at Santa Fe (p.
25) because troop movements were dictated by the United
States War Department and, in reality, the soldiers were
scattered among many posts from Tucson to Santa Fe and
downstream from El Paso.

Canby was not isolated in a desert without funds and
military resources (p. 37). The Santa Fe trail was open,
Fort Union was a main supply depot, and he was able to draw
upon the resources of New Mexico and Colorado. The author
contradicts his own statement on p. 46.

California events were to measurably assist the Union
cause in the Southwest (p. 40) is not a sound statement.
Canby had triumphed over the Confederates before Cali-
fornia assistance arrived in New Mexico.

The reader might compare the discussion of Reily's dip-
lomatic mission to Chihuahua and Sonora with the account


by Hall in the NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, July, 1956.
The definitive account of the battle of Val Verde remains to be
written. The moot point is responsibility for the loss of Mc-
Rae's battery which the author has not explored sufficiently.

Territorial government for New Mexico was established
in 1851 (p. 75). Jornado should read Jornada.

Mr. Kerby's story reads well and is a welcome addition to
southwestern history.

F. D. R.

University of the Northern Plains: A History of the Univer-
sity of North Dakota. By Louis G. Geiger. The University
of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, 1958. Pp. 491. $5.00.

"On October 2, 1883, a group of dignitaries of Dakota
Territory gathered on the windy, chilly prairie more than a
mile west of the boom town of Grand Forks to lay the corner-
stone of the first building of the University of North Dakota."
The Grand Forks Herald described the occasion by saying
that one of the "brightest, crispest, freshest, most palpably
wholesome days of the most glorious autumn that even Da-
kota ever saw crowned the object of the day's proceedings
with an approving and sunlit smile." As one reads the book,
it soon becomes evident that not all was "sunlit smile" and
"glorious autumn" for North Dakota's first and only state
university. For during the next seventy-five years after its
founding, this school faced and overcame about every kind
of trouble a university can possibly experience : lack of ade-
quate financial support ; political maneuvering ; absence and
abuse of academic freedom; tornado and fire; meddling
alumni; unwholesome competition among institutions of
higher education within the state ; overemphasis on varsity
athletics; and incompetent administration.

The author's style holds the interest of the reader ex-
ceedingly well, even though he quotes frequently from well-
documented sources, and notwithstanding the fact that
seventy-five full years of educational history in North Da-
kota are covered in this book. One gets the impression and is


constantly reminded that at Grand Forks there is a real
school with real human beings struggling industriously as
its administrators and teachers.

The circumstances surrounding the beginning of this
university were meager. Indeed they were pathetic. "The
nearest trees were the giant cottonwoods fringing the Red
River, nearly three miles to the east," the author relates. He
also mentions that the Territorial Assembly made the initial
effort to begin the university by approving a bond issue
"authorizing $30,000 for construction of a building." And
yet enthusiasm and optimism were unlimited at the same
time. Territorial Governor Nehemiah Ordway, in his speech
at the dedication ceremony, said "the people of this valley
would rise up and call those who had laid the foundation of
this institution today, blessed." And David Kiehle, in giving
the main address of the occasion, outlined the conditions upon
which the institution would prosper: (1) "pure and intelli-
gent administration ; one that will not allow its plan and aim
to be disturbed by diverting influence, personal, political, or
sectarian." (2) "its curriculum should be broad and generous,
in that it shall provide the culture that will promote scholar-
ship in every department that affects human happiness." (3)
"that which deserves the rank of university must recognize
man in his widest relations as a social and religious being,
and cultivate intelligence which shall fit him for his highest
good here, and, at least, be in harmony with his great future
lying just beyond the horizon of mortal vision."

Local reporters called it a large crowd at this laying of the
cornerstone, "but a photograph of the gathering reveals less
the crowd they professed to see than the vast emptiness of
the Dakota prairie."

The author seems to have a good understanding of the
frontier of the agricultural, political, and economic devel-
opment of the Dakota territory. The reader is constantly
aware of the expert way in which Mr. Geiger relates the
progress of the University to the setting in which it is found.
This is done factually and yet with an ease of expression that
is not without its humor. For example, his description of
some Grand Forks happenings in the 1880's livens up the


first chapter. "Life in such an atmosphere," the author tells
us, "furnished its excitement and its contrasts. The news-
papers regularly reported events from the rough side of the
community: a hair pulling brawl over the distribution of
fees at the establishment of 'Big Kate/ the best known
madam in town, an after-midnight wedding at one of the
'houses' witnessed by a large gathering of the 'fast and
fancy' set, the suicide of the 'frail but beautiful' Mrs. Bur-
dick, a 'private courtesan,' a lynching off the Red River
bridge, the discovery on a doorstep of the dead body of a
'victim of dissipation,' and the drunkenly hilarious drenching
of a half-breed's hair and beard with kerosene and setting it
ablaze in a saloon."

"Yet Grand Forks also possessed a solid core of perma-
nent citizens," we are told by the author. "The six churches
were full. More than 300 children were reported enrolled in
the city schools in February, 1882. . . . The Masonic Lodge
came in 1880, a chamber of commerce was formed in 1881,
and a racing association laid out a track in 1882. . . . The
Pioneer Club, also founded in 1879, was restricted to a hun-
dred members possessing the proper qualifications of money
or manners. . . . They were also the town's civic and cul-
tural leaders. Most of these people were small scale nouveau
riche who had made good in the boom, but included also was
an unusually large number of well-educated and gently
reared men and women, among them three of the first Board
of Regents of the University, Twamley, Collins, and Teel."

Though meager the beginning and rough the long road for
the next seventy-five years, this University of North Dakota
has emerged, Mr. Geiger asserts, into a reputable institution
of higher education which serves its state well.

At first there were only a college of liberal arts and letters
and a normal college. Later, these two units were changed
and renamed, and other schools and colleges were added.
Science, Literature and Arts, Engineering, Medicine, 1 Law,
and Education were organized between 1899 and 1905, while

1. It is interesting to note that when the legislature first established the medical
school, it appropriated a total of $1,000 for its support !


the College of Business and Public Administration was added
later to complete the organization of a full-scale university.

William Blackburn, a clergyman from Ohio, was the
University's first president, and he was followed by eight
more presidents during the first seventy-five years, George
W. Starcher being the last of these and currently in office at
the time of Mr. Geiger's writing in 1958.

This brief review cannot include details of the adminis-
trations of these men. It might be helpful to point out, how-
ever, that after its first three presidents (Blackburn,
Montgomery, and Sprague) the University settled down
somewhat in 1891 and during the next eighteen years under
Pres. Webster Merrifield made its greatest growth and prog-
ress. It was during this period that it blossomed into a full-
fledged university, modeled chiefly after the University of
Wisconsin and Cornell University. Much of this was accom-
plished under Merrifield despite severe money troubles dur-
ing the early and middle 1890's. In fact, in 1895, the school
was about to be closed at least temporarily because of
inadequate financial support, when Governor Allin took
special and drastic steps to keep it open.

Supporting Merrifield and giving much of his time, money
and talent to the University was William (Billy) Budge, a
trustee from 1891 to 1907. A consideration of the school at
the turn of the century would be most incomplete without
including Budge's many contributions under Merrifield. The
author devotes much time to the "team of Merrifield and
Budge," and rightly so, because these two men were certainly
stalwarts in the development of the University.

Following Merrifield in 1907 as president was Frank L.
McVey, who later (in 1917) became president of the Uni-
versity of Kentucky (1917-1941). McVey's contributions
were mainly to raise academic standards and to reorganize
the University for more efficient and effective operation. Ac-
cording to the author, the faculty and students were indeed
sorry to lose McVey, the scholar, in 1917.

An interesting part of the University's development was
the change in modes of transportation between Grand Forks
and the campus, about a mile and a half apart. First walking


and then bicycling ; then an omnibus, "Black Maria," in 1899 ;
and then a trolley line, begun in September, 1904. "The trolley
and the sewer," Mr. Geiger declares, "were major factors in
the residential development that presently began in the Uni-
versity neighborhood."

The University underwent its most tempestuous times
during the administration of Pres. Thomas F. Kane, who
succeeded McVey in 1917. Well educated and highly recom-
mended when he was employed, Kane soon came into disfavor
with his faculty. In fact, it was during his regime that the
matter of academic freedom was most bitterly debated.
Geiger tells in a vivid and exciting way how the faculty rose
up and defied Kane. He was at the point of being dismissed
on several occasions. Feelings were high and words were
sharp. Kane himself accused the board of regents of political
maneuvering, and he severely criticized certain faculty mem-
bers in public. Geiger says of this man, "Worst of all, the
president was more than a little careless with the truth, or
told it only incompletely." Totten and Muir (regents at the
time 1920) "appeared on the campus, briefly investigated
charges formally filed by a faculty group, and . . . then
asked Kane to resign, all within a few hours." A group of
faculty members shortly afterward issued a 12 page docu-
ment of severe criticism of the president. This paper was
entitled, "Memoranda of the Unfortunate Happenings at the
University of North Dakota." It was never published, how-
ever, and it has now disappeared from the Board's records.

Kane survived the many storms and continued as the
school's controversial president until 1933, when he was
forced to resign. But it is Geiger's conclusion that little prog-
ress and few changes were made during his administration.

The rest of this very well written book deals with many
aspects of campus life under Pres. John West and Pres.
George Starcher. Successes and failures in varsity athletics
are discussed by the author, but in a very balanced way.
Alumni activities (good and bad) are also included, as the
author describes the frequent and persistent pressures which
were brought to bear on the school's administrators and fac-
ulty. The reader who is aware of today's pressures on such


institutions will cringe with understanding, and yet will en-
joy Geiger's account of these things at North Dakota. In fact,
in the last paragraph of the book, one finds the author (pres-
ently a member of the University's History Department
faculty) still saying (in 1958) "Many problems loom ahead,"
but he also goes on to say that the "future [of the University]
seems bright indeed."

Here is a well-written history of a great school. It should
be enjoyed by scholar and layman alike. Congratulations to
its author, Mr. Louis Geiger, for a job well done.

University of New Mexico CHESTER C. TRAVELSTEAD

l\[etv ^Mexico
Historical T^eview

Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe


i^uv 201959

October, 1959









Joint Statehood : 1906

Donald D. Leopard 241

Historical Geography of the Middle Rio Puerco
Valley, New Mexico
Jerold Gwayn Widdison 248

Colonel Don Fernando de la Concha
Diary, 1788
Adlai Feather, editor 285

Notes and Documents 305

Book Reviews 310

THE NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW is published jointly by the Historical Society
of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico. Subscription to the quarterly is
$3.00 a year in advance ; single numbers, except those which have become scarce, are
$1.00 each.

Business communications should be addressed to Mr. Bruce T. Ellis, State
Museum, Santa Fe, N. M. ; manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be
addressed to Prof. Frank D. Reeve, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. M.

Entered as second-class matter at Santa Fe, New Mexico




THE desirability of statehood is evidenced by the intensity
of feeling that Territorial citizens display when admis-
sion is granted, but in the annals of American History there
exists at least one case where the blessing of statehood was
dismissed because the terms for admission were unacceptable
to two of the Territories in question. Such an incident oc-
curred in the early 1900's when a plan was formulated to fuse
the four remaining Western Territories and admit them as
two separate and equal states.

The national election of 1900 had seen the triumph of the
Republican Party. Among the many planks in that Party's
platform one called for the inclusion of the remaining Terri-
tories of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Indian Terri-
tory in the Federal Union. Preliminary to the fulfillment of
this pledge, an investigating team headed by Senator Bev-
eridge of Illinois visited these areas intent on discovering the
political and economic maturation level of these Western Ter-
ritories. After completing its junket in 1902, Beveridge's
committee submitted the majority report calling for the
immediate admission of Oklahoma and Indian Territory as
one state and recommended that Arizona and New Mexico
continue as Territories for an indefinite period.

This pronouncement against Arizona and New Mexico
proved unacceptable to most parties and eventually a com-
promise proposal, which Beveridge came to look on as his
own, was advanced calling for the fusion of the four Western

* Based on Leopard, Joint Statehood: 1906. University of New Mexico, Master of
Arts Thesis in History, 1958.



Territories into two states. Although this proposal seemed
satisfactory to various congressional leaders, it far from
pleased the citizens of two of the Territories in question. The
leading political parties of both Arizona and New Mexico
went on record in opposition to the measure and much ill will
toward consolidation was generated in the various Terri-
torial newspapers. The seemingly inalterable distaste for
joint statehood evidenced by the majority of sources in Ari-
zona and New Mexico contrasts sharply with the pleased ac-
quiescence that marked the feeling of Oklahoma and Indian
Territory to a similar proposal. Eventually the policy of con-
solidation gained official sanction from President Theodore
Roosevelt and in December 1905 joint statehood bills were
introduced in both the House and Senate and were quickly
referred to the Committee on Territories.

After deliberation the Committee brought forth what was
known as the Hamilton Joint Statehood Bill. The Hamilton
measure called for the consolidation of the four Western
Territories into two states. Oklahoma and Indian Territory
were to be united into one state to be named Oklahoma, its
capital to be Guthrie and the new state was to receive two
sections in each township and $5,000,000 cash grant for the
establishment of schools. Arizona and New Mexico were to be
united as the state of Arizona with the capital located at
Santa Fe. Arizona, because of the aridity of the soil, was to
receive four such sections plus the $5,000,000 for the estab-
lishment and maintenance of its schools.

The generosity of the Hamilton plan did not impress New
Mexicans who felt that the location of the capital was poor
compensation for the loss of the Territorial name. Republi-
can Santa Feans looked in horror to the possibility that they
might eventually lose the proposed capital site to the more
favorable situated city of Albuquerque and, worse still, see
the political power go to the emergent Democratic Party of
that city. To the more thoughtful citizenry the fear of Demo-
cratic hegemony, the loss of the Territorial name and the
internal strife and jealousy concerning the location of the
capital were only incidental to the basic problems that con-
solidation would bring. The real issue was one of uniting an


agricultural, predominantly Spanish-speaking people with
an area dedicated to mining and industrial pursuits. Some
New Mexico spokesmen felt that such a marriage would mean
the virtual disfranchisement of the agricultural population
by the industrial interests of Arizona, while Arizona business
and industrial leaders direly prophesied that such a union
would make for the insecurity of property and the stifling
of progress.

The two Territories' obvious dissatisfaction regarding
joint statehood prompted Senator Foraker of Ohio to intro-
duce an amendment to the Hamilton Bill. The amendment
called for the unreserved unification of Oklahoma and Indian
Territory, but stipulated that Arizona and New Mexico
should be allowed to decide their proposed union by a popular
vote. A negative pronouncement by either Territorial elec-
torate would block consolidation for both but would not affect
Oklahoma's statehood chances.

With the passage of this amendment much of the opposi-
tion was removed from the Hamilton Bill and on June 19,
1906 the plan became law. Before the passage of the Foraker
Amendment the New Mexico press, along with her Arizona
brethren, had bitterly fought the unification scheme, but
when it became evident that the amended Hamilton Bill
would be passed by Congress, an abrupt change occurred in
the editorial policy of New Mexico's leading Republican

Ample evidence exists to show that this editorial reversal
instituted by the Santa Fe New Mexican resulted from an
agreement among stockholders and leading Territorial Re-
publican politicians that joint statehood should become a
plank in that Party's platform. The sanctioning of the Ham-
ilton proposal was unofficial since the Territorial Republican
Party was on record in opposition to consolidation, but its
endorsement by leading dignitaries such as Holm 0. Bursum,
Chairman of the New Mexican Republican Central Commit-
tee, W. H. Andrews, Republican delegate to Congress, Solo-
mon Luna, a prominent politician and business man and Max
Frost, a leading Republican figure and editor and Publisher
of the Santa Fe New Mexican, greatly enhanced the possi-


bility of its ultimate acceptability by the bulk of the Party

In public and private articles and correspondence these
supporters of joint statehood developed a series of convincing
arguments to show that the plan could be a great asset to the
Territory if it were accepted by New Mexico voters. The pro-
tagonists argued that joint statehood was officially endorsed
and approved by the national administration, and by sup-
porting the proposal as a Party measure New Mexico might
possibly gain much needed favor from the administration.
It seemed doubtful, they argued, since Arizona still actively
opposed consolidation, that a union would be effected, but
New Mexico's support might cause her to receive special con-
sideration for future statehood plans while Arizona would
have to bear the full onus of guilt and resulting disfavor for
her refusal to loyally uphold administration policy. If, how-
ever, Arizona became reconciled to joint statehood and gave
accedence to the plan at the polls, the possibility existed that
the unified state could enact a constitutional provision al-
lowing for the division of the properly consolidated state of
Arizona into two separate states. This possibility was further
elucidated by Bursum who argued that though Arizona and
New Mexico would officially be one state, by various duplica-
tions of offices the two areas could enjoy virtual local auton-
omy. This system of local autonomy would greatly facilitate
the division of Arizona into two separate states when it be-
came practicable to do so.

Party funds were utilized in an attempt to advertize the
necessity of supporting joint statehood. Free newspapers
advocating consolidation were sent throughout New Mexico
and Arizona, pamphlets and circular letters printed in Span-
ish and English were widely distributed and New Mexico's
Republican press worked closely with those few Arizona edi-
tors who supported the Hamilton proposal. These efforts and
expenditures in support of unification were insufficient to
counter the well financed and widely disseminated comments
against the measure that emanated from Arizona Territory.
Early in the campaign, New Mexico's pro-consolidation press


stopped circulating its literature to Arizona and concentrated
in winning support within the Territorial confines of New

This was no mean task since the bulk of voters seemed
apathetic to joint statehood while many prominent Terri-
torial citizens bitterly opposed it. Thomas B. Catron, a promi-
nent New Mexican lawyer, landowner and statesman, and
Manuel A. Otero, ex-Territorial Governor were the leading

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 25 26 27

Online LibraryUniversity of New MexicoNew Mexico historical review (Volume 34) → online text (page 20 of 27)