two and one-half year period ending with Wisconsin's admission into the Union. This consideration, taken in connection with the further one that hitherto no attempt has ever been made to compile a comprehensive record of the activities of the period in question, seems to afford adequate reason for limiting the present work in the way that has been proposed.

With the field thus delimited, the editorial task involved, although exceedingly laborious, has been comparatively simple, the work falling by the natural logic of the situation into four subdivisions. These may be described briefly as the movement for statehood (latter months of 1845 to the convention of 1846); the work of the convention of 1846; the debate over ratification, ending with the election of April 5, 1847; and finally, the calling of the convention of 1847, its work, and the ratification thereof by the electorate. To each of these subdivisions, it is expected, a volume will be devoted. The first of these is now in the hands of the reader. The others will be published as promptly as the circumstances of the case will permit. In view of the abundance of material available it quickly became evident that a selective principle must be applied to determine what should be included in, and what excluded from, our documentary record. The compilation that has been made does not aim, therefore, to include all the material which has been at the editor's disposal. It does aim to present everything needful to a clear understanding of the currents of thought and of politics in the period under discussion, and it is believed that henceforth no one, however specialized his interest may be, need traverse anew the ground we have covered in performing our editorial task.

In conclusion a few words may be said concerning a somewhat technical aspect of the editorial work. The principle that in making quotations or reprinting documents the original should be faithfully reproduced is a commonplace among historical workers. It is not unfair to say, however, that in their zeal for supposed scholarship many workers have mis

taken the letter for the spirit and have conformed to archaic styles of spelling, typography, or expression as the case might be when such compliance had in fact no real bearing on the principle at issue. To the principle, sensibly interpreted, we yield cheerful allegiance. But the historical editor is not merely a slavish copyist; precisely because he is not his work differs from that of the typesetter or stenographer. At every stage of his work questions calling for the exercise of historical scholarship and scholarly discretion are encountered. Were it not for this fact historical editing would be not a scholarly profession but a purely mechanical calling. In performing our present task, while dealing with source materials, we have commonly been without absolutely first-hand records of the things recorded. Perhaps one-half of our material comes from newspapers. It would be not merely pedantic but actually misleading to hold the author of a speech responsible for the typographical style or typographical blunders of the newspaper reporters and compositors through whose agency it appeared in print. Even in the case of the printed and the original manuscript journals of the two conventions errors both of omission and of commission are sometimes in evidence. In the matter of capitalization (in the manuscript journals) it is frequently impossible to determine whether or not the writer intended to use a capital. Confronted with such materials it seemed perfectly clear from the outset of our work that the spirit rather than the letter of the scholar's rule with respect to faithful reproduction of original documents should be consulted. We have undertaken, therefore, to harmonize and modernize with respect to typography; to correct obvious misprints or similar errors in the papers reproduced; and in general to apply to them what we conceive to be the true editorial function of presenting the document to the reader accompanied by such special aids to its proper understanding as the competent historical editor is supposed to possess but which may not be expected of the average reader.

The editorial work has been prosecuted at such odds and ends of time as might be found for it since 1915. The doing of it under such conditions has necessarily operated to lessen the zeal of the editor and to lower the quality of his output. Only those, who, under such circumstances, have performed a similar task, involving over a million words drawn from diverse sources, are likely to appreciate either its laboriousness or the handicap under which it has been done. A number of my assistants in the State Historical Library have at different times aided me in the work. Grateful acknowledgment may here be made to Lydia M. Brauer and Annie A. Nunns for assistance in transcribing the voluminous copy, and to Daisy Milward for helping to prepare and see it through the press. With the issuance of further volumes in the series additions will doubtless be made to this roll. For the two following sections of the introduction obligation is expressed to Dr. Louise P. Kellogg, of the editorial staff of the State Historical Society, and to Frederic L. Paxson, curator of the Society and professor in the University of Wisconsin. The Index is the work of Dr. Kellogg.

Madison, September 1, 1918.

2

M. M. QUAIFE.

THE ADMISSION OF WISCONSIN TO STATEHOOD1

Like all territories Wisconsin had aspirations towards statehood complicated, however, in this instance by the question of boundaries. The last of the states to be formed from the Northwest Territory, both Michigan and Illinois had encroached upon the territory originally allotted to Wisconsin by the Ordinance of 1787. It was the southern boundary question, however, that was chiefly involved in the process of attaining statehood. Notwithstanding the fact that for more than twenty years Illinois had exercised jurisdiction over the disputed tract, Wisconsin's claims received much consideration among its inhabitants, and influenced the progress of the territory towards the goal of admission.

In his annual message in 1839 Governor Dodge recommended the legislature to consider the submission of the question of statehood to the people at the next election. On January 13, 1840 an act was passed embodying this recommendation with the proviso that a convention should be held with delegates from northern Illinois to discuss the inclusion of their territory in the proposed new state. Only by such a proceeding could there be a sufficient population to justify application to Congress for admission. Agitation quickly sprang up in the Illinois counties, and the majority of their population was eager to cast in its lot with that of the northern territory. Public meetings held at Galena and Rockford passed strong resolutions favoring the measure. Wisconsin people, on the contrary, took alarm at the proposal. Illinois was burdened with a heavy debt, and the portion that must be assumed by the region desiring inclu

'From a manuscript history of Wisconsin to 1848 prepared for the State Historical Society in 1917.

18

sion in Wisconsin staggered the financiers of the territory. Politicians were also fearful that their share of offices would be diminished by the accession of a developed and thicklypopulated region like northern Illinois. A meeting for Brown County held at Green Bay passed forcible resolutions against both statehood and the inclusion of any portion of Illinois. Most of Wisconsin's meager population was unprepared to assume the liabilities of a state government. Therefore, at a special session of the legislature held in August, 1840, the act of the preceding January was amended by a resolution that the convention therein authorized should not have the power to adopt a state constitution or to declare the territory an independent state. The territorial press opposed the calling of the convention, urging the people to be contented with their fortunate situation wherein all expenses of territorial government were met, not by taxes, but by the federal authorities. The September vote was, as may be supposed, very small and almost wholly against the proposition for a convention or for statehood. In Dane County, for instance, but one vote was cast in favor of the proposal.

This decisive defeat put a quietus upon the statehood movement for the next two years. Meanwhile the Whig party succeeded in 1841 to the control of the federal government, and one of its first measures was a law for the distribution to the states of the proceeds of the public lands. The territorial Whig press thereupon began an agitation for statehood in order to participate in the benefits of the distribution. Governor Doty, the Whig appointee, had been for many years an enthusiastic advocate of Wisconsin's 'original boundaries." In his first annual message in December, 1841 he advised the consideration of statehood, in order to secure the advantage of the distribution law. At the same time he called upon the legislature to assert the territory's right to the region of northern Illinois. The legislature, under control of the Democratic party, was bitterly hostile to the governor. The leader of the Council at