Prairie Republic: The Political Culture of Dakota Territory, 1879–1889

by Jon K. Lauck

American democratic ideals, civic republicanism, public morality, and Christianity were the dominant forces at work during South Dakota’s formative decade. What? In our cynical age, such a claim seems either remarkably naïve or hopelessly outdated. Territorial politics in the late-nineteenth-century West is typically viewed as a closed-door game of unprincipled opportunism or is caricatured, as in the classic film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, as a drunken exercise in bombast and rascality. Now Jon K. Lauck examines anew the values we like to think were at work during the founding of our western states. Taking Dakota Territory as a laboratory for examining a formative stage of western politics, Lauck finds that settlers from New England and the Midwest brought democratic practices and republican values to the northern plains and invoked them as guiding principles in the drive for South Dakota statehood. Prairie Republic corrects an overemphasis on class conflict and economic determinism, factors posited decades ago by such historians as Howard R. Lamar. Instead, Lauck finds South Dakota’s political founders to be agents of Protestant Christianity and of civic republicanism—an age-old ideology that entrusted the polity to independent, landowning citizens who placed the common interest above private interest. Focusing on the political culture widely shared among settlers attracted to the Great Dakota Boom of the 1880s, Lauck shows how they embraced civic virtue, broad political participation, and agrarian ideals. Family was central in their lives, as were common-school education, work, and Christian community. In rescuing the story of Dakota’s settlers from historical obscurity, Prairie Republic dissents from the recent darker portrayal of western history and expands our view and understanding of the American democratic tradition.

Genres: History, Politics

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Marvin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lauck is, by training, a historian and a lawyer. (I published an article by him in The Annals of Iowa that was a product of his dissertation research, and I've published several of his book reviews and review essays.) He is now an aide to conservative South Dakota Senator John Thune. This book, while reflecting his training as a historian, also reflects his ideological passion. The people who settled eastern South Dakota were, in his telling, conservative people of faith, whose republican commitments and family values make them models of community building for us today. Jon is always persuasive--insistently so--even when I disagree with him, as I usually do. Here I think he's reading his sources romantically, if not selectively, taking at face value rhetoric designed to be boosterish. But perhaps it's a needed corrective for "progressive" historians who don't give such rhetoric the attention and credit it may deserve.

[John Andrews · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine alternative to Howard Lamar's study of Dakota Territory and long overdue. Lauck challenges Lamar's arguments, made during the 1940s and 1950s during a different era of Western historiography. I'm writing a lengthier piece on the book for the Sept/Oct 2010 issue of South Dakota Magazine.

[JB · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read Lamar’s Dakota Territory: 1861-1889, and then immediately after read this book by Lauck. I was interested specifically in learning more about why ND & SD split when becoming states.
If you are interested in a thorough history of the Dakota Territory, its founding, early settlers, and prominent names, buy or read Lamar’s Dakota Territory: 1861-1889. That book will give you many of the early Territorial governors and early regional settlers and background into how they came to be in Dakota and how they got there, either on their own interest in land development/real estate or business or by appointment by Pres Lincoln and the federal government as happened in Territorial politics. You’ll learn about Todd & Frost of Yankton, the Sioux Falls area developers, and the Red River Valley or Pembina group in northeast Dakota Territory. You also learn many other names such as Edmunds, Faulk, Beadle, Pennington, Brookings, Campbell, Moody and other’s who’s namesakes are for many counties and cities in SD & ND. You learn a bit more about how north and south Dakota got split and the back and forth controversies surrounding that both in Dakota and in DC where federal gov’t was grappling with what to do with the territories. I learned way more about Dakota than I intended and it was a fun read.

Lamar gives a well-rounded perspective of many different aspects of the time. He describes the local culture and politics as they developed. Also, includes the impact and history of how the Black Hills became developed, how Indian relations evolved, and how northern Dakota was involved. He even includes an interesting vote when parts of Wyoming and Montana were part of the territory and how a population in Wyoming affected elections at one time.

This book by Lauck only covers 1879-1889 and most of it reads more like as defensiveness about a few observations made by Lamar rather than a history book, and it is very limited in its historical scope and breadth. You don’t really learn about the “Dakota Territory”, but only east river S Dakota from the clearly hometown, personal perspective of Lauck. Read the Preface where Lauck says that’s what he is going to do to in this book, trying to rebuke Lamar rather than write a well-rounded history. And make a statement about how ‘republicanism’ and ‘religion’ were the most important aspects of early Dakota. It reads like a partisan politician book more than a history book. And the rebuke of Lamar is weird because I didn’t sense the same negative observations of Lamar that Lauck apparently did. Lamar’s seemed like some good non-specific observations of broad topics. I learned way more about actual details of Dakota Territory history from Lamar, and very little from Lauck.

It really only studies white settlers in east river South Dakota and you learn little to nothing about Black Hills, Indian relations, and northern Dakota, which are all quite important in the overall history of Dakota. I wonder how current west river SD residents feel about this book. Instead he essentially seemed to seek out and cherry-pick ways to rebuke Lamar’s book because he seems to take offense to some conclusions or theories or observations made by Lamar. It feels like someone from modern S Dakota who is very modern day political wants to see a romanticized picture of east river South Dakotan founders as being altruistic and leading the way for how great Americans everywhere, ought to be. While wanting to disregard anything about corruption, cronyism, or how elitist businessmen and land developers of the early territory may have used their powers to KEEP their power. Is it hard to imagine that early land developers wanted money and power and to preserve that? It isn’t new that farmers tend to get the short end of the stick, especially small farmers.
He describes Lamar as only focusing on class conflict and ignoring religion and where settlers came from or how their political beliefs came from, including the republican (lower case r) ideals of the late nineteenth century Midwest and New England. I did not see that as the ONLY or MAIN theme in Lamar’s book and he does recognize religion, where political thought came from, while also looking at many other aspects that Lauck avoids. The fact that many pioneers were from the Midwest or New England seems extremely obvious without researching the history. Of course people migrated East to West and not so much from the Deep South in a kitty-korner fashion up to Dakota. I assume any pioneering from the South ended up in Texas or Oklahoma.
There is a whole chapter called “God’s Country,” in which Lauck wants to express the importance of religion and how it affected the “republican” beliefs of (ONLY east river south Dakota) pioneers. Protestants didn’t like Catholics. Pioneers built a lot of new churches and churches are where a lot of community gatherings occurred. Again, no kidding! Where in the USA or anywhere in the world have people not started with churches and that’s where they tended to gather? And protestants vs catholic conflict didn’t start or end Dakota! It’s a factor to consider, which Lamar does to some degree. But not with such emphasis….as there are many other topics to emphasize.
Anyone who grew up in rural S Dakota and went to church knows how common it is to have plenty of people attend church and be very religious on Sunday, but then not be so religious minded and holy on Mon-Sat. That’s just honest and the way it is with humans everywhere. There are plenty of good to highlight, but that doesn’t seem unique to Dakota in any way and there are many other factors.
Also, Lauck doesn’t seem to like this idea that early pioneers or farmers in Dakota and throughout its history relied on the federal government and some degree of socialism. Homesteading, business development around the federal gov’t and aid to Indians to maintain peace (Union tax dollars from outside Dakota), and need for aide to farmer’s realizing that bad weather in Dakota doesn’t always make for great farming, even if the soil is fertile ALL result in a need for federal government assistance and continues that way today with Farm Bills and subsidies. The pioneers were hard working and needed to be strong for those reasons. Without the railroads and federal government there was very limited resources or ways to make ends-meet in Dakota Territory.
There are some interesting local historical points to learn here. Goes through some of the backgrounds of how local cities got their names. I learned how Tolstoy got named and why there’s about 6 churches in that tiny little town, but Lauck’s book just seems too rosy and blinded by a hometown pride and modern CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IDEAL and a sentiment that “my small community is GREAT and how dare someone suggest anyone in the past of our community was less than IDEAL!” You can be proud of small town South Dakota (I’m 4th generation and know it well), but at the same time be honest and recognize some old corruption, conflicts, greediness, and faults. That’s how humans are, even the church going ones and those church going ones are supposed to be learning that fact while they are in church. There are also plenty of “Boss Hog” types in small town South Dakota, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone from small town America. If you got money and political persuasion, it’s even easier to abuse that in a rural population where it’s even more difficult for opposition to do anything about it without facing severe public-opinion backlash.
Lamar’s book is a great, well-rounded and in-depth review of the Dakota Territory from 1861-1889 and reads like a historian wrote it. Lauck’s book is a very limited scope book from 1879-1889 that focuses on a very limited group of factors. It feels like he was trying to be a politician rather than a historian. And he is a history professor within South Dakota and lawyer and a politician as he is a staff member for Republican Sen John Thune. Lamar was a history professor of Yale. An inside perspective is nice, but sometimes it’s more honest to look from the outside-inwards.
I’d be curious how Lauck’s 1880’s “republicanism” and conservatism matches with current day “conservatism” which has led to Trump as the leader of the Republican party and strongly supported in S Dakota.
I’d read Lamar’s book if you decide to read this book. You learn more actual history from Lamar’s book, which is more what I was interested in.
And the quaint Epilogue about Miner County and Howard and Carthage area is nice, nostalgic, and romantic. But there’s a reason that small town SD stopped booming in the 1880s and really peaked socially in the 1950s-1970s. There’s not much going on there, the small farmers went bankrupt and were bought out by bigger farmers (the neighbors going to church with them), much of the railroads shut down in the early 1900s & stopped at the Missouri River as ND and Nebraska beat out S Dakota for a transcontinental route, and there’s nothing keeping much of the younger generation’s brightest minds in the region, unless you farm or want to be a small town banker or lawyer. 98% of Miner county may be happy because the unhappy people moved away to Sioux Falls or out of state for better paying jobs that better fit their education and skills. And sometimes because some people get tired of small town BS, which doesn’t often welcome outsiders. It isn’t simply because America is losing its moral compass. In some cases the small towns may have lost their moral compass as they’ve shrunk. And that is sad, but don’t see that changing in the future.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jon Lauck is from South Dakota, likes South Dakota, and is proud of his South Dakota heritage. For the record, all three are also true of me. His book makes an argument about the history of eastern South Dakota that says the state was founded by people that carried certain principles with them, and those principles define South Dakota political culture up to the present day. I think he would agree that the same political principles generally were important throughout the Midwest.

Those principles in question are civic-mindedness, Christianity, and small-d democratic idealism, as well as appreciation for hard work and orderliness. It is a flattering picture; one that makes us feel good about ourselves and the communities we have built, even as we acknowledge their flaws.

But is it true? Like so many questions, the answer is both yes and no. What, to me, is indisputable, is that his view of the founding of South Dakota is closely aligned with his ideological conception of the world. Lauck is a political conservative (an aide to Senator John Thune) and has a stake in believing that these ideals he identifies are both a force for good and are more important in the final analysis than material factors in shaping our state. As the book progresses, Lauck more and more explicitly engages with views of history that he finds less agreeable, and attempts to make his case for why certain lenses should be discarded in favor of his reading.

As a South Dakotan, I'm just glad to have any additional material on the early days of our state, and Prairie Republic is an interesting read for anyone that wishes to know more about the subject. But it is a political document, and one whose assumptions I did not always find credible. By all means, engage with this text, but do so bringing a healthy dose of skepticism to some of the claims within the cover.

[Robert Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book! A must read for anyone interested in So. Dak. or political history more generally.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very well researched and well written book on the social and political culture of Dakota territory in the ten years leading up to statehood. It should be noted that the book is primarily centered on eastern Dakota territory. One of the reviewers on this site stated that Lauck was reading his sources romantically, and mistaking political rhetoric for popular opinion and values. I strongly disagree. In reading the end notes, it is at once apparent that Lauck extensively researched his thesis. He did not rely on political speeches, but extensively used personal memoirs, letters and journals, as well as statistical analysis, especially in analyzing demographic participation in the three constitutional conventions in 1883, 1885 and 1889. The book was very well balanced, as shown by his exploration of anti-Catholic attitudes during the Grant administration. Chapter 5 is a fascinating historiographical essay and should be used as a guide for the material which he explored in previous chapters. In chapter 5, Lauck explores the research, background and writing of Lamar's groundbreaking work, Dakota Territory. Lauck dissects the anti-Turner agenda which was prevelant among New West scholars in the 1950's, and how this heavily influenced modern progressive and leftist researchers more recently. He also explores the influences on Lamar, as well as how Lamar's views changed over the years until he was at odds with the modern progressive scholarship. In the epilogue, Lauck presents convincing evidence of the "social capital" built up during this decade in the 19th century which still exists in eastern South Dakota today. I found it very interesting that he mentions the social critic Christopher Lasch, whose own research into the changing social fabric of the nation lends support to Lauck's secondary thesis on the prevelance of republican participation in church and community. Overall an excellent book which presents a microcosm of western society as a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation.

[Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting look at the politics of Dakota Territory, even though it does seem to focus more on Eastern Dakota. Lauck's book is well-researched, and a good one to read for anyone interested in political history, or the history of Dakota Territory.