| 
			 Reflections 2003 Series 3 June 28 Minnesota Trilogy II - A Historic Note
 
  |   | Minnesota Trilogy II - A Historic Note   In the early 1800's the United States was still essentially located on the east coast, as least as far as population was concerned. Water traffic was essential, and the ports from Boston and New York down to Charleston and Savannah thrived. Of course, settlement had occurred over the mountains into the Midwest, but that was still far inland and not yet heavily populated. Even Chicago wasn’t more than a village at this point, if that.  |   |  |   | Minnesota, later to be described as part of the Upper Midwest, was a wilderness, far from established civilization at that point, and yet the US decided to establish an outpost. And what better place to start than those same bluffs overlooking the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, again my centerpoint of Minnesota. In this way geographic and historic essence coincide.
  |   |  |   | The government built Fort Snelling on those very same river bluffs. To telescope ahead into the future for a moment, Fort Snelling served as a military base through both World Wars and declined in importance in more recent decades and was decommissioned, and has been restored as parkland, with role-playing interpreters. I remember Bev and me discussing with a "fur trapper" inside the restored fort what he was doing and where he had been hunting. But in the 1820's this outpost was far, far away from the rest of the country. Supplies reached it only slowly. I envision it as remaniscent of a space station today in regard to remoteness and difficulty in resupplying. And yet by 1845 Minnesota had enough population to become a state. I think that short period of time is nothing short of incredible.
  |   |  |   | Beyond that, it is very curious that Fort Snelling never became the center of a town. Instead, soldiers and settlers living there went downstream to a point that is now a 25-minute drive away and founded Saint Paul on the north bank. Actually, they founded Pig's Eye, named after a local character, but then had enough sense to rename it.
  |   |  |   | Others went in the opposite direction, up the Mississippi about the same distance to where the Mississippi actually had something of a waterfall. They named it Saint Anthony falls, and founded the town of Saint Anthony, also on the north bank.
  |   |  |   | Had things stayed this way, we would today have the twin cities of Saint Anthony and Saint Paul. Sounds nice. But in a reversal of fortune similar to the Mississippi River taking over in importance from the Minnesota River, an upstart suburb of Saint Anthony on the south bank of the river grew in importance, so now Saint Anthony is just a neighborhood of Minneapolis. That's two local instances of the tail wagging the dog.
  |   |  |   | There are many instances of two cities developing close to each other, sometimes remaining apart and sometimes joining together, but Minnesotans have somehow given their two cities cult status for twinning. They are famous as The Twin Cities. Locals even shorten that phrase to The Cities as in "when are you coming to The Cities to visit?" their twin status being so very taken for granted.
  |   |  |   | Yet we have Tampa-Saint Petersburg, Miami-Fort Lauderdale, San Francisco-Oakland, Dallas-Fort Worth, and on and on. In 1898 the City of New York (Manhattan) merged with its twin, the City of Brooklyn (plus other areas).
  |   |  |   | London and Westminster are in a sense twins. Berlin long ago merged with its twin, Kölln. But my favorite is Budapest. Travellers who go to Hungary quickly realize what they might not have known before, that Buda on the east side merged with Pest on the west side (also a third area called Obuda). They are one city (Buda predominates), but you still discuss about a destination being in the one or the other. The uniqueness of the Budapest situation is that it's the only case where both names got to be preserved. Maybe the New York/Brooklyn merge should have resulted in Yorklyn?
  |   |  |   | Should we refer to Minneapolis/Saint Paul as Minnepaul, or does that sound too much like Minnie Pearl, the late comedienne?
  |   |  |   | No, any such wordplay should be avoided. If you want a new name for the region, go back to those riverbluffs, the crux of Minnesota, and call the merger Snelling.  |   |  			|   |  
						
				|   | 
				 
				
 				 | 
			 
			 |  
			   			 
		 |