In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

113 5 Boosters, Saracens, and Indians With nearly one billion [acres] of unsettled lands on one side of the Atlantic, and with many millions of poor and oppressed people on the other, let the people of the North organize the exodus which must come, and build, if necessary, a bridge of gold across the chasm which divides them, that the chosen races of mankind may occupy the chosen lands of the world. —Ignatius Donnelly, February 27, 1864 Ignatius Donnelly’s 1864 speech before the U.S. House of Representatives in support of an immigration bill incorporates many of the ideas fundamental to the period’s western expansion: that America had plenty of unsettled land available (a belief Native Americans would contest); that immigration from Europe was necessary for the development of the country; and that there was a hand of Providence that had “chosen” both this land and this people for a special role in the development of civilization.1 It is easy today to condemn this view and the attitudes of manifest destiny it represents, yet there is no doubt that it was the view held by most Euro-Americans in the period, it underlay national policy, and it helped to fuel western migration.2 There is also no doubt that although the idea of supplying cheap land to worthy and needful European settlers was part of such government programs as the Homestead Act, the system was often exploited for the financial benefit of land speculators. Still, the immigrants came. The land was settled, lumber was cut, crops were planted, trade ensued, railroads were built. Although drought or debt defeated many farmers, many others stayed and prospered. Whole systems were created to support this western movement. State boards of immigration advertised the advantages of their states; railroads organized land departments BOOST ERS, SARACENS, AND INDIANS 11 4 with agents in both American and European cities to promote immigration; newspaper editors boasted of the potential of their particular regions; politicians and clergymen proclaimed the bountiful blessings that awaited those who would come; and businessmen , bankers, and real-estate agents developed their own literature touting the natural resources and geographical advantages of their areas. Escalating land prices became a measure of progress. There were setbacks, of course, with drought, fire, floods, and economic downturns, but the promoters met such disasters with a positive optimism, praising the energy and pluck of the new entrepreneurs. This attitude, the overblown rhetoric that expressed it, and the whole body of literature and performative activities associated with such promotion is called boosterism. The first part of this chapter examines more closely boosters and their role in the creation of the period’s cereal architecture. The second part explores in greater depth the iconography of crop-art decorations on buildings and the meanings they embodied for both their white and Native American audiences. Boosters and Boosterism Part of the optimism of the post–Civil War Gilded Age, boosterism was based on the premise that any town (and especially your town) could become an important urban center if its leading citizens did enough to promote its unique potential. Historian Carl Abbott has noted that it took considerable work to achieve that vision. The town’s situation had to be assessed, plans had to be formed into coherent policy, and the community had to work together to implement them. The goal was growth, investment, and prosperity. Contemporary scholars have identified particular characteristics of nineteenthcentury boosterism that seemed to prevail throughout the Midwest.3 One characteristic was the hierarchy of a booster’s loyalty: first to the town and the region, second to the state, and third, at some distance, to the nation. Although most boosters believed that local growth was part of national policy and that the nation as a whole would benefit, the fiercest loyalty was still to the booster’s hometown, a fact that also led to some intense civic rivalry. It was “my city first,” and if a booster could top a rival in publicity or in promotion , then so much the better; hence the squabble noted in chapter 2 between Mitchell and Plankinton, South Dakota. In 1892, when Louis Beckwith and Lawrence Gale decided they “must have something that will be a booster for Mitchell” and worked to develop their Corn Palace, they fully intended to usurp nearby Plankinton’s grain-palace celebration.4 As a result, Plankinton newspapers called for a boycott of Mitchell merchants.5 The organizers worked it out cordially in the...

Share