Name change to lake Calhoun? (Ramsey, Wells: donated, expense, area)

[Camden Northsider]

I had no idea who/what Lake Calhoun was named after- the first thing that has always come to mind when hearing "Calhoun" is a lake and area surrounding it. I'd assume the general populace is as uninformed as myself on this matter, so this campaign is really just counter-productively giving more historic fame to an undeserving a-hole from the past. Somewhat similar to Ghengis' suggestion, why not just make a declaration that the lake is being renamed Lake Calhoun in honor/celebration of The Lake Formerly Known as Lake Calhoun, thus naming it after the much more well-known lake that was previously named for a relatively unknown historical figure. Or find another figure or family from history with the last name Calhoun that everyone can approve of and declare it's being renamed for that person.

[Camden Northsider]

Or just "The Lake Formerly Known as Lake Calhoun" as a tongue-in-cheek celebration of our political correctness and eccentric famous local artist.

[srsmn]

Can I point out that to those of you calling John C. Calhoun an 'insignificant historical figure'....you're wrong. That's coming from a guy with a BA in History.

Calhoun was part of the Great Triumvirate of political thinkers (along with Webster and Clay) who by-and-large shaped national policy from the 1830's-1850's. The different ideologies of these three men precipitated the Civil War.

That said, I want Penn Avenue renamed. It's offensive to Catholics.

[uptown_urbanist]

This was debated LONG ago. I figure if the Union vets didn't care enough to change it -- and all of them would have been well aware of Calhoun's role in the War (and I do agree that he was a major historical figure, although he was not nearly as important at the time when the lake was named) -- then why would we change it now? I wouldn't name a Minnesotan lake after him today, but changing it now makes no sense. It's a waste of time and money.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by srsmn

Can I point out that to those of you calling John C. Calhoun an 'insignificant historical figure'....you're wrong. That's coming from a guy with a BA in History.

In the land of a capitol and a state and numerous counties named Washington, of cities named Jefferson, of countless Roosevelt and Franklin and Lincoln locales and geographic entities, yeah, the third-tier historical figure of John C. Calhoun is relatively insignificant.

But, hey, what do I know, I don't have an "I'm an expert!" degree in the purely objective, everyone-agrees exact science of history...

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't think Calhoun is insignificant or obscure in the least, but I do agree that he's not a local figure and as such he probably gets insufficient attention. Then again, I think Minnesota in general is pretty lacking when it comes to paying attention to Civil War (and earlier) history. It's simply not on our radar in the way that it is in areas of the country where memories of "the War" (no need to ask which one) linger on. As a historian I find that unfortunate, but also understandable. If the guy pushing for the Calhoun name change really wants to do something useful he could advocate for more local historical education and outreach, as I think many local residents don't know much about the history of our area.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Can we just come to a compromise and name the new man-made lake in North Minneapolis Humphrey Lake? Or just to get the old Civil War buff to shut up maybe they can change Mall of America field back to the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome? The history behind Lake Calhoun actually kind of makes me want the name to stay even more. I think it's interesting that the most popular lake in the state was named after such a jerk! By that token maybe Tom Petters and Denny Hecker deserve lakes too!

[audadvnc]

Sibley was a right bastard, too, from contemporary accounts.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Slig

Can we just come to a compromise and name the new man-made lake in North Minneapolis Humphrey Lake? Or just to get the old Civil War buff to shut up maybe they can change Mall of America field back to the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome? The history behind Lake Calhoun actually kind of makes me want the name to stay even more. I think it's interesting that the most popular lake in the state was named after such a jerk! By that token maybe Tom Petters and Denny Hecker deserve lakes too!

Thing is, the man pushing for this isn't an old Civil War buff -- from the report, it sounded like he only just now figured out who Calhoun was and what he believed. I was rather surprised at the way kare11 handled it, as they made it sound like this was new and shocking revelations about the lake's namesake.

And they didn't name the lake after Calhoun for his slavery viewpoints, or for his role in the Civil War -- this was Union country, after all. The name came before all of that. Calhoun later did become a far more despicable character (as far as his stance on slavery goes) than most of his contemporaries, but the fact of the matter was that many of our national figures owned slaves or otherwise benefited from slave labor.

I like the point about the history of the name making it more interesting. It's certainly an opportunity for helping make early to mid-19th century American history relevant to modern Minneapolis. I think part of the reason so many locals don't know much about the earlier years is because it seems so remote; looking at place names helps bring it "home" to us in a way that seems more real than simply reading about things in a book.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

In the land of a capitol and a state and numerous counties named Washington, of cities named Jefferson, of countless Roosevelt and Franklin and Lincoln locales and geographic entities, yeah, the third-tier historical figure of John C. Calhoun is relatively insignificant.

But, hey, what do I know, I don't have an "I'm an expert!" degree in the purely objective, everyone-agrees exact science of history...

Why the hostility?

No, actually, if most people knew half as much about American history as they should, none of them would call Calhoun "insignificant." He's as important-- if not more-- than some of the names you just dropped.

Oh, and thanks for going out of your way to insult my totally subjective, willy-nilly, any idiot can do it! degree. Unfortunately, there is a pursuit we call historeography-- that is, how we physically do history, how we study it, how we gather the evidence and compile the corpus delicti that leads us to our conclusions. And nobody that is familiar with that process will call Calhoun an "insignificant figure." Sorry, I know you think history is all subjective so that rubes can just make it up as they go along and write it down in books for younger rubes to read....but it's not.