192 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



"It is evident our state lias readied a crisis. We need annexa- 

 tion to the lakes ; some access to the markets of the great world. 

 When and through what avenue is light from Lake ]*>Iichigan 

 to break in upon us ?" ^ The response to this demand was the 

 magnificent net work of railroads, centering at Chicago and 

 ramifying through the whole jN'orthwest. The lead and shot 

 trade tapped that great stream of emigration that was flowing 

 westward by the Erie Canal through Michigan. This section 

 was thus enabled to profit by the great influx of Xew England 

 and jSTew York settlers to people its untilled lands. Thus in 

 Wisconsin the two almost antagonistic sections, the Mississippi 

 and the Lake sections were completely united by 1850. The 

 later union of the western section with the east bv means of rail- 

 roads, ushers in the last step in the development of the state. 



We may now pass to the discussion of the lead-producing and 

 non-lead-producing groups of towns in the counties of Grant, 

 Iowa, and Lafayette. In the accompanying map those portions 

 of the toAvns that are shaded show the location of sections in 

 which lead mining was an important industry by 1840. These 

 towns are considered as belonging to the Lead Group or Group I, 

 and are as follows. For Grant Countv: Beetown, Clifton, 

 Platteville and Potosi ; for Iowa County : Dodgeville, High- 

 land, Linden, Mifflin, ]\rineral Point and Ridgeway; for La- 

 fayette County: Benton, iSTew Diggings, Shullsburg and White- 

 Oak Springs. All the remaining to\\Tis in the three counties, 

 those having no shaded sections, belong to the !N'on-Lead Group 

 or Group II. In many of these towns there were lead mines 

 but the area of the lead producing sections was much smaller in 

 proportion to the total area of the town than in the case of the 

 towns in Group I. 



Taking up the subject of population first it will be seen from 

 the table below that Group I has a population per square mile 

 which, though showing considerable variation, tends to steadily 

 decrease. On the other hand, for Group II just the opposite is 

 true. Thus while the first group attains a maximum density of 

 population of 41.9 per square mile in 1870 and declines there- 

 after until 1890, the second group reaches a maximum of 30.4 



1 J. T. M. in Wisconsin Herald, Juae 10, 184S. [Wis. Hist. CoU., XIII., 327.] 



