Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Barry Abrahamsen, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)
THE QUARTERLY OF THE OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY
(Vol. 1, No. 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE QUARTERLY
OF THE
OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY
---------------------------------------------------------
VOL. 1 MARCH, 1900 NO. 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Illustration: Logo
CONTENTS
THE GENESIS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND OF A 1
COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT IN OREGON—James R.
Robertson
THE PROCESS OF SELECTION IN OREGON PIONEER 60
SETTLEMENT—Thomas Condon
NATHANIEL J. WYETH’S OREGON EXPEDITIONS—“In 66
Historic Mansions and Highways Around
Boston”
REMINISCENCES OF F. X. MATTHIEU—H. S. Lyman 73
DOCUMENTS—Correspondence of John McLoughlin, 106
Nathaniel J. Wyeth, S. R. Thurston, and R.
C. Winthrop, pertaining to claim of Dr.
McLoughlin at the Falls of the
Willamette—the site of Oregon City
NOTES AND NEWS 70
------------------
PRICE: THIRTY-FIVE CENTS PER NUMBER, ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ORGANIZED DECEMBER 17, 1898
--------------
H. W. SCOTT PRESIDENT
C. B. BELLINGER VICE-PRESIDENT
F. G. YOUNG SECRETARY
CHARLES E. LADD TREASURER
GEORGE H. HIMES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
--------------
DIRECTORS
THE GOVERNOR OF OREGON, ex officio.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ex officio.
Term Expires at Annual Meeting in December, 1900,
H. W. SCOTT, MRS. HARRIET K. McARTHUR.
Term Expires at Annual Meeting in December, 1901,
F. G. YOUNG, L. B. COX.
Term Expires at Annual Meeting in December, 1902,
JAMES R. ROBERTSON, JOSEPH R. WILSON.
Term Expires at Annual Meeting in December, 1903,
C. B. BELLINGER, MRS. MARIA L. MYRICK.
--------------
The Quarterly is sent free to all members of the Society. The annual
dues are two dollars. The fee for life membership is twenty-five
dollars.
Contributions to The Quarterly and correspondence relative to historical
materials, or pertaining to the affairs of this Society, should be
addressed to
F. G. YOUNG,
Secretary.
EUGENE, OREGON.
Subscriptions for The Quarterly, or for the other publications of the
Society should be sent to
GEORGE H. HIMES,
Assistant Secretary.
CITY HALL, PORTLAND, OREGON.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME 1.] MARCH, 1900 [NUMBER 1.
--------------------------------------------------
THE QUARTERLY
OF THE
OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
THE GENESIS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND OF A COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT IN
OREGON.
[Printed by the author for private distribution, August, 1899.]
At the present time, when interest is becoming more generally centered
upon the Pacific Coast and the future which seems to be lying before it
during the next century of our national life, any contribution to a
knowledge of its history can hardly be out of place. It is quite clear
that from now on through the future it must more and more pass out from
the sphere of purely local interest and assume a larger place in the
current of our national history. Although the southern half of the coast
may be more familiar to the greater number of people, yet the northern
half has a history which is fully as rich and well repays most careful
study. Of the many interesting phases which have presented themselves,
none has had so great an attraction for the writer as the development of
civil institutions. It is interesting to review the gradual evolution of
a locality from primitive conditions of wildness to that perfect form of
social life where individuals act under the privileges and restrictions
of a civil government, voluntarily imposed and perfectly integrated with
the larger scheme of national government. It is a stimulating process to
try to make any correct estimate of the various agencies which have
taken part in the complex process of growth, and to place an accurate
valuation upon the services of leading personalities, the influence of
aggregates of less prominent individuals, and general determining
influences which may not at first be seen at all. It is a test of
judgment to put oneself at the different points of view, so often
conflicting, to be fair to all and to be firm in drawing conclusions
where the weight of evidence seems to lie; and a knowledge of the
slowness of this process of growth, with the careful thought and heroic
action by which it has come about, creates a respect for government and
prepares for a wiser use of the privileges enjoyed under its beneficent
rule. In following out the theme set before us it is to be remembered
that by Oregon is meant that piece of territory whose boundaries have
been gradually shrinking to their present compass from an area extending
from the Spanish possessions at the forty-second degree of latitude to
the Russian possessions at the fifty-fifth degree, and between the Rocky
Mountains and the Pacific Ocean.
In many respects this history resembles that of the other states of our
Union. In common with them there has been a gradual growth from those
fragmentary germs of civic life out of which civil government grows,
which fragmentary forms begin to operate as soon as individuals come
together in social relation, often long before localities are entitled
to take their places as parts of a nation. As in the case of other
states, there was the acquisition of territory, in this case preceded by
a partial acquisition. Like the other states, it has passed through the
various steps prescribed by congress for the transition from newly
acquired territory to perfect statehood; but, as other states have
passed through this common process with a great variety of interesting
and unique experiences, so Oregon has had its own history, peculiar to
itself, and in some respects different from that of any other state. It
is the purpose of this paper to set forth briefly the leading facts, so
far as they may be gained from the sources at present available, and to
present them, so far as possible, in historical perspective, and as a
part of the growth of our national life.
In the examination of a subject connected with local history it is easy
to be carried away by local circumstances, and to fail to grasp those
larger features which connect it with the history of the nation and to
some extent with that of the world. Our truest knowledge of the subject,
however, will come from this broader approach and a search first for
those general conditions which underlay the more detailed history and
were instrumental in determining its drift.
In order that we may see the wider scope of our subject we need only to
remember that during the early centuries of exploration the territory
whose civil life we are to study was at stake in the great struggle
between those countries which were striving for the mastery of the
world, and many a stroke of policy that seemed to affect these remote
regions had its only significance as it bore upon the conflict of
England and Spain. And then, when the Russian Empire, through the
impetus received from Peter the Great and Catherine II, continued its
process of expansion eastward, its outer wave reached the western shores
of America and they became an important factor in the larger stream of
world history. And finally when the thirteen colonies separated from
England, this new and vigorous nation found an interest in those
regions, and they became an important factor in the relations of England
and the United States.
In the study of the development of civil government in Oregon, since the
region has had any interest to our nation, we need first to note those
general conditions which have to a large extent been responsible for the
detailed history. The one which is perhaps most apparent and whose
effect has been greatest, is the geographical location of the territory
as compared with the rest of the United States. Separated from the older
sections of the country by long stretches of prairie, and by two large
mountain systems, accessible by water only after a long and tedious
journey around Cape Horn, its position was one of extreme isolation.
This peculiar isolation explains very much that is characteristic of the
early history of our civil government. It explains the ignorance that
prevailed so long in the older sections regarding the value of the
country, and the consequent apathy against which the champions of the
west in congress had so long to contend; it explains, likewise, that
voluntary and heroic action by which the colonists, stung by the delays
and impelled by their needs and desires for a democratic type of
government, took the initiative and brought into being a pioneer
provisional state to bridge over the period of delay, and to hold the
country in trust until the slow movings of the national consciousness
should awaken to its interests.
Another and equally important factor in determining the drift of events
was the joint claim and occupancy of the country with England. The
history of civil government under such circumstances must necessarily be
different from that of territory fully acquired by the national
government. It is clear that it must connect, indissolubly, the question
of a government with that of the boundary, and render any satisfactory
solution of the former impossible until the settlement of the latter.
The framing of any kind of a plan of government that would really be
efficient without giving cause for offense to the partner to the title
of the land must be a problem of the most difficult nature, as it was
found to be. And the problem was still further complicated by reason of
the fact that the question of boundary belonged to the executive part of
the government, while that of the formation of a civil government
belonged to the legislative. And then, too, by virtue of its being
thrown into the realm of international affairs, the formation of a civil
government was delayed because of its connection with that complicated
balancing of interests which always characterizes diplomatic procedure,
where settlement of questions is slow and ofttimes accompanied by
national friction.
To joint occupancy also must be attributed the throwing into close
relationship of two different and antagonistic types of life. There was
in the first place the difference of nationality, which, in view of the
feelings engendered in the struggle for independence and the war of
1812, did not promise cordiality; there was the difference of industrial
systems which brought into sharpest and most bitter conflict the ably
managed monopoly of the English company and the independent American
trader or trapper with his idea of free competition and equal right to
operation in the region jointly held. And lastly, there was the
difference in regard to the treatment of the native races. The English
found it mostly to their interest to leave things as they were, and to
keep the country a wilderness, suitable for a trapping ground for many
years to come, while the Americans aspired to better the life of the
savage, and to build up a condition of civilized life. The difference
was all the more marked because of the entrance of the missionaries and
the important part played by these leaders, who exercised an influence
perhaps second only to that of the early religious leaders of New
England, and whose energies were untiring in the interests of good
government and a moral population. That two such diverse types of life
could exist side by side during the twenty-eight years of joint
occupancy without influencing the course of civil government is not to
be conceived. That the relation was harmonious at first is true, but
that irritations arose as time went on was inevitable.
In any analysis of the influences affecting the course of civil
government in Oregon a prominent place should be given to that slow yet
powerful westward movement of population. It consisted of a people
aggressive and assertive of their own desires, patriotic, and upright in
the main, with a consciousness of their own wants and their ability to
get them, and possessing but little knowledge of, or reverence for, the
intricacies of international usage, or the restrictions of a
conservative legislative body. Being a part of the people, they were the
sovereign power, and if they determined upon having the west, it must
finally be had. This was a movement which led thousands of intrepid
immigrants to anticipate the government in going to remote regions.
Those who remained behind had now a greater interest in the country, and
ere long it was to be the impulse from this movement which aroused the
national consciousness to the importance of the Oregon question, gave it
a place among the problems of the nation, put it upon the platform of a
political party as a prominent issue, and forced a settlement of the
boundary, and finally secured a civil government.
After all other difficulties were overcome, after the barrier of
distance was removed, after the stormy season of threatened war over the
boundary line had passed away, civil government in Oregon became
inevitably connected with another question which was to affect its
destiny. The deepening bitterness between the north and the south was
drawing everything into the maelstrom of slavery discussion, and
particularly was this true in the case of every piece of newly acquired
territory whose destiny was inseparably connected with the defeat or
justification of the system of slavery.
With this brief survey of the general conditions which have operated to
determine the course of events, the narrative of the more important
details in the growth of civil government in Oregon may be better
understood. We find that in the days of the discoverer, explorer, and
fur trader there was no civil government at all, except such as was
exercised by the native races for the regulation of their primitive
life. Every one was dependent upon his own resources for the protection
of life and property. From the time that the first Spanish ship, under
the command of Ferrelo, touched the southern shore of Oregon, in the
middle of the sixteenth century, until the beginning of the nineteenth,
there was as much freedom from the restraints of social order as any
anarchist could wish. There was nothing to check the conflicts that
might arise between the crews of vessels, from the same or different
nations, in their eagerness for the glories of discovery or the profits
of trade with the Indians. There was nothing to shield from the danger
of massacres from tribes, hostile by nature, or by contact with the
whites. The explorer or trader who penetrated the interior must trust to
his own ability for safety, and to his judgment in making friends with
the Indians. There was nothing to regulate men in the struggle to reap
the natural advantages of the region. They had little interest in the
Indians, except as they could use them to their profit; they had small
regard for the rights of others, as they were outside the pale of rights
and laws; they cared nothing for the conditions that they made for the
future, as it was not to be their home. It was a period for romantic
adventures, to pass away before the quieter but more beneficent regime
of social order.
When, however, the scattered fur trading interests began to centralize
by the formation of fur trading companies, some of the functions which
belong to a civil government began to arise. The Pacific Fur Company,
established by John Jacob Astor at the mouth of the Columbia River in
1811, with its little fort, exercised a greater authority in the
protection of life and property than had existed before. It aimed to
produce a condition of things more in harmony with a normal and
peaceable trade. Its English successor, the Northwest Fur Company,
established in control of the region after the war of 1812, was still
more powerful. After consolidation with its rival, the Hudson’s Bay
Company, its charter rights were extended, and, although only a trading
company, the necessities of its position led it to the exercise of many
of the functions of a civil government. Its control of its large number
of employees was complete; its power over the native races was absolute;
by judicious methods and quick retribution for offenses, it succeeded in
rendering the wilderness a safe place for traders, explorers, and
missionaries. Moreover, the possibilities for trouble which arose from
the coming of American trappers and traders led to an additional step in
the development of civil government, and one which more properly falls
under that head.
In 1821 the English Parliament passed a bill by the terms of which the
laws of Canada were extended over English subjects operating in the
country to the south. Provision was made for justices of the peace,
before whom cases were brought, and, if sufficiently important, were
sent to the courts of Canada.[1] In this way, then, did the English
government follow its subjects, and become the first real civil
government exercised in the country, although it was exercised in the
interests of only part of the inhabitants. England had found a way to
look after her subjects without violating the strict terms of the treaty
of joint occupancy.
The office of justice was held by officers of the fur trading company,
whose power and prestige was thus increased. The history of government
for about twenty years is summed up in the person of one man, Dr. John
McLoughlin. The exercise of authority by that masterful character of
early times still lives in the minds of the oldest pioneers, and has
found expression in many of the records which constitute the sources of
Oregon’s history. Although the official agent of the English company, a
Scotchman by nationality, a Catholic in religion, and loyal to all the
interests he represented, he was a man of too large a mold to be
anything other than the instrument of justice and good order for all
classes of people who might come within the bounds where his
jurisdiction was exercised. “From 1823 to 1845 he was the controlling
power in the country, and did more than any one else to preserve order,
peace and good will among the conflicting and sometimes lawless elements
of the population.”[2] Autocratic in his methods and strict in the
enforcement of justice, he was yet kindly and merciful. His tours about
the country to settle any difficulties that might have arisen in any of
the trading posts, or agricultural settlements of ex-employees, were
regular features of the early days, and were very effective.[3]
The inability of the independent fur trader to compete with the English
company, and the comparative advantage that the English subject had in
the protection by his country’s laws, naturally led to a feeling of
dissatisfaction on the part of the American trader, and a belief that
under the cover of a business enterprise the English civil government
was gradually settling itself over the country to the exclusion of the
American, whose interests and rights were equal according to the treaty
of joint occupancy. That John Jacob Astor had not renewed his enterprise
after the restoration of the fort at Astoria at the close of the war of
1812, was due to the refusal of the government, during Madison’s
administration, to guarantee his company the protection of the United
States in case of trouble.[4] Had that been done, company would have
been in competition with company, and the conditions would have been
more equal. As it was, however, the United States’ interests were
represented and her hold maintained only by such independent traders and
trappers as ventured into the country, and usually failed of maintaining
themselves for any great length of time.
It was such a condition of affairs that came to the knowledge of the
people, and finally reached those channels where it gained entrance into
our national policy. It was a significant circumstance in the history of
civil government in Oregon, that, in the winter of 1820 and 1821, four
men were thrown together at a hotel in the City of Washington.[5] Two of
them, Ramsey Crooks of New York and Russell Farnham of Massachusetts,
were traders who had been connected with the unsuccessful enterprise of
Mr. Astor. The other two were members of congress, John Floyd of
Virginia and Thomas H. Benton of Missouri. Mr. Benton had for some time
been interested in the question, and had been pondering upon a method of
procedure. During this period of acquaintance they talked much together
and became convinced of the advisability of an aggressive campaign for
the protection of American trappers and traders, and the maintenance of
the full American rights in the joint territory.
There were probably no better men to take the leadership in a movement
of this kind than Floyd and Benton. Both were western in their training
and in their sympathies, and both were enthusiastic in any movement
pertaining to a westward extension of the country. Western men were
already beginning to have weight in the national councils, and were
exerting a distinct influence upon national policy. Although rough and
unskilled in many of the essentials of good government, their influence
tended toward a true American life and a broader idea of American
national destiny.
The course upon which they entered, though carefully considered, was a
bold one. The Oregon country was very far off and few knew very much
about it. It seemed a land so far away that the American people, as a
whole, had nothing to do with it. Perhaps they had heard of the Oregon
river, and it had a place in their imagination along with the ideal
beauty of Bryant’s poetic country; perhaps they had learned of the part
performed by Captain Robert Gray and his ship Columbia in crossing the
bar at the mouth, and revealing to the knowledge of his country and the
world another great river; perhaps they knew of Jefferson’s romantic
interest in the country and the expedition which he sent under Lewis and
Clark; they probably knew that fur traders had gone there, and that an
American fur company, at the time of the war of 1812, had been forced to
sell out and its place taken by an English one; they knew that there was
an American claim, which was felt to be quite strong, and that a treaty
had been made with England providing for a joint occupancy; but there
was no consciousness that the question was one of practical importance
to the existing generation, except on the part of the more far-seeing.
The people’s representatives in congress were more conservative than the
people themselves, and a conception of the larger United States had
taken possession of but a few.
The executive department was in advance of the legislative, for James
Monroe was President and John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State—two men
who were at the front in the breadth of their political ideas, as shown
by the Monroe doctrine, originated by Adams, endorsed and declared by
Monroe. In the clause that refused to European powers the right longer
to colonize on American territory, it was the Oregon country that was
thus protected against the aggressions of Russia at the same time that a
hint was given to England. No executive had been more courageous in
asserting the intention of the United States to maintain her larger
interests, and none had been more disposed to follow with national
protection, so far as conformed with treaty relation, her citizens who
were leading in the westward expansion of the country.
Under such conditions what might the champions of an aggressive campaign
expect to accomplish? Minds were filled with many questions. What was it
right to do, and what was expedient; could a military post be
established in the country as the President and Secretary wanted; could
lands be granted to settlers as prospective emigrants wanted; could
settlements be made and a civil government established as Floyd and
Benton wanted? If it was right to do these things, was it expedient to
do them, with the possibility of jeopardizing other interests less
remote; was the nation ready to commit itself to an expansion of
territory which might bring about many changes, and perhaps many
dangers?
It was the work of these men, by patient, persistent and continued
effort to arouse a sentiment favorable to American interests, to gather
and disseminate such information as would help to make a public opinion,
and to keep the subject before congress and the people all the time.
Confident themselves in the value of the country to the United States,
and of the right of title to the country, they were anxious for a
movement looking toward permanent occupation.
It was a memorable day in the history of civil government in Oregon,
when, in December of 1820, Floyd initiated his policy in the house, by a
motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the situation
of the settlements on the Pacific, and the expediency of occupying the
Columbia River.[6] It did not attract much attention at the time, but
was referred to a committee, of which Floyd was chairman. In a carefully
prepared report, containing all the information that could be secured,
the plan was pronounced expedient and a bill proposed to carry it into
effect. This bill provided for the military occupation of the Oregon
Territory, the extinguishment of the Indian title to the land, and the
establishment of a civil government. It was nearly two years, however,
before it could be brought to a discussion, on account of the dilatory
tactics of the opposition, or because of its apparent unimportance.
After it was debated it failed of passage by a vote of one hundred to
sixty-one, which was not a bad defeat considering the character of the
bill.
The same process was gone through again, another committee appointed,
and another bill reported, which was similar to the first one, except in
the greater inducement to settlers in the granting of lands, and in the
greater stress laid upon the necessity for some plan of civil government
in the territory. This bill, after discussion, was passed by a vote of
one hundred and thirteen to fifty-seven, and Floyd had the satisfaction
of seeing such a flattering result from his four years of hard work. He
had done all that he could do and now it must be submitted to the tender
mercies of the senate. Mr. Benton had already introduced a resolution
“instructing the committee on military affairs to inquire into the
expediency of making an appropriation to enable the President of the
United States to take and retain possession of the Territories of the
United States on the Northwest Coast of America;” and he had made a
strong speech in advocacy of the movement. Although the resolution was
adopted, no report ever came from the committee. When the bill came from
the house, after several times being laid on the table and taken up
again for discussion, it received a final defeat by a vote of
twenty-five to fourteen.
For three years nothing was done. Then Floyd, with a tenacity worthy of
the cause, proposed another bill. It resembled the others, but during
the process of discussion was stripped of one feature after another
until the only provisions left for government were the establishment of
military posts, and the right of American citizens to trial in American
courts, and under the laws of the states into which they might be
brought. It will thus be seen that all previous propositions had
gradually been reduced, by a process of elimination, to a provision
exactly similar to the one which the English already had in operation,
except the additional feature of military posts, and although this was
the most moderate bill yet offered it was defeated by a vote of
ninety-nine to seventy-five.
As Floyd’s term of office expired and he was not returned, the first
campaign for the extension of American civil government over Oregon was
ended. Both Floyd and Benton had done nobly. In the face of opposition,
and even ridicule, they had persistently held their course until they
had seen their measure pass one house, and though defeated, get a
respectable vote in the other. In their work they had valuable
assistance. Several strong supporters appeared in the house and in the
senate, particularly among the younger men; President Monroe by his
messages to congress urged the importance of establishing a military
post at the mouth of the Columbia, and along the route across the
country; John Quincy Adams, by his assertions in regard to the validity
of the American title to the country, and later on by his messages,
strengthened their case; the War Department, then under John C. Calhoun,
made a report through one of its most trusted authorities, General
Thomas S. Jesup, who strongly advocated military occupation; while at
least three associations of citizens from Massachusetts, Louisiana, and
Ohio presented memorials to the house, asking for grants of land and the
protection of the American government. The Massachusetts memorial was
the result of the zealous work of Hall J. Kelley, a school teacher of
Massachusetts, who was an enthusiast upon the settlement of Oregon, and
who had been agitating the question both in his own state and in the
City of Washington for several years before it was taken up in congress.
While great credit is to be given the far-sighted and courageous
advocates of the bill, it is not fair in a historical paper to minimize
the efforts of the opposition. To characterize the opponents as
ultra-conservative or self-interested would not be just to the many
weighty arguments which they brought forward, and which, looked at from
the standpoint of their day, were weightier than they seem now, when
conditions have so changed. For a new nation, with a new national
machinery, hardly yet in smoothly running order, to attempt expansion
into regions separated by natural barriers, and inaccessible before the
application of steam to travel, might well require careful thought.
This first attempt, though it had failed of accomplishing its immediate
end, was highly creditable to all who were engaged in it, and its
results were not small. Interest had been awakened, not alone among the
members of congress, but more particularly among the people throughout
the country. Circulars containing all the information available, were
prepared and sent to the constituents of congressmen, and the nation
began to be committed to a policy which it would take time fully to
realize. The people had gained the impression that the United States’
title was perfectly clear to the whole valley of the Columbia; that the
English were there only by sufferance until the formal settlement of a
boundary at a more convenient time; and that the government was willing
that American immigrants should occupy it, and would protect them as
well as it could.
The debates which occurred at various times in connection with these
early bills are interesting, not alone because they mark the beginning
of a large and important national movement, but also because of the
light they throw upon the times, because of the discussion of important
principles which always come to the surface in large national questions,
and the fine examples of courage and far-sighted aggressiveness on one
side, and cautious conservatism on the other. Almost every point of view
which it would seem possible to conceive of found expression in some
form or other in the course of the debate; and almost every motive for
or against the policy was voiced.
In this first debate the question of the claim does not figure largely,
as it was quite generally assumed by all that the American title was
valid, and was so pronounced by those in whom the people had confidence.
There had been, however, no critical examination of the subject as yet
on either side, but the American government felt so confident that it
did not realize any necessity for haste.
In the first place it was incumbent upon the advocates of this measure
to show the expediency of their proposal. They had been called visionary
and fanciful. That it was only the continuation of a growth that had
characterized all our past history, was well expressed by Floyd in the
words: “At most it is only acting upon precisely the same principle
which has directed the progress of population from the moment the
English first landed in Virginia.” In the various reports and debates
much emphasis was placed upon the material benefit which would follow.
By statistics, the value of the fur trade was exhibited as well as that
of the whale fisheries, the returns from which two industries alone
would many times repay all expenses incurred; while the possible
resources in the line of agricultural wealth, though scarcely known,
were boldly prophesied.
While some regarded the measure as visionary, others opposed it because
it seemed too practical, would draw capital and labor from the older
sections, where they were still needed, and would beget a trade with the
Orient which would detract from that of the Atlantic Coast. No friend of
the measure could have painted a bolder and more prophetic picture than
that of the opponent who said: “The trade of the Pacific will naturally
be with China, Japan, and the Philippines. They will not only be invited
to this by their local position, but by the circumstances of their
situation. Commerce is never so profitable as when it is carried on
between a newly settled country, in which land is fresh and easily
obtained, and one in which a dense population has made manufactures
cheap and abundant.” Considerable importance was attached to the
establishment of a waterway connection by the river systems of the
Missouri and Columbia, between the east and the west, “when distance and
time will be conquered, and the ends of the earth be brought together.”
Should this prove feasible, and statistics were not wanting to
demonstrate it, the United States would have the proud distinction of
establishing that waterway for which the nations had been so many
centuries in search.
Attention was called to the value to the nation there would be in the
encouragement of the fisheries, for the training of seamen, and the
advantages of a naval station at the mouth of the Columbia in case of
war with Great Britain. General Jesup suggested that troops stationed
there could be used in removing the British from the territory when the
time came to settle the boundary. Such propositions were not palatable
to the English, nor were they especially calculated to hasten a friendly
settlement of such diplomatic proceedings as were necessary at a later
time. They rather served the purpose of strengthening whatever purpose
the English had of looking out for their own interests. But they were
clearer and more forcible announcements of the view of the American
people than England could get through the diplomatic service.
In the history of civil government in Oregon there are two distinct
movements, that of the regularly organized government, and that of the
people themselves. They serve as the complement of each other, and act
and react upon one another in a multitude of ways. Every time that the
question was before congress it reacted upon the people, and the impetus
thus set in motion again reacted upon a slower moving congress. In the
westward expansion of our territory the movement of people has always
preceded that of the national government. In the case of Oregon, through
remoteness of the territory, and the difficulties arising from the joint
claim and occupancy, the quicker movement of the people was more marked
and the corresponding slowness of the government more irritating. This
feeling of restriction is expressed by Floyd in the words: “All
governments, republican as well as royal, take upon themselves the
exclusive privilege of thinking for the people, of checking the progress
of population in one direction or fixing the boundaries to it in
another, beyond which they are not permitted to pass.”
It had often been stated in the debate that a superior power had set the
Rocky Mountains as the western boundary of the United States, and it is
interesting to know that the following reply came from a representative
of Massachusetts: “As we reach the Rocky Mountains, we would be unwise
did we not pass the narrow space which separates the mountains from the
ocean, to secure advantages far greater than the existing advantages of
all the country between the Mississippi and the mountains. Sir, our
national boundary is the Pacific Ocean. The swelling tide of our
population must and will roll on until that mighty ocean limits our
territorial empire. Then, with two oceans washing our shores, the
commercial wealth of the world is ours, and imagination can hardly
conceive the greatness, the grandeur, and the power that await us.”[7]
There were other objections which seemed far more weighty than those of
material inexpediency. The principle of colonization which would be
forced upon the United States was regarded as a menace. “Should this
principle now be recognized, it may hereafter be quoted as a precedent
for measures which will change the condition and nature of the
government, an event to be intimately associated with its destruction,
or at least with the prostration of that liberty for the protection of
which alone we can wish the government to exist.” Although it was shown
that the probabilities were that the territory would become an integral
part of the United States, yet the champions of the west were undaunted
in defending colonization if it should come to that. Again it was the
representative from Massachusetts who replied: “Was Great Britain more
powerful, wealthy and happy before she began to colonize than now?
Notwithstanding all her exhausting wars, all the drain of her colonial
emigration, she was never more populous, more wealthy or more powerful
than she is at this present day. Colonization does not impair the
strength or diminish the wealth of nations. Some now within these walls
may in after times cherish delightful recollections of this day when
America, almost shrinking from the shadow of coming events, first placed
her feet upon untrodden ground, scarcely daring to anticipate the
grandeur which awaited her.”[8]
Equally great was the fear of entanglements with foreign nations, and
particularly war with England because of a violation of the treaty, an
objection which, perhaps, weighed most heavily in defeating the bill.
Nor was this objection ungrounded considering the newness of the nation
and the necessity of a period of peace for knitting together the
internal fibres of strength. For this there was, of course, no
demonstration, nor could it be opposed by proof, and yet there was
courage in the answer: “Arguments founded on what may happen would go
equally to prove the futility of establishing a navy which may be
captured by an adversary. If a measure is right in itself it is unwise
to reject it because its beneficial effects may be defeated by a war.”
As might be expected in those days, every question must be tested by its
effect upon the Union. The desire to perpetuate the Union, so dearly
purchased, has laid at the foundation of many a policy. For its sake
many things, desirable in themselves, have been given up or long
delayed. That the national government could operate over a territory so
vast, and regions so remote, with barriers separating them
geographically from other sections, was questionable in the day before
railroads and telegraphs. Yet, with a confidence inspired by their
belief in the right of their position and in the final adjustment of
national affairs to this action, the advocates of the measure argued
that it would rather strengthen than weaken the Union: “The danger of
separation would be less in a confederacy of twenty or thirty states
with diverse interests than in one of smaller number,” because the
multiplication of interests would neutralize divisions which grow strong
where the number is small.
Lastly, it was held that there was no need for present action, that no
request had been made by the business public; it was a question to be
settled not by the present generation, but by the one to follow, and
that no harm, either to the American title or interests, could result.
In the senate the discussion was briefer, but covered essentially the
same ground. Benton took the leading part in favor of the bill, but
received help from one of the senators from Virginia. The opposition
cast much ridicule upon the idea of a senator going to and from
Washington in less than a year, either by land or by water, around Cape
Horn.
It is not possible in the compass of this paper to give a full account
of this interesting debate, but only so much as will characterize the
first movement toward governmental control by the United States. As we
retrace the discussions, in the light of subsequent events, we cannot
refrain from admiration of those who optimistically trusted that the
measure, if right in itself, need cause no fear of danger in the future.
After the retirement of Mr. Floyd no leader appeared to continue the
work begun, and consequently the subject dropped out of legislative
discussion for about ten years, with the exception of an occasional
resolution and a brief discussion. The interval of rest, however, was
not such as follows the defeat of a measure, but was, rather, a period
of preparation for another and greater effort. Many influences were set
in motion which showed that the national consciousness was beginning to
work. It was during this interval that Captain Bonneville and Capt.
Nathaniel J. Wyeth made such heroic attempts to establish a trade west
of the Rocky Mountains, with experiences equalling anything in romance.
In a letter to his brother, Captain Wyeth says:[9] “The formation of a
trading company on a similar plan to the Hudson Bay and the Northwest is
the ultimate object of my going to that country.” Before starting he
offered his services to the government for the purpose of gaining
information for them, and without “other compensation than the
respectability attached to all those who serve their country.” Whether
his offer was accepted or not does not appear from the correspondence,
but the entrance into the country of such a man, with his companions,
must mean a great deal in the clearing up of obscure questions. It was
at this time, also, that Hall J. Kelley, who had been such a persistent
and patriotic advocate of settlement, reached the country. Disappointed
in not being able to secure grants of land and the protection of the
government, he reached Oregon, after many hardships, with a few
companions, and began the nucleus of a little settlement. Equally
important was the impulse which missionary activity in the East had
received from a fuller knowledge of this new and attractive field. Thus
the religious motive was added to the patriotic, and both were added to
the zeal for trade and adventure, in drawing attention to the new
country.
Although the United States Government would give no guarantee of
protection, yet the new arrivals met in those regions a condition of
safety rarely found in so wild and remote a locality, and, for the time
being, at least, were glad to avail themselves of the security offered
by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Nor is it to be supposed that the colonists
were entirely neglected by the Government of the United States. Though
unable to grant fully the wishes for a civil government, or even for
military posts, yet every executive took measures to gain such
information as would keep the government well advised, and enable it to
see that the brave forerunners of settlement suffered no personal
injury. The interval of rest fell within the administrations of
President Jackson, and his policy seems to have been one simply of
watchfulness and the gaining of knowledge. To this end William A.
Slacum, of the United States Navy, was appointed as a special agent, to
visit Oregon and examine the conditions. This is important, as marking
the policy the government intended to pursue while things were in
process of transition. If the protection given was not adequate, it at
least dispels the suspicion of utter heartlessness which would attach to
a government which would let its citizens go, in support of its own
interests, into this wilderness, without a single thought for their
safety.
When the question, therefore, next came up for discussion, conditions
had considerably changed. Traders had ventured into the country,
missionary stations had been established, more knowledge of the country
had been gained, a more careful examination of the title had been made
by the conference which met in 1827, and the cause had enlisted the
interest of some of the strongest men in political life.
In the second campaign the initiative was transferred from the house to
the senate, and an able leader was found in the senator from Missouri,
Dr. Lewis F. Linn. He was the colleague of Benton, and a man commanding
the highest esteem of his associates. The attack began by a bill of
February, 1838, for the occupation of the Columbia and the establishment
of a civil government similar to previous bills. Meeting with failure,
it was followed, as in the previous campaign, by several others, and, in
spite of the assembling of the conference for the settlement of the
northeastern boundary, in 1842, the discussions were carried on with a
nearness to that event which seemed dangerous to Mr. Linn’s associates.
Shortly after the adjournment of the conference the discussions were
renewed. As in the case of Floyd’s bills, there was a gradual toning
down of the provisions, in the successive sessions of congress, so that
the movement which started by advocating the establishment of a
territory to be called the Oregon Territory, erection of a fort on the
Columbia, occupation of the country by a military force, the
establishment of a port of entry subject to the revenue laws of the
United States, ended by advocating a line of forts along the route to
Oregon, a post near its mouth, a grant of six hundred and forty acres of
land to every male settler cultivating the land for five years,
appointment of Indian agents to regulate affairs with the native races,
and extension of the jurisdiction of the courts of Iowa over the
territory west of the Rockies. The bill provided an increase of judges,
justices, and constables, to meet the increase of business, and English
subjects charged with criminal offenses were to be given up to the
English courts. This bill passed the senate by a vote of twenty-four to
twenty-two, in February of 1843, but failed of passage in the house.
Thus Linn, like Floyd, was rewarded for his service by seeing his
measure pass the house of which he was a member, but any further hopes
were cut off by his death before the next session of congress.
The discussions bring out little that had not been said before. The
question of the claims, which had figured so little in the previous
debate, was an all important theme of discussion at this time. The
language used shows a growing feeling of bitterness toward the English,
and anxiety to secure such an arrangement as would encourage emigration.
The large grants of land were especially for that purpose. It was in the
course of this debate that Mr. Benton used these words: “I now go for
vindicating our rights on the Columbia, and as the first step toward it,
the passing of this bill, and making these grants of land, which will
soon place thirty or forty thousand rifles beyond the Rocky
Mountains.”[10]