OREGON QUESTION: NOTICE TO ABROGATE THE ARTICLE IN THE TREATY FOR
A JOINT OCCUPATION: THE PRESIDENT DENOUNCED IN THE SENATE FOR A
SUPPOSED LEANING TO THE LINE OF FORTY-NINE.
The proposition for the line of 49 having been withdrawn by the
American government on its non-acceptance by the British, had
appeased the democratic storm which had been got up against the
President; and his recommendation for strong measures to assert and
secure our title was entirely satisfactory to those who now came
to be called the Fifty-Four Forties. The debate was advancing well
upon this question of notice, when a sinister rumor--only sinister
to the extreme party--began to spread, that the British government
would propose 49, and that the President was favorable to it. This
rumor was true, and by way of preparing the public mind for it, Mr.
William H. Haywood, a senator from North Carolina, both personally
and politically friendly to the President, undertook to show, not so
much that the line of 49 was right in itself, but that the President
was not so far committed against it as that he could not yet form a
treaty upon it. In this sense he--
"Took a view of the course which had been pursued by the
President, approving of the offer of the parallel of 49° to
Great Britain, and maintaining that there was nothing in
the language of the President to render it improper in him
to negotiate hereafter on that basis, notwithstanding this
rejection. He regarded the negotiation as still open; and he
would not do the President so much wrong as to suppose that,
if we passed the notice, and thus put into his hand a great
moral weapon, that he could be guilty of so miserable a trick
as to use it to the dishonor of his country on the one hand, or
to the reckless provocation of a war on the other. Believing
that the administration stood committed to accept an offer
of a division of the territory on the parallel of 49°--or
substantially that--he should sustain the Executive in that
position. He expressed his conviction that, whatever might be
his individual opinions, the President--as General Washington
did in 1796--would fulfil his obligations to the country; that,
whenever the interests of the country required it, he would
sacrifice his own opinions to the sense of his official duty. He
rebuked the cry which had been set up by some of the friends
of the President, which placed him in the position of being the
mere organ of the Baltimore convention, and declared that, if
he could believe that the Executive would permit the resolution
of that convention to overrule his duty to his country, he
would turn his back upon him. Mr. H. then proceeded to deduce,
from the language and acts of the Executive, that he had not
put himself in a position which imposed on him the necessity of
refusing to negotiate on the parallel of 49°, should negotiation
be resumed on that basis. In this respect, the President did
not occupy that attitude in which some of his friends wished
to place him. It ought to be borne in mind that Great Britain
had held occupancy for above forty years; and it was absurd to
suppose, that, if we turn suddenly upon her and tell her she
must quit, that she will not make resistance. And he asked what
our government would be likely to do if placed in a similar
position and reduced to the same alternative. No one could
contend for a moment that the rejection of the offer of 49° by
Great Britain released the President from the obligation to
accept that offer whenever it should again be made. The question
was to be settled by compromise; and, on this principle, the
negotiation was still pending. It was not to be expected that a
negotiation of this kind could be carried through hastily. Time
must be given for communication with the British government,
for proper consideration and consultation; and true politeness
requires that ample time should be given for this purpose. It
is obvious that Great Britain does not consider the negotiation
terminated, as she would have recalled her minister; and
the President cannot deem it closed, or he would have made
a communication to Congress to that effect. The acts of the
President were not such as to justify any apprehensions of a
rupture; and from that, he did not ask for the notice in order
that he might draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. The
falsehood of any such charge is proved by the fact that he has
asked for no enlargement of the annual appropriations; on the
other hand, his estimates are rather diminished. Knowing him to
be honest, he (Mr. H.) would acquit him of any such imputation
of moral treason, which would subject him to the reprobation
of man and the anger of his God. Mr. H. then referred to the
divisions which had sprung up in the democratic party, the
tendency of which is, to destroy the party, by cutting off its
heads. This question of Oregon had been turned into a party
question, for the purpose of President-making. He repudiated
any submission to the commands of factious meetings, got up
by demagogues, for the purpose of dictating to the Senate how
to make a treaty, and felt thankful that North Carolina had
never taken this course. He did not regard such proceedings as
indicative of that true democracy which, like a potato, grew
at the root, and did not, like the spurious democracy, show
itself from the blossom. The creed of the Baltimore convention
directs the party to re-annex Texas and to _re-occupy_ Oregon.
Texas had been re-annexed, and now we are to go for the
_re-occupation_ of Oregon. Now, Old Oregon, embracing all the
territory on which American foot ever trod, comprised merely
the valley of Willamette, which did not extend above 49°; and
consequently this portion was all which could be contemplated in
the expression "re-occupation," as it would involve an absurdity
to speak of re-occupying what we had never occupied. Referring
to the history of the annexation of Texas, he cited the
impossibility of getting Texas through, until the two questions
had been made twin sisters by the Baltimore convention. Then
Texas passed the House, and came into the Senate, followed so
closely by Oregon, that they seemed to be akin."
In all this Mr. Haywood spoke the sentiments of the President,
personally confided to him, and to prepare the way for his action
in conformity to them. The extreme party suspected this, and had
their plan arranged to storm it down, and to force the President to
repulse the British offer of 49, if now it should be made, as he had
been stormed into a withdrawal of his own offer of that line by his
own newspapers and party in the recess of Congress. This task fell
upon Mr. Hannegan of Indiana, and Mr. William Allen of Ohio, whose
temperaments were better adapted to the work than that of their
chief, Mr. Cass. Mr. Hannegan began:
"I must apologize to the Senate for obtruding myself upon your
attention at this advanced period of the day, particularly as
I have already occupied your attention on several occasions in
the course of this debate. My remarks now, however, will be
very brief. Before I proceed to make any reply to the speech of
the senator from North Carolina--the most extraordinary speech
which I have ever listened to in the whole course of my life--I
desire, through the Vice President, to put a question to him,
which I have committed to writing. It is this: I ask him if he
has the authority of the President, directly or indirectly, for
saying to the Senate that it is his (the President's) wish to
terminate the Oregon question by compromising with Great Britain
on the 49th degree of north latitude?"
To this categorical demand, Mr. Haywood replied that it would be
unwise and impolitic for the President to authorize any senator
to make such a declaration as that implied in the question of Mr.
Hannegan. Mr. Allen, of Ohio, then took up the demand for the
answer, and said:
"I put the question, and demand an answer to it as a public
right. The senator here has assumed to speak for the President.
His speech goes to the world; and I demand, as a public right,
that he answer the question; and if he won't answer it, I stand
ready to deny that he has expressed the views of the President."
Mr. Westcott of Florida, called Mr. Allen to order for asking for
the opinions of the President through a senator. The President could
only communicate his opinions to the Senate responsibly, by message.
It would be a breach of privilege for any senator to undertake to
report such opinions, and consequently a breach of order for any
senator to call for them. In this Mr. Westcott was right, but the
call to order did not prevent Mr. Allen from renewing his demand:
"I do not demand an answer as any personal right at all. I
demand it as a public right. When a senator assumes to speak
for the President, every senator possesses a public right to
demand his authority for so doing. An avowal has been made that
he is the exponent of the views of the President, upon a great
national question. He has assumed to be that exponent. And I
ask him whether he has the authority of the President for the
assumption?"
Mr. Westcott renewed his call to order, but no question was taken
upon the call, which must have been decided against Mr. Allen. Mr.
Haywood said, he denied the right of any senator to put questions
to him in that way, and said he had not assumed to speak by the
authority of the President. Then, said Mr. Allen, the senator takes
back his speech. Mr. Haywood: "Not at all; but I am glad to see my
speech _takes_." Mr. Allen: "With the British." Mr. Hannegan then
resumed:
"I do not deem it material whether the senator from North
Carolina gives a direct answer to my question or not. It is
entirely immaterial. He assumes--no, he says there is no
assumption about it--that there is no meaning in language, no
truth in man, if the President any where commits himself to
54° 40', as his flattering friends assume for him. Now, sir,
there is no truth in man, there is no meaning in language, if
the President is not committed to 54° 40' in as strong language
as that which makes up the Holy Book. From a period antecedent
to that in which he became the nominee of the Baltimore
convention, down to this moment, to all the world he stands
committed for 54° 40'. I go back to his declaration made in
1844, to a committee of citizens of Cincinnati, who addressed
him in relation to the annexation of Texas, and he there uses
this language being then before the country as the democratic
candidate for the chair which he now fills.
"Mr. CRITTENDEN. What is the date?
"Mr. HANNEGAN. It is dated the 23d of April.
[Mr. H. here read an extract from Mr. Polk's letter to the
committee of the citizens of Cincinnati.]"
Mr. Hannegan then went on to quote from the President's message--the
annual message at the commencement of the session--to show that, in
withdrawing his proposition for a boundary on the 49th parallel,
he had taken a position against ever resuming it. He read this
paragraph:
"The extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands of the
British Government, and the rejection of the proposition made in
deference alone to what had been done by my predecessors, and
the implied obligation which their acts seemed to impose, afford
satisfactory evidence that no compromise which the United States
ought to accept can be effected. With this conviction, the
proposition of compromise which had been made and rejected was,
by my direction, subsequently withdrawn, and our title to the
whole Oregon Territory asserted, and, as is believed, maintained
by irrefragable facts and arguments."
Having read this paragraph, Mr. Hannegan proceeded to reply to it;
and exclaimed--
"What does the President here claim? Up to 54° 40'--every inch
of it. He has asserted that claim, and is, as he says, sustained
by 'irrefragable facts and arguments.' But this is not all: I
hold that the language of the Secretary of State is the language
of the President of the United States; and has not Mr. Buchanan,
in his last communication to Mr. Pakenham, named 54° 40' in so
many words? He has. The President adopts this language as his
own. He plants himself on 54° 40'."
Mr. Hannegan then proceeded to plant the whole democratic party
upon the line of 54-40, and to show that Oregon to that extent, and
Texas to her whole extent, were the watchwords of the party in the
presidential election--that both were to be carried together; and
Texas having been gained, Oregon, without treachery, could not be
abandoned.
"The democratic party is thus bound to the whole of
Oregon--every foot of it; and let the senator rise in his
place who will tell me in what quarter of this Union--in what
assembly of democrats in this Union, pending the presidential
election, the names of Texas and Oregon did not fly together,
side by side, on the democratic banners. Every where they were
twins--every where they were united. Does the senator from North
Carolina suppose that he, with his appeals to the democracy,
can blind our eyes, as he thinks he tickled our ears? He is
mistaken. 'Texas and Oregon' cannot be divided; they dwell
together in the American heart. Even in Texas, I have been
told the flag of the lone star had inscribed on it the name of
Oregon. Then, it was all Oregon. Now, when you have got Texas,
it means just so much of Oregon as you in your kindness and
condescension think proper to give us. You little know us, if
you think the mighty West will be trodden on in this way."
Mr. Hannegan then undertook to disclaim for the President the
sentiments attributed to him by Mr. Haywood, and to pronounce an
anathema upon him if the attribution was right.
"The senator in his defence of the President, put language
into his mouth which I undertake to say the President will
repudiate, and I am not the President's champion. I wish not
to be his champion. I would not be the champion of power. I
defend the right, and the right only. But, for the President,
I deny the intentions which the senator from North Carolina
attributes to him--intentions, which, if really entertained
by him, would make him an infamous man--ay, an infamous man.
He [Mr. Haywood] told the Senate yesterday--unless I grossly
misunderstood him, along with several friends around me--'that
the President had occasionally stickings-in, parenthetically,
to gratify--what?--the ultraisms of the country and of party;
whilst he reposed in the White House with no intentions of
carrying out these parenthetical stickings-in.' In plain words,
he represents the President as parenthetically sticking in a
few hollow and false words to cajole the 'ultraisms of the
country?' What is this, need I ask, but charging upon the
President conduct the most vile and infamous? If this allegation
be true, these intentions of the President must sooner or later
come to light, and when brought to light, what must follow but
irretrievable disgrace? So long as one human eye remains to
linger on the page of history, the story of his abasement will
be read, sending him and his name together to an infamy so
profound, a damnation so deep, that the hand of resurrection
will never be able to drag him forth."
Mr. Mangum called Mr. Hannegan to order: Mr. Haywood desired that
he might be permitted to proceed, which he did, disclaiming all
disrespect to Mr. Haywood, and concluded with saying; that, "so
far as the whole tone, spirit, and meaning of the remarks of the
senator from North Carolina is concerned, if they speak the language
of James K. Polk, then James K. Polk has spoken words of falsehood
with the tongue of a serpent."
Mr. Reverdy Johnson came to the relief of the President and Mr.
Haywood in a temperate and well-considered speech, in which he
showed he had had great apprehension of war--that this apprehension
was becoming less, and that he deemed it probable, and right and
honorable in itself, that the President should meet the British on
the line of 49 if they should come to it; and that line would save
the territorial rights of the United States, and the peace and honor
of the country.
"It is with unaffected embarrassment I rise to address the
Senate on the subject now under consideration; but its great
importance and the momentous issues involved in its final
settlement are such as compel me, notwithstanding my distrust of
my own ability to be useful to my country, to make the attempt.
We have all felt that, at one time at least (I trust that time
is now past), we were in imminent danger of war. From the moment
the President of the United States deemed it right and becoming,
in the outset of his official career, to announce to the world
that our title to Oregon was clear and unquestionable, down to
the period of his message to Congress in December last, when he
reiterated the declaration, I could not see how it was possible
that war should be averted. That apprehension was rendered much
more intense from the character of the debates elsewhere, as
well as from the speeches of some of the President's political
friends within this chamber. I could not but listen with
alarm and dismay to what fell from the very distinguished and
experienced senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) at an early period
of this debate; to what I heard from the senator from Indiana
(Mr. Hannegan); and, above all, to what was said by the senator
from Ohio (Mr. Allen), the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, who, in my simplicity, I supposed must necessarily be
apprised of the views of the government in regard to the foreign
concerns of the country. Supposing the condition of the country
to be what it was represented to be by each and all of the three
senators, I could not imagine how it could be possible that the
most direful of all human calamities, war, was to be avoided;
and I was accordingly prepared to say, on the hypothesis of
the fact assumed by the senator from Michigan, that war was
inevitable;--to use his own paraphrase of his own term, which,
it would appear, has got out of favor with himself--'war must
come.'
"What did they represent to be the condition of the nation?
I speak now more particularly of the last two senators, from
Indiana and Ohio. They told us that negotiation was at an end;
that we were now thrown back on our original rights; that, by
these original rights, as had been officially announced, our
title to the whole country was beyond all question: and that
the national honor must be forfeited, if that title should not
be maintained by force of arms. I felt that he must have been a
careless and a profitless reader of English history who could
indulge the hope that, if such was to be the course and conduct
of this country, war was not inevitable. Then, in addition
to my own opinion, when I heard it admitted by the honorable
senator from Michigan, with that perfect candor which always
distinguishes him on this floor, that, in his opinion, England
would never recede, I felt that war was inevitable.
"I now rejoice in hoping and believing, from what I have
subsequently heard, that the fears of the Senate, as well as
my own apprehensions, were, as I think, unfounded. Since then,
the statesmanlike view taken by the senator from New York who
first addressed us (Mr. Dix), and by the senator from Missouri
(Mr. Benton), to whom this whole question is as familiar as a
household term--and the spirit of peace which breathed in their
every word--have fully satisfied me that, so far as depends upon
them, a fair and liberal compromise of our difficulties would
not be in want of willing and zealous advocates.
"And this hope has been yet more strengthened by the recent
speech of the senator from North Carolina (Mr. Haywood), not
now in his place. Knowing, as I thought I did, the intimate
relations, both personal and political, which that senator bore
to the Chief Magistrate--knowing, too, that, as chairman of
the Committee on Commerce, it was his special duty to become
informed in regard to all matters having a bearing on the
foreign relations of the country; I did not doubt, and I do not
now doubt, that in every thing he said as to the determination
of the President to accept, if offered by the British
government, the same terms which he had himself proposed in
July last, the reasonable inference was, that such an offer, if
made, would be accepted. I do not mean to say, because I did not
so understand the senator, that, in addressing this body with
regard to the opinions or purposes of the President, he spoke
by any express or delegated authority. But I do mean to say,
that I have no doubt, from his knowledge of the general views of
the President, as expressed in his message, taken in connection
with certain omissions on the part of the Executive, that when
he announced to us that the President would feel himself in
honor bound to accept his own offer, if now reciprocated by
Great Britain, he spoke that which he knew to be true. And
this opinion was yet more strengthened and confirmed by what I
found to be the effect of his speech on the two senators I have
named--the leaders, if they will permit me to call them so, of
the ultraists on this subject--I mean the senator from Indiana
(Mr. Hannegan), and the senator from Ohio (Mr. Allen). He was
an undiscerning witness of the scene which took place in this
chamber immediately after the speech of the senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Haywood), who must not have seen that those two
senators had consulted together with the view of ascertaining
how far the senator from North Carolina spoke by authority, and
that the result of their consultation was a determination to
catechise that senator; and the better to avoid all mistake,
that they reduced their interrogatory to writing, in order that
it might be propounded to him by the senator from Indiana (Mr.
Hannegan); and if it was not answered, that it was then to be
held as constructively answered by the senator from Ohio (Mr.
Allen). What the result of the manoeuvre was I leave it to the
Senate to decide; but this I will venture to say, that in the
keen encounter of wits, to which their colloquy led, the two
senators who commenced it got rather the worst of the contest.
My hope and belief has been yet further strengthened by what has
NOT since happened; I mean my belief in the pacific views of the
Chief Magistrate. The speech of the senator from North Carolina
was made on Thursday, and though a week has nearly elapsed since
that time, notwithstanding the anxious solicitude of both those
senators, and their evident desire to set the public right on
that subject, we have, from that day to this, heard from neither
of the gentlemen the slightest intimation that the construction
given to the message by the senator from North Carolina was not
a true one."
Mr. Johnson continued his speech on the merits of the question--the
true line which should divide the British and American possessions
beyond the Rocky Mountains; and placed it on the parallel of 49°
according to the treaty of Utrecht, and in conformity with the
opinions and diplomatic instructions of Mr. Jefferson, who had
acquired Louisiana and sent an expedition of discovery to the
Pacific Ocean, and had well studied the whole question of our
territorial rights in that quarter. Mr. Benton did not speak in
this incidental debate, but he knew that Mr. Haywood spoke with
a knowledge of the President's sentiments, and according to his
wishes, and to prepare the country for a treaty upon 49°. He knew
this, because he was in consultation with the President, and was
to speak for the same purpose, and was urged by him to speak
immediately in consequence of the attempt to crush Mr. Haywood--the
first of his friends who had given any intimation of his views. Mr.
Benton, therefore, at an early day, spoke at large upon the question
when it took another form--that of a bill to establish a territorial
government for Oregon; some extracts from which constitute the next
chapter.