An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho, Part 7

Author:
Publication date: 1903
Publisher: [S.l.] : Western Historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1524

USA > Idaho > Kootenai County > An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho > Part 7
USA > Idaho > Nez Perce County > An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho > Part 7
USA > Idaho > Shoshone County > An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho > Part 7
USA > Idaho > Latah County > An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho > Part 7

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

for the adjustment of the boundary. Mr. Rush was instructed to offer the forty-ninth parallel to the sea, "should it be earnestly insisted upon by Great Britain."

He endeavored with great persistency to fulfill his mis- sion, but his propositions were rejected. The British negotiators offered the forty-ninth parallel to the Co- lumbia, then the middle of that river to the sea, with perpetual rights to both nations of navigating the har- bor at the mouth of the river. This proposal Mr. Rush rejected, so nothing was accomplished. By treaty concluded in February, 1825, an agreement was en- tered into between Great Britain and Russia, whereby the line of fifty-four degrees, forty minutes, was fixed as the boundary between the territorial claims of the two nations, a fact which explains the cry of "Fifty- four, forty or fight" that in later days became the slogan of the Democratic party.

In 1826-7 another attempt was made to settle the question at issue between Great Britain and the United States. Albert Gallatin then represented this country, receiving his instructions from Henry Clay, secretary of state, who said: "It is not thought necessary to add much to the argument advanced on this point in the instructions given to Mr. Rush, and that which was employed by him in the course of the negotiations to support our title as derived from prior discovery and settlement at the mouth of the Columbia river, and from the treaty which Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819. That argument is believed to have conclusively established our title on both grounds. Nor is it conceived that Great Britain has or can make out even a colorless title to any portion of the north- ern coast." Referring to the offer of the forty-ninth parallel in a dispatch dated February 24, 1827, Mr. Clay said : "It is conceived in a genuine spirit of con- cession and conciliation, and it is our ultimatum and you may so announce it." In order to save the case of his country from being prejudiced in future negotiations by the liberality of offers made and rejected, Mr. Clay instructed Galla- tin to declare: "That the American government does not hold itself bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal which it has heretofore made, to agree to a line which has been so proposed and rejected, but will consider itself at liberty to contend for the full measure of our just claims ; which declaration you must have recorded in the protocol of one of your conferences ; and to give it more weight, have it stated that it has been done by the express direction of the president."

Mr. Gallatin sustained the claim of the United States in this negotiation so powerfully that the Brit- ish plenipotentiaries, Huskisson, Grant and Adding- ton, were forced to the position that Great Britian did not assert any title to the country. They contented themselves with the contention that her claim was sufficiently well founded as to give her the right to occupy the country in common with other nations, such concessions having been made to her by the Nootka treaty. The British negotiators complained of the recommendation of President Monroe in his message of December 7, 1824, to establish a military post at the mouth of Columbia river and of the passage

HISTORY OF NORTH IDAHO.

of the bill in the House providing for the occupancy of the Oregon river. To this the Americans replied by call- ing attention to the act of the British parliament of 1821, entitled "An act for regulating the fur trade and establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction in cer- tain parts of North America." He contended with great ability and force that the recommendation and bill complained of did not interfere with the treaty of 1818, and that neither a territorial government nor a fort at the mouth of the river could rightly be com- plained of by a government which had granted such wide privileges and comprehensive powers to the Hud- son's Bay Company.

Before the conclusion of these negotiations, Mr. Gallatin had offered not alone the forty-ninth parallel but that "the navigation of the Columbia river shall be perpetually free to subjects of Great Britain in com- mon with citizens of the United States, provided that the said line should strike the northeastermost or any other branch of that river at a point at which it was navigable for boats." The British, on their part, again offered the Columbia river, together with a large tract of land between Admiralty Inlet and the coast, protest- ing that this concession was made in the spirit of sacri- fice for conciliation and not as one of right. The proposition was rejected and the negotiations ended in the treaty of August 6, 1827, which continued the Joint-Occupancy treaty of 1818 indefinitely, with the proviso that it might be abrogated by either party on giving the other a year's notice.

"There can be no doubt," says Evans, "that, during the continuance of these two treaties, British foothold was strengthened and the difficulty of the adjustment of boundaries materially enhanced. Nor does this re- flect in the slighest degree upon those great publicists who managed the claim of the United States in those negotiations. Matchless ability and earnest patriot- ism, firm defense of the United States' claim, and withal a disposition to compromise to avoid rupture with any other nation, mark these negotiations in every line. The language and intention of these treaties are clear and unmistakable. Neither government was to attempt any act in the derogation of the other's claim ; nor could any advantage inure to either ; during their continuance the territory should be free and open to citizens and subjects of both nations. Such is their plain purport ; such the only construction which their language will warrant. Yet it cannot be controverted that the United States had thereby precluded itself from the sole enjoyment .of the territory which it claimed in sovereignty; nor that Great Britain ac- quired a peaceable, recognized and uninterrupted ten- ancy-in-common in regions where her title was so im- perfect that she herself admitted that she could not successfully maintain, nor did she even assert it. She could well afford to wait. Hers was indeed the policy later in the controversy styled masterly inactivity : 'Leave the title in abeyance, the settlement of the coun- try will ultimately settle the sovereignty.' In no event could her colorless title lose color ; while an immediate adjustment of the boundary would have abridged the area of territory in which, through her subjects, she

already exercised exclusive possession, and had se- cured the entire enjoyment of its wealth and resources. The Hudson's Bay Company, by virtue of its license of trade excluding all other British subjects from the territory, was Great Britain's trustee in possession- an empire company, omnipotent to supplant enterprises projected by citizens of the United States. Indeed, the territory had been appropriated by a wealthy, all- powerful monopoly, with whom it was runious to at- tempt to compete. Such is a true exhibit of the then condition of Oregon, produced by causes extrinsic to the treaty, which the United States government could neither counteract nor avoid. The United States had saved the right for its citizens to enter the territory, had protested likewise that no act or omission on the part of the government or its citizens, or any act of commission or omission by the British government or her subjects during such joint-occupancy treaties, should affect in any way the United States' claim to the territory.

"The treaties of 1818 and 1827 have passed into his- tory as conventions for joint occupancy. Practically they operated as grants of possession to Great Britain, or rather to her representative, the Hudson's Bay Company, who, after the merger with the Northwest Company, had become sole occupant of the territory. The situation may be briefly summed up: The United States claimed title to the territory. Great Britain, through its empire-trading company, occupied it,-en- joyed all the wealth and resources derivable from it."

But while joint occupancy was in realty non-oc- cupation by any but the British, it must not be sup- posed that the case of the United States was allowed to go entirely by default during the regime of so-called joint occupancy. In congress the advisability of occu- pying Oregon was frequently and vehemently dis- cussed. Ignorance and misconception with regard to the real nature of Oregon, its climate, soil, products, and healthfulness, were being dispelled. The repre- sentations of the Hudson's Bay Company that it was a "miasmatic wilderness, uninhabitable except by wild beasts and more savage men," were found to be false. In 1821 Dr. John Floyd, a representative in congress from Virginia, and Senator Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, had interviews at Washington with Ramsey Crooks and Russel Farnham, who had belonged to Astor's party. From these gentlemen they learned something of the value of Oregon, its features of in- terest, and its commercial and strategic importance. This information Dr. Floyd made public in 1822, in a speech in support of a bill "to authorize the occupa- tion of the Columbia river, and to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians thereon." On December 29, 1823, a committee was appointed to inquire as to the wisdom of occupying the mouth of the Columbia and the committee's report, submitted on April 15th of the following year, embodied a communication from General Thomas S. Jesup, which asserted that the mili- tary occupancy of the Columbia was a necessity for

HISTORY OF NORTH IDAHO.

protecting trade and securing the frontier. It recom- mended "the dispatch of a force of two hundred men across the continent to establish a fort at the mouth of the Columbia river ; that at the same time two vessels, with arms, ordnance and supplies, be sent thither by sea. He further proposed the establishment of a line of posts across the continent to afford protection to our traders; and on the expiration of the privilege granted to British subjects to trade on the waters of the Columbia, to enable us to remove them from our territory, and secure the whole to our citizens. Those posts could also secure the preservation of peace among the Indians in the event of a foreign war and command their neutrality or assistance as we might think most advisable." The letter exposed Great Britian's rea- sons for her policy of masterly inactivity, and urged that some action be taken by the United States to off- set the accretion of British title and for preserving and perfecting its own. "History," says Evans, "will generously award credit to the sagacious Jesup for indicating in 1823 the unerring way to preserve the American title to Oregon territory. Nor will it fail to command the earnest devotion of that little Oregon party in congress for placing on record why the gov- ernment should assert exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory." In the next congress the subject was again discussed with energy and ability. In 1831 for- mal negotiations with Great Britain were resumed.

All this discussion had a tendency to dispel the idea, promulgated, as we have seen, by the Hudson's Bay Company, that the territory was worthless and uninhabitable, also to excite interest in the mystic re- gion beyond the mountains.

The United States claimed theoretically that it was the possessor of a vested right to absolute sovereignty over the entire Oregon territory, and in all the nego- tiations, after the signing of the treaty of Florida, its ambassadors claimed that the title of their country was clearly established. The fact, however, that joint occu- pancy was agreed to at all after 1828 could hardly be construed in any other light than as a confession of weakness in our title, notwithstanding the unequivocal stipulations that neither party should attempt anything in derogation of the other's claims, and that the con- troversy should be determined on its merits as they existed prior to 1818. If the United States came into possession of an absolute title in 1819, why should it afterward permit occupation by British subjects and the enforcement of British law in its domain ?

The United States' title, as before stated, rested upon three foundation stones,-its own discoveries and explorations, the discoveries and explorations of the Spaniards, and the purchase of Louisiana. While it was not contended that any one of these conveyed exclusive right, the position of our country was that each supplemented the other ; that, though while vested in different nations they were antagonistic when held by the same nation, they, taken together, amounted to a complete title. The title was, therefore, cumulative in its nature and had in it the weakness which is in- herent under such conditions. It was impossible to determine with definiteness how many partial titles,

the value of each being a matter of uncertainty, would cumulatively amount to one complete title. And, how- ever clear the right of the United States might seem to its own statesmen, it is evident that conviction must be produced in the minds of the British also if war was to be avoided.

In 1831 when Martin Van Buren was our minister at London he received instructions relative to the con- troversy from Edward Livingston, secretary of state, the tenor of which indicated that the United States was not averse to the presence of the British in the territory. While they asserted confidence in the American title to the entire Oregon territory, they said: "This subject, then, is open for discussion, and until the rights of the parties can be settled by nego- tiations, ours can suffer nothing by delay." Under these rather lukewarm instructions, naturally nothing was accomplished.

In 1842 efforts to adjust the boundary west of the Rocky mountains were again resumed, this time on motion of Great Britain. That power requested on October 18th of the year mentioned that the United States minister at London should be furnished with instructions and authority to renew negotiations, giv- ing assurance of its willingness to proceed to the con- sideration of the boundary subject "in a perfect spirit of fairness, and to adjust it on a basis of equitable compromise." On November 25th, Daniel Webster, then secretary of state, replied: "That the president concurred entirely in the expediency of making the question respecting the Oregon territory a subject of immediate attention and negotiation between the two governments. He had already formed the purpose of expressing this opinion in his message to congress, and at no distant day, a communication will be made to the minister of the United States in London."

Negotiations were not, however, renewed until Oc- tober, 1843, when Secretary Upshur sent instructions to Edward Everett, American minister to London, again offering the forty-ninth parallel, together with the right of navigating the Columbia river upon equit- able terms. In February of the ensuing year, Hon. Richard Packenham, British plenipotentiary, came to the American capital with instructions to negotiate concerning the Oregon territory. No sooner had dis- cussion fairly begun than a melancholy event hap- pened, Secretary Upshur being killed on the United States vessel Princeton by the explosion of a gun. A few months later his successor, John C. Calhoun, con- tinted the negotiations. The arguments were in a large measure a repetition of these already advanced but a greater aggressiveness on the part of the British and persistency in denying the claims of the United States were noticeable. As in former negotiations, the privileges accorded by the Nootka convention were greatly relied upon by Great Britain as proving that no absolute title was retained by Spain after the sign- ing of that treaty, hence none could be assigned. One striking statement in Lord Packenham's correspond- ence was to the effect that "he did not feel authorized to enter into discussion respecting the territory north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, which was under-

HISTORY OF NORTH IDAHO.

stood by the British government to form the basis of negotiations on the side of the United States, as the line of the Columbia formed that of Great Britain." He thus showed all too plainly the animus of his gov- ernment to take advantage of the spirit of compromise which prompted the offer of that line and to construe such offer as the abandonment of the United States, claim to an absolute title to all the Oregon territory. It is hard to harmonize her action in this matter with the "perfect spirit of fairness" professed in the note of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Webster asking for a renewal of negotiations. No agreement was reached.

During the sessions of congress of 1843-4 memor- ials, resolutions and petitions from all parts of the union came in a perfect flood. The people were thor- oughly aroused. In the presidential election which oc- curred at that time the Oregon question was a leading issue. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" became the rally- ing cry of the Democratic party. The platform framed in the Democratic national convention de- clared: "Our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable. No portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power; and by the reoccupation of Oregon at the earliest practical period is a great American measure." The position ot the Whig party was milder and less arrogant, but equally emphatic in its assertion of belief in the valid- ity of the United States' title. The fact that the Demo- crats carried in the election, despite the warlike tone of their platform and campaign, is conclusive evidence that the people were determined to hold their terri- tory on the Pacific regardless of cost. "Never was a government more signally advised by the voice of a united people. The popular pulse had been felt, and it beat strongly in favor of prompt and decisive meas- ut es to secure the immediate reoccupation of Oregon. It equally proclaimed that 'no portion thereof ought to be ceded to Great Britain."" In January, 1845, Sir Richard Packenham, the British minister, proposed that the matter in dispute be left to arbitration, which proposal was respectfully declined. So the adminis- tration of President Tyler terminated without adjust- ment of the Oregon difficulty.

Notwithstanding the unequivocal voice of the peo- ple in demand of the whole of Oregon, James Buch- anan, secretary of state under President Polk, in a communication to Sir Richard Packenham, dated July 12, 1845, again offered the forty-ninth parallel, explain- ing at the same time that he could not have consented to do so had he not found himself embarassed if not committed by the acts of his predecessors. Packen- ham rejected the offer. Buchanan informed him that he was "instructed by the president to say that he owes it to his country, and a just appreciation of her title to the Oregon territory, to withdraw the proposition to the British government which has been made under his direction ; and it is hereby accordingly withdrawn." This formal withdrawal of previous offers of com- promise on the forty-ninth parallel, justified as it was by Great Britain's repeated rejections, left the Polk administration free and untrammeled. Appearances indicated that it was now ready to give execution to

the popular verdict of 1844. The message of the presi- dent recommended that the year's notice, required by the treaty of 1827, be immediately given, that measures be adopted for maintaining the rights of the United States to the whole of Oregon, and that such legisla- tion be enacted as would afford security and protection to American settlers.

In harmony with these recommendations, a resolu- tion was adopted April 27, 1846, authorizing the presi- dent "at his discretion to give to the government of Great Britain the notice required by the second article of the said convention of the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, for the abrogation of the same."

Acting in accordance with the resolution, Presi- dent Polk the next day sent notice of the determination of the United States "that, at the end of twelve months from and after the delivery of these presents by the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, to her Britannic Ma- jesty, or to her majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, the said convention shall be entirely annulled and abrogated."

On the 27th of December, 1845, Sir Richard Pack- enham had submitted another proposal to arbitrate the matter at issue between the two governments. The proposal was declined on the ground that to submit the proposition in the form stated would preclude the United States from making a claim to the whole of the territory. On January 17th of the following year, a modified proposal was made to refer "the question of title in either government to the whole territory to be decided ; and if neither were found to possess a com- plete title to the whole, it was to be divided between them according to a just appreciation of the claims of each." The answer of Mr. Buchanan was clear and its language calculated to preclude any more arbitra- tion proposals. He said: "If the governments should consent to an arbitration upon such terms, this would be construed into an intimation, of not a direct invita- tion to the arbitrator to divide the territory between the two parties. Were it possible for this government, under any circumstances, to refer the question to arbi- tration, the title and the title alone, detached from every other consideration, ought to be the only question sub- mitted. The title of the United States, which the president regards clear and unquestionable, can never be placed in jeopardy by referring it to the decision of any individual, whether sovereign, citizen or subject. Nor does he believe the territorial rights of this nation are a proper subject of arbitration.'

But the British government seems now to have be- come determined that the question should be settled without further delav. The rejected arbitration pro- posal was followed on the 6th of June, 1846, by a draft of the proposed treaty submitted by Sir Richard Pack- enham to Secretary of State Buchanan. The provision of this were to the effect that the boundary should be continued along the forty-ninth parallel "to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island : and thence southerly through the middle of said channel and of Fuca's strait to the

HISTORY OF NORTH IDAHO.

Pacific ocean." It stipulated that the navigation of the Columbia river should remain free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company and to all British subjects trading with the same; that the possessory right of that company and of all British subjects south of the forty-ninth parallel should be respected, and that "the farms, lands and other property of every description belonging to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company shall be confirmed to said company. In case, however, the situation of these farms and lands should be con- sidered by the United States to be of public import- ance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole, or any part thereof, the property so required shall be transferred to the said government at a proper valuation, to be agreed between the parties."

Upon the receipt of the important communication embodying this draft, the president asked in advance the advice of the senate, a very unusual, though not unprecedented procedure. Though the request of the president was dated June Ioth and the consideration of the resolution to accept the British proposal was not begun until June 12th, on June 13th it was "resolved (two-thirds of the senators present consenting), that the president of the United States be, and he is hereby, advised to accept the proposal of the British govern- ment, accompanying his message to the senate, dated June 10, 1846, for a convention to settle the boundar- ies, etc., between the United States and Great Britain, west of the Rocky or Stony mountains." The advice was, however, "given under the conviction that, by the true construction of the second article of the project, the right of the Hudson's Bay Company to navigate the Columbia would expire with the termination of their present license of trade with the Indians, etc., on the northwest coast of America, on the 30th of May, 1859.

The wonderful alacrity with which this advice was given and with which five degrees and forty minutes of territory were surrendered to Great Britain, is ac- counted for by some historians (and no doubt they are correct ) by supposing that the "cession" was made in the interests of slavery. The friends of that insti- tution were unwilling to risk a war with Great Brit- ain which would interfere with the war with Mexico and the annexation of Texas. Their plan was to ac- quire as much territory from which slave states could be formed as possible, and they were not over scrupu- lous about sacrificing territory which must ultimately develop into free states. But for unfortunate diplo- macy, "it is quite probable that British Columbia would be to-day, what many would deem desirable in view of its growing importance, a part of the United States."

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

An illustrated history of north Idaho : embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, state of Idaho, Part 7

Author: Publication date: 1903 Publisher: [S.l.] : Western Historical Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1524

Author:
Publication date: 1903
Publisher: [S.l.] : Western Historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1524