An illustrated history of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas counties; with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington, Part 11

Author: Interstate publishing co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1904
Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate publishing company
Number of Pages: 1146

USA > Washington > Kittitas County > An illustrated history of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas counties; with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington > Part 11
USA > Washington > Yakima County > An illustrated history of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas counties; with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington > Part 11
USA > Washington > Klickitat County > An illustrated history of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas counties; with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington > Part 11

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).

nothing was accomplished. By treaty concluded in February, 1825, an agreement was entered 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 repre- sented 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 instruc- tions given to Mr. Rush and that which was employed by him in the course of the negotia- tions 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 estab- lished our title on both grounds. Nor is it con- ceived 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 despatch dated February 24, 1827, Mr. Clay said: "It is conceived in a gen- nine spirit of concession 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 Gallatin to declare "that the American government does not hold itself bound hereafter, in consequence of any proposal which it has here- tofore 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 British plenipotentiaries, Huskisson, Grant and Addington, were forced to the position that Great Britain did not assert any title to the country. They contented themselves with the contention that her claim was sufficiently well founded 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 com- plained of the recommendation of President Monroe in his message of December 7, 1824, to establish a military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, and of the passage of a bill in the house providing for the occupancy of the Oregon river. To this the American replied by calling attention to the act of the British parlia-

THE OREGON CONTROVERSY.

ment of 1821, entitled "An act for regulating the fur trade and establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction in certain 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 be rightly complained of by a government which had granted such wide privi- leges and comprehensive powers to the Hudson'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 sub- jects of Great Britain in common with citizens of the United States, provided that the said line should strike the northeasternmost 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, protesting that this concession was made in the spirit of sacrifice 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 diffi- culty of the adjustment of boundaries materially enhanced. Nor does this reflect in the slightest degree upon those great publicists who managed the claim of the United States in those negotia- tions. Matchless ability and earnest patriotism, firm defense of the United States' claim, and withal a disposition to compromise to avoid rup- ture with any other nation, mark these negotia- tions in every line. The language and intention of these. treaties are clear and unmistakable. Neither government was to attempt any act in derogation of the other's claim; nor could any advantage inure to either; during their continu- ance the territory should be free and open to citizens and subjects of both nations. Such is their plaîn purport; such the only construction which their language will warrant. Yet it can- not be controverted that the United States had thereby precluded itself from the sole enjoy- ment of the territory which it claimed in sover- eignty; nor that Great Britain acquired a peacea- ble, recognized and uninterrupted tenancy-in- common in regions where her title was so imper- fect 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 set- tlement of the country 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 secured 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 com- pany, 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 ruinous to attempt 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 like- wise that no act or omission on the part of the government or its citizens, or any act of commis- sion or omission by the British government or her subjects during such Joint-Occupancy treat- ies, should affect in any way the United States' claim to the territory. * * * * * *

"The treaties of 1818 and 1827 have passed into history 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 situ- ation may be briefly summed up: The United States claimed title to the territory. Great Britain, through its empire-trading company, occupied it-enjoyed all the wealth and resources derivable from it."

But while joint occupation was in reality non- occupation by any but the British, it must not be supposed that the case of the United States was allowed to go entirely by default during the regime of the so-called joint occupancy. In con- gress the advisability of occupying Oregon was frequently and vehemently discussed. Ignorance and misconception with regard to the real nature of Oregon, its climate, soil, products and health- fulness, were being dispelled. The representa- tions of the Hudson's Bay Company that it was a "miasmatic wilderness, uninhabitable except by wild beasts and more savage men," were being 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 Russell Farnham, who had belonged to Astor's party. From these gentlemen they learned something of the value of Oregon, its features of interest, and its commercial and strategic importance. This information Dr. Floyd made public in 1822, in a speech in sup-

CENTRAL WASHINGTON.

port of a bill "to authorize the occupation of the Columbia river, and to regulate trade and inter- course with the Indians therein." 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 military occupancy of the Columbia was a necessity for protecting trade and securing the frontier. It recom- mended the despatch 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 pro- posed 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 would also assure the preservation of peace among the Indians in the event of a for- eign war and command their neutrality or assist- ance as we might think advisable. The letter exposed Great Britain's reasons for her policy of inasterly inactivity, and urged that some action be taken by the United States to balance or offset the accretion of British title and for preserving and protecting 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 commend the earnest devotion of that little Oregon party in congress for placing on record why the government should assert exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory." In the next congress the subject was again dis- cussed with energy and ability. In 1831 formal 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 inter- est in the mystic region 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 negotiations 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 occupancy was agreed to at all after 1828 could hardly be con- strued in any other light than as a confession of weakness in our title, notwithstanding the une- quivocal stipulations that neither party should attempt anything in derogation of the other's claims, and that the controversy should be deter- mined upon its merits as they existed prior to 1818. If the United States came into possession of an absolute title in 1819, why should it after-

ward 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 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 cumu- lative in its nature and had in it the weakness which is inherent 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 however clear the right of the United States might seem to its own statesmen, it is evident that the con- viction must be produced in the minds of the British also if war was to be avoided.

These facts early came to be appreciated by a clear-visioned, well-informed and determined little band in congress. The debates in that body, as well as numerous publications sent out among the people, stimulated a few daring spirits to brave the dangers of Rocky mountain travel and to see for themselves the truth with regard to Oregon. Reports from these reacted upon congress, enabling it to reason and judge from premises more nearly in accordance with facts. Gradually interest in Oregon became intensified and the determination to hold it for the United States deepened. While the country never receded from its conviction of the existence of an absolute right of sovereignty in itself, the people resolved to establish a title which even the British could not question, to win Oregon from Great Britain even in accordance with the tenets of her own theory. They determined to settle and Americanize the territory. In 1834, and again in 1836, an element of civilization was introduced of a vastly higher nature than any which accompanied the inroads of the Hudson's Bay Company employees and of trappers and traders. We refer to the American missionaries spoken of in former chapters. The part which these had in stimulating this resolution of the American people have been and will be suffi- ciently treated elsewhere. The results of Whit- man's midwinter ride and labors and of the numerous other forces at work among the people were crystallized into action in 1843, when a great, swelling tide of humanity, pulsating with the restless energy and native daring so charac- teristic of the American, pushed across the desert plains of the continent, through the fastnesses of the Rocky mountains, and into the heart of the disputed territory. Other immigrations fol- lowed, and there was introduced into the Oregon

THE OREGON CONTROVERSY.

question a new feature, the vital force and import of which could not be denied by the adverse claimant. At the same time the Ameri- can government was placed under an increased obligation to maintain its right to the valley of the Columbia.

But we must return now to the diplomatic history of the controversy, resuming the same with the negotiations of 1831. Martin Van Buren was then minister at London. He received instructions relative to the controversy 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 dis- cussion, and, until the rights of the parties can be settled by negotiations, ours can suffer noth- ing 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, giving assurance of its will- ingness to proceed to the consideration of the boundary subject "in a perfect spirit of fairness, and to adjust it on a basis of equitable compro- mise." On November 25th Daniel Webster, then secretary of state, replied "that the presi- dent concurred entirely in the expediency of making the question respecting the Oregon ter- ritory a subject of immediate attention and nego- tiation 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 October, 1843, when Secretary Upshur sent instructions to Edward Everett, American min- ister to London, again offering the forty-ninth parallel, together with the right of navigating the Columbia river upon equitable 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 the discussion fairly begun than a melan- choly event happened, 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, continued the nego- tiations. The arguments were in a large meas- ure a repetition of those 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 privilege accorded by the

Nootka convention were greatly relied upon by Great Britain, as proving that no absolute title was retained by Spain after the signing of the treaty, hence none could be assigned. One strik- ing 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 lati- tude, which was understood by the British gov- ernment 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 government to take advantage of the spirit of compromise which prompted the offer of that line and to construe such offer as an abandon- ment 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 memorials, resolutions and petitions from all parts of the union came in in a perfect flood. The people were thoroughly aroused. In the presidential election which occurred at that time the Oregon question was a leading issue. "Fifty-four, forty or fight" became the rallying cry of the Democratic party. The platform framed in the Democratic national convention declared: "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 the reoccupation of Oregon at the earliest practical period is a great American measure." The position of the Whig party was milder and less arrogant, but equally emphatic in its assertion of belief in the validity 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 conclu- sive evidence that the people were determined to hold their territory on the Pacific coast regard- less 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- ures 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 Brit- ish minister, proposed that the matter in dispute be left to arbitration, which proposal was respect- fully declined. So the administration of Presi- dent Tyler terminated without adjustment of the Oregon difficulty.

Notwithstanding the unequivocal voice of the people in demand of the whole of Oregon, James Buchanan, secretary of state under President Polk, in a communication to Sir Richard Packen-

CENTRAL WASHINGTON.

ham, dated July 12, 1845, again offered the forty- ninth parallel, explaining at the same time that he could not have consented to do so had he not found himself embarrassed, if not committed, by the acts of his predecessors. Packenham 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 with- drawal of the previous offers of compromise on the forty-ninth parallel, justified as it was by Great Britain's repeated rejections, left the Polk administration free and untrammeled. Appear- ances indicated that it was now ready to give execution to the popular verdict of 1844. The message of the president 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 legislation be enacted as would afford security and protection to American settlers.

In harmony with these recommendations, a resolution was adopted April 27th, 1846, author- izing the president "at his discretion to give to the government of Great Britain the notice required by the second article of the said conven- tion of the 6th of August, 1827, for the abroga- tion of the same."

Acting in accordance with the resolution, President Polk the next day sent notice of the determination of the United States "that, at the end of twelve months from and after the deliv- ery of these presents by the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, to her Britannic Majesty, 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 Packenham 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 terri- tory. On January 17th of the following year, a modified proposal was made to refer "the ques- tion of title in either government to the whole territory to be decided; and if neither were found to possess a complete 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 lan- guage calculated to preclude any more arbitra- tion proposals. He said: "If the government should consent to an arbitration upon such terms, this would be construed into an intimation, if not a direct invitation to the arbitrator to divide the

territory between the two parties. Were it pos- sible for this government, under any circum- stances, to refer the question to arbitration, the title and the title alone, detached from every other consideration, ought to be the only ques- tion submitted. The title of the United States, which the president regards clear and unques- tionable, 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 become determined that the question should be settled without further delay. The rejected arbitration proposal was followed on the 6th day of June, 1846, by a draft of a proposed treaty submitted by Sir Richard Packenham to Secre- tary of State Buchanan. The provisions 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 conti- nent from Vancouver island; and thence south- erly through the middle of said channel and of Fuca's strait to the Pacific ocean." It stipu- lated 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 properties of every description belonging to the Puget Sound Agri- cultural Company shall be confirmed to said company. In case, however, the situation of these farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public importance, 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 val- uation, to be agreed upon between the parties."

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 Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas counties; with an outline of the early history of the state of Washington, Part 11

Author: Interstate publishing co., Chicago, pub Publication date: 1904 Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate publishing company Number of Pages: 1146

Author: Interstate publishing co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1904
Publisher: [Chicago] Interstate publishing company
Number of Pages: 1146