On June 11th, President Tyler took the first step in the combination of these elements. He sent a copy of the rejected Treaty, and all the papers connected with it, to the House of Representatives, together with a message, in which he reviewed the subject and justified his position in regard to it, and declared, finally, that while he had regarded a treaty as the most suitable means for accomplishing annexation, he would {310} co-operate with Congress in the use of any other means compatible with the Const.i.tution and likely to accomplish the result.

Before, however, following the history of the annexation of Texas further, we must present briefly the main points in the development of the Oregon question.

{311}

CHAPTER XIV.

OREGON

Extent of Oregon and Claims to it--The Nootka Convention--Louisiana and Oregon--Astoria--The Joint Occupation Agreement of 1818--Spain's Claims on Oregon Ceded to the United States--Renewal of the Convention of 1818--The British Policy in Reference to Oregon--The Ignorance of Oregon in the United States--Dr. Marcus Whitman--Dr. Whitman's Mission to the United States Government--Dr. Whitman's Colony--The Democratic Party on the Oregon Question.

[Sidenote: Extent of Oregon and claims to it.]

At the close of the eighteenth century, Oregon was universally recognized as the territory lying along the North Pacific Ocean from the forty-second parallel of lat.i.tude to that of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes, and reaching inward to the Rocky Mountains. At that time it was claimed by Spain both by discovery and first settlement.

[Sidenote: The Nootka Convention.]

In the year 1790, Great Britain advanced claims upon it. A diplomatic discussion arose between the two Powers, which ended temporarily in an agreement called the Nootka Convention, by which no territorial or sovereign rights or powers were recognized by Spain to Great Britain, but only certain eas.e.m.e.nts, so to speak, in and upon this territory, such as the right to navigate the waters and to fish in them, to trade with the natives, and to make such temporary {312} settlements as might be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of these rights.

In the year 1796, war was waged between Spain and Great Britain, and, according to the British principles of that day, every agreement between the two Powers was abrogated in consequence thereof; so that Spain, while retaining her sovereignty over Oregon, was now relieved of the enc.u.mbrance of the British rights.

[Sidenote: Louisiana and Oregon.]

This was the status of Oregon when Spain ceded Louisiana to France in 1800, and when France ceded the same territory to the United States in 1803; and the matter of first concern to the United States was the question whether Louisiana contained Oregon or any part of it. It is probable that President Jefferson thought it did, since the Lewis and Clark expedition, sent out by him to examine the new purchase, crossed the Rockies, discovered the sources of the Columbia River, followed this stream to the Pacific, and made report thereof to the President.

But if he did, he was certainly mistaken. It is true that Louisiana had no western boundary positively fixed by any agreement between the Powers, but the general principles of international law, to which recourse must always be had in the absence of specific agreements, made the water shed of the Mississippi the western boundary, and the Treaty of Utrecht, of 1713, to which France and Great Britain were parties, made the forty-ninth parallel of lat.i.tude the northern boundary, westward from the Lake of the Woods.

[Ill.u.s.tration: OREGON, as Determined by the Treaty of 1846.]

[Sidenote: Astoria.]

The founding of Astoria, in 1811, on the south bank of the Columbia River, about nine miles from its mouth, is also evidence that the Government of the United States thought it had a claim upon Oregon as a part of Louisiana, since the undertaking {313} proceeded upon an understanding between Mr. John Jacob Astor and the Government.

[Sidenote: The joint occupation agreement of 1818.]

The British Government now did a thing which seemed to acknowledge a claim of some sort by the United States upon Oregon, so far as Great Britain could do so. Having taken forcible possession of Astoria in the War of 1812, it restored the place, at the close of the War, to the possession of the United States; and in a convention, concluded on October 18th, 1818, the two Powers agreed upon the forty-ninth parallel of north lat.i.tude as the boundary between their territories, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and upon joint occupation, as it was termed, in all territories and waters claimed by either party in North America west of the Rocky Mountains, without prejudice to any claims which either party might have to any part of the said territory, or to any claims which any other Power might have to it, or to any part of it. This agreement was to run for ten years.

[Sidenote: Spain's claims on Oregon ceded to the United States.]

An event happened the following year which made the Washington Government doubt the wisdom of basing its claims upon the Louisiana cession. It was the Treaty with Spain ceding the Floridas. As we have seen in one of the earlier chapters of this work, this Treaty contained a provision ceding to the United States all the rights and sovereignty of Spain in and over the territory lying west of the Rocky Mountains and north of the forty-second parallel of north lat.i.tude.

Here was a much better claim, both as to quant.i.ty of territory and quality of right, than could be founded on the Louisiana cession. If the United States had possessed this claim in 1803, it is doubtful if we should ever have heard of the notion that Oregon was a part of Louisiana.

{314} [Sidenote: Continuation of the convention of 1818.]

In 1828, the agreement of 1818 was indefinitely continued, but might be terminated by a twelvemonth's notice by either party, at any time.

The United States, was, however, in a better position than before, on account of having now the Spanish claims to all territory above the forty-second parallel on the Pacific.

The element of greatest importance in the settlement of the question was, of course, colonization within the territory, and neither party had really undertaken that. The hunters and trappers and agents of the Hudson's Bay Company had temporary abodes within the territory, especially north of the Columbia, and there was one settlement on the south bank under the protection of the United States, and that was all.

[Sidenote: The British policy in reference to Oregon.]

For some fourteen years longer, now, this indefinite status continued.

In the negotiations between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, in 1841 and 1842, Mr. Webster sounded Lord Ashburton on the Oregon question, and found that the Queen's agent had received no power to deal with the matter, but drew the conclusion that the British policy in regard to Oregon was to prolong the existing _modus vivendi_, give the Hudson's Bay Company time to settle the country north of the Columbia, and then agree to a division on the line of that river.

[Sidenote: The ignorance of Oregon in the United States.]

It was well for the United States that the Oregon question did not enter into those negotiations, for down to that moment the Government at Washington knew almost nothing about the character of Oregon north of the Columbia. The officers of the Hudson's Bay Company had continually represented it as a worthless waste, fit only for hunting and trapping ground, and almost worn out even for those purposes. It is more than probable that the {315} Government at Washington credited these statements, and it is quite possible that, in 1842, it would have compromised with England on the line of the Columbia. The delay in the settlement of the question now gave the Government the opportunity to learn something more about Oregon from one who knew the region better than any other living man, and whose interests did not lie with those of the Hudson's Bay Company and Great Britain.

[Sidenote: Dr. Marcus Whitman.]

The actor who now came upon the scene was Dr. Marcus Whitman, a man of great intelligence, courage, energy, and high purpose. He had been sent out by the American Board of Missions, in the year 1835, as one of the exploring delegates among the Indians in Oregon. Dr. Whitman soon made up his mind in regard to his life work. He returned to the East in the summer of 1836, married, and went back to Oregon, accompanied by his bride and by the Rev. H. H. Spaulding and wife.

This was the beginning of the settlement of Northern Oregon.

[Sidenote: Dr. Whitman's mission to the United States Government.]

In some way, we know not exactly how, Dr. Whitman learned that the United States Government might be induced to sacrifice Northern Oregon in ignorance of its true value; and, in the latter part of the year 1842, he set out from the mission on the Walla Walla to go to Washington and inform the Government of the real character of the country which he had explored. He arrived in Washington in March of 1843, and gave President Tyler such full and truthful information concerning the great value of Oregon north of the Columbia as settled the fate of that region.

[Sidenote: Dr. Whitman's colony.]

Dr. Whitman had come also for another purpose. He saw clearly that the way to get Oregon was to colonize it. President Tyler's Administration supported him {316} in this view and purpose. The Administration caused Dr. Whitman's descriptions of Oregon to be printed and distributed throughout the United States, and also his offer to lead a colony to take possession of the country. The place of rendezvous appointed by him was Westport, near the site of the present Kansas City, and the time was June of 1843. Nearly a thousand people, with two hundred wagons, met him there, and were successfully led by him back to the Walla Walla. He arrived there with this large colony in October of 1843; and news of his safe arrival reached Washington in January of 1844.

The decisive movement for the possession of Oregon was thus made.

Claims based upon discovery, or treaty, or privileges for hunting, trapping, or trading, must all give way before actual colonization.

British diplomacy was confused by the success of the movement, while the people of the United States were filled with pride and enthusiasm at the achievement.

The moment had come, at last, when the United States could deal with Great Britain from the basis of actual conditions, instead of from the point of view of international theory. The connection of the Oregon question with the question of the annexation of Texas in the Democratic platform of 1844, was, therefore, by no means far fetched or artificial. It was, indeed, a clever stroke of practical politics, but it was suggested by existing conditions.

[Sidenote: The Democratic party on the Oregon question.]

The Democrats had struck a high note in the international questions, one which was bound to catch the ear of the younger men throughout the country. Moreover, the policy in both cases rested upon sound national principles. Texas, at least to the Nueces, and Oregon, at least to the northern water shed of the Columbia, belonged {317} geographically to the United States, and they were settled, so far as they were settled at all, by Anglo-Americans. On the other hand, the slaveholders of the South were not particularly pleased with the connection of the two questions. Some of them had already come to doubt whether the annexation of Texas alone would subserve their interests, since the slave population might be thereby drawn away from the border slaveholding Commonwealths, and these Commonwealths might then abolish slavery by their own several acts; and now that it must be paid for by the addition of a region to the Northern side, large enough to hold a dozen such Commonwealths as New York, the price appeared to them too great. Mr. Waddy Thompson, of South Carolina, the Minister to the Mexican Government, was decidedly of this opinion; and from an original friend of annexation he became a determined opponent. To the far-seeing mind, it was certainly very questionable whether the annexation of Texas would prove any advantage to the slavery interest, and it was certain that the possession of Oregon would not.

But they would subserve, they have subserved, the interests of a true national development. The Democrats of 1844 builded better than they knew, when they made the "re-annexation of Texas and the re-occupation of Oregon" the issues of the campaign of that year. In the platform the Oregon question was given the precedence. The country, however, understood the stratagem, and the question of annexation a.s.sumed the foremost place in the great contest.

{318}

CHAPTER XV.

THE "RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE RE-OCCUPATION OF OREGON"

The Popularity of the Democratic Position, and Mr. Clay's Letter of August 16th--The Abolitionists Declare against Mr. Clay--The Triumph of Polk--Tyler's Recommendation to Annex Texas by a Joint Resolution or an Act--The Resolution for Annexation in the House of Representatives--Pa.s.sage of an Enabling Act for Texas by the House of Representatives--The Resolution in the Senate, and Mr. Archer's Inconsistencies--The Senate's Amendment to the Resolution of the House--The Concurrence of the House in the Senate's Amendment, and the Pa.s.sage of the Act for Admission--The British Proposition in Regard to Oregon--The American Proposition--Polk's recommendation in Regard to the Matter--The Debate upon the President's Recommendation--The Conclusion Reached by Congress--The President's Retort upon Congress--The Oregon Treaty.

The language of the Democratic platform signified that Texas had been once annexed to the United States, as a part of Louisiana, by the Treaty of 1803 with France, and had been sacrificed by the Treaty of 1819 with Spain, and that Oregon had been once occupied by the United States, either under the Treaty of 1803, or under that of 1819, or by the right of the prior discovery of the Columbia River and the establishment of a settlement upon its banks. It is thus that mortal men always seek to purge any movement which they undertake of the taint of innovation, no matter how justifiable in reason that movement may be.