Chapter I: The Oregon Question An Illustrated history of Walla Walla County Washington

CHAPTER I
THE OREGON QUESTION.

    While it is not within the distinct province of this compilation to enter into a detailed consideration of the early history of the Pacific northwest, nor even of that section now included within the boundaries of the present state of Washington, it is still but consistent that brief resume be given of the more salient points which marked the opening of this now fruitful and opulent section of our national domain to the march of civilization—an advancement made under conditions and circumstances which bespeak the restless energy, the fortitude and the inflexible determination of those who constituted the forerunners of the star of empire.
    To the "Oregon question" Dr. Barrows refers as the "struggle for possession," and certain it is that diplomacy never met a severer test without recourse to arms than was represented in the long drawn out disputations, the ambiguous concessions and the alert watchfulness which marked the history of that epoch. Fortunate, indeed, was it that the independence of the republic, the genius of the true American spirit, were eventually brought into high relief, saving to our national commonwealth the great and valuable territory which was at that time practically a terra incognita.
    As has already been intimated, there has, perhaps, no question ever arisen that so nearly precipitated a war between the United States and Great Britain without the actual conflict of arms. The Oregon question was one that included all points of international diplomacy and negotiations between the United States and Great Britain regarding title to the northwest country, and pertaining particularly to the territory now included in the state of Washington, for the country north of the Columbia river was what the English crown particularly coveted.
    Prior to 1818 the Hudson's Bay Company, a powerful corporation holding charter from the British crown, the same having been granted by Charles II, in 1670, invaded the Oregon territory, including what are now the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. The personnel of the invading force included hunters, traders and trappers, who proceeded to fortify their possessions with commercial and military establishments. While these aggressive movements were under way a few persons from the United States found their way into the territory, and their interposition eventually led to the discussion as to the ownership of the country. Our great statesmen of the day naturally had very inadequate conceptions of the value and importance of the territory involved in the discussion, and this fact was unmistakably indicated in their expressions.
    In the early '40s the National Intelligencer gave utterance to the following statements, which will strike the reader of the present day as ludicrous in-the extreme: "Of all the countries upon the face of the earth Oregon is one of the least favored by heaven. It is almost as barren as Sahara, and quite as unhealthy as the Campagna of Italy." Contemplating even the productive wealth of Walla Walla county alone at the present time, it seems almost impossible that official and popular judgment could even at that time have been so flagrantly in error. Further, Senator Dayton, of New Jersey, from the depths of his conviction and high order of intelligence, did not hesitate to speak as follows: "God forbid that the time should ever come when a state on the shores of the Pacific, with its interests and tendencies of trade all looking toward the Asiatic nations of the east, shall add its jarring claims to our already distracted and overburdened confederacy." It is beyond peradventure that the continental idea had not as yet pervaded the judicial body of the national government.
    As farther indicating the attitude maintained by the leaders of American thought and action at the time, we can not do better than to offer an excerpt from statements made by that gifted and venerated statesman, Daniel Webster, who said: "What do we want of this vast, worthless area, this region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts, of shifting sands and whirlwinds of dust, of cactus and prairie dogs ? To what use could we ever hope to put these great deserts or these great mountain range?, impenetrable and covered to their base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with the western coast, a coast of three thousand miles, rock-bound, cheerless and uninviting, and not a harbor on it? What use have we for such a country? Mr. President, I will never vote one cent from the public treasury to place the Pacific coast one inch nearer Boston than it is now."
    One other opinion, voiced by Senator Ben-ton, in 1825, may be, with undoubted propriety, incorporated at this juncture. What the result of the advice of this astute man might have been if followed is difficult to conjecture at this end of the century period: "The ridge of the Rocky mountains may be named as a convenient, natural and everlasting boundary. Along this ridge the western limit of the Republic should be drawn, and the statue of the fabled god, Terminus, should be erected on its highest peak, never to be thrown down."
    The significance of these expressions is unmistakable, and still we can scarcely wonder-that they were uttered and promulgated, when we take into consideration the fact that nearly all information in regard to the country—and that of a most fragmentary and unreliable character—had been received through representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company or through persons influenced by them, either voluntarily or otherwise. The emissaries of the Hudson's Bay Company had advisedly, and for selfish purposes, looking to the aggrandizement of the corporation, represented the region as a "Miasmatic wilderness, uninhabitable except by savage beasts and more savage men." This action was taken in order to discourage the settlement of white people in the country, which accomplished they realized would ultimately interfere seriously with their lucrative fur traffic with the aborigines of the land.

JOINT OCCUPANCY TREATY A PRACTICAL FIASCO.

     Both Great Britain and the United States being apparently unprepared for definite action, in 1818 a treaty of joint occupation was entered into, by the terms and provisions of which "The northwest coast of America westward of the Stony mountains shall be open to the subjects of the two contracting powers, not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the high contracting parties may have to any part of said country." This treaty was extended indefinitely in 1827, with the provision that after 1838 either party could abrogate it by giving to the other one year's notice. Under this somewhat equivocal treaty the shrewd representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company resorted to every conceivable strategy to prevent immigration from the United States, and they succeeded in effecting their designs to a large extent for a considerable period of time. However, an increasing knowledge of the value of the country stimulated the indomitable frontiersmen to move westward, and, despite the despicable efforts and questionable methods of the Hudson's Bay Company to arrest wagons, break plowshares, freeze out settlers, and by a system of overland forts and seaport surveillance prevent every movement that tended toward the actual occupancy of the country, a sufficient number of Americans had effected settlement prior to 1844 to force upon the United States the question of title. In the-year mentioned Mr. Calhoun, then secretary of state, demanded of the British government a specific statement of its claims to the Oregon territory. This overture elicited from Great Britain a reiteration of a claim already made in 1824, namely: "That the boundary line between the possessions of the two countries should be the .forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to where it intersects the northeastern branch of the Columbia river, then down the middle channel of that river to the sea." This claim, if allowed, would have given Great Britain not only British Columbia but also the greater portion of the state of Washington. Great Britain based its claim upon the exploration of the Columbia by Vancouver after Gray had discovered it, and upon the occupancy of the country by the Hudson's Bay Company for traffic in furs.
    The United States rested its claim on Captain Gray's discovery of the Columbia river, on the Louisiana purchase, on the explorations of Lewis and Clark, tracing the Columbia from its source to its mouth, on the settlement of Astoria, on the treaty with Spain in 1819 and on the treaty with Mexico in 1828. Mr. Calhoun rejected the claim of Great Britain and proposed the forty-ninth parallel from the Rockies to the sea as the division between the two countries. The Democratic convention of 1844 declared for the annexation of Texas and also "that our title to the Oregon territory was clear and unquestionable, and that no part of the same should be ceded to Great Britain." The shibboleth of the Democratic party during that campaign, relative to the Oregon question, was "fifty-four forty, or fight." An effort was made to abrogate the treaty of 1827, and it seemed for a time that war between Great Britain and the United .States was inevitable. The proposal of the British minister, Mr. Packenham, to submit the question in dispute to arbitration was respectfully declined, and the ultimate result of the negotiations was the treaty of 1846, whereby the forty-ninth parallel originally proposed by Mr. Calhoun was accepted by Great Britain as the boundary between the two countries. By the terms of the treaty provision was made that when the boundary line reached the waters of the Pacific coast it should run down the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver island, and thence southerly through the same channel and Fuca straits to the sea. No map or chart being attached to the treaty, according to which the line could be drawn, a vexatious controversy arose which came very near involving the two countries in war. The contention related to the location of the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver island. Great Britain insisted that it was in the Rosario straits or channel, while the United States contended that it was in the Canal de Haro. Each party adhered to its position through a protracted and vehement correspondence upon the subject. Between these channels was an area of about four hundred square miles, including several prominent islands, comprising land area of about one hundred and seventy square miles, which was the bone of contention on the part of the two nations involved.
    After a prolonged debate of, the question, each party determined to have its own way; by the treaty of Washington in 1871 it was agreed that Emperor William of Germany, as arbitrator, should decide which of the two claims was most in accord with the treaty of 1846. He decided in favor of our claim, thus giving to the United States an undisputed claim to the island of San Juan and the other islands around it. Although the Hudson's Bay Company took possession of all the country west of the Rocky mountains and on both sides of the Columbia river, yet Great Britain did not assert possession of that part of the country now constituting the state of Oregon. It is evident, however, that if the title was good north, it was equally good south of the river. Furthermore, if the title of the United States was good as to what is now Washington and Oregon, why not equally good for all the territory, including British Columbia. Careful and candid students of the situation have contended that the proposition of Calhoun in 1844 to surrender to Great Britain all the territory north of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude was made in the interest of slavery. The less there was of this territory, the less would be the number of free states to be admitted to the Union. If he had not committed our government to such an unfortunate, and what some have designated as "disgraceful," offer, it is quite probable that British Columbia would be to-day an integral part of the United States, a condition that many would consider desirable in view of the growing importance of that section.

Back Next