NORTHWESTERN HISTORY SYLLABUS
[The aim of this department is to furnish outlines that will aid those who wish to study the subject systematically. It is expected that its greatest use will be as a guide for members of women's clubs, literary societies, and classes in colleges or high schools. It will be a form of university extension without the theses and examinations necessary for the earning of credits toward a degree.]
VIII. Provisional Government of Oregon
1. Early Settlers.
a. Fur hunters.
b. Seekers for homes and lands.
c. The Oregon trail.
2. Petitions to Congress.
a. Seeking recognition and protection of government.
b. In nature of early census.
3. Death of Ewing Young, Feb. 15, 1841.
a. Possessing property but no heirs.
b. Action proposed at the funeral.
c. Committee to form some sort of government.
d. Property probated.
e. Temporary government abandoned.
4. Wolf Meetings.
a. Seeking united action.
b. Multnomah Circulating library.
c. Lyceum for debates.
d. Bounty for destruction of dangerous animals.
e. Proposal to secure protection for families.
f. Committee to frame temporary government.
g. Plan adopted by meeting in Champoeg field.
h. Legislative committee appointed.
i. Executive committee of three instead of governor.
5. Reorganization.
a. Influence of immigration of 1843.
b. Primitive State House.
c. Earliest laws enacted.
d. Legislative committee becomes a legislature.
e. Executive committee changed to governorship.
f. George Abernethy chosen governor, 1845.
g. Oath of office reveals "joint occupancy."
6. Results.
a. Laws of Iowa Territory adopted.
b. Prohibition.
c. Failure of postoffice.
d. Dwelling.
e. Currency, "Beaver Money" in gold.
f. Dominion up to 54-40 north latitude.
g. Federal organization of Oregon Territory, 1848-1849.
Bibliography.—The above outline covers one of the most interesting portions of Northwestern history. It reveals the natural aptitude of Americans for self-government and shows a natural evolution of a state from settlements of pioneers in a wilderness. The literature on the subject is growing rapidly. The items following are among those most readily accessible to those wishing to pursue the study:
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. Works of. Vol. XXIX, chapters XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XXII, XXVI. Here is found the story of the provisional government told at considerable length.
Clark, Robert Carlton. How British and American Subjects Unite in a Common Government for Oregon Territory in 1844. In the Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. XIII, Number 2.
Grover, Lafayette. The Oregon Archives. This is a rare book, published in 1853. It contains the early laws of the provisional government and other source materials of prime importance.
Holman, Frederick V. Dr. John McLoughlin, the Father of Oregon. While this is intended as a biography of the grand old Doctor, it is a book of much helpfulness to students of this period. At the end of the volume there are nineteen documents illustrative of the text.
Johnson, Sidona V. A Short History of Oregon, Chapters XVIII to XXIII. The title of the book is well chosen, but many may find there the facts needed.
Meany, Edmond S. History of the State of Washington. Chapter XVI deals in part with the provisional government while Washington was yet a part of Oregon.
Schafer, Joseph. History of the Pacific Northwest. In this interesting and useful book, Chapter XIII is entitled "The First American Government on the Pacific."
Woodward, Walter C. Political Parties in Oregon, 1843-1868. This book was published by the J. K. Gill Company of Portland. Oregon, in 1913. It is the newest, as well as the most extensive, work in this particular field. Those who are collecting books on the Northwest should not overlook this one. Anyone studying in the field of the above syllabus will find the book helpful.
[REPRINT DEPARTMENT]
George Wilkes: History of Oregon, Geographical, Geological and Political. (New York, Colyer, 1845.)
[The reprint of this rare work was begun in the first number of the Washington Historical Quarterly and has been continued in portions of varying lengths. The installment in this issue concludes the reprinted book.—Editor.]
But can such charters be considered an acknowledged part of the law of nations? Were they any thing more, in fact, than a cession to the grantee or grantees of whatever rights the grantor might suppose himself to possess, to the exclusion of other subjects of the same sovereign?—charters binding and restraining those only who were within the jurisdiction of the grantor, and of no force or validity against the subjects of other states, until recognized by treaty, and thereby becoming a part of international law.
Had the United States, thought proper to issue, in 1790, by virtue of their national authority, a charter granting to Mr. Gray the whole extent of the country watered, directly or indirectly, by the River Columbia,[84] such a charter, would, no doubt, have been valid in Mr. Gray's favor, as against all other citizens of the United States. But can it be supposed that it would have been acquiesced in by either of the powers, Great Britain and Spain, which, in that same year, were preparing to contest by arms the possession of the very country which would have been the subject of such a grant?
If the right of sovereignty over the territory in question accrues to the United States by Mr. Gray's discovery, how happens it that they never protested against the violence done to that right by the two powers, who, by the convention of 1790, regulated their respective rights in and over a district so belonging, as it is now asserted, to the United States?
This claim of the United States to the territory drained by the Columbia and its tributary streams, on the ground of one of their citizens having been the first to discover the entrance of that river, has been here so far entered into, not because it is considered to be necessarily entitled to notice, since the whole country watered by the Columbia falls within the provisions of the convention of 1790, but because the doctrine above alluded to has been put forward so broadly, and with such confidence, by the United States, that Great Britain considered it equally due to herself and to other powers to enter her protest against it.
The United States further pretend that their claim to the country in question is strengthened and confirmed by the discovery of the sources of the Columbia, and by the exploration of its course to the sea by Lewis and Clark, in 1805-6.
In reply to this allegation, Great Britain affirms, and can distinctly prove, that, if not before, at least in the same and subsequent years, her North-Western Trading Company had, by means of their agent, Mr. Thomson, already established their posts among the Flathead and Kootanie tribes, on the headwaters of the northern or main branch of the Columbia, and were gradually extending them down the principal stream of that river; thus giving to Great Britain, in this particular, again, as in the discovery of the mouth of the river, a title to parity at least, if not priority, of discovery, as opposed to the United States. It was from those posts, that, having heard of the American establishment forming in 1811, at the mouth of the river, Mr. Thomson hastened thither, descending the river, to ascertain the nature of that establishment.[85]
Some stress having been laid by the United States on the restitution to them of Fort George by the British, after the termination of the last war, which restitution they represent as conveying a virtual acknowledgment by Great Britain of the title of the United States to the country in which that post was situated—it is desirable to state, somewhat in detail, the circumstances attending that restitution.
In the year 1815, a demand for the restoration of Fort George was first made to Great Britain, by the American government, on the plea that the first article of the treaty of Ghent stipulated the restitution to the United States of all posts and places whatsoever taken from them by the British during the war, in which description, Fort George, (Astoria,) was included.
For some time the British government demurred to comply with the demand of the United States, because they entertained doubts how far it could be sustained by the construction of the treaty.
In the first place, the trading post called Fort Astoria (or Fort George,) was not a national possession; in the second place, it was not a military post; and, thirdly, it was never captured from the Americans by the British.
It was, in fact, conveyed in regular commercial transfer, and accompanied by a bill of sale, for a sum of money, to the British company, who purchased it, by the American company, who sold it of their own free will.
It is true that a British sloop of war had, about that time, been sent to take possession of that post, but she arrived subsequently to the transaction above mentioned, between the two companies, and found the British company already in legal occupation of their self acquired property.
In consequence, however, of that ship having been sent out with hostile views, although those views were not carried into effect,[86] and in order that not even a shadow of a reflection might be cast upon the good faith of the British government, the latter determined to give the most liberal extension to the terms of the treaty of Ghent, and, in 1818, the purchase which the British company had made in 1813 was restored to the United States.
Particular care, however, was taken, on this occasion, to prevent any misapprehension as to the extent of the concession made by Great Britain.
Viscount Castlereagh, in directing the British minister at Washington to intimate the intention of the British government to Mr. Adams, then secretary of state, uses these expressions, in a despatch dated 4th February, 1818:—
"You will observe, that, whilst this government is not disposed to contest with the American government the point of possession as it stood in the Columbia River at the moment of the rupture, they are not prepared to admit the validity of the title of the government of the United States to this settlement.
"In signifying, therefore, to Mr. Adams the full acquiescence of your government in the reoccupation of the limited position which the United States held in that river at the breaking out of the war, you will at the same time assert, in suitable terms, the claim of Great Britain to that territory, upon which the American settlement must be considered as an encroachment."
This instruction was executed verbally by the person to whom it was addressed.
The following is a transcript of the act by which the fort was delivered up, by the British, into the hand of Mr. Prevost, the American agent:—
"In obedience to the command of H. R. H. the prince regent, signified in a despatch from the right honorable the Earl Bathurst, addressed to the partners or agents of the North-West Company, bearing date the 27th of January, 1818, and in obedience to a subsequent order, dated the 26th July, from W. H. Sheriff, Esq., captain of H. M. ship Andromache, We, the undersigned, do, in conformity to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, restore to the government of the United States, through its agent, J. P. Prevost, Esq., the settlement of Fort George, on the Columbia river.
"Given under our hands, in triplicate, at Fort George, (Columbia River,) this 6th day of October, 1818.
"F. Hickey, Captain H. M. ship Blossom.
"J. Keith, of the N. W. Co."
The following is the despatch from Earl Bathurst to the partners of the North-West Company, referred to in the above act of cession:—
Downing-street, 27th January, 1818.
"Intelligence having been received that the United States sloop of war Ontario has been sent by the American government to establish a settlement on the Columbia river, which was held by that state, on the breaking out of the last war. I am to acquaint you, that it is the prince regent's pleasure, (without, however, admitting the right of that government to the possession in question) that, in pursuance of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, due facility should be given to the reoccupation of the said settlement by the officers of the United States; and I am to desire that you would contribute as much as lies in your power to the execution of his royal highness's command.
"I have, &c. &c.
Bathurst.
"To the Partners or Agents of the North-West Company, residing on the Columbia river."
The above documents put the case of the restoration of Fort Astoria in too clear a light to require further observation.
The case, then of Great Britain, in respect to the country west of the Rocky Mountains, is shortly this:—
Admitting that the United States have acquired all the rights which Spain possessed, up to the treaty of Florida, either in virtue of discovery, or, as is pretended, in right Louisiana, Great Britain maintains that the nature and extent of those rights, as well as of the rights of Great Britain, are fixed and defined by the convention of Nootka; that these rights are equal for both parties; and that, in succeeding to the rights of Spain, under that convention, the United States must also have succeeded to the obligations which it imposed.
Admitting, further, the discovery of Mr. Gray, to the extent already stated, Great Britain, taking the whole line of the coast in question, with its straits, harbors and bays, has stronger claims, on the ground of prior discovery, attended with acts of occupancy and settlement, than the United States.
Whether, therefore, the United States rest their claims upon the title of Spain, or upon that of prior discovery, or upon both, Great Britain is entitled to place her claims at least upon a parity with those of the United States.
It is a fact, admitted by the United States, that, with the exception of the Columbia river, there is no river which opens far into the interior, on the whole western coast of the Pacific Ocean.
In the interior of the territory in question, the subjects of Great Britain have had, for many years, numerous settlements and trading posts—several of these posts on the tributary streams of the Columbia, several upon the Columbia itself, some to the northward, and others to the southward, of that river; and they navigate the Columbia as the sole channel for the conveyance of their produce to the British stations nearest the sea, and for the shipment of it from thence to Great Britain. It is also by the Columbia and its tributary streams that these posts and settlements receive their annual supplies from Great Britain.[87]
In the whole of the territory in question, the citizens of the United States have not a single settlement or trading post. They do not use that river, either for the purpose of transmitting or receiving any produce of their own, to or from other parts of the world.
In this state of the relative rights of the two countries, and of the relative exercise of those rights, the United States claim the exclusive possession of both banks of the Columbia, and, consequently, that of the river itself; offering, it is true, to concede to British subjects a conditional participation in that navigation, but subject, in any case, to the exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States.
Great Britain, on her part, offers to make the river the boundary; each country retaining the bank of the river contiguous to its own territories, and the navigation of it remaining forever free, and upon a footing of perfect equality to both nations.
To carry into effect this proposal, on our part, Great Britain would have to give up posts and settlements south of the Columbia. On the part of the United States, there could be no reciprocal withdrawing from actual occupation, as there is not, and never has been, a single American citizen settled north of the Columbia.
The United States decline to accede to this proposal, even when Great Britain has added to it the further offer of a most excellent harbor, and an extensive tract of country on the Straits of De Fuca—a sacrifice tendered in the spirit of accommodation, and for the sake of a final adjustment of all differences, but which, having been made in this spirit, is not to be considered as in any degree recognizing a claim on the part of the United States, or as at all impairing the existing right of Great Britain over the post and territory in question.
Such being the result of the recent negotiation, it only remains for Great Britain to maintain and uphold the qualified rights which she now possesses over the whole of the territory in question. These rights are recorded and defined in the convention of Nootka. They embrace the right to navigate the waters of those countries, the right to settle in and over any part of them, and the right freely to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers of the same.
These rights have been peaceably exercised ever since the date of that convention; that is, for a period of near forty years. Under that convention, valuable British interests have grown up in those countries. It is fully admitted that the United States possess the same rights, although they have been exercised by them only in a single instance, and have not, since the year 1813, been exercised at all. But beyond these rights they possess none.
To the interests and establishments which British industry and enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection will be given, both as regards settlement and freedom of trade and navigation, with every attention not to infringe the coördinate rights of the United States; it being the earnest desire of the British government, so long as the joint occupancy continues, to regulate its own obligations by the same rule which governs the obligations of any other occupying party.
Fully sensible, at the same time, of the desirableness of a more definite settlement, as between Great Britain and the United States, the British government will be ready, at any time, to terminate the present state of joint occupancy by an agreement of delimitation; but such arrangement only can be admitted as shall not derogate from the rights of Great Britain, as acknowledged by treaty, nor prejudice the advantages which British subjects, under the same sanction, now enjoy in that part of the world.