It was a memorable day in the history of civil government in Oregon, when, in December of 1820, Floyd initiated his policy in the house, by a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the situation of the settlements on the Pacific, and the expediency of occupying the Columbia River.[[6]] It did not attract much attention at the time, but was referred to a committee, of which Floyd was chairman. In a carefully prepared report, containing all the information that could be secured, the plan was pronounced expedient and a bill proposed to carry it into effect. This bill provided for the military occupation of the Oregon Territory, the extinguishment of the Indian title to the land, and the establishment of a civil government. It was nearly two years, however, before it could be brought to a discussion, on account of the dilatory tactics of the opposition, or because of its apparent unimportance. After it was debated it failed of passage by a vote of one hundred to sixty-one, which was not a bad defeat considering the character of the bill.
The same process was gone through again, another committee appointed, and another bill reported, which was similar to the first one, except in the greater inducement to settlers in the granting of lands, and in the greater stress laid upon the necessity for some plan of civil government in the territory. This bill, after discussion, was passed by a vote of one hundred and thirteen to fifty-seven, and Floyd had the satisfaction of seeing such a flattering result from his four years of hard work. He had done all that he could do and now it must be submitted to the tender mercies of the senate. Mr. Benton had already introduced a resolution “instructing the committee on military affairs to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation to enable the President of the United States to take and retain possession of the Territories of the United States on the Northwest Coast of America;” and he had made a strong speech in advocacy of the movement. Although the resolution was adopted, no report ever came from the committee. When the bill came from the house, after several times being laid on the table and taken up again for discussion, it received a final defeat by a vote of twenty-five to fourteen.
For three years nothing was done. Then Floyd, with a tenacity worthy of the cause, proposed another bill. It resembled the others, but during the process of discussion was stripped of one feature after another until the only provisions left for government were the establishment of military posts, and the right of American citizens to trial in American courts, and under the laws of the states into which they might be brought. It will thus be seen that all previous propositions had gradually been reduced, by a process of elimination, to a provision exactly similar to the one which the English already had in operation, except the additional feature of military posts, and although this was the most moderate bill yet offered it was defeated by a vote of ninety-nine to seventy-five.
As Floyd’s term of office expired and he was not returned, the first campaign for the extension of American civil government over Oregon was ended. Both Floyd and Benton had done nobly. In the face of opposition, and even ridicule, they had persistently held their course until they had seen their measure pass one house, and though defeated, get a respectable vote in the other. In their work they had valuable assistance. Several strong supporters appeared in the house and in the senate, particularly among the younger men; President Monroe by his messages to congress urged the importance of establishing a military post at the mouth of the Columbia, and along the route across the country; John Quincy Adams, by his assertions in regard to the validity of the American title to the country, and later on by his messages, strengthened their case; the War Department, then under John C. Calhoun, made a report through one of its most trusted authorities, General Thomas S. Jesup, who strongly advocated military occupation; while at least three associations of citizens from Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Ohio presented memorials to the house, asking for grants of land and the protection of the American government. The Massachusetts memorial was the result of the zealous work of Hall J. Kelley, a school teacher of Massachusetts, who was an enthusiast upon the settlement of Oregon, and who had been agitating the question both in his own state and in the City of Washington for several years before it was taken up in congress.
While great credit is to be given the far-sighted and courageous advocates of the bill, it is not fair in a historical paper to minimize the efforts of the opposition. To characterize the opponents as ultra-conservative or self-interested would not be just to the many weighty arguments which they brought forward, and which, looked at from the standpoint of their day, were weightier than they seem now, when conditions have so changed. For a new nation, with a new national machinery, hardly yet in smoothly running order, to attempt expansion into regions separated by natural barriers, and inaccessible before the application of steam to travel, might well require careful thought.
This first attempt, though it had failed of accomplishing its immediate end, was highly creditable to all who were engaged in it, and its results were not small. Interest had been awakened, not alone among the members of congress, but more particularly among the people throughout the country. Circulars containing all the information available, were prepared and sent to the constituents of congressmen, and the nation began to be committed to a policy which it would take time fully to realize. The people had gained the impression that the United States’ title was perfectly clear to the whole valley of the Columbia; that the English were there only by sufferance until the formal settlement of a boundary at a more convenient time; and that the government was willing that American immigrants should occupy it, and would protect them as well as it could.
The debates which occurred at various times in connection with these early bills are interesting, not alone because they mark the beginning of a large and important national movement, but also because of the light they throw upon the times, because of the discussion of important principles which always come to the surface in large national questions, and the fine examples of courage and far-sighted aggressiveness on one side, and cautious conservatism on the other. Almost every point of view which it would seem possible to conceive of found expression in some form or other in the course of the debate; and almost every motive for or against the policy was voiced.
In this first debate the question of the claim does not figure largely, as it was quite generally assumed by all that the American title was valid, and was so pronounced by those in whom the people had confidence. There had been, however, no critical examination of the subject as yet on either side, but the American government felt so confident that it did not realize any necessity for haste.
In the first place it was incumbent upon the advocates of this measure to show the expediency of their proposal. They had been called visionary and fanciful. That it was only the continuation of a growth that had characterized all our past history, was well expressed by Floyd in the words: “At most it is only acting upon precisely the same principle which has directed the progress of population from the moment the English first landed in Virginia.” In the various reports and debates much emphasis was placed upon the material benefit which would follow. By statistics, the value of the fur trade was exhibited as well as that of the whale fisheries, the returns from which two industries alone would many times repay all expenses incurred; while the possible resources in the line of agricultural wealth, though scarcely known, were boldly prophesied.
While some regarded the measure as visionary, others opposed it because it seemed too practical, would draw capital and labor from the older sections, where they were still needed, and would beget a trade with the Orient which would detract from that of the Atlantic Coast. No friend of the measure could have painted a bolder and more prophetic picture than that of the opponent who said: “The trade of the Pacific will naturally be with China, Japan, and the Philippines. They will not only be invited to this by their local position, but by the circumstances of their situation. Commerce is never so profitable as when it is carried on between a newly settled country, in which land is fresh and easily obtained, and one in which a dense population has made manufactures cheap and abundant.” Considerable importance was attached to the establishment of a waterway connection by the river systems of the Missouri and Columbia, between the east and the west, “when distance and time will be conquered, and the ends of the earth be brought together.” Should this prove feasible, and statistics were not wanting to demonstrate it, the United States would have the proud distinction of establishing that waterway for which the nations had been so many centuries in search.