Attention was called to the value to the nation there would be in the encouragement of the fisheries, for the training of seamen, and the advantages of a naval station at the mouth of the Columbia in case of war with Great Britain. General Jesup suggested that troops stationed there could be used in removing the British from the territory when the time came to settle the boundary. Such propositions were not palatable to the English, nor were they especially calculated to hasten a friendly settlement of such diplomatic proceedings as were necessary at a later time. They rather served the purpose of strengthening whatever purpose the English had of looking out for their own interests. But they were clearer and more forcible announcements of the view of the American people than England could get through the diplomatic service.
In the history of civil government in Oregon there are two distinct movements, that of the regularly organized government, and that of the people themselves. They serve as the complement of each other, and act and react upon one another in a multitude of ways. Every time that the question was before congress it reacted upon the people, and the impetus thus set in motion again reacted upon a slower moving congress. In the westward expansion of our territory the movement of people has always preceded that of the national government. In the case of Oregon, through remoteness of the territory, and the difficulties arising from the joint claim and occupancy, the quicker movement of the people was more marked and the corresponding slowness of the government more irritating. This feeling of restriction is expressed by Floyd in the words: “All governments, republican as well as royal, take upon themselves the exclusive privilege of thinking for the people, of checking the progress of population in one direction or fixing the boundaries to it in another, beyond which they are not permitted to pass.”
It had often been stated in the debate that a superior power had set the Rocky Mountains as the western boundary of the United States, and it is interesting to know that the following reply came from a representative of Massachusetts: “As we reach the Rocky Mountains, we would be unwise did we not pass the narrow space which separates the mountains from the ocean, to secure advantages far greater than the existing advantages of all the country between the Mississippi and the mountains. Sir, our national boundary is the Pacific Ocean. The swelling tide of our population must and will roll on until that mighty ocean limits our territorial empire. Then, with two oceans washing our shores, the commercial wealth of the world is ours, and imagination can hardly conceive the greatness, the grandeur, and the power that await us.”[[7]]
There were other objections which seemed far more weighty than those of material inexpediency. The principle of colonization which would be forced upon the United States was regarded as a menace. “Should this principle now be recognized, it may hereafter be quoted as a precedent for measures which will change the condition and nature of the government, an event to be intimately associated with its destruction, or at least with the prostration of that liberty for the protection of which alone we can wish the government to exist.” Although it was shown that the probabilities were that the territory would become an integral part of the United States, yet the champions of the west were undaunted in defending colonization if it should come to that. Again it was the representative from Massachusetts who replied: “Was Great Britain more powerful, wealthy and happy before she began to colonize than now? Notwithstanding all her exhausting wars, all the drain of her colonial emigration, she was never more populous, more wealthy or more powerful than she is at this present day. Colonization does not impair the strength or diminish the wealth of nations. Some now within these walls may in after times cherish delightful recollections of this day when America, almost shrinking from the shadow of coming events, first placed her feet upon untrodden ground, scarcely daring to anticipate the grandeur which awaited her.”[[8]]
Equally great was the fear of entanglements with foreign nations, and particularly war with England because of a violation of the treaty, an objection which, perhaps, weighed most heavily in defeating the bill. Nor was this objection ungrounded considering the newness of the nation and the necessity of a period of peace for knitting together the internal fibres of strength. For this there was, of course, no demonstration, nor could it be opposed by proof, and yet there was courage in the answer: “Arguments founded on what may happen would go equally to prove the futility of establishing a navy which may be captured by an adversary. If a measure is right in itself it is unwise to reject it because its beneficial effects may be defeated by a war.”
As might be expected in those days, every question must be tested by its effect upon the Union. The desire to perpetuate the Union, so dearly purchased, has laid at the foundation of many a policy. For its sake many things, desirable in themselves, have been given up or long delayed. That the national government could operate over a territory so vast, and regions so remote, with barriers separating them geographically from other sections, was questionable in the day before railroads and telegraphs. Yet, with a confidence inspired by their belief in the right of their position and in the final adjustment of national affairs to this action, the advocates of the measure argued that it would rather strengthen than weaken the Union: “The danger of separation would be less in a confederacy of twenty or thirty states with diverse interests than in one of smaller number,” because the multiplication of interests would neutralize divisions which grow strong where the number is small.
Lastly, it was held that there was no need for present action, that no request had been made by the business public; it was a question to be settled not by the present generation, but by the one to follow, and that no harm, either to the American title or interests, could result.
In the senate the discussion was briefer, but covered essentially the same ground. Benton took the leading part in favor of the bill, but received help from one of the senators from Virginia. The opposition cast much ridicule upon the idea of a senator going to and from Washington in less than a year, either by land or by water, around Cape Horn.
It is not possible in the compass of this paper to give a full account of this interesting debate, but only so much as will characterize the first movement toward governmental control by the United States. As we retrace the discussions, in the light of subsequent events, we cannot refrain from admiration of those who optimistically trusted that the measure, if right in itself, need cause no fear of danger in the future.
After the retirement of Mr. Floyd no leader appeared to continue the work begun, and consequently the subject dropped out of legislative discussion for about ten years, with the exception of an occasional resolution and a brief discussion. The interval of rest, however, was not such as follows the defeat of a measure, but was, rather, a period of preparation for another and greater effort. Many influences were set in motion which showed that the national consciousness was beginning to work. It was during this interval that Captain Bonneville and Capt. Nathaniel J. Wyeth made such heroic attempts to establish a trade west of the Rocky Mountains, with experiences equalling anything in romance. In a letter to his brother, Captain Wyeth says:[[9]] “The formation of a trading company on a similar plan to the Hudson Bay and the Northwest is the ultimate object of my going to that country.” Before starting he offered his services to the government for the purpose of gaining information for them, and without “other compensation than the respectability attached to all those who serve their country.” Whether his offer was accepted or not does not appear from the correspondence, but the entrance into the country of such a man, with his companions, must mean a great deal in the clearing up of obscure questions. It was at this time, also, that Hall J. Kelley, who had been such a persistent and patriotic advocate of settlement, reached the country. Disappointed in not being able to secure grants of land and the protection of the government, he reached Oregon, after many hardships, with a few companions, and began the nucleus of a little settlement. Equally important was the impulse which missionary activity in the East had received from a fuller knowledge of this new and attractive field. Thus the religious motive was added to the patriotic, and both were added to the zeal for trade and adventure, in drawing attention to the new country.