If these statements had first appeared, as they now do, over the name and by the authority or affirmation of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, etc., all the world, as J. Ross Browne did, would have adopted the idea of Mr. Ogden, and said truly this was the result of opposition in religion. But Sir James Douglas proves, by his own statements and letters, and subsequent conduct all through the war that followed, that it was not “opposition in religion alone.” It was a predetermined arrangement of the “powerful company, the practical monopoly of the fur trade,” which, in 1865, he affirmed this company held over the country in 1846. The profits of that business were not to be lost to his powerful company by any missionary settlement in it.
Are we correct in these conclusions? The statements are given by the parties implicated. Were we to allow our personal feelings and sectarian preferences to influence our conclusions, we would join in the general conclusion of Mr. Ogden; but a full knowledge of the facts forces us to believe the statement of Mr. Douglas as being the most correct; nevertheless, we will not abate one iota of the scathing condemnation justly due to the foreign sectarianism brought into the country to effect the object of that corporation, nor of the scorn and infamy due to the immediate controlling actors—Bishop Blanchet and his priests—under the garb of religion.
We wish to keep as distinctly as possible before the mind the separate part each party has performed in this great drama of which we have been writing. As we have before said, there were four distinct parties or influences in the country, and the Indian formed the fifth. The Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman priests combined and formed one; the missionaries with the settlers formed another; and the Indian was between them. For a time, the American influence was the most prominent,—say in 1843, 1844, and 1845. In 1846, Bishop Blanchet was in Europe, making extensive preparations for missionary operations in Oregon, corresponding in extent with those made by the Rev. Jason Lee in 1839-40.
“On August 19, 1847, Bishop Blanchet arrived in the mouth of the Columbia River, in the Morning Star, Captain Menes, five and a half months from Brest, with five priests, three Jesuits, three lay brothers, two deacons, and seven nuns.” In addition to these, we had, overland, eight priests and two nuns that same year. These, with the priests already in the country, gave us twenty-five of the Roman clerical order and fifteen nuns. This was a powerful and extensive effort to recover the lost foreign influence in the country. How well they succeeded is now a matter of history, and will enable the reader to understand the bold and defiant attitude of Mr. Douglas and his efficient co-laborers, Bishop Blanchet and his priests, among the Indians.
The missionary settlement at Wailatpu was the most important point in the whole upper country. The influence and position of those Indians were such, that special efforts were required to commence and carry on the destruction of all American settlements in the country.
We come now to the letter of Hon. A. Hinman, properly belonging to this chapter.
Fort Vancouver, December 4, 1847.
Mr. George Abernethy:
Dear Sir,—A Frenchman, from Wallawalla, arrived at my place on last Saturday, and informed me that he was on his way to Vancouver, and wished me to assist in procuring him a canoe immediately. I was very inquisitive to know if there was any difficulty above. He said four Frenchmen had died recently, and he wished to get others to occupy their places.
I immediately got him a canoe, and concluded to go in company with him, in order to get some medicine for the Indians, as they were dying off with measles and other diseases very fast. I was charged with indifference. They said we were killing in not giving them medicines, and I found if we were not exposing our lives, we were our peace, and consequently I set out for this place. This side of the Cascades I was made acquainted with the horrible massacre that took place at Wailatpu last Monday. Horrid to relate! Dr. and Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Osborn, Mr. Sanders, a school-teacher, the two orphan boys (John and Francis Sager), together with all the men at that place,—eleven in all. Some are living at the saw-mill, which is situated about twenty miles from the Doctor’s. A party set out for that place to dispatch them; also a party for Mr. Spalding’s, to dispatch them; and they are not satisfied yet, but a party is said to have started for my place, and has, if true, reached them before this time. Oh! had I known it when I was at home. I can neither sleep nor take any rest, on account of my family and those with them, viz., my wife and child, the Doctor’s nephew, Dr. Saffron, and Mr. McKinney and wife. If I had ten men I could defend myself with perfect ease, by occupying the meeting-house, which is very roomy and close. You see my situation, as well as Mr. Spalding’s. I have perfect confidence in your doing all you can to get a party to come up and spend the winter there, and likewise to go to the rescue of the women and children, and Mr. Spalding, if alive, which I think very doubtful.
Delay not a moment in sending a few men for my protection; a few moments may save our lives.
I expect to leave to-morrow for home, and perhaps the first salutation will be a ball. My family is there, and I must return if it costs my life.
We are in the hands of a merciful God, why should we be alarmed? I will close by saying again, send a small force immediately without the delay of one day. Farewell.
Yours truly,
Alanson Hinman.
It will be seen that the main facts are given by Mr. Hinman, with the designs of other Indian parties to cut off the Americans at Mr. Spalding’s, the saw-mill, and at the Dalles, which Mr. Douglas omits in his letter to Governor Abernethy, but informs him of the Indians’ threatened attack upon Fort Nez Percés (Wallawalla).
That part of Mr. Douglas’s letter relating to Mr. Rogers’ supposed statement to the Indians, the brother (still living) has requested Mr. Douglas to explain; but no explanation has been given. We know, from the depositions given, that Mr. Douglas made the statement without evidence of its truth; and it is evident he is too stubborn or proud to acknowledge or explain his error.
There is one other fact in connection with this transaction that looks dark on the part of Sir James Douglas.