Fifty Years in Oregon was written by Theodore T.
Geer, a grandson of Joseph Carey Geer and a shirttail ancestor of
ours.
I have put much of the book on
this website. I started because several
chapters describe the early roots of our family history in Oregon. I
kept going because
I found many of the chapters from this perspective on the early
settlers and the history of Oregon to be quite
interesting.
At this point, I desire to
devote a chapter or two to the remarkable steps which were taken by the United
States in the acquisition of the western half of the continent, for it is really
an important part of the history of the Oregon country. “The Fathers,”
especially Jefferson and Madison, were believers in what was known as the strict
construction of the Federal. Constitution; that is, that the States held within
themselves the supreme power in all cases except where the powers of the Federal
Government were specifically defined. In other words, all powers not expressly
conferred were to be exercised by the States. This doctrine was specifically
promulgated in the famous “Resolutions of '98-99,” of which Jefferson and
Madison were the authors.
And according to this
interpretation of the Constitution the United States had no right, either
expressed or implied, to acquire new territory. Compliance with this view of
Jefferson and his political associates would have fixed the western boundary of
the original thirteen states as the permanent one for the nation. Think of it!
If it had been settled upon as the unalterable definition of the powers and
limitations of the Constitution, today the western boundary of Pennsylvania
would be the eastern line of some foreign nation, perhaps of some French
dependency, as Canada is now subject to the British Government, and Oregon might
now be settled by a people speaking Spanish or German!
But many events bearing the
mark of special divine interposition occurred, the chief of which was the
alarming situation in which Napoleon Bonaparte found himself in 1803 because of
the probability that he would soon be involved in a war with England, in which
case he could foresee that it would be impossible for him to hold the Louisiana
possessions in America, It was most fortunate for the future of the United
States that at this particular time Jefferson, then President, was anxious to
purchase New Orleans, as a means of insuring the navigation of the Mississippi,
and the Floridas. To negotiate for this purchase he sent envoys to France in
1803, who, upon their arrival, found that the Marquis de Marbois, the French
councilor representing Napoleon, had already been instructed to sell the whole
of Louisiana to the United States – for the reason outlined above. The following
extract from Napoleon's instructions to his representative fully discloses his
motives in that very surprising move on the world's political chess board.
Speaking of the evident purposes of the English he said:
"They shall not have the
Mississippi, which they covet. The conquest of Louisiana would be easy if they
only took the trouble to make a descent there. I have not a moment to lose in
putting it out of their reach. I think of ceding it to the United States. They
ask of me one town in Louisiana, but I already consider the colony as entirely
lost, and it appears to me that in the hands of this growing power it will be
more useful to the policy, and even to the commerce, of France than if I should
attempt to keep it."
After further consideration he decided the matter definitely in these words:
"It is not only New Orleans
that I will cede; it is the whole colony without reservation. To attempt to hold
it would be folly. I direct you to negotiate this offer with the envoys of the
United States. I will be moderate, in the consideration of the necessity in
which I am of making a sale, but keep this to yourself."
It is not necessary to follow this most interesting story, of such vital importance to the future of
the United States and resulting in such benefits to the human race, further than
to add that Livingstone and Monroe, the
American representatives at Paris, were thunderstruck by the stupendous
possibilities which the situation opened to their country. But as they had
instructions to purchase only New Orleans and the Floridas, they hesitated to
accept Napoleon's proposition, magnificent as it was. Jefferson was fearful that
his representatives would not be able even to succeed in arranging terms for the
purchase of New Orleans. Knowing this, they were astounded to find themselves
upon their arrival with nearly all of the western half of the continent
literally thrust upon them at the nominal price of fifteen million dollars! And
as both were political disciples of Jefferson in his strict construction of the
Constitution, as opposed to that of Washington and Hamilton, they of course
understood that a great obstacle would be en countered upon their return to the
United States with so vast an empire added unconstitutionally to the national
domain.
But luckily, being farseeing
statesmen, and probably understanding the statesmanship of their chief in its
adaptability to circt1mstances which promised well for the future, they accepted
Napoleon's proposition and returned to Washington with an agreement duly signed,
the chief clause of which read as follows:
The colony or province of
Louisiana is ceded by France to the United States, with all its rights and
appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as .they have been acquired by
the French Republic, by virtue of the third article of the treaty concluded by
His Catholic Majesty at St. Ildephonso of the 1st of October, 1800.
Although the popular notion
is that Jefferson was aggressively favorable to the acquisition of the Louisiana
territory, history proves that he never seriously dreamed of such an
accomplishment even as a remote possibility, and that no man was more surprised
than he when he learned what his representatives had done. And he was inwardly
as well pleased as he was surprised, for with his great perspicacity he could
readily foresee the boundless advantages which would be derived by the United
States in the years to come from the addition of this vast region.
Jefferson's first difficulty,
however, was not to disown the act of his emissaries but to devise some way of
justifying it. To do so he must revise his political doctrine of a strictly
interpreted Constitution, and this he at once set to work to bring about. He
found the situation perplexing, but his resources were as boundless as those of
the country whose servant he was. He began immediately to write letters to his
closest friends, explaining and excusing his change of doctrine. He first
seriously proposed the submission of an amendment to the Constitution which
would specifically legalize the purchase of Louisiana, and by that means
harmonize his political preaching with his political practices. But his most
confidential associates advised him to remain quiet on the general phase of the
difficulty and to depend upon the public approval of the step as a means of
escaping from the legal tangle which his conscience was inclined to recognize
and magnify. To a friend Jefferson wrote at this time:
"The less that is said about
any constitutional difficulty the better… It will be necessary for Congress to
do what is necessary in silence… Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to
do should be done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so far as
respects the constitutional difficulty."
In another letter he said:
"Congress has made no
provision for holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign
nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which
so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the
Constitution. The Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical difficulties,
and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and
throw themselves on the country for doing for them un authorized what they knew
they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is
the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an
important adjacent territory, and saying to him when of age: “I did this for
your good. I pretend to no right to bind you; you may disavow me and I will get
out of the scrape as well as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for
you.” But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity
will confirm and not weaken the Constitution by more strongly marking out its
lines."
Jefferson was one of the most
prolific letter writers of his or any other day, and these brief extracts are
but samples of his activity in urging his friends to believe that the
Constitution would survive this sudden shock. His versatility is exhibited in
his characterization of the opportunity to violate his previous interpretation
of the Constitution as a “fugitive occurrence” which the “Executive have
seized,” the latter expression, which would not be considered grammatical in
these days, being in accordance with the custom of kings and other rulers of the
previous century, and not at that time discarded by those so recently divorced
from the forms of the Old World governments.
One of the really humorous
incidents of history is afforded by the diplomatic somersaults of Jefferson in
connection with the acquisition of Louisiana. The expression “fugitive
occurrence” was a gem in its line and fitly defines the justification which all
great figures in governmental and religious reforms present by way of
vindication when they have applied the stiletto to established and perhaps
tyrannical customs.
But under the tactful
guidance of Jefferson the little tempest blew over. Congress ratified the treaty
of acquisition “with as little debate as possible,” though while it lasted the
discussion was warm and almost furious. In order to pass rapidly over this
historical feature of the first movement, which resulted in the final
acquisition of the whole western part of the continent, including ultimately the
Oregon country, I shall quote but a single paragraph of a single speech of the
many made in Congress in opposition to legalizing the action of Jefferson in the
Louisiana Purchase. When the question of ratification was before Congress,
Senator James White, of Delaware, one of the most influential members of that
body, said:
“But as to Louisiana, this
new, immense, unbounded world, if it should ever be incorporated into the Union,
of which 1 have no idea, can only be done by amending the Constitution, I
believe it would be the greatest curse that could at present befall us. It may
be productive of innumerable evils, and especially of one that I fear ever to
look upon. Thus our citizens will be removed to the immense distance of two or
three thousand miles from the Capital of the Union, where they will scarcely
ever feel the rays of the General Government; affections will become alienated;
they will gradually begin to view us as strangers; they will form other
commercial connections and our interests will become extinct… And I do say that
under existing circumstances, even supposing that this extent of territory was a
desirable acquisition, fifteen millions of dollars is a most enormous sum to
give.”
All of which, after a century
of development of this supposedly “worthless territory,” appears absurdly
ridiculous. It is amazing that even then an intelligent man should have
entertained so immature a conception of the great country which the Louisiana
Purchase included. Today every heartthrob of the nation, having its inception at
Washington, is felt as keenly and responded to as quickly at any point on the
Pacific Coast as at Boston or Richmond. By snatching a “fugitive occurrence” and
abandoning his former narrow conception of the powers of the General Government,
Jefferson performed, or accepted, an act which was second in importance in his
great career only to the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
But the acquisition of the
Northwest was yet to be accomplished, though, strange as it may appear, until
little more than ten years ago the belief was quite generally entertained by the
American public that the territory embraced in the Louisiana Purchase included
all that lying between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast,
notwithstanding that the historical facts bearing upon the case were accessible
to and should have been understood by everybody. Even the official map issued by
the General Land Office, as late as 1898, so represented the matter. The
question coming to the notice of Hon. Binger Hermann, then the Commissioner in
the Land Department, and for the twelve previous years a member of Congress from
Oregon, that gentleman compiled from the official records the exact history of
the treaty with France and published a correct map showing that all of Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming were secured to the United
States in after years by the enforcement of rights obtained through discovery in
1792, exploration in 1804-1805 by Lewis and Clark, occupation by American
settlers, and, finally, by treaties with England. Indeed, the western boundary
of the Louisiana Purchase was not defined in the terms of the cession, since
Napoleon himself did not know where it rightfully belonged. When questioned
concerning this important feature of the transaction by the American
representatives, Marbois referred the matter to Napoleon and ex pressed his
regret that the western boundary of Louisiana should be so “obscure.” To this
the Man of Destiny gave a reply which was eminently characteristic, to wit, that
“if an obscurity does not exist already, it would, perhaps, be good policy to
put one there.” So, with this indefinite understanding as to what the United
States was getting for its fifteen million dollar investment, the country was
accepted and the details were afterward worked out as circumstances and
responsibility demanded. Fortunately this process required no bloodshed, and in
the course of time the United States came into its own through the occurrence of
a chain of events which those not too skeptical are justified in believing were
ordered by the decrees of a Providence that looks after the ultimate welfare of
the human race.
Having satisfied his
conscience as to the constitutionality of the proceeding which made the most of
a “fugitive occurrence,” Jefferson at once conceived the Lewis and Clark
expedition and lost no time in getting the movement under actual headway.
Jefferson's undoubted ability
as a statesman was exemplified in his proposed organization of the Lewis and
Clark expedition even before the acquisition of Louisiana was accomplished –
before he had even dreamed of such a thing as a possibility. He had no knowledge
of the action of the American representatives at Paris until their return to
Washington in July, 1803, and the treaty of acquisition was not ratified by
Congress until the 20th of the following October. In the previous January he had
asked Congress to provide an adequate appropriation for an expedition to the
mouth of the Columbia River, by way of the headwaters of the Missouri, and that
body had generously granted his request. This is related here for the purpose of
showing that Jefferson, in inaugurating the Lewis and Clark expedition, had no
thought that the great Northwestern territory belonged to the United States
through the purchase of Louisiana, or for any other reason. Indeed, he had
argued in favor of some such procedure a dozen years before, while Secretary of
State under President Washington.
There can be no doubt,
however, that his perspicacity led him to see the great advantages which would
ultimately come to the United States if its territory could be made coextensive
with the continent, and that it was in accordance with this idea that he was
anxious to have American representatives in the field of exploration with the
purpose of establishing prior rights. When we consider the great activity of
Jefferson in the matter of acquiring new territory, together with the ease with
which he surrendered his previous contention for a strict construction of the
Federal Constitution that the country might expand in landed area, one may well
believe, that if he had been actively in the flesh during the past twenty years
he would have aligned himself with the pronounced “expansionists.” The history
of his time fairly bristles with evidence of his anxiety to acquire Cuba as
apart of our domain, and in 1807 (August 10), during his second term as
President, he wrote to Madison, his Secretary of State, discussing the
possibility of war with England, as follows:
I would rather have war with
Spain than not, if we are to go to war against England. Our southern defenses
can take care of the Floridas, volunteers from the Mexican army will flock to
our standard and rich pabulum will be offered to our privateers in the plunder
of their commerce and coasts; probably. Cuba would add itself to our
confederation.
Two years later he again
wrote to Madison, who was then President, as follows:
"That Napoleon would give us
the Floridas to with hold intercourse with the residue of these colonies cannot
be doubted, but that is no price, for they are ours the first moment of the
first war; but, although with difficulty, he will consent to our receiving Cuba
into our Union to prevent our aid to Mexico and other provinces. That will be a
price, and I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limits of Cuba
and inscribe on it a ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. We should
then only have to include the North in our confederacy, which would be, of
course, in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she
has never surveyed since the creation, and I am convinced that no Constitution
was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and
self-government."
All of which is worth knowing
and remembering as very important features of the great movements which, in the
aggregate, resulted in the acquisition of territory which gives us practically
three times the area that we claimed at the close of the Revolution. And it is
also interesting to note the opposition which has always been made to such
expansion, even by men who, in the phrase of the day, should have known better.
The acquisition of the “Oregon Country” – by which term was known almost all
that region north of California and New Mexico and west of the Rocky Mountains –
was not to be merely a “fugitive occurrence, ”since the first serious
consideration of the matter was taken by Congress in 1825, President Monroe
having recommended that a military post be established “at or near the mouth of
the Columbia River,” the purpose of which was not to declare our title to the
country but to protect “our increased and increasing fisheries on the Pacific.”
A bill was introduced at once in the House complying with the President's
request and, in addition to the main purpose of it, pro vision was made for
granting each settler one mile square of land, a forerunner by a full quarter of
a century of the Donation Land Act, which became a law in 1850.
This bill evoked such a
curious debate, manifesting the crude conception which many of our statesmen had
of this Western country at that time, that I quote a few samples which will
illustrate what we have had to “come up through” in the exploitation of what is
really one of the finest sections of the globe for the development of that which
is best in men and women.
Among the most prominent and
sagacious men who took an active part in the debate on the Oregon bill in the
session of 18245 was James Barbour, a Senator from Virginia, who, after
insisting that England had no claim nor title to the Northwestern country,
devoted himself to answering the statement that it was worthless anyway, and
that so vast a country annexed to the United States would not only make our
government unwieldy, but would present a real menace to its perpetuity.
Concerning this phase of the matter, he said:
Fifty years ago and the
valley of the Mississippi was like the present condition of the country of the
Oregon; it is now teeming with a mighty population – a free and happy people.
Their march onward to the country of the setting sun is irresistible. I will not
disguise that I look with deepest anxiety on this vast extension of our empire
and to its possible effect on our political institutions. Whatever they may be,
however, our forefathers decided that the experiment should be made. Our advance
in political science has already cancelled the dogmas of theory. We have already
ascertained, that by the happy combination of national and state governments,
but above all by a wise arrangement of the representatives system, republics are
not necessarily limited to a small territory, and that a government thus
arranged not only produces more happiness, but more stability and more energy
than those most arbitrary.. Whether it is capable of indefinite extent must be
left to posterity to decide. But, in the most unfavorable result, a division, by
necessity, from its unwieldy extent – an event, I would devoutly hope afar off –
we even then can console ourselves with the reflection that all parts of the
great whole will have been peopled by our kindred, carrying with them the same
language, habits and inextinguishable devotion to liberty and republican
institutions.
This was the language of a
statesman, of a man who had studied governments and people, and who was
sufficiently free from prejudice to take a higher view of a great opportunity.
Senator Dickerson of New
Jersey was the leader of the opposition to the effort to provide for a military
post at the mouth of the Columbia. He was certain that, since England and the
United States had signed a treaty in 1818, according to the terms of which both
countries should occupy the Oregon country without claiming title thereto, the
proposed bill, if passed, would be considered as a hostile act by Great Britain
and would probably result in war. Senator Dickerson then turned his shafts of
ridicule upon the proposition to acquire Oregon 'in any manner, and closed his
speech with a remarkable exhibition of misinformation regarding a section of our
common country which is bound in the course of events to become one of its most
attractive and valuable sub divisions. Fully twenty years after the wonderful
journey of Lewis and Clark and fourteen years after the settlement of Astoria,
Senator Dickerson displayed his lack of foresight as to the character of the
Pacific Coast and of the genius of the American people by the following amusing
calculations and sidesplitting predictions. Estimating the distance from
Washington to Oregon to be four thousand six hundred and fifty miles, he said:
"But is this Territory of
Oregon ever to become a State? Never! The distance that a member of Congress
from this State of Oregon will be obliged to travel in coming to the seat of
government, and returning, will be nine thousand three hundred miles. This, at
the rate of eight dollars for every twenty miles would make his traveling
expenses amount to three thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars. Every member
of Congress ought to see his constituents at .least once a year. This is already
very difficult for those in the remote parts of the Union. At the rate which
members of Congress travel according to law, that is, twenty miles per day, it
would require to come to the seat of government and return .four hundred and
sixty five days. But if he should travel at the rate of thirty miles a day, it
would require three hundred and six days. Allowing for Sundays, forty-four days,
it would require three hundred and six days. This would allow the member a fort
night to rest himself at Washington before commencing his journey home. This
rate of traveling would be a hard duty, as the greater part of the way is
exceedingly bad and a. portion of it over the rugged mountains, where Lewis and
Clark found several feet of snow in the latter part of June. Yet, a young, able
bodied Senator might travel from Oregon to Washington and back once a year, but
he could do nothing else. It would be more expeditious, however, to come by
water around Cape Horn, or through Behring's Strait, around the north coast of
the continent to Baffin's Bay, through Davis Strait to the Atlantic Ocean, and
thus on to Washington. It is true that this passage is not yet discovered,
except on the maps, but it will be as soon as Oregon will be a State."
The fallibility of the human
judgment is well illustrated by a glance at the industrial condition now
prevailing in all parts of the Oregon Country, in connection with this
prediction of Senator Dickerson. Of course that speech was made eighty-six years
ago, and that is a long way to look into the future with any degree of
certainty, yet there were those at that time who had the most exalted opinion of
the possibilities and value of the region in controversy, Among these was
Jefferson himself, who soon after the close of the Revolution began to cast his
eye west of the Mississippi and to covet all the country lying between that
stream and the Pacific Ocean, But the man who was one of the earliest champions
of Oregon and who accomplished more than any other when it came before the
public as a matter to be disposed of one way. Qn the other, was Thomas H.
Benton, of Missouri. But for his unceasing championship of the right of the
United States to the whole of the Northwest, and his iaithin its great
industrial and commercial value after it should be settled by the American
people, it is quite among the possibilities that England finally might have
succeeded in obtaining title to it.
The State of Oregon contains
only about one-fourth of the area of the original Oregon Country (the remainder
being composed of the States of Washington and Idaho and parts of Montana and
Wyoming) yet Oregon alone now produces not far from two millions of dollars in
gold each year; its annual wool clip amounts to four millions of dollars, its
wheat fifteen millions and its salmon one million. Its other industries already
developed cover perhaps a greater variety, owing to its wonderful climate and
soil, than any other State in the Union. It has more standing timber of
the best quality than any other State, and Portland, with over two hundred
thousand population, stands at the head of the list of cities in the United
States as an exporter of wheat.
In view of this condition,
while the exploitation of its natural resources is yet in its infancy, the
extract from the speech of Senator Dickerson in 1825 makes good reading and is
well worth a place in this rapid review of events which preceded the final
legislation that established a territorial form of government for Oregon. After
a protracted debate, a bill for this purpose was passed on Sunday morning,
August 13, 1848. The treaty of 1818, providing for joint occupancy, was
terminated by the mutual consent of Great Britain and the United States in 1846,
after a life of eighteen years, and as the result of satisfactory concessions
the whole of the Oregon Country became American territory.
It is interesting to note, in
passing, that one of the greatest forensic efforts of John C. Calhoun was made
in the Senate in opposition to the bill admitting Oregon as a territory, for the
reason that it did not specifically provide for the introduction of slavery
within its boundaries. In the course of this speech he bitterly assailed the
Declaration of Independence, and among other things, said:
"The proposition that 'all men are created free and equal' is a hypothetical
truism. Men are not born free… Infants are born. They grow
to be men. They are not born free. While infants, they are
incapable of freedom; they are subject to their parents. All men are not
created. Only two, a man and a woman, were created, and one of these was
pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by
being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal. Instead of
liberty and equality being born with men, and instead of all men and classes
being entitled to them, they are high prizes to be won, rewards bestowed on
moral and mental development."
But in spite of Mr. Calhoun's
false philosophy and Mr. Dickerson's skepticism, Oregon became a Territory. Ten
years afterward she became a State – the final result of a contest that occupied
the attention of our greatest statesmen for more than thirty years, which in
many of its characteristics was without historic parallel, and which was
illuminated by a series of unusually dramatic and romantic features. These will
be noticed briefly in succeeding chapters while considering the wonderful
westward movement of the Oregon pioneer – a movement which has no counterpart in
history as a peaceful subjugation of a beautiful wilderness, peopled by savages
and under the protection of no nation!
Next Chapter -
The aspirations of Hall J. Kelley to settle the Oregon and his efforts, starting
in 1817, to be a pioneer.
Some other sites with a perspective on early Oregon history can be found at:
If you are interested in finding this book, Fifty
Years in Oregon, it can
often be located at Powell's Books in Portland
which is one of the largest used book stores in the United States or, through the
Alibris service
which catalogs used books from stores across the country. For more information on the Geer Family, visit the Geer Family website. Other resources
and references include:
