Below--The Oregon Territory in 1837. The lower part of the green area--governed by the British Hudson's Bay Company--would be ceded to the United States in 1846. The coastal areas above modern British Columbia were controlled by Russia until 1867. The area below the green territory was the former "Spanish America", under control by Mexico from its independence in 1821 until its loss to American expansionism in the Mexican War after 1848. A chart of the Rogue River area can be seen in the lower left portion of the map, next to the "Oregon Territory" insignia.
Part One--Background to Conflict
(left) A small artifact of Native-American craft work recovered from a site along the Rouge River in southern Oregon, near the present day town of Gold Hill (population 1,100). In 1853, Gold Hill was home to a small military fort known as Fort Lane, named for Joseph Lane the territorial governor sent out by President Millard Fillmore in 1949 to deal with the various native tribes and supervise land claims in the newly formed American territory of Oregon. (American Oregon was carved out after a 1846 border settlement with the British and the Hudson Bay Company. The former had too much trouble with the Corn Laws back home and running much of the the rest of the world to care about holding onto all of the Pacific Northwest.)
, Fort Lane had been built by the troops of the regular Federal Army, not to keep hostile "Indians" from white settlement, but rather as a refuge for local natives. By 1853, most white miners and settlers viewed all "Indians", even sometimes women and children, as fair game for attack if ever one of the whites fell victim to an attack by any small band or single native asserting a right to protect the land of his ancestors.
This policy of settler retribution led to the flaring up of Oregon's worst war between the native peoples off the Rogue (Shastas, Modocs, Umpquas, et al) and the "strangers" from the eastern part of North America. (below) Cow Creek Jennie , member of the Umpqua, a tribe of the northern Rogue River area. She was photographed in the late 1850's.
--By the early 1840's, European-American settlers were beginning to cross the Continental Divide and settle in the Far West. One of these groups of wagoneers, came up through northern Nevada and Idaho and settled in the Willamette Valley area of the British-controlled Oregon Territory. Later many settlers came to stay in the Rogue River Area.
Euro-Americans back East had ingrained in their political and economic sentiments something called "Manifest Destiny". In practical terms it meant that, come what may, the land-hungry US settlers could not rest until the Pacific and Atlantic coasts were under American control and the sparse number of original peoples were pacified. These policies were not new: by the 1830's : thousands of "civilized Indians" (Creeks, Cherokees, Chikosaws, et al ) had already been forced-marched hundreds of miles out of the South Eastern United States to the then-undesirable midwest region in present day Oklahoma. The sadness, death and disease and wanton neglect of "The Trail of Tears" would be played out again on the West Coast a generation later.
During the forced resettlement of Eastern Tribes, white settlement was sparse in the Oregon Territory, which sported only small forts, a few farmers and trading posts. The Native- American tribal population near the Rogue and Klamath Rivers could co-exist most of the time with early traders and fur trappers. But emigrant population pressure was beginning to tip the balance. The whites came with their own ideas of land ownership and low opinions of native peoples. Violence in northern and southern regions of Oregon was inevitable. As Jack Sutton put it in his introduction to the 1969 book "Indian Wars of the Rouge River":
"Though many histories record the fierce savagery of the (native) people, it must be kept in mind that unfair dealing with Indians along the eastern seaboard had become common knowledge among these tribes long before the great (California) gold rush of 1849...unprovoked "attacks and massacres" were in reality often the first steps toward making a final defense against the intrusion of the white man. The "incidents" date back to the Hudson's Bay explorations (of the Rogue Area) in the 1820's"
The Americans and the British had been at loggerheads over a settlement between the two powers since the late 1820's. The first Americans to come to the valleys of western Oregon were retired fur trappers and farmers looking to settle their with their often mixed-race families. In 1843, the Ameircans created a Provisional Government in a famous "Wolf Meeting" in Oregon City, nominally started in an attempt to coordinate the destruction of wolves and bears that were plauging livestock . President John Tyler was slow to respond to the settlers claims for provisional statehood from Washington--he was more concerned with annexing the Texas Republic, because adding Texas to the union would also add a major slave state to the Southern Power bloc in Washington (Tyler was a Virginian and he later served as a legislator in the Confederate Congress in Richmond during the Civil War.) The Presidential election of late 1844, however, brought a new President--and slaveholder, James Knox Polk, to the White House. He was more opportunistic about "opening the West" than even Tyler would have dared.
From the Oregon Blue Book website:
"From the In 1845 President James K. Polk informed Great Britain he wanted resolution of the issue of sovereignty in the Pacific Northwest. In the agreement reached in 1828, the nations had one year in which to resolve the long-simmering "Oregon Question." Polk was an avowed expansionist. A Democrat, he sought the presidency in 1844 on a simple platform: the annexation of Texas and the occupation of Oregon. The Tyler administration took care of acquiring Texas before Polk was sworn into office, but he persisted in an aggressive agenda of American expansion. Polk campaigned under the popular slogan "54-40 or fight," a contention that the southern boundary of Russian America was the northern boundary of Oregon. He pressed through diplomatic channels and used his inaugural address to assert American rights to all of Oregon. His ambitions far exceeded the area of American activity.Resolution came on June 15, 1846, in the Oregon Treaty. Polk was already in pursuit of a greater prize--California--and had helped engineer a declaration of war against Mexico by massing troops along the Texas border until they were attacked by Mexican soldiers. Oregon became a sidebar in the unfolding story of the Mexican War."
In 1850, Gold was discovered in the Rogue River Valley. Small settlements like Ashland and Jacksonville (named for Andrew Jackson, the President who sent the Cherokees and other tribes by force to Oklahoma) sprang up. Conflict was inevitable with the local tribes. What happened will be put forth in select detail in the next installment.
Interesting.....sjn.....
ReplyDeleteA very interesting account of the formation of the modern USA and the Euro-American push westward to Oregon. It is also interesting that the British who had in great measure ignited the revolution by limiting those ambitions had it seems by the 1820s done a complete volte-face on this issue. It is perhaps not a little disconcerting for some posters on Multiply that almost half of modern America was taken from the Mexicans (while the other half was taken from the natives) only 160 years ago.
ReplyDeleteNow to throw a controversial notion into the pot. I would suggest that your observation that the Brits had too much trouble running much of the the rest of the world to care about holding onto all of the Pacific Northwest..... could apply more widely to the previous War of Independence and the emergent United States.
That thesis would propose that so long as Britain held Halifax Nova Scotia and Bermuda for naval purposes (not to mention the rest of British North America/Canada which eventually resulted as a separate country following the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway) they were prepared to cut their losses in the rest of North America. Here I am suggesting only the general attitude of the British Crown and not such business enterprises as the Hudson Bay Company (?).
This is a very interesting topic Doug I look forward to the next installment,as well as a few discourses between times.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to next installment too. I see some similarities between our colonial experiences already, at least in the attitudes of the European/British settlers in regard to their believed superiority over the indigenous peoples. The manifest Destiny sounds somewhat familiar, did you ever read this post of mine? I don't think we were reading each other's pages back this far:
ReplyDeletehttp://irianithewitchnz.multiply.com/journal/item/34/Historical_Eurocentricity_in_International_Law
That is a controvesial proposition indeed...at least in the USA. I heard many Americans who go abroad to study in Britain are surprised that our Revolutionary War (War for Independence) is not given close to the epoch status it is accorded over here, as a "world turned upside down" moment in human history, never mind British interests in North America. A strong argument could be made it was more a "bump in the road" to lose the American Eastern Seaboard/Trans Mississippi Region with the gains made in India, the eminence of the Royal Navy and the decline of France as a serious rival after 1815.
ReplyDeleteNo, I hadn't. Very interesting evolution of how "Natural Law", devised by Europeans, just happens to favor the new European arrivals to anywhere they want to settle into--a doctrine cloaking a naked rationalization for one side "overseeing" others by dint of having more guns and armor a cynic might say.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be Orwellian echoes all through the centuries of European settlement overseas--"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Not that I think Euros were the first civilization to invent such expedient policies.
'Manifest Destiny' or 'American Exceptionalism' is surely the leitmotif of American nationhood. We see it as the justification for the push west on the Oregon Trail, the Mexican War and some might say today we see it in Iraq and elsewhere. The notion that America has a God given 'destiny' to promote the values of democracy and liberty is at the very core of US expansionism and missionary zeal. If human societies have always in history been confronted with the problem of not enough resources and too many people, then America was a singular reversal of that historic dilemma for the burgeoning population of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and especially Britain. The effects of first the agrarian revolution and then the industrial revolution meant that the population of Britain doubled between 1800 and 1850 and then doubled again by 1900. America must have truly looked like the promised land during that period.
ReplyDeleteBut in this discussion of European expansionism in America and in Iri's account of New Zealand... could we not substitute 'European' with 'Christian'?
Is it not therefore true to say that 'manifest destiny' is above all else a christian ideology of the conquest of nature by the chosen ones, the missionaries and a product of spiritual as much as material imperialism?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Christian ideology", AA. As some kind of Calvinist doctrine of proving yourself amongst the predestined elect by gaining fortune at the expense of others, I suppose some settlers felt that way. But a core principle of Christianity is found in Matthew 28:19 "to go forth among nations and baptize..." Violence and abuse are not part of the original initiation process. It was mainly Christian civilizations who abused these people largely, but I would argue it was abuse counter to the original intent of the Gospels, twisted for a cloak of respectability to the business of conquest.
ReplyDeleteI take your points here Doug. I hovered around saying protestant ideology, but decided that would let the Spanish and the French off the hook, so I settled on 'Christian' as a blanket term. I of course agree that there was a fair measure of cynicism and hypocrisy amongst many of the colonisers from Europe, but probably no more than amongst say the Ottomans or other non-Christian imperialists. I was really musing upon 'manifest destiny' I suppose. Harking back to the Revolutionary War period I note that the Loyalist side also included non-combatant support from Quakers and Mennonite pacifists whose beliefs and values tend to confound my earlier assertion. You are also of course quite right to question the generality of my use of the term 'Christian ideology'.... especially in the aftermath of our recent and brief exchange on Tolstoy. My motive here was to move away from an ethnic critique of imperialism to an ideological one, but stated in these simple terms the strategy didn't really hold up.
ReplyDeleteCheers AA