SPEECH

Speech on the Oregon Bill, delivered in the Senate, January 24th, 1843.

MR. CALHOUN said it ought to be borne in mind, in the discussion of this measure, that there is a conflict between our claim and that of Great Britain to the Oregon territory; and that it extends to the whole territory from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and from the northern limits of Mexico, in latitude 42°, to the southern limits of the Russian Possessions, in latitude 54°. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the two governments have made frequent attempts to adjust their conflicting claims, but, as yet, without success. The first of these was made in 1818. It proved abortive; but a convention was entered into which provided that the territory should be left free and open to our citizens and the subjects of Great Britain for ten years; the object of which was to prevent collision and preserve peace till their respective claims could be adjusted by negotiation. The next was made in 1824, when we offered to limit our claim to the territory by the 49th degree of latitude, which would have left to Great Britain all north of that latitude to the southern boundary of Russia. Her negotiator objected, and proposed the Columbia River as the boundary between the possessions of the two countries. It enters the ocean about the 46th degree of latitude. It follows that the portion of the territory really in dispute between the two countries is about three degrees of latitude that is, about one-fourth of the whole. The attempt to adjust boundaries again failed, and nothing was effected. I learn from our negotiator (a distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania, now in this city), that the negotiation

was conducted with much earnestness, and not a little feeling, on the part of the British negotiators.

In 1827, just before the termination of the ten years, another attempt was made at an adjustment. The negotiation was conducted on our part by Mr. Gallatin. The whole subject was discussed fully, and with great ability and clearness on both sides; but, like the two preceding, failed to adjust the conflicting claims. The same offers were made respectively, by the parties, that were made in 1824, and again rejected. All that could be done was to renew the convention of 1818,-but with the provision that each party might, at its pleasure, terminate the agreement by giving a year's notice. The object of the renewal was, as in 1818, to preserve peace for the time, by preventing either party from asserting its exclusive claim to the territory; and that of the insertion of the provision-to give either party the right of doing so whenever it might think proper, by giving the stipulated notice.

Nor ought it to be forgotten that, during the long interval from 1818 to this time, continued efforts have been made in this and the other House to induce Congress to assert, by some act, our exclusive right to the whole territory, and they have all heretofore failed. It now remains to be seen whether this bill, which covers the whole territory, as well north as south of the 49th degree of latitude, and provides for granting land, and commencing systematically the work of colonization and settlement, shall share the fate of its predecessors.

To determine whether it ought or ought not, involves the decision of two preliminary questions. The first iswhether the time is now arrived when it would be expedient, on our part, to attempt to assert and maintain our exclusive claim to the territory, against the adverse claim of Great Britain; and the other-whether, if it has, the mode proposed in this bill is the proper one.

In discussing them, I do not intend to consider the question of our right to the territory,-nor its value,―nor whether Great Britain is actuated by that keen, jealous, and hostile spirit towards us which has been attributed to her in this discussion. I shall, on the contrary, assume our title to be as valid as the warmest advocate of this bill asserts it to be; the territory to be, as to soil, climate, production, and commercial advantages, all that the ardent imagination of the author of the measure paints it to be; and Great Britain to be as formidable and jealous as she has been represented. I make no issue on either of these points. I controvert none of them. According to my view of the subject, it is not necessary. On the contrary, the clearer the title, the more valuable the territory, and the more powerful and hostile the British Government, the stronger will be the ground on which I rest my opposition to the bill.

With these preliminary remarks, I repeat the question, Has the time arrived when it would be wise and prudent for us to attempt to assert and maintain our exclusive right to the territory against the adverse and conflicting claim of Great Britain? I answer, No, it has not; and that for the decisive reason,-because the attempt, if made, must prove unsuccessful against the resistance of Great Britain. We could neither take nor hold it against her; and that for a reason not less decisive,-that she could in a much shorter time, and at far less expense, concentrate a far greater force than we could in the territory.

We seem to forget, in the discussion of this subject, the great events which have occurred in the eastern portion of Asia during the last year, and which have so greatly extended the power of Great Britain in that quarter of the globe. She has there, in that period, terminated successfully two wars; by one of which she has given increased quiet and stability to her possessions in India; and, by the other, has firmly planted her power on the eastern coast of

China, where she will undoubtedly keep up, at least for a time, a strong military and naval force, for the purpose of intimidation and strengthening her newly-acquired possession. The point she occupies there, on the western shore of the Pacific, is almost directly opposite to the Oregon Territory, at the distance of about five thousand five hundred miles from the mouth of the Columbia River, with a tranquil ocean between, which may be passed over in six weeks. In that short time she might place, at a moderate expense, a strong naval and military force at the mouth of that river, where a formidable body of men, as hardy and energetic as any on this continent, in the service of the Hudson's Bay Company, and numerous tribes of Indians under its control, could be prepared to sustain and co-operate with it. Such is the facility with which she could concentrate a force there to maintain her claim to the territory against ours, should they be brought into collision by this bill.

I now turn to examine our means of concentrating an opposing force by land and water, should it become necessary to maintain our claim. We have no military or naval position in the Pacific Ocean. Our fleet would have to sail from our own shores,-to cross the line and double Cape Horn in 56 degrees of south latitude, and, turning north, recross the line and ascend to latitude 46 north, in order to reach the mouth of Columbia River-a distance from NewYork (over, the straightest and shortest line) of more than 13,000 miles, and which would require a run of more than 18,000 of actual sailing on the usual route. Instead of six weeks, the voyage would require six months. I speak on the authority of one of the most experienced officers attached to the Navy Department.

These facts are decisive. We could do nothing by water. As far as that element is concerned, we could not oppose to her a gun or a soldier in the territory.

But, great as are the impediments by water, they are,

VOL. IV.-16

at present, not much less so by land. If we assume some central point in the State of Missouri as the place of rendezvous, from which our military force would commence its march for the territory, the distance to the mouth of the Columbia River will be found to be about two thousand miles;-of which much more than a thousand miles would be over an unsettled country, consisting of naked plains or mountainous regions, without provisions, except such game as the rifle might supply. On a greater portion of this long march the force would be liable to be attacked and harassed by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians, whose hostilities might be readily turned against us by the British traders. To march such a distance without opposition would take upward of 120 days,-assuming the march to be at the usual rate for military forces. Should it be impeded by the hostilities of Indians, the time would be greatly prolonged.

I now ask, How could any considerable force sustain itself in so long a march, through a region so destitute of supplies? A small detachment might live on game, but that resource would be altogether inadequate to the support of an army. But, admitting an army could find sufficient supplies to sustain itself on its march to the territory, how could it sustain itself in an uncultivated territory, too remote to draw supplies from our settlements in the rear, and with the ocean in front closed against it by a hostile fleet? And how could supplies be found to return if a retreat should become necessary? In whatever view the subject may be regarded, I hazard nothing in asserting that, such is the difficulty, at present, on our part, of concentrating and maintaining a force in the territory, that a few thousand regulars, advantageously fortified on the Columbia River, with a small naval force to support them, could, with the aid of the employees of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the co-operation of the Indians under its influence, bid defiance to any effort we could make to dislodge them. If all other