A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

Mr. Astor says: “The plan by me adopted was such as must materially have affected the interests of the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, and it was easy to be foreseen that they would employ every means to counteract my operations, and which, as my impression, I stated to the executive of your department as early as February, 1813.” This hatred of Americans had been so assiduously impressed upon the minds of the Indians, that one of their own vessels arriving in the river, being cast away on Sand Island, all on board were murdered by the Indians, who mistook them for Americans. The company sent a vessel from Vancouver (to which place they had removed their stores and principal depot) to punish the Indians, who had secured most of the wrecked property. The vessel came down and sent shell and grapeshot into the Indian village, destroying men, women, and children, landed their men and took such of their goods as they could find, having gained satisfactory evidence of the murder of the crew of the ship.

This view of the policy and practice of this Northwest and Hudson’s Bay Company, is further sustained by the inquiries which Mr. Keith felt it incumbent on him to make of Mr. Provost, on the restoration of Astoria to the Americans by the British authorities.

Mr. Keith was anxious to learn the extent of the rights of his company to remain and trade in the country. It would seem, from the whole history of these companies, that they felt their rights in the country to be but temporary, that they were trespassers upon American interests, and shaped all their arrangements accordingly.

It is an admitted historical fact that, while the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal was extending its trade across the Rocky Mountains and supplanting the American Pacific Fur Company of Mr. Astor, the Hudson’s Bay Company, with the assistance of Lord Selkirk’s Red River settlement, was cutting off their communication with these western establishments, and that, in consequence of this Red River interference with their trade, a deadly feud sprang up between the rival companies, in which both parties enlisted all the men and Indians over whom they had any influence, and frequently met in drunken and deadly strife, till they had quite destroyed all profits in their trade, and rendered the Indians hostile alike to friend and foe of the white race. So that, in 1821, the British Parliament was compelled to notice their proceedings, and, on the 2d of July, 1821, in an act bearing date as above, says of them: —

“Whereas, the competition in the fur trade between the governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay, and certain associations of persons trading under the name of the Northwest Company of Montreal, has been found, for some years past, to be productive of great inconvenience and loss, not only to the said company and association, but to the said trade in general, and also of great injury to the native Indians, and of other persons subjects of his Majesty; and whereas, the animosities and feuds arising from such competition have also, for some years past, kept the interior of America, to the northward and westward of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and of the Territories of the United States of America, in a state of continual disturbance; and whereas, many breaches of the peace and violence extending to the loss of lives and considerable destruction of property have continually occurred therein,” etc. (See Greenhow’s History of Oregon, p. 467.)

The broad policy of British fur traders is here stated in plain language by their own government in a manner not to be mistaken. Their influence upon the Indians was injurious. Their policy toward each other was war and destruction to all opponents. The life and property of an opposing trader must not come in competition with the profits of their trade with Indians in any country.

How absurd it is for our government to spend millions of dollars to form treaties with Indians who are constantly visited by these foreign Indian traders and teachers, emissaries of a foreign power, who never breathed an honest breath or spoke a truthful word! Feeble and insignificant as they were, from 1813 to 1821 the whole Indian country of North America fell under their blighting and withering influence. Divided as they were, they were able to crush all honest competition, and combine in deadly combat against their own countrymen for the supremacy of the Indian trade. Have they lost their power and influence by uniting the elements of opposition in one vast fur monopoly? Nay, verily, as we shall see.

To gain a correct understanding of the foreign policy relative to the western portion of our country, it will be necessary to refer to the early history of the two fur companies, and trace their connection with France and England, which, notwithstanding the English government had given up the country to France in 1696 in the treaty of Ryswick, and no reservation was made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company – as they did Oregon to the United States in the treaty of Ghent, in 1815, and made no reservation on account of the Northwest Fur Company – still the Hudson’s Bay Company held on to a single post, called Albany, on the southwest part of James Bay, for twenty-six years, as the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay fur companies did to Astoria and Oregon for forty-nine years.

In the wording of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, in which the country was given back to England by France, there is one proviso that is not to be overlooked, viz.: “It is, however, provided, that it may be entirely free for the company of Quebec, and all others the subjects of the most Christian king whatsoever, to go, by land or by sea, whithersoever they please, out of the lands of the said bay, together with all their goods, merchandise, arms, and effects, of what nature or condition soever, except such things as are above reserved in this article,” etc., the exceptions referring to forts, cannon, and permanent war materials.

This French stipulation in the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, is repeated by the English diplomatist upon the Americans, in the third article of the treaty of June 15, 1846, forming the basis of the claim urged against our government in the treaty of 1864.

In the treaty stipulations between France and England in 1714, the commercial rights of the French company of Quebec were secured to them. From that time forward, the aggressive and oppressive policy of the British Hudson’s Bay Company was brought into collision, not only with the French Northwest Fur Company, but with the United States and all American fur companies and missionary and commercial enterprises coming within their fur-trade influence.

It will be remembered that the Hudson’s Bay Company, who claim their existence and privileges from the charter of Charles II., as early as 1670, had, in forty-four years’ time, only established (as Mr. Fitzgerald says) “four or five insignificant forts on the shores of Hudson’s Bay to carry on a trade in furs with those Indians who resorted thither;” while the French, for many years previous, had carried on an active trade with the Indians, and had explored the country and extended their posts up to the shores of the Saskatchewan, and over the Rocky Mountains, on to the waters of the Columbia. The French carried on the traffic by way of the St. Lawrence and the lakes to Fort William, on Lake Superior, and through the Lake of the Woods into Lake Winnipeg, or further south along the plains, crossing the course of the Red River; this being the direct and only line of posts kept up by the French Northwest Company, by which their food, goods, and furs were transported. The Hudson’s Bay Company carried theirs by way of Hudson’s Straits, around the coast of Labrador. In order to destroy and cut off as much as possible the trade of this Northwest Company, Lord Selkirk, in 1811-12, became a shareholder, and was allowed to claim, through the directors of the company, sixteen thousand square miles of territory in the Red River country, for the professed purpose of colonization.

This colony was planted directly in the line of the fur traffic of the Northwest Company, against which the Hudson’s Bay Company had encouraged and carried on the most bitter hostility, enlisting both men and Indians in a deadly feud between the two rival companies.

Our English writer remarks on page 57: “To those who had read the mutual recriminations that had been bandied between these two bodies, it was a strange sight to see the names of Messrs. McGillivray and Edward Ellice associated with that of the Hudson’s Bay Company, – to see men going hand-in-hand who had openly accused one another of the foulest crimes, of wholesale robbery, of allowing their servants to instigate the Indian tribes to MURDER the servants of their rivals, – this was a strange sight. And to see gentlemen who had publicly denied the validity of the company’s charter, who had taken the opinion of the leading counsel of the day against it, who had tried every means, lawful and unlawful, to overthrow it, to see these same men range themselves under its protection, and, asserting all that they had before denied, proclaim its validity as soon as they were admitted to share its advantages; who, without its pale, asserted the rights of British subjects against its monopoly, and, within its pale, asserted its monopoly against the rights of British subjects, – this, too, was a strange sight. Yet to all this did the Hudson’s Bay Company submit, rather than subject their charter and their claims to the investigation of a court of law.”

The Hudson’s Bay Company, one hundred and fifty years from the date of its charter, asserted its right to the country, and, by virtue of the privileges conferred in that charter, seized the supplies and goods of the Northwest French Canadian Company, and confiscated them to its own use. This resulted in a deadly war between the two companies, and was carried on, neither party applying to the courts of the mother country for a settlement of their difficulties; in fact, as has been shown by reference to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, they had no legal rights, because none were in existence at the date of their charter; but, from the maneuvering of the company and the plausible efforts of Lord Selkirk to colonize, civilize, and settle the Red River country, they entered into his schemes, in order to crush the rival company and secure the whole country to themselves. It is unnecessary to detail any accounts of the horrid murders and infamous transactions that were put on foot and perpetrated by these two companies. After a furious contention, carried on for several years, “they bribed rivals whom they could not defeat, and the two companies united and agreed to carry on the fur trade together, to the exclusion of all others.”

The Selkirk settlement was soon made to feel the withering influence of the company that had located it in the country for a specific purpose, Neither, however, was there any compromise till its inhabitants had been driven from their homes, its Governor (Semple) and seventeen of his followers killed. Then a compromise was effected between the rival companies, and they were united by an act of Parliament, under the title of Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company, in 1821, – a license given to Messrs. William and Simon McGillivray, of the Northwest Company, and Edward Ellice, of the Hudson’s Bay Company. These corporate members and their associates “were to share the profits arising from the fur trade, not only from the Indian territories, but also from the Hudson’s Bay Company’s proper territories of Rupert’s Land.” The privileges of this company were limited to seven years. This carried them forward to 1828, in which year their license (called a charter) was renewed for ten years.

Our Indian missionary and American history commences in 1832, six years before this combined Northwest and Hudson’s Bay Company’s license of exclusive privileges to trade in British Indian Territory, and, jointly, in the Oregon Territory, would expire. Our English historian and Sir Edward Belcher are both mistaken when they attribute to the company the asking for, or in any way encouraging, the American missionaries to come to the country. This was an event wholly unknown to them, and brought about by the Indians themselves, by sending a delegation of four of their number to St. Louis, in 1832, to ask of the American people a religious teacher. Lee, Parker, and Whitman heard the request, and volunteered to make the effort to establish missions among them.

These missionaries all came across the Rocky Mountains unasked and uninvited by any one in the service of that company.

CHAPTER III

English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon. – British claim to Oregon. – Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company. – Treatment of Red River settlers. – A mistake. – Sir Edward Belcher. – Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company. – A noble man. – An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company. – Sir James Douglas’s testimony. – J. Ross Browne. – Duty of an historian. – Cause and effect.

Since commencing this work we have, by the kindness of friends who have taken a deep interest in all that relates to this country, been furnished with many valuable and important statements, documents, pamphlets, papers, and books, all relating to its early history.

Of the whole catalogue, the most valuable information is contained in a work entitled “An Examination of the Charter and Proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, with Reference to the Grant of Vancouver’s Island. By James Edward Fitzgerald. London.” Published in 1849.

The author of this book, though not having the personal knowledge of the company, the Indians, and the country about which he writes requisite to a complete history, has shown a correctness of statistical facts, a comprehensive knowledge of his subject, an enlarged view of the British colonial system, and a correct idea of the debasing practices and utterly false positions of the Hudson’s Bay Company not found in any other writer.

Up to the time that this book of 293 pages fell into my hands, I did not know that any writer entertained similar views with myself in relation to this monstrous imposition upon the British and American people.

Mr. Fitzgerald has fortified his statements by his knowledge of the English people, their laws and usages, and the casual outcroppings of a system of unparalleled selfishness and despotism, carried on under the guise of a Christian commercial company, whose professed object was to extend commerce, and civilize and christianize the savage tribes of North America, yet who have invariably held up their Christian chartered privileges for the sole purpose of carrying on the most degrading and inhuman practices with not only the savages, but with all civilized and Christian men who have attempted to expose or even investigate their conduct.

As we proceed with our history, we feel confident that we shall be able to enlighten our readers on many dark subjects and transactions, and to fully prove every statement we have made, or may yet make. Mr. Fitzgerald has given us clearly and truthfully the English side of our history as connected with this Hudson’s Bay Company. The American part of it the writer is gathering up, and, in giving it to the public, will discard every statement that does not bear the impress of truth.

The reader will notice that our subject is extensive, that England and America, commerce and Christianity, civilization and savagism, are all involved and interested in it, and that Oregon, California, and British and Russian America have all participated in it during the past and present century; that we are tracing cause and effect and bringing to light influences that, while producing their legitimate results, were strange and unaccountable, because always kept under the selfish and unscrupulous policy of this English corporation of fur traders.

By referring to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, we find that it was given by Charles II., in 1670, granting to the “governor and company and their successors the exclusive right to trade, fish, and hunt in the waters, bays, rivers, lakes, and creeks entering into Hudson’s Straits, together with all the lands and territories not already occupied or granted to any of the king’s subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or State.”

Forty years previous to the giving of this charter by Charles II., of England, Louis XIII., of France, gave a charter to a French company, who occupied the country called Acadia, or New France.

In 1632, Charles I., of England, resigned to Louis XIII., of France, the sovereignty of the country then called Acadia, or New France.

Forty years after Louis XIII., of France, had given his charter, and thirty-eight years after Charles I., of England, had given up his right to the country, Charles II., of England, imitating the example of him who wished to give the world and all its glory to obtain the worship of the Saviour of mankind, gave to the Hudson’s Bay Company what he had not the shadow of a title to, as in the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, twenty-seven years after this charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company had been given, the whole country was confirmed to France, and no reservation made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Mr. Fitzgerald, on his 12th page, says: “It has often been asserted, and is to a great extent believed, because there is very little general information on this subject, that the claim which Great Britain made to the Oregon Territory was dependent upon, or, at any rate, strengthened by, the settlement of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Columbia River.

“Those who hold such an opinion will be surprised to learn that there are many, and they well acquainted with the country itself, who assert that the conduct and policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the Oregon Territory formed the chief part of the title which the United States had to the country, which was gratuitously given to her by the settlement of the boundary. What the United States owe to the company for its policy on the west side of the Rocky Mountains is a question to which the English public will some day demand a satisfactory answer.

“Dr. McLaughlin was formerly an agent in the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal; he was one of the most enterprising and active in conducting the war between that association and the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the year 1821, when the rival companies united, Dr. McLaughlin became a factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. But his allegiance does not appear to have been disposed of along with his interests, and his sympathy with any thing other than British, seems to have done justice to his birth and education, which were those of a French Canadian. This gentleman was appointed governor of all the country west of the Rocky Mountains, and is accused, by those who have been in that country, of having uniformly encouraged the emigration of settlers from the United States, and of having discouraged that of British subjects. While the company in this country (England) were asserting that their settlements on the Columbia River were giving validity to the claim of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory, it appears that their chief officer on the spot was doing all in his power to facilitate the operations of those whose whole object it was to annihilate that claim altogether.”

Mr. Fitzgerald has given us in the above statement an important fact, and one that reveals to an American the deep-laid schemes of the English government, which, by the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, sought to secure the Oregon Territory to itself. He also explains the conduct of Dr. McLaughlin in his treatment of emigrants, as well as the relation he sustained to that company. While, as Americans, we can admire and applaud the conduct of a noble and generous “Canadian-born” citizen, we at the same time can see the low, debasing, and mean spirit of the Englishman, as manifested in the attempt to deprive the American Republic of its rightful domain.

We shall have occasion to refer to the bringing into Oregon of the Red River settlers, and as the result of that move, the unparalleled effort of Dr. Whitman to defeat the British designs upon the country.

Mr. Fitzgerald explains that matter so well, that we could not do justice to the truth of history not to quote him. He says, on the 14th page of his work: “There is one story told, about which it is right that the truth should be ascertained. It is said that a number of half-breeds from the Red River settlement were, in the year of 1841-2, induced by the company’s officers to undertake a journey entirely across the continent, with the object of becoming settlers on the Columbia River. It appears that a number went, but on arriving in the country, so far from finding any of the promised encouragement, the treatment they received from Dr. McLaughlin was such, that, after having been nearly starved under the paternal care of that gentleman, they all went over to the American settlement in the Wallamet Valley.”

This statement, while it affirms an important fact, gives a false impression as regards Dr. McLaughlin. He, to our certain knowledge, extended to the Red River settlers every facility within his power, and all of those emigrants to this day speak of his kindness in the highest terms. But not so of other leading or controlling members, who really represented the English part and policy of that company. Those settlers complained of the domineering and tyrannical treatment of their English overseers, which was the cause of their leaving what they supposed would eventually be the English part of Oregon Territory. They also became sensible that the Hudson’s Bay Company in Oregon was a different concern from the Hudson’s Bay Company in Rupert’s Land; that, however small their privileges were there, they were less on Puget Sound; and being near an American settlement, they naturally sought its advantages and protection.

Mr. Fitzgerald informs us that “these emigrants became citizens of the United States, and it is further said were the first to memorialize Congress to extend the power of the United States over the Oregon Territory. For the truth of these statements we do not, of course vouch, but we do say they demand inquiry.”

This statement of Mr. Fitzgerald entitles him to be considered a candid and fair writer, and one who is seeking for truth in reference to the subject he is investigating. He has naturally imbibed the feelings of an Englishman against Dr. McLaughlin, under the strong effort made by the English Hudson’s Bay Company to suppress and supersede the French Canadian influence in it.

He says, on page 15: “Dr. McLaughlin’s policy was so manifestly American that it is openly canvassed in a book written by Mr. Dunn, one of the servants of the company, and written for the purpose of praising their system and policy.”

Sir Edward Belcher also alludes to this policy. He says: “Some few years since, the company determined on forming settlements on the rich lands situated on the Wallamet and other rivers, and for providing for their retired servants, by allotting them farms, and further aiding them by supplies of cattle, etc. That on the Wallamet was a field too inviting for missionary enthusiasm to overlook, but instead of selecting a British subject to afford them spiritual assistance, recourse was had to Americans, a course pregnant with evil consequences, and particularly in the political squabble pending, as will be seen by the result. No sooner had the American and his allies fairly squatted (which they deem taking possession of the country), than they invited their brethren to join them, and called on the American government for laws and protection.”

The American reader will smile at Sir Edward’s little fling at the squatters in Oregon. He asserts a great truth in the same sentence that he utters a positive falsehood. No member of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor the whole company together, ever encouraged a single American missionary to come to the country. Revs. Lee and Parker and Dr. Whitman came without their invitation or aid. They were entirely independent of the company, and were only suffered to remain, the company not daring to drive them from the country on their first arrival, as they all held the protection of the American government, as Indian teachers, under the great seal of the Secretary of War. This English fling at their own company is evidence of a jealousy existing which could not be satisfied short of the utter extermination of all American influence on this coast, and is further illustrated by this same Sir Edward Belcher, in contrasting the treatment of Captain Wilkes and his party with that of his own. He says (vol. 1, p. 297): “The attention of the chief to myself and those immediately about me, particularly in sending down fresh supplies, previous to my arrival, I feel fully grateful for; but I can not conceal my disappointment at the want of accommodation exhibited toward the crews of the vessels under my command in a British possession.” We old Oregonians are amused at Sir Edward’s ignorance of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s treatment of the crews of vessels, and servants of the company. We all know his crew were allowed to associate freely with the native women in the country and to distribute their rations of rum, and any other supplies they might have, without any remonstrance from the company. Sir Edward continues: “We certainly were not distressed, nor was it imperatively necessary that fresh beef and vegetables should be supplied, or I should have made a formal demand. But as regarded those who might come after, and not improbably myself among the number, I inquired in direct terms what facilities her Majesty’s ship of war might expect, in the event of touching at this port for bullocks, flour, vegetables, etc. I certainly was extremely surprised at the reply that they were not in a condition to supply. As any observation here would be useless, and I well knew this point could be readily settled where authority could be referred to, I let the matter rest. But having been invited to inspect the farm and dairy, and been informed of the quantity of grain, and the means of furnishing flour, and notwithstanding the profusion of cattle and potatoes, no offer having been made for our crew, I regretted that I had been led into the acceptance of private supplies; although, at that time, the other officers of the establishment had told my officers that supplies would of course be sent down.”