From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Manifest Destiny (Was : Re: 200 years of Peace and Friendship
Keywords: Oregon, Manifest Destiny, Polk
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:25:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.140226.7622@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (B-rent) writes:
>> > The actual text is: 
>> > 1844 - The British land grab into the Oregon territory became a
>> > political issue.  Polk's cry of "54-40 or fight" stirred Americans once
>> > again to fight the British to preserve our national borders.
>> > 
>> 
>> But it wasn't ours to begin with.  The Oregon territory was claimed by 
>> US, Britain, and Russia.  Russia finally decided it was too far away to
>> bitch about and gave up their claim.  It was not owned by the United States.
>> It was not part of the United States.  The Oregon territory was jointly
>> claimed by both US and Britain.  Britain had a legitimate claim to it and
>> that is why they ended up with half.
>>
> Right, but in this case the British did not want to even give up 'half.'
> I believe America's 'Legitimate Claim' was the L. Purchase.  I think
> I remember an overlap, but am not sure (no old-map text nearby).  Anyway
> I would like to see a deeper historical probing of it.  I think I
> remember (dredge WAY back now...) something about negotiations with the
> British about it ... can someone help me out with this?

Both Britain and US had valid claims (insofar as any claim that ignores the
original inhabitants is valid) to the Oregon territory, defined here as the
present day Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. (Spanish and Russians
did also, but they dropped out early.) On the British side, Cook and Vancouver
had explored the coastline, with Vancouver mapping out Puget sound,
 while Mackenzie was first to reach the territory overland.  On the US side,
 Gray discovered the Columbia River, while Lewis and Clark first reached
the southern regions of the territory overland. The Louisiana purchase is
not relevant, since France had no claim to the territory.

 In 1818 Britain and the USA agreed to joint occupation, and there matters
rested for about 25 years. In the 1830's Americans began to settle in
the Willamette valley, south of the Columbia. Britain had some smaller
settlements (mostly trading posts) to the north, including Ft. Vancouver
on the Columbia (present day Vancouver, WA.) Britain then argued that the
territory should be divided at the Columbia - and I confess that seems 
fair to me, given the history and the settlement patterns at the time.
Polk then claimed ALL of the territory up to 54/50, i.e. most of B.C.
After some sabre-rattling on both sides the agreement was reached to divide
the territory at 49 degrees.
>  
>> Also if it "stirred Americans once again to fight the British to preserve
>> our national borders" why didn't we fight for it?  Mainly because we knew
>> we couldn't have it all.  What you are talking about is Manifest Destiny.
>> A concept so screwed up we thought we owned everything!
>>
> 
> I don't agree.  Manifest Destiny as a docterine stated that we may not
> own everything now, but in time we would.  It was not screwed up, but
> gave the psychological impetus for settling this entire swath!  Screwed
> up - NOT AT ALL.  Totally inappropriate for the modern times, but 
> VERY GOOD for those times!  (Don't trash something because it is 
> inappropriate(sp) for modern times!)

 Hmmm - not so good for Mexicans or Amerindians, was it? And the goal
 of the more rabid Manifest Destiny types was ALL of North America.
 They wanted the US to annex ALL of Mexico, rather than the 40% we took,
 and hoped to rope in Canada as well.
> 
> Also another underlying assumption - mass media.  There really was
> none in America.  The big campaign speeches, and 'great' things
> like that were limited to a local speech by the representative
> or (if you were VERY lucky) a single presidential speech!  If you
> lived in DC, however, it would be different.  Thee was none of the
> so-called 'deep probing' of candidates.  The whole idea of 
> 'stirring' America by a speech or two is totally ludicrous!
> My question to the textbook and to a lot of posters is HOW????
> Smoke signals?
 Don't forget that most VOTING americans lived on the east coast. Communications
 were pretty good - so what if you had to rely on a weekly newspaper, or if
 the mail took a few days - and telegraphs and railroads were coming into
 operation.
 A good many Americans thought Polk was a jerk.

 Robert

 (PS. I have removed soc.culture.celtic from the followup.)
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA