From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Purported inaccuracies in 200 years of Peace and Friendship
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:54:07 GMT

[Cross-posted from soc.culture.celtic.]

In article <1992Apr8.084003@mark.enet.dec.com>, holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
> 
>   
>   I've included below the references used by F. Robert Dougherty for
>   his article, 200 years of Peace and Friendship.   I suggest that anyone
>   who has misjudged this article,  as the work of a lier, or propagandist,  
>   please check his references.
> 
>                                                   Mark
> 
> 
>   References:
>    Bailey, Thomas A. The American Pageant. Vol. II, D.C. Heath & Col, 1971
>    Hendrick, Burton J. The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, Doubleday, Page
>    and Col, 1923.

 OK, let's check Dougherty against Bailey's book, since I have it close by.
 (It is a conventional narrative history of the US, reasonably even-handed
 though old-fashioned in its focus.)
 Brackets [] indicate my comments.
____________________________________________

Dougherty:
    "1815 - The British tried to invade Louisiana after the War of 1812 was
     concluded, but were soundly defeated by Irishman Andrew Jackson at New
     Orleans."

Bailey, p. 212:
"The glorious news of New Orleans [8 Jan. 1815] reached Washington early
 in February, and about two weeks later came the tidings of the treaty
 of peace ...More support was thus given to the legend that we soundly 
 'thrashed' the British for a second time in the War of 1812"

[I can only conclude that Dougherty is deliberately trying to deceive the
 reader into thinking that the British army _knew_ the peace had been
signed, but invaded anyway.]
____________________________________________________

Dougherty:
   "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."

Bailey pp 287 ff:
"The British claims to Oregon were strong - at least to that portion north
of the Columbia river. They were based squarely on prior dicovery and 
exploration, on treaty rights, and on actual occupation....The Americans,
for their part, could also point pridefully to exploration and occupation"
"The scattered Americans and British in Oregon continued to live peacefully
side by side. At the time of negotiating the treaty of 1818, the US had
sought to divide this vast territory along the line of the 49th parallel.
But the British...were unwilling to yield this vital artery [the Columbia].
A scheme for peaceful joint occupation was accordingly adopted, pending
a future settlement."
"By 1846 there were about 5000 American settlers _south_ of the Columbia
River...The British...could muster only 700 or so subjects north of the
Columbia."
"The British had repeatedly offered the line of the Columbia, the Americans
the 49th parallel. The whole fateful issue was now tossed into the
Presidential election of 1844."
"The expansionist Democrats ...came out flat-footedly in the platform for
the 'reannexation of Texas' and the 'Reoccupation of Oregon', all the way
to 54 -40. Outbellowing the Whig Log-cabinites in the game of slogans, they
shouted, 'Young Hickory, Dallas, and Victory' and 'All of Oregon or None'"

[Let me summarize the rest: once elected, Polk backs down and offers 49, 
Britain continues to insist on the Columbia, impasse for a year, Britain 
eventually agrees to 49, which the US senate accepts, "despite a few
diehard shouts of '54-40 forever!'"
Notice that Britain _never_ claimed the land south of the Columbia, 
the modern state of Oregeon, which was where the US settlements were.
I see no British "land grab". And certainly no fight.]
______________________________________________________________

Dougherty:
    1903 - The British tried another land grab on the Alaskan Border.  When
    the typical British intransigence was encountered, President Theodore
    Roosevelt set the border and told the British to accept it or we would
    seize what was properly ours.  The British once again faced with war
    backed down.

Bailey, pp. 643-644:
"Our vast northern neighbor [Canada, not Britain, by this time!] had, for 
several years, seriously disputed with us the line between herself and the 
Alaska panhandle. We contended..the boundary shoud follow the snake-like
windings of the coast. The Canadians [not British!] argued that the line
should be run straighter, leaving the heads of the deeper inlets in their
hands. Finally, in 1903 a treaty was concluded between London and Washington.
It referred the controversy to six 'impartial justices of repute', three
Americans appointed by President Roosevelt and three British subjects - two
Canadians and one Briton - named by Edward VII."
"Roosevelt, cocksure as usual, convinced himself that the Canadian claims
were 'an outrage pure and simple'. Behind the scenes, he brandished his
Big Stick, threatening that if America lost he would seise what was properly
ours with our own troops. The key British arbitrator, faced with the awful
responsibility of starting a war, may have been unduly swayed. The tribunal
finally voted four to two - the two being Canadians - in favor of the basic
American contention, although narrowing somewhat the coastal strip. [In other
words, US got the inlets but gave up territory further inland.] The
Canadians were deeply angered, perhaps more so by the British, who had 
sacrificed them, than by Roosevelt, who had browbeaten them."

[Bailey's discussion is actually oversimplified - it omits the Klondike Gold
Rush and the subsequent influx of Americans into Canada, which is what
set off the imbroglio - but even so, I see no indication of a "land grab",
particularly not a British one. The British were actively courting US
friendship in those days. I see no "British intransigence". And Roosevelt
did not "set the border" - in spite of TR's bluster, the
final boundary was a compromise, although US did better out of it.]

I stand by my previous statement: Dougherty's article is a deliberate and
malicious distortion of the historical record.

Robert