History vs. the Whitman Saved Oregon Story/Why His Search (?) for the Truth of History was a Failure
WHY HIS SEARCH (?) FOR THE TRUTH OF HISTORY WAS A FAILURE.
Being a Review of Rev. Myron Eells' "Reply to Professor Bourne." By Principal Wm. I. Marshall of Chicago.
(Copyright, 1903, by Wm. I. Marshall.)
All rights reserved.
To examine critically Rev. M. Eells' "Reply to Professor Bourne's 'The Legend of Marcus Whitman'" is very difficult, because Mr. Eells' methods are so unlike those of careful historians that one accustomed to reading books whose authors summarize fairly, and quote honestly and accurately the authorities to which they refer, and never suppress all mention of authorities which they cannot twist to support their own preconceived theories, is continually bewildered in reading this "Reply," and in doubt whether what he encounters on almost every page is evidence of incapacity or dishonesty.
MR. EELLS' NATURAL LIMITATIONS.
The circumstances of Mr. Eells' life make it impossible to hold him to a very high standard of performance in many respects. Born on the extremest frontier in a log cabin, and living nearly all his life on the frontier, (mostly around Indian agencies, which are not generally believed to be places specially stimulating to careful research, accurate statements or candor in discussion), he has had little opportunity to work" in any library of even moderate size, and, totally lacking scientific training, he seems entirely destitute of any comprehension of the use of scientific methods in historical research, and of what constitutes valid evidence. Naturally, also, as a son of Rev. C. Eells, one of the originators of the "Whitman Saved Digitized by VjOOQ IC Oregon" story, he has the strongest kind of personal and family interest in finding some method of making that story appear to be true.
But when all allowances have been made for these matters, and also for his apparently total lack of any sense of humor, the public had a right to demand of him either that he should not have written at all, or that he should have produced a much more creditable book than he has, since all these, deficiencies cannot justify the deliberate concealment or misquotation of such authorities as are perfectly well known to the author.
HIS ONE GREAT ADVANTAGE—WHICH HE CAREFULLY REFRAINED FROM USING.
HIS STRANGE NOTIONS OF CANDOR AND FAIRNESS SHOWN IN HIS TREATMENT OF PROFESSOR JOHN FISKE's COMMENDATORY LETTER TO ME.
MY OFFER TO W. A. MOWRY TO REST THE CASE ON THE CORRESPONDENCE OF WHITMAN AND HIS ASSOCIATES IF HE WOULD INDUCE THE A. B. C. F. M. TO PRINT IT.
As to the charge that I was afraid to meet the advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story in argument, it only needs to be said that nearly six years ago I proposed to Dr. W. A. Mowry, that if he would induce the American Board to print every letter in its archives from Mr. and Mrs. Whitman, together with such other letters as I should name from the correspondence of the other members of the Oregon Mission, viz.: Rev. C. Eells, Rev. H. H. Spalding, Rev. Elkanah Walker, Rev. A. B. Smith, Mr. W. H. Gray and Mr. Cornelius Rogers, together with such letters as I should select from the published correspondence of the above parties, and such as I should select from the correspondence of Rev. G. H. Atkinson with the American Board, so that the world might have a chance to judge exactly what the facts are about the founding and continuance and termination of the Whitman-Spalding-Eells Mission, and the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride, I would contribute $500 (which would be fully one-half of the necessary expense of it) towards the cost, of the publication, and would rest the question of the origin, purposes and results of Whitman's ride entirely on those letters and on the reports of the action of the Prudential Committee of the Board thereon as shown by its official records, and by the letters which its Secretary sent in reply to them. My only conditions were that they should print the fyll text of those letters, and the replies to them, and the action of the Prudential Committee on them, with correct copies of the memoranda showing the date of receipt of each letter, and that they should print and put on sale at least 2,500 copies and furnish me free of cost 250 copies. While I only stipulated for the publication of such letters as I should select, I distinctly stated that it was only because of the great volume of other letters which related merely to routine missionary business, and do not possess the least value for the purposes of the general historian, casting no light whatever on any controverted points, but I also added, that if the American Board thought the publication of this inconsequential correspondence would be of any benefit, I should not object, and if they would only furnish to the public an accurate copy of the text of the letters and records I asked them to print, I did not care how much more they printed, nor how many notes and explanations they might print in an appendix or as footnotes. To this letter I never received any reply. That offer still holds good, but there is no probability that it will ever be accepted.
MYSELF IMPOSED ON BY THE WHITMAN SAVED OREGON STORY FROM 1877 TO 1882.
It is now more than twenty-seven years since I began the study of the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, and for five years I was imposed upon by the Saving Oregon theory of Whitman's ride, as told by Gray, and Spalding, and Rev. C. Eells. Twenty-two years ago I found that story to be fictitious, and since that have never faltered in my determination to publish the truth about it, as soon as I should find myself able to do so. Compelled to work steadily at my profession as a teacher to support my family, and caught and nearly ruined in the panic of 1893, I have not yet found myself able to publish the indisputable evidence which I have been so long and carefully collecting. Finding the Whitman Saved Oregon story, with all its astonishing perversions of the real history of the longest, most interesting, most successful and most remarkable diplomatic struggle we have ever made for territory was being imposed upon the children of the nation through their school histories, I decided six years ago, that though I could not afford to publish a book, I could (as my daughter was my tpyewriter) afford to send typewritten criticisms of the amazing errors into which some of the ablest of our historians had fallen through accepting Gray, and Spalding, and C. Eells, and Barrows, and Nixon, and Mowry, and Coffin, and Craighead, and M. Eells as trustworthy authorities, instead of going to original sources, as I had done in all cases. These manuscripts have been read by some three-score historians and historical students, including Professors of History in Universities and Colleges, Teachers of History in Normal, and High, and Elementary Schools, Judges, Clergymen, Editors and Librarians, and except W. A. Mowry, every person—man or woman—who has read even one-quarter part of them has been convinced that they completely overthrow each and every form of the Whitman Saved Oregon story; and nearly all of these persons had been believers in the Whitman Saved Oregon story, and many of them had put it in their books or otherwise publicly advocated it Dr. Mowry was not convinced, not, as Mr. Eells says, "Because he had studied both sides of the subject;" but it is because his "study of the subject" has been controlled by those unique ideas of the limits of historical investigation and publication, stated in his letter of December 9, 1898 (Cf. p. 9 ante for this), that he still asserts that "Whitman Saved Oregon." To all the professional historians, and also the compilers of school histories, to whom I sent my manuscripts, I wrote urging each to subject my statements to the most rigorous examination, to verify for themselves the fairness of any or all summaries, and the accuracy of any or all quotations, and to have the kindness to inform me if they found any erroneous statement of fact, or inaccuracy in quotation or unfairness in summarizing such documents as I could not find space to quote in full, believing that any one who points out an error I have made does me a kindness, by enabling me to be wiser hereafter than I have been heretofore. To help them to arrive at the exact facts about the arguments advanced by the advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, I sent several of them for examination a copy of Rev. M. Eells' pamphlet, "Marcus Whitman, M. D., Proofs of His Work in Saving Oregon to the United States, etc." Portland, 1883, and also a copy of the "Whitman Controversy," Portland, 1885, and only regretted that I had not copies enough of both to have sent a copy of each with each set of my MSS. No one of those who read my MSS. found a single error of fact, or a single inaccurate quotation, or a single unfair summary. Among those who having heard of my MSS. asked the privilege of reading them was the late Professor John Fiske, and when through with them he wrote me a letter which the reader will find printed verbatim in the reprint from the Transactions of the American Historical Association for 1900, herewith, pages 229-30.
Having before him in my pamphlet reprint from Transactions of the American Historical Association, 1900, this letter of Dr. Fiske, as well as letters from Dr. Edward Eggleston, Professor John B. McMaster and several other historians, endorsing the correctness of my conclusions, and well knowing that very few of his readers would ever have a chance to know anything about these letters except what he might choose to state in his "Reply," how does our candid author, seeking for the "truth of history wherever found" treat this matter? He nowhere gives his readers any intimation that anybody had changed his opinions about the Whitman Saved Oregon story as the result of my labors, nor that any historian except Professor Fiske had written any kind of a letter to me about my MSS., and, quoting from my discussion in December, 1900, of Professor Bourne's paper, seven phrases, aggregating thirtysix words, entirely disconnected from their contexts, he says (p. 7): "Was it strange that Professor Fiske wrote him, *I think the force of your arguments would be enhanced if your style of expression were now and then a little less vehement?' "Concerning this, it only need be said that Professor Fiske's kindly criticism, not of any errors of fact or of quotation, but only of my style of expression, had no reference to anything in the pamphlet to which Mr. Eells refers, (and from which he picks out thirty-six words only, and dares not quote any sentence in which they exist), because Professor Fiske was not present to hear that discussion at Detroit, and was dead before the volume of Tranactions for that year was printed, so that he never either heard or read one sentence of this to which our candid (?) author applies Professor Fiske's criticism, nor is there the least reason to suppose that Professor Fiske would have criticised my style in that discussion as too vehement, since it was entirely acceptable to the Publication Committee of the American Historical Association, without whose approval it could not have been printed in the Transactions.
I wrote Professor Fiske immediately on receipt of his letter, thanking him for his kindly criticism, but explaining to him that the MSS. sent him were not intended for publication without careful revision, but that they were criticisms, copies of which had been sent directly to the authors of the school histories criticised, and that I had made some of them extremely sarcastic, because the parties criticised had been exceedingly discourteous to me when, some years before, I had written them very courteous letters warning them (some of them before their books were published) of the wholly fictitious nature of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, and imploring them to investigate the original sources before imposing such a fiction on the school children of the country as history, and assuring them that, if they put it in, they would speedily be obliged to cut it out, as its falsity would be proved beyond any question, and offering to put before them without charge (in confidence, for their own use only,) all the evidence in my possession, (which had cost me $10,000 in money and time to collect,) to enable them to arrive at the truth about the matter.
On page 8 our candid author says "He" (i. e., M. Eells) "prefers to follow the advice of Professor Fiske to Professor Marshall, 'It seems to me that there is great value in a quiet form of statement, even approaching to an understatement, for it gives the reader a chance to do a little swearing at the enemy on his own account.'"
Had Mr. Eells either printed the whole of Dr. Fiske's letter, or had said, "Was it strange that in a letter heartily endorsing the correctness of Mr. Marshall's conclusions Dr. Fiske also wrote him, 'I think the force of your arguments,' etc., he might have commented as much as he pleased on these two sentences in it, and I would not have cared to waste one moment in noticing his comments. But from a letter more warmly commendatory of the value and the thoroughness of my work on the history of Oregon than I would have written myself, had Dr. Fiske told me to write anything I pleased' and he would sign it, to take out these fragments of two sentences of kindly criticism, not of the correctness of my statements, but of their style, and to apply them to an article which Dr. Fiske never saw, and so convey to all the readers of this "Reply" the impression that Dr. Fiske's letter was condemnatory instead of very warmly commendatory of my work, illustrates the idea of "candor" and "fairness" which has animated not Mr. Eells alone, but every one else who has published a book advocating the Whitman Saved Oregon story; which is my only reason for this full exposition of the matter.
HIS CANDOR (?) IN THE MATTER OF REV. H. H. SPALDING's DIARY.
Another excellent illustration of his idea of "candor" is in his treatment of the diary of Rev. H. H. Spalding. From this diary, which has been in Rev. M. Eells' possession for many years, he has only published sixty-one words (on p. 18 of his pamphlet, Marcus Whitman, M. D.), and those sixty-one words not till 1883, i. e. eighteen years after the Whitman Saved Oregon story was first published in full by Spalding. Having repeatedly called on the advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, and particularly Rev. M. Eells, to make this diary accessible to historical students, on January 13, 1902, I wrote to Rev. M. Eells asking him to either print that diary or turn it over, unmutilated, to the Oregon Historical Society. To that letter I received no answer, but on pages 19 and 20 of this "Reply," after quoting that request from me, he says that some years since he did "Copy by hand and turn over to Professor F. G. Young, Secretary of the Oregon Historical Society" (not that diary unmutilated, but) "all that was of public interest in this diary"—he being the only judge of what was of public interest—and that "The diary does not include the time under discussion," but covers and "Is quite full from November, 1838, to April 22, 1842," and has a page and a half covering "February 21 to March 7, 1843," and then says, "The reader can judge from this on what little evidence and knowledge the professor (i. e., myself) bases some of his statements." What I had claimed was, that "That diary must contain a good deal of matter that would be very important in the discussion of the Whitman question." Our candid author seeks first to hedge by claiming that "it does not cover the time under discussion (that is September, 1842, to October, 1843), as if it would be possible to properly discuss the Whitman question without covering the whole time that the Whitman-Spalding Mission existed, i. e., 1836 to 1848, but he is careful not to quote another word out of the something more than 25,000 in the diary, except the sixty-one before mentioned.
Determined to know what was in this so carefully concealed original source of Oregon history, in July, 1902, I went from Chicago to Portland, Ore., mainly to see this part of it which M. Eells claims to have turned over to the Oregon Historical Society, and if that should not seem to me a proper selection from it, to go to Mr. Eells' home and ask to see the diary itself. Finding that the Assistant Secretary and Librarian of the Oregon Historical society in Portland knew nothing of any extracts from Spalding's Diary having ever been given into the custody of the Society, I went to Skokomish, and at Mr. Eells' house examined and copied some 11,000 words from it, and found in it, exactly as I expected, a great deal of matter which is of much importance to a thorough understanding of the Whitman Saved Oregon question, but not a single word in it which furnishes the least support to any version of the Saving Oregon theory of Whitman's ride, or to any claim of great patriotism, or farsightedness, or intellectual or moral greatness in Marcus Whitman's character or achievements. As it is evident that no advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story will ever have any desire to publish any considerable part of this diary, any more than to publish the correspondence of the Oregon Mission with the American Board, it appears likely that the public will have to wait for several pages of it in my forthcoming book on "The Acquisition of Oregon and the Long-Suppressed Evidence About Marcus Whitman," in which I shall try to publish some 150 to 200 pages of this evidence which has been so carefully concealed hitherto, except as my MSS. and later Professor Bourne's "Legend of Marcus Whitman" have made a little of it known.
REV. DR. EELLS' HAZY NOTIONS OF "SCIENTIFIC" AND "TRUTHFUL"" HISTORY.
Pages 35 to 44 of Mr. Eells' "Reply" contain a very foggy discussion of "scientific history" vs. "true history," exhibiting his total lack alike of the scientific spirit and of logic and of the laws of evidence and of any sense of humor. On page 37 he triumphantly asks, "In fact, can Professor Bourne tell what contemporary writer recorded the history of Christ, all the gospels having been written many years after Christ's death?" Now, in spite of the persistent efforts for more than twenty years past of the authors and advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story—and especially Rev. M. Eells—to exalt it into an additional article of religious and patriotic faith by seeking to show that the evidence in support of it is as strong as, and no more contradictory than, that offered in support of the trustworthiness of the New Testament, even he must know that there is not the remotest parallelism between the two cases. Suppose now that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John had been employed by some great society during the public life of Christ, and for some years after his death, and that they had not only written several hundred letters to that society, but also several score of letters to relations and friends, the whole, with fragments of their diaries aggregating more than a million words, and that these letters to the society were now found to be in existence, all securely bound up and indexed, and also the official action of the society on these letters and the replies to them of its Corresponding Secretary, were found to be in existence, and that many of the letters to their friends, together with fragments of their diaries were also found to be in ex* istence, and that there were also found to be in existence many contemporaneous documents of the Roman Government of undoubted authenticity, and that in all this vast mass of contemporaneous documents of the authors of the gospels not only was there not a single sentence found expressing the slightest interest in or concern about the life or crucifixion of Jesus, but also in the government documents there was conclusive evidence that Jesus was not crucified at all, how much credence does Mr. Eells suppose would be given to the gospels "written many years after the event?" And what confidence would anyone have in the ability as a historian of any clergyman (even if, as in the case of Rev. M. Eells, he had been made a D. D. by Whitman College), who, knowing of all this vast mass of contemporaneous evidence of undoubted authenticity, should for years suppress all mention of it, and ask people to believe instead of it "the gospel narrative written many years after the event?" This is precisely the case with the Whitman Saved Oregon story. The correspondence of Whitman and his associates with the American Board and with friends and relatives, and the known fragments of their diaries prior to Whitman's starting to return to Oregon in April, 1843, aggregate fully 600,000 words, and in it all is not so much as one short sentence expressing the slightest interest in or concern about the political destiny of any part of the Oregon Territory, or giving the least support in any way to any version of a patriotic origin or purpose of Whitman's ride. Yet Mr. Eells, with all his pretensions of candor and desire to have the truth about Whitman's life made manifest, in the sixty thousand or more words of this "Reply" does not find space to quote so much as one sentence out of all this correspondence and these diaries of Whitman and his associates prior to his return to Oregon. Of letters and diaries of Whitman and his associates of dates subsequent to April, 1843, and down to the first appearance of the first vague version of the Whitman Saved Oregon story in the Sacramento Union of November 16, 1864, there exist fully 450,000 to 500,000 words more, including fully 26,000 to 28,000 words in letters to the Secretary of the American Board from Dr. Whitman himself of dates between November, 1843, and October 18, 1847.
In the contemporaneous Government documents there is, as we have already seen (pp. 23-35 ante) the most indisputable evidence that there was no danger of losing Oregon in the spring of 1843 and that Whitman did not influence the policy of Tyler's Administration.
We have already shown (pp. 20-21 ante) how the expenses of his journey and his frigid reception by the Secretary of the American Board, in Boston, combined with the steadily and rapidly increasing decadence of the Mission subjected Whitman to a great temptation to magnify the importance of his ride, so as to convince the American Board that in some way such good had resulted from it as to justify its expense, and the resulting expense in continuing the Mission, which, but for that ride, must have been destroyed in 1843, or, at latest, 1844; and we have also seen that neither Dr. Whitman nor his wife, in any letters ever written by them, made any claim that he had communicated any information to President Tyler, or Secretary Webster, or that he had bad any interviews with either of them, or had received any promises of assistance from them, or from any other Government official, or that he had found any negotiations pending about Oregon which were to be in any manner aflfected by anything he had done or might* do, or that he had published in newspapers— much less in a pamphlet—any information about Oregon while in the East, or held any public meetings to promote migration to Oregon, and that in but one letter, that of April i, 1847, four and onehalf years after he started for the States, did he claim that anything else but missionary business induced him to make his ride.
We have also seen how Dr. Mowry copies Rev. Dr. Thomas Laurie's deceptive quotation from that letter instead of going to the letter itself, and (p. 22 ante) I have for the first time given the public a chance to read exactly what claim Whitman did make in that letter. In my forthcoming book is a chapter on "What Dr. Whitman himself claimed about his services to the Government," in which every sentence in which he makes any claim is quoted exactly as it was written, and compared with the unquestionable facts, so that the public can judge for itself as to what value to attach to his own claims, as well as to the claims made for him by Gray, Spalding, C. Eells, M. Eells, Barrows, Nixon, Craighead, Mowry, et al.
As soon as I read, in February, 1887, Rev. Dr. Laurie's garbled quotation from Whitman's letter of April 1, 1847, in the Missionary Herald, for September, 1885, it seemed to me so palpably dishonest, that I wrote to Dr. Laurie asking him where I could see the original letter. He replied that he presumed I could see it at the American Board rooms in Boston, where he had.
This much surprised me, for ten years before, in answer to my thrice repeated inquiry of an official of the American Board at different meetings with him, I had been assured that there were no letters in Sieir archives which showed the purpose of Whitman's ride. I applied to the American Board for permission to examine the correspondence of the Oregon Mission, and on permission being given was amazed to find the immense amount hereinbefore mentioned.
JOINT LETTERS OF REV C. EELLS AND REV. E. WALKER, DATED OCT. 3, 1842, FOR WHICH WHITMAN DID NOT WAIT AS HE HAD AGREED TO DO.
Within an hour I had found not only this letter of April 1, 1847, but also the 14-page letter written by C. Eells, and endorsed by E. Walker in a brief note as correct, which contained the official report of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Oregon Mission, May 16- June 8, 1842, and also the report of the Special Meeting Sept. 26-27, 1842, each report signed E. Walker, Moderator, Gushing Eells, Scribe; also E. Walker's 16-page letter to which Cushing Eells had appended a note, stating that the subjects of the letter had been frequently discussed between Mr. Walker and himself, and its general plan mutually agreed upon, and that having heard all of it read once and parts of it more than once, "I have observed nothing of importance to which I cannot give a full assent." The endorsement by each of the other's letter made these in reality joint letters. Each was begun Oct. 3, 1842, and Walker's Journal—(perfectly well known to M. Eells for at least 18 years past)—states that his letter was not finished till October 8th, and Mrs. Whitman's letter, dated Oct. 17, 1842, (published in Trans. Or. Pi. Asscn., 1891, p. 167) explicitly declares that the letters from Messrs. Eells and Walker had only arrived that day, when Dr. Whitman had been gone two weeks. Rev. E. Walker's letter to D. Greene, Secretary, dated Feb. 28, 1843, complains bitterly that though they had sent their letters at the time agreed upon. Dr. Whitman had left before they arrived at Wailatpu, and so had gone without the letters from them which he had agreed to wait for; and Walker's Journal, under date of Nov. 1, 1842, reads . . . "We were writing when the Indians came up with letters. We learnt that Dr. W. left on the third of October for the States, without any letters from us." Yet in face of this contemporaneous evidence, all perfectly well known to him-, Rev. M. Eells, in the Oregonian, of Jan. 11, 1885, declared that Rev. C. Eells told him that "Their courier reached Walla Walla" seasonably, "before the 3d," while in this "Reply," p. 68, he says, "He (i, e., Whitman) "left his station October 3d, when the fifth was the day he told Messrs. Walker and Eells that he would go. Letters were to be prepared and forwarded accordingly. They reached his station Oct. 5th, but he was gone. One of these letters is now in the possession of the writer. It is a long, strong plea for the continuance of the Southern stations of the Mission. Why did he leave that letter (written by the Moderator of the meeting and endorsed by its clerk), which would have been of great help to him, if his main object had been to secure the rescinding of the above mentioned order?" But not one word of this 16-page letter of E. Walker, endorsed by C. Eells, and dated October 3, but not finished till Oct. 8, 1842, does M. Eells in his search for "truth wherever found" quote for the benefit of his readers, nor does he give its date, which would be enough of itself to disprove his assertion in 1885 that it arrived at Wailatpu (165 miles from Eells' and Walker's station), on October 3, as well as his assertion in the above quoted paragraph that it reached Whitman*s station on October 5th. It is also certain from Walker's letter of Fob. 28, 1843, and from his Journal of Nov. 1, 1842, and from Mrs. Whitman's letter of Oct. 17, 1842, that instead of October 5th being the day agreed upon as C. Eells declared 35 and 41 years afterwards in his various "statements" (wholly unsupported by any contemporaneous letters or other written documents), it was a date not earlier than October 17th that was agreed upon. This letter of Oct. 3-8, 1842 (written by Walker and endorsed by Eells), and of which a duplicate was received by the Secretary of the American Board on May 3, 1843, not only contained "a long and strong plea for the continuance of the mission," but a positive statement that to carry out the order of the Board issued in February, 1842, ordering the discontinuance of the Southern branch of the Mission (i. e., three of its four stations) and recalling Spalding and Gray to the States meant the destruction of the Mission, and also a positive statement that Whitman's going to the States, instead of being discussed for part of two days (as Rev. C. Eells asserted in his 1883 affidavit), on a political mission was not even proposed by him till just as the others were about to start home (on the morning of September 28th), which was after the record of the Special Meeting had been made up and signed. This is fully confirmed by Walker's Journal, which states under date of September 28, 1842, that it was at breakfast on that morning that Dr. Whitman "let out his plan" to go to the States. But there is not the least intimation either in the official report of the meeting, or in Walker's letter endorsed by C. Eells, or in Walker's Journal, or in any subsequent letter or diary of Walker, or C. Eells, or H. H. Spalding, or W. H. Gray prior to Spalding's articles in the Pacific in October and November, 1865, and in the cases of Gray and C. Eells prior to 1866, that anything but the business of the Mission was discussed at that Special Meeting of September 26-27, 1842, while from Walker's pen not a sentence has ever been produced which fumis'hes the least support to any version of the story that the political destinies of Oregon were even mentioned at that Special Meeting, or that Whitman's ride had any political purpose or accomplished any political result. Having hastily discussed his going on the morning of the 28th, without again convening the Special Meeting, they passed two "Resolves," but did not put them into the record of the Special Meeting either as an Appendix, or otherwise, so that as far as appears by its report, signed by E. Walker, Moderator, and Gushing Eells, Scribe, Whitman's going to the States for any purpose was not even mentioned in the Special Meeting. One of these two "Resolutions" of September 28, 1842, approved of W. H. Gray's withdrawing from the Mission (though the last sentence but one in the official report of the Special Meeting states that they had refused to pass a similar resolution that Gray had offered on the 26th.)
The second of these resolutions (quoted verbatim on p. 13 ante) was
THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT WHITMAN TOOK TO THE AMERICAN BOARD FROM THE THREE MEN WHO REMAINED ASSOCIATED WITH HIM IN THE MISSION.
With this exposition of the deep devotion to truth which Rev. M. Eells has displayed in suppressing every word of the correspondence of all the members of the Oregon Mission with the American Board prior to Whitman's ride, though that correspondence, submitted by me in manuscripts, has convinced not only every historian' that has had the opportunity to read even one-quarter part of them, but also everybody making the least pretension to being a historian— always excepting W. A. Mowry—that it demonstrates the total falsity of the whole Whitman Saved Oregon story, let us see now how he treats the only letter of Whitman's that has ever been found which claims that anything but missionary business influenced him to make that ride, for although in several other letters Whitman makes most extravagant and unwarranted claims that great good had resulted from the ride, and from the establishment and continuance of his Mission, there has never been found any other letter but this of April 1, 1847, in which he makes any claim that his ride had any other purpose than the business of the Mission. How does Rev. M. Eells, trying "To get as near the truth as possible," treat this, the only letter of. Whitman's which claims that anything in addition to missionary business induced him to make that ride? He quotes from it five times (pp. 41, 66, 69, 77 and 118), but though he three times (pp. 41, 66 and 118) quotes the first sentence from Rev. Thomas Laurie's inaccurate quotation, he nowhere quotes what Whitman wrote about any other object in his making the ride except to lead out a migration, and nowhere from beginning to end of his book does he even intimate that the Mission would have been "broken up just then" if Whitman had not made his ride. Not only that, but, although Whitman himself positively declared in this letter that it would have been broken up just then if he had not made his ride, our "candid and truth-seeking" author (Reply p. 69) assures his readers that "His station would have been certainly continued had he waited until Spring to go."
SIX PEOPLE KNEW OF THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF WHITMAN'S RIDE
Six people knew exactly the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride, viz., Rev. C. Eells, Rev. E. Walker, Rev. H. H. Spalding, Mr. W. H. Gray, and Dr. and Mrs. Whitman and we have seen how our candid and truth-seeking author has juggled with the strictly contemporaneous letter of His father, endorsed by E. Walker (to which he never alludes, though knowing that it contains the official report of that meeting of the Mission held September 26-27, 1842, which only discussed the business of the Mission, and not the political destiny of Oregon), and the letter of Walker endorsed by his father in which there is no hint hint of anything but missionary business, and the "Resolve" of September 28, 1842, signed by C. Eells, E. Walker and H. H. Spalding, which authorized Whitman to go to the States "To confer with the Committee of the A. B. C. F. M. in regard to the interests of this Mission," and with not the least intimation that he was to go for any other purpose. For these (which the few great historians who have had a chance to read them all in my MSS. agree are conclusive evidence that missionary business, and not patriotism, impelled him to make his ride), our author substitutes his father's alleged "recollections" from 1866 to 1882, though those "recollections" are not only wholly unsupported by a single sentence of contemporaneous written pr printed evidence, but on all points on which we can compare them with contemporaneous written documents are proved beyond any doubt to be wholly incorrect. Let us see how our truth-seeking author treats the evidence of the others.
THE SPALDING-GRAY VERSION OF THE ORIGIN OF WHITMAN'S RIDE TOTALLY REPUDIATED BY REV. M. EELLS.
We have already seen (pp. 40-42 ante) that Dr. Mowry, while using a great amount of what Gray and Spalding after 1864-66 "recollected"—or imagined—about Whitman's ride, and endorsing them as good, truthful men whose "recollections" may safely be depended upon as to the place Whitman should occupy in the history of Oregon, himself totally rejects all that they wrote about Whitman's ride, which was a matter of their own personal knowledge and experience, to-wit., its origin, by not even alluding to the Spalding-Gray version of the great dinner at Walla Walla, and the taunt anent the announcement of the speedy arrival of the Red River settlers, etc., nor to their "recollection" that to save Oregon was the "sole purpose" of his ride, nor to their equally positive "recollection" that Whitman barely succeeded in preventing the trading off of Oregon in the Ashburton treaty for a codfishery on the banks of Newfoundland.
Rev. M. Eells in like manner calmly repudiates all of these "recollections" of Gray and Spalding, (since they have been proved beyond any dispute to be totally false,) but still, like Dr. Mowry, quotes extensively from them to support other parts of the Saving Oregon story, and, carefully suppressing their contemporary letters and diaries, with those of his father and Rev. E. Walker, which demonstrate beyond any doubt the falsity of the whole Whitman Saved Oregon story, he imposes upon the credulity of his readers as trustworthy history what Gray and Spalding "recollected" about what Whitman said and did in Missouri and in Washington, from 2,000 to 3,000 miles away from them! MR. EELLS' TREATMENT OF THE FIVE LETTERS OF MR WHITMAN, WHICH STATE THAT HIS RIDE WAS ON THE BUSINESS OF THE MISSION.
We have seen (on pp. 16-18 ante) that Mrs. Whitman on September 29 and 30, 1842, wrote two letters in which she explicitly declared that her husband was going to make his ride on the business of the Mission, and on March 11, April 14 and May 18, 1843, wrote three more letters, in each of which it was necessarily implied that his ride was on the business of the Mission, and we have seen how Dr. Mowry juggles with these, the only letters in which she ever wrote anything concerning the purpose of his ride. Rev. M. Eells knows perfectly well about all these letters.
How does our candid author "seeking for the truth of history wherever found^' treat these letters? He does not quote a word from them, nor in any way refer to them in such a way that his readers can learn anything about where to look for them, or obtain any other information of their contents than is contained in the following (Reply, p. 35), "He" (i. e., Prof. Bourne) can find from her letters that before the Doctor started East he intended to go to Washington."
MR. EELLS' TREATMENT OF THE FIRST TWO ACCOUNTS EVER PRINTED OF THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF WHITMAN'S RIDE IN THE MISSIONARY HERALD, SEPTEMBER, 1843, AND JULY, 1848.
The only remaining "original sources" or contemporaneous accounts of the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride are the two official accounts in the Missionary Herald, and (on pp. 1820 ante) they have been quoted and the failure of Dr. Mowry and every other advocate of the Saving Oregon story to quote them has been stated.
How does our "candid" author, in his earnest search for "the truth of history wherever found" deal with these strictly contemporaneous accounts of the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride, and the only accounts of that origin and purpose ever printed till the Saving Oregon theory of it was published in 1864-66, remembering that both these accounts distinctly declare that the ride was on the business of the Mission? To the second account he does not allude in this "Reply," nor in any of the numerous articles he has written in defense of the Whitman Legend, and from the first he only quotes two words, as follows: (Reply, p. 41), (writing of the Special Meeting which authorized Whitman's ride). "In Miss. Herald for September, 1843, it was stated by the editor that such a meeting was held, but he said that it was 'last October.' This was scientific, but it was not the truth."
Our truth seeking author quotes nothing more of this, the first account ever printed as to the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride; from title page to finis of this "Reply," except this quibble over the petty mistake of the editor in writing "last October," when, as a fact, the meeting was held September 26 and 27. Mr. Eells' statement that this trivial error "was scientific" is nonsense. Scientific history, according to his own inaccurate definition of it (Reply, p. 37), is "The facts written at or near the time they occurred," and' "last October" was not "a fact," but a blunder of the editor of the Missionary Herald, doubtless due to the fact that both C Eells' letter and E. Walker's letter were dated October 3, 1842. But C. Eells was the "Scribe" of that meeting and his letter begins its official record as follows: "A Special Meeting of the Oregon Mission was called on the 26th of September, 1843." I* ^s plain, therefore, that the editor of the Missionary Herald did not refer to that official record for the date, but assumed that because the two letters were dated October 3, 1842, that the meeting was held "last October." Scientific history is history honestly, carefully and accurately written by candid and competent persons, from the very best authorities obtainable, which means, always from the original sources when they exist and are accessible, . As the official record of that meeting, stating. that it was called to order September 26, and closed September 27, 1842, was in the office of the Secretary of the American Board, it was not "scientific" for him, instead of referring to it and giving the correct date, to write "last October." ' On p. 42 we have another illustration of the muddled condition of Mr. Eells' mind on this question of scientific history. He states that a pamphlet about Mason County, Washington, was published in July, 1901, for distribution at the Buffalo Pan American exposition, "which hence would be believed to be authentic," and that it stated that Martin Koopman "conducted a restaurant at Hoodsport," and Mr. Eells continues, "Now this is scientific because its author went there before he wrote it, took four pictures of the place for his pamphlet, and was supposed to know. But the truth is that Mr. Koopman does not and never has kept a restaurant there, but a saloon." That is, according to Mr. Eells' ideas of scientific history, every man who dashes off an advertising pamphlet for gratuitous distribution, no matter how careless, or dishonest, or indifferent to truth he may be, is a writer of "scientific history," if, perchance, he has visited the locality of which he writes, and taken some pictures of it!
THE POSITION OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ON THE OREGON BOUNDARY.
Let us turn now to official documents showing the position of our Government as to Oregon. In 1826, eight years before any missionary went to Oregon, and ten years before Whitman established his Mission there, President J. Q. Adams instructed Henry Clay, Secretary of State, to direct Gallatin, our Minister at London, to notify the British Government that "49 degrees was our ultimatum for the northern boundary of Oregon," and with slight variations in phraseology these instructions were sent in three letters, dated June 19, June 23, and August 9, 1826, and that of June 23 is sufficient of itself to wipe away all the ridiculous assertions made about our Government having been misled by English misrepresentation about the worthlessness of Oregon. It read as follows: "Mr. Crook's information adds but little to what was previously possessed. If the land on the Northwest Coast, between the mouth of the Columbia River and the parallel of 49 degrees be bad, and therefore we should lose but little in relinquishing it, the same consideration will apply to the British. The President cannot consent to vary the line proposed in your instructions." (Cf. for these three letters, Clay to Gallatin Am. State Papers For. Relations, Vol. VI., Doc. 458.) No Administration ever proposed to recede from this "ultimatum" of 49 degrees, and in 1838, the Senate by unanimous resolution requested the War Department to prepare a map of Oregon, which was accordingly done by the Topographical Bureau of the War Department.
THE "OFFICIAL ULTIMATUM MAP."
This map represented 49 degrees to the Pacific as the northern boundary of Oregon, and out in the Pacific Ocean, where no rivers or mountain ranges would obscure the printing or divert attention from it, appeared, in plain type, the following: "The prolongation of the 49th parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific has been assumed as the northern boundary of the United States possessions on the Northwest Coast, in consequence of the following extract from the Hon. H. Clay's letter to Mr. Gallatin, dated June 19, 1826 (See Doc, 199, 29th Cong., 1st Sess., H. of R.): 'You are authorized to propose the annulment of the third article of the Convention of 1818, and the extension of the line on the parallel of 49 degrees, from the Eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, where it now terminates to the Pacific Ocean, as the permanent boundary between the two powers in that quarter. This is our ultimatum and you may so announce it.'" This "Ultimatum Map" was used in the report of the Com. on Oregon, of which Senator Linn was Chairman, June 6, 1838, also in Cushing's report to the H. of R. January 4, and his supplemental report February 16, 1839, also in the report of the Mil. Com. of the H. of R., commonly known as Pendleton's first report May 27, 1842, also in the second report of that Mil. Com., commonly known as Pendleton's 2nd report January 4, 1843. AH these reports were unanimous on the part of the committee, and all were unanimously adopted by the body to which they were made, and of them "in addition to the usual number" 10,000 copies of Cushing's, and 5,000 of each of Pendleton's were printed for distribution, so that including "the usual number" of each, there were 26,000 or more copies of this official "Ultimatum Map" printed by direct votes of the Senate and the House between June 6, 1838, and January 4, 1843. How was it possible for our government more emphatically to notify all the world of its inflexible determination to insist on 49 degrees to the coast as the northern boundary of Oregon? Neither M. Eells nor any other advocate of the Saving Oregon theory of Whitman's ride has ever even alluded to these "ultimatum" instructions to Gallatin, nor to this "Ultimatum Map."
REV. M. EELLS' TREATMENT OF LIEUT. WILKES' EXPLORATIONS.
We have already learned (pp. 29-32 ante) of the extent and thoroughness of Lieut. Chas. Wilkes' exploration of the Oregon territory, by land and water, "with a sloop of war, a brig of war, two launches, ten boats and upwards of 300 men" from April 28 to October 10, 1841, and of his very enthusiastic "Special Rept." on the Oregon territory, filed in the Navy Department, at Washington, June 13, 1842, and of the ingenious way in which Dr. Mowry, by cribbing a page of my inferences as to why the Administration in 1843 was not willing to have the whole of that "Special Rept." printed, but without quoting a word from that report, or giving his readers any information as to when it was filed in the Navy Department, or anything else which would inform them as to its immense significance in promoting migration to Oregon, and furnishing the government full and fresh information in everything of the least importance relating to Oregon affairs fully nine months before Whitman could have reached Washington, has avoided giving his readers any knowledge which would enable them to judge of the extent, the value and the timeliness of Wilkes' work in exploring and reporting on Oregon.
Skilful as Dr. Mowry has proved himself in concealing the truth about this important matter, he is thrown completely in the shade by the "candid and truth-seeking" Dr. Eells, who, from title page to finis of his reply (as well as in his pamphlet Marcus Whitman, M. D., Portland, On, 1883.), does not inform his readers that Wilkes ever saw Oregon at all, but only says of him (Reply, p. 86): "Commodore Wilkes, in 1841, had praised the harbor of San Francisco as 'one of the finest, if not the very best, harbor in the world!'"
REV. M. EELLS' TREATMENT OF THE ACTIONS OF TYLER'S ADMINISTRATION RELATING TO OREGON.
With equal ingenuity he suppresses all the abundant and indisputable contemporaneous documentary evidence that Tyler's Administration was inflexibly determined to accept of no line south of 49 degrees for the northern boundary of Oregon, and that neither Whitman nor anyone else, in March, or April, 1843, or at any other time during Tyler's term as President, had influenced him to any change of the policy he had about Oregon prior to March, 1843.
We have heretofore stated (p. 28 ante) that President Tyler's two first annual messages, December, 1841, and December 1842, contained strong paragraphs on Oregon and that Dr. Mowry does not even allude to them. The same is true of Rev. M. Eells.
We have also (pp. 28-29 ante) learned about Dr. Elijah White's connection with Oregon affairs, and the suppression by Dr. Mowry of everything about Dr. White, except the fact, that he arrived at Whitman's mission with a considerable party of settlers early in September, 1842.
How does the Rev. M. Eells, D. D., "seeking after the truth of history wherever it can be found" treat Dr. White and his work for and in Oregon?
On page 106 he devotes nearly 200 words to showing why his "witnesses" would not confound Dr. White with Dr. Whitman, but he carefully refrains everywhere in his writings in defense of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story from any mention of the following five things which would be very apt to cause people many years after the event to transfer to Dr. Whitman the deeds and words of Dr. White.
- That Dr. White as well as Dr. Whitman had been a missionary to the Oregon Indians.
- That in January and February, 1842, Dr. White unquestionably had interviewed President Tyler, Secretarys Webster, Upshur and Spencer, and Senators Linn and Benton.
- That he had then been directed by the Tyler Administration to raise a migration to Oregon.
- That he held public meetings in the spring of 1842 in various cities—Buffalo, Cincinnati, Louisville and St. Louis—to promote a migration to Oregon, and had some newspaper notice thereof.
- That he organized and was elected leader of the first large overland migration, which left the Missouri frontier May 26, 1842.
THE ASHBURTON TREATY. BENTON'S OPPOSITION TO IT. WEBSTER'S POSITIVE ASSERTION OF HIS INFLEXIBLE ADHERENCE TO 49 DEGREES AS THE NORTH LINE OF OREGON, AND REV. M. EELLS' TREATMENT OF THIS MATTER.
We have already seen (pp. 32-34 ante) how carefully Dr. Mowry avoids giving his readers any information about Lord Ashburton's instructions on the Oregon boundary question, and Webster's positive denials January 18 and February 3, 1843, that he had made, entertained or meditated accepting the Columbia river, or any other line south of 49 degrees as a negotiable boundary line for the United States.
It is now more than 16 years since in a letter to Rev. Dr. Eells I called his attention to this twice-repeated denial by Webster on the floor of the Senate, through his lifelong personal and political friend, Rufus Choate, of that indispensable postulate of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, that Webster and Tyler were indifferent as to the fate of Oregon, and ready to surrender it to England, when Whitman, an utterly unknown man reached the states, and in some mysterious way prevented it, but in all his study of the subject since that time, and all his writings on it he has never apparently found, and certainly has never intimated to his readers that they could find this "authorized" statement by Webster of his position on the Oregon boundary, in the Congressional Globe, 27 Cong., 3d Sess. (pp. 171-2) and its Appendix (pp. 222-9.)
MR. EELLS' TREATMENT OF THE GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE ON LINN'S BILL, IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1843.
We have already in exposing Dr. Mowry's ingenious avoidance of giving his readers any information of value about this great debate (Cf. pp. 32-35 ante) shown how vital a full knowledge of it is to any understanding of the truth or falsity of the claim that Whitman Saved Oregon, on account of (a.) the great interest the Oregon question excited, as shown by the fact that 27 out of 50 Senators took part in the discussion, including nearly all the leaders of both parties; (b.) the fact that it was stated over and over again in the discussion that the Senate was "unanimously of the opinion that our title to Oregon was incontestable, at least as far north as 49 degrees;" (c.) the two explicit declarations of Webster, by his friend Choate, hereinbefore quoted, which definitely committed Tyler's Administration to the line of 49 degrees six weeks before Whitman could have reached Washington, and (d.) the fact that an analysis of the vote and a comparison of it with the speeches shows that on February 3, 1843, not merely a bare majority, but certainly one more than two-thirds of the entire Senate were ready to enact any legislation about Oregon that we had a right to enact, without first giving the twelve months' notice which was all that was needful to abrogate the treaty of 1827.
Our "candid" author searching for "the truth of history wherever it may be found" has absolutely nothing to say about this great debate, except that on page 50 he quotes six lines from the speech of that political nonentity, McDuffie, of South Carolina, but with no intimation that it was the only such foolish speech on the Oregon question delivered at that session of Congress.
MR. EELLS QUOTES TWO FABRICATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UTTERED BY WEBSTER.
Yet, never having in all his writings intimated that Webster had thus himself, in 1842, in his negotiations with Ashburton, and in these two explicit statements of January 18 and February 3, 1843, committed himself and Tyler's Administration irrevocably to "no line south of 49 degrees as a negotiable boundary line for the United States," he devotes 16 pages of this "Reply" (79-95), to an attempt to show that Webster, in March or April, 1843, was ready to part with Oregon because he thought it worthless, when Whitman (who, as late as April, 1846, according to Spalding's letter, edited by Whitman, and published in Palmer's Journal, knew nothing about the only part really in dispute after 1824), arrived in Washington and prevented it. To prove this Mr. Eells quotes one palpable forgery (p. 82), in the extract from a speech which it is alleged Webster delivered on a proposition before the Senate in 1844, for a mail route from Independence, Mo., to the mouth of the Columbia, beginning, "What do you want of that vast and worthless area?" The internal evidence that Webster never wrote this is irresistible, for, whatever were Webster's failings, he always uttered sensible and dignified English in discussing important public affairs, and the final sentence of this extract as quoted by Gunsaulus in his Introduction to Nixon's "How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon," is, "Mr. President, I will never vote one cent from the public treasury to place the Pacific Coast one inch nearer to Boston than it is now." When I wrote to Dr. Gunsaulus and asked his authority for this he was obliged to confess that he had none. Finding it in Fields' "Our Western Archipelago," and obtaining from Dr. Henry M. Field the admission that his only authority for it was a newspaper slip, sent him by Mr. Geo. L. Chase, an insurance man of Hartford, Conn., and being assured by Mr. Chase that he clipped it from a newspaper when traveling on the Pacific Coast, and sent it to Dr. Field, not expecting him to publish it, but merely for his opinion as to its correctness, I abandoned all further attempt to find who fabricated it. I subsequently found it used by H. H. Bancroft, in "Chronicles of the Builders," Vol. 1, pp. 518-19, but as that was not copyrighted till 1890, and as Mr. M. Eells gives as his authority a manuscript written by a Mrs. C. S. Fringle, in December, 1884; and as presumably she did not fabricate it, but like Mr. Chase, clipped it from some newspaper, there is no likelihood that its author will ever be known. Not only is its internal evidence sufficient to convince any one with common literary training that Webster never uttered it, but that conviction is rendered a certainty by the fact that Webster was not in the Senate from j[ 841 to 1845, ^^d that no such bill was ever introduced Tn the Senate till March, 1846, and a careful examination of the Cong. Globe shows that upon that bill Webster did not speak at all; and by his great Faneuil Hall (Boston) speech on Oregon in November, 1845, he had irrevocably committed himself individually, and the Whig party for which he spoke, to the line of 49 degrees to the Pacific. On p. 95 he quotes that other fabrication, which has now been doing duty for 33 years, in support of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, as follows: "In confirmation of this E. D. P., in 1870, wrote that an eminent legal gentleman of Massachusetts, and a personal friend of Mr. Webster, with whom he had several times conversed on the subject, remarked to E. D. P., 'It is safe to assert that our country owes it to Dr. Whitman and his associate missionaries, that all the territory west of the Rocky Mountains and south as far as the Columbia River is not now owned by England, and held by the Hudson's Bay Company.'"
This has heretofore been credited, as it was by Mr. Spalding, who first used it (Cf. p. 23, Sen. Ex. Doc. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess.) to the "N. Y. Independent, January, 1870." Not January 27, as M. Eells says in his footnote, in which also he admits that he does not know in what it appeared, but that "It was found as a scrap of a newspaper, among Mr. Spalding's papers, and is signed E. D. P. or E. D. B. or E. D. R., for the last letter is slightly torn." I have spent considerable time and a little money in searching and having searched the files of newspapers to determine, if possible, where this first appeared, but without success, though well aware that if it had appeared in all the newspapers on earth, its doubly anonymous character makes it of not the least evidential value.
tyler's tripartite scheme.
That Tyler had an utterly impracticable scheme in his mind of a tripartite treaty between the United States, Great Britain and Mexico is true, and has been well known since 1885, through Vol. 2, of "Letters and Times of the Tylers," by President L. G. Tyler of William and Mary College, Virginia (who was bom in 1852), and who, like Fiske, McMaster, Scudder and others, was imposed upon by Barrows, and so gave the Whitman Saved Oregon story some endorsement, though, as he wrote to me in 1899, he had never seen any con- temporaneous mention of Whitman, either in his father's papers or those of his half brother, John Tyler, Jr., private secretary to President John Tyler. On reading my Mss. he was straightaway convinced that not only he, but his half brother John, had been imposed upon by Barrows, and that it was Dr. White, and not Dr. Whitman, whom Mr. Reed saw in Washington, and whom John Tyler, Jr., thought he remem- bered, more than forty years afterwards, having seen at the White House. Mr. M. Eells (Reply," p. 94) admits that "Dr. Whitman without doubt never heard of the tripartite plan," but though this inchoate project was, as far as any evidence shows, the only one that any President ever even "dreamed of," as a plan, not for yielding up any part of Oregon south of 49 degrees, but for selling for a good round price that part north and west of the Columbia, Mr. Eells insists that in some mysterious way Whitman prevented that plan, of which he never heard. That President L. G. Tyler has for some time been fully satisfied that the Oregon policy of President John Tyler was not controlled by Whitman, and that President Tyler-s three letters of December 11 and 18, 1845, and January 1, 1846, show beyond dispute that neither Whitman nor anybody else, either in the Spring of 1843, nor for more than two and one-half years thereafter, had modified in the least degree the ideas about the best policy to pursue regarding Oregon, which we know, from his other correspondence, that he held in 1842, has been already shown. (Cf. pp. 35-37 ante.) It scarcely needs be said that M. Eells, like all the other advocates of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, has never even alluded to the above mentioned three letters of President Tyler.
dr. eells' unwarranted attack on hon. elwood evans.
Our candid author assails the honesty and the accuracy of the late Hon. Elwood Evans, a Pacific Coast historical writer of some note, as follows. "Reply" (p. 22) "Elwood Evans, too, properly falls under this criticism." In 1883 Dr. C. Eells had stated in regard to the meeting of the Mission held in SepSeptember, 1842, that a record of it was made, but that "the book containing the same was in the keeping of the Whitman family. At the time of their massacre, November 29, 1847, it disappeared." The house of Dr. Eells at the Whitman Mission was burned in 1872, a fact which Mr. Evans knew. He had also been furnished with a pamphlet containing the above statement of Dr. Eells. Yet in 1884 he wrote: "In 1866 Rev. Gushing Eells had in his possession the minutes of all the missionary meetings. The assertion that those records were destroyed by fire in 1872 will not be accepted as a satisfactory excuse that between 1865 and 1872 those minutes were not appealed to to settle the question of what transpired at the Mission meeting of 1842."
It will be noticed that Mr. Evans did not say that "In 1866 Rev. Gushing Eells had in his possession the record book containing the reports of all the Mission meetings," but "the minutes'* of those meetings, which is quite a different matter, as every one who has had much experience as a Secretary can testify. Furthermore, Rev. Myron Eells himself was the authority on whom Elwood Evans depended for those dates, for in a "History of the Congregational Association of Oregon and Washington," by Rev. Myron Eells, we read that "The proceedings of the meetings of the Missions were either burnt or destroyed at the Whitman massacre in 1847, or at the time of the fire at Rev. Gushing Eells' in 1872." This was quoted to me by Mr. Evans in a letter dated Tacoma, Wash., August II, 1882, two and one-quarter years before the date of the article in the Oregonian, from which Rev. M. Eells makes this quotation, which he claims misquotes his father's statement about the records of the Mission. Reply (p. 23), he continues, "Mr. Evans wrote that Daniel Webster said in his speech March 30, 1846. "The Government of the United States never offered any line south of 49 degrees (with the navigation of the Columbia) and it never will. It behooves all concerned to regard this as a settled point. I said as plainly as I could speak or put down words in writing, that England must not expect anything south of 49 degrees. I said so in so many words." The first two sentences are in that speech. Afterwards when questioned he added in regard to what he had just told the Senate, not England, in 1842, "the senator and the Senate will do me the. justice to admit that I said as plainly as I could and in as short sentence as I could frame that England must not expect anything south of the 49th degree," except that there might be friendly negotiations about the navigation of the Columbia, and about certain straits, sounds and islands in the neighboring seas. Mr. Evans's quotation is a strange mixture, and the words "put down words in writing" were not then used by Webster."
As usual, Dr. Eells is incorrect in his criticism. He quotes from Webster's Works issued in 1851-2. But turning to the Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 29th Cong., March 30, 1846, we find on page 569, 1st column, that, in replying to Senator Allen of Ohio (who had accused him of offering England the river Columbia as the boundary), Webster said precisely what Mr. Evans quoted from him, as follows: "But the gentleman from Ohio and the Senate will do me the justice to allow that I said as plainly as I could speak, or put down words in writing, that England must not expect anything south of 49 degrees. I said so in so many words." The first two sentences quoted by Evans are on p. 568 of the Globe of same date, in Webster's reply to Senator J. M. Clayton of Delaware, and are also a verbatin quotation.
REV. DR. EELLS' WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIABLE ATTACK ON BOTH MR. EVANS AND MYSELF.
"Reply" (pp. 57-8): "Prof. Marshall also says in regard to Rev. C. Eells, 'that as late as April, 1865, he denied to Hon. Elwood Evans, the historian of Oregon, any knowledge of anything but missionary business, as impelling Whitman to make that ride.' (Trans. Am. Hist. Asscn., 1900, pp. 235-6.) The writer has questioned Prof. Marshall in regard to his authority for this statement, and in his reply the Professor says that Elwood Evans wrote the same to him some seventeen years ago, and that he at or about that time printed the same statement in one of his newspaper articles. In reply the writer declares that he will not believe this statement until some better proof is given than this: for (1) the writer has every newspaper article that he ever heard of that Mr. Evans wrote on the subject, especially between 1881 and 1885, and there is not a hint of such a statement in any of these articles. Dr. Eells was then alive, and the writer does not think Mr. Evans would have dared then to have made the statement. (2) The writer will not accept Mr. Evans' statement on the subject, even if he did make it to Professor Marshall, for as has already been shown, Mr. Evans made Mr. Eells say something in regard to the destruction of the records of the meeting of September, 1842, which he did not say, and also made Mr. Webster say something he did not say. (See above, p. 23.) The writer calls for the letter, and feels sure that if his father had ever written such a letter he would have heard of it before the year 1902, and also that in newspaper articles which he has by Mr. Evans, when he fully discussed Dr. Eells' evidence, Mr. Evans would have printed this letter."
But neither Mr. Evans nor I ever claimed that Rev. Cushing Eells wrote this in a letter to either of us, which fact is perfectly well known to Rev. M. Eells. It was in a personal interview with Mr. Evans, when he was gathering materials for his history, that Rev. C. Eells disclaimed all knowledge of any patriotic purpose for Whitman's ride, as follows: "I had seen Mr. Eells" (Rev. Cushing Eells) "in 1865. I endeavored to learn the history of those missionary years; my queries were particularly directed to the two immigrations of 1842-3; he was as reticent as if he knew nothing, surely he breathed not this patriotic claim for the little missionary convocation of 1842. True, that was in April, 1865, and Myron Eells has indicated the 'great work was not known or realized till 1866,' and possibly it was still a secret." (Cf. Art. on "Dr. Whitman and Oregon," by Evans, in Daily Oregonian, March 15, 1885. This article was also reprinted in Weekly Oregonian, March 20, 1885.) As we have seen the second reason he assigns for not believing Mr. Evans is absolutely false, for Mr. Evans neither made Rev. C Eells say anything which he did not say about the destruction of the records of the mission, nor made Daniel Webster in the United States Senate say anything which he did not say. The first reason is equally false, for not only did Mr. Evans publish this while Rev. C. Eells was living, but published it in the most widely circulated paper published in the old Oregon Territory, four years before Rev. C. Eells died, and Rev. M. Eells not only knew about its publication, but he wrote a long answer to it — (about 9,000 words)—(which was published in the Oregonian of May 21, 1885), and replied, as best he could, to Mr. Evans under fifteen heads—but carefully refrained from even alluding to this, which he could not have failed to see in the article, and which, now that Mr. Evans is dead, he declares Mr. Evans would not have dared to publish while his father was living. My scrap-books, containing both articles, are now lying open before me. Furthermore, that Rev. M. Eells when he wrote this "Reply" had not forgotten about either Mr. Evans' article in Daily Oregonian of March 15, 1885, and Weekly of March 20, 1885, nor his reply to it in Oregonian of May 21, 1885, is certain, for in his "Reply," on pages 7, 23 and 45, he quotes from, and in a footnote refers to, the article of March 20, 1885, and on pages 7 and 18 also quotes from, and by footnote refers to, his own article of May 21, 1885, and on pages 100-103 he uses fifty lines—say, about 550 words—from his article of May 21, 1885, but without stating whence he makes the quotation.
MR. EELLS' DISINGENUOUS STATEMENT ABOUT REV. E. WALKER.
An excellent example of the curious notions about "candor" which Rev. M. Eells has acquired in his long residence about Indian agencies is found in a footnote (on p. 59), concerning the reason why no evidence has ever been produced from Rev. E. Walker giving the least support to any form of the Whitman Saved Oregon story, as follows: "Mr. Walker died in 1877, before this controversy arose. Hence his testimony was not obtained." Could anything more disingenuous be imagined than this? Eighteen seventy-seven was twelve years after the Saving Oregon story was first printed in full by Spalding, and eleven years after Rev. C. Eells published his entirely different and contradictory version of its origin, and "the controversy" was constantly on after 1865, and "it goes without saying" that the advocates of the story would have been delighted to have secured a statement endorsing either version of it from Walker, or to have used any that he left when he died, in diary or letter. But he was too thoroughly honest a man to make any statement they could use, and his diary and his letters are among the strongest documents, that in the opinion of all real historians who have read them, totally disprove the Saving Oregon theory of Whitman's ride.
NO ANTAGONISM BETWEEN THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY AND THESE MISSIONARIES.
As he has repeatedly done in his newspaper articles, our "candid" author in "Reply" (pp. 96-7) assigns as the reason why the Whitman Saved Oregon story was not published earlier that the mission was dependent on the Hudson's Bay Company for supplies and that it would not have been prudent to state the real purpose of Whitman's ride, as it "might have so alienated the company that they would have cut off the supplies."
This, with much more he has written, is designed to convince the public (which is profoundly ignorant of the valid evidence on this subject) that there was antagonism between the Hudson's Bay Company and these missionaries, and the same stuff at greater length was written by Edwin Eells (a brother of Myron) to the Sunday School Times, and published in its issue of November 22, 1902.
In my forthcoming "History of the Acquisition of Oregon and the Long-Suppressed Evidence About Marcus Whitman," I shall print scores of pages of the letters and diaries of these missionaries, which will convince every reader that sorrier fictions were never printed than this stuff about antagonism between the Hudson's Bay Company and these missionaries, and that in reality the Hudson's Bay Company treated all these missionaries with the most constant and Unbounded kindness during the whole existence of the mission.
But there is only space here for two items.
First. No sooner did news of the Whitman massacre reach Ft. Vancouver than James Douglas and P. S. Ogden fitted out two boats, and with sixteen men and an ample supply of Indian goods, started them under the command of Ogden to Ft. Walla Walla, about 300 miles up the Columbia. Making utmost possible speed, they reached Walla Walla December 19, and Ogden immediately began negotiations for the ransom of the fifty-one captives at Whitman's station, and the nine at Spalding's station, who were virtually captives, since the Nez Ferces would only allow them to leave on payment by Ogden of a ransom, and so vigorously did he prosecute his mission of mercy that January i, 1848, the sixty ransomed ones were at Walla Walla, and the next day they started down the river, and in due time Mr. Ogden delivered them in safety at Oregon City.
January 8, 1848, Rev. H. H. Spalding wrote to D. Greene, secretary, a letter giving an account of the massacre and the rescue of the captives, and continued as follows "Too much praise cannot be credited to Mr. Ogden for his timely, prompt and judicious and Christian efforts in our behalf.
"We owe it under kind heaven to the efforts of Mr. Ogden and Mr. Douglas that we are alive and at this place to-day.
"May the God of Heaven abundantly reward them."
The whole history of Indian massacres since the settlement of America began shows no other instance where so many captives were so quickly rescued with no fighting and with no overwhelming military force menacing the Indians.
The Oregon Spectator, the only paper then published in Oregon, in its issue of January 20, 1848, printed the following letter:
"Sir: I feel it a duty as well as a pleasure to tender you my sincere thanks and the thanks of this community for your exertions in behalf of the widows and orphans that were left in the hands of the Cayuse Indians.
"Their state was a deplorable one, subject to the caprices of savages, exposed to their insults, compelled to labor for them, and remaining constantly in dread lest they should be butchered, as their husbands and fathers had been.
"From this state I am fully satisfied we could not relieve them.
"A small party of Americans would have been looked upon by them with contempt; a large party would have been the signal for a general massacre.
"Your immediate departure from Vancouver on receipt of the intelligence from Wailatpu enabling you to arrive at Walla Walla before the news of the American party having started from this place reached them, together with your influence over the Indians, accomplished the desirable object of relieving the distressed.
Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/81 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/82 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/83 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/84 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/85 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/86 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/87 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/88 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/89 private expedition down and up the Columbia River, and I had the extreme pleasure of listening to his eloquent and fascinating descriptions of that country during many interviews with Senators Linn and Breese, who were collecting material to use before the Senate in their discussion upon the merits of the bill, which almost the whole Senate treated with a smile of impatience and indifference whenever the subject was called to their attention. From Dr. Whitman, a missionary to Oregon, much useful information for emigrants and the Senators who had charge of the bill was also obtained at that time."
That Dr. Reed's recollection of what winter it was that he was in Washington is trustworthy is evident from his very great personal interest in his contest for the very important and lucrative office of Surveyor General of the two great States of Missouri and Illinois, to which, he informs us further on in the letter, the President renominated him "On the 14th of March, 1842, and on the 17th I was unanimously confirmed," (which we find verified by examination of the Sen. Ex. Journal for that date), but that his recollections as to the other matters in this quotation are wholly erroneous I shall speedily demonstrate. (1.) As to the calling of that special session of Congress—the first session of the twenty-seventh Congress—Mr. Tyler had no more to do with that call than "the Man in the Moon." Though it did not assemble till after his most untimely death, it was called, not by Mr. Tyler "shortly after" Reed's appointment in April, 1841, but on March 17, 1841, by President Harrison, a fact distinctly stated by President Tyler in his message to it, (as Dr. Reed could have ascertained by five minutes' examination of the Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 27th Cong., 1841, p. 7, or "Messages of the Presidents, Vol. IV., p. 21). Dr. Reed's assertion, therefore, that "Mr. Tyler was unfortunately persuaded by the Clay wing of the Harrison and Tyler party to call an extra session of Congress for the summer of 1841," is without even a shadow of foundation in fact.
(2.) As to the grotesque inaccuracy of Dr. Reed's statement that "Almost the whole Senate treated Linn's bill with a smile of indifference or impatience," it is only necessary to refer the reader to the Congressional Globe, Twenty-seventh Congress, third session, for the record of the great debate on that bill in the Senate, the report of which covers 165 columns, and in which, of a total membership of fifty, twenty-seven senators took part.
(3.) As to "a large number of emigrants to Oregon in 1841." A letter of Mrs. Whitman, dated "Wielatpoo, Oregon Territory, October 1, 1841," and published in Transactions of the Oregon Pioneer Association for 1891, pages 139-145, says (p. 139): "The emigrants were twenty-four in number—two Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/91 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/92 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/93 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/94 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/95 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/96 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/97 Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/98