Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/Polk and Oregon,-with a Pakenham Letter
POLK AND OREGON,—WITH A PAKENHAM LETTER
Katharine B. Judson, M. A.
The contributions of Mr. Shippee on "The Federal Relations of Oregon, V." in the June Quarterly, reminded the writer of a rather interesting letter written during the Congressional debate, from Richard Pakenham, British Ambassador, to the Earl of Aberdeen, the original of which was found in the London Public Record Office. The letter is given below:
Richard Pakenham to the Earl of Aberdeen
"Washington, March 29, 1846.[1]
"My Lord,
[Formalities, and general reference to the debates in Congress, on the Oregon question.]
* * * * * * * *
"But a fact which I must not omit to point out to Your Lordship's notice, is, that it seems to have become a received opinion among even the most moderate members of the Senate, that the claims of the United States extend fully to the parallel of 49, which they consider ought to be insisted on as the basis of any arrangement.
"So certain is this, that the advocates of a peaceful settlement of the question are now universally designated as 49 men, in contradistinction to those who go for the whole of Oregon even at the risk of war, and are called 54.40 men. "In the course of this debate, a good deal of interest was excited by the speech of Mr. Haywood of North Carolina, (Intelligencers of 23rd and 24th March)** who from the intimacy which has long subsisted between him and Mr. Polk was supposed to speak, in a certain degree, the President's opinions.
"Mr. Haywood's language was entirely in favor of compromise upon the basis of 49, and he gave it to be understood that thosc who imagined that the President was inclined to persist in asserting at all risks a claim to the whole of Oregon, or that he felt bound by the resolution to that effect, passed at the Convention which nominated him to the Presidency were mistakes.
"This avowal was received with violent indignation by the advocates of extrene measures. I beg leave to request Your Lordship's attention to the extraordinary language made use of on the occasion by Mr. Hannegan of Indiana (Intelligencer of 6 March)[2] who did not hesitate to declare that if it was truc that the President thus belied the pledge taken by the Baltimore Convention—
"'The story of his infamy would be circulated from one end of the land to the other, and his perfidious course would sink him in an infamy so profound, in a damnation so deep, that the hand of resurrection could never reach him,—a traitor to his country so superlatively base need hope for neither forgiveness from God nor mercy from man. "This is what the President has brought upon himself by the imprudent lengths to which he allowed himself to go in his inaugural address, as well as in his Message of the 2nd December, and in the correspondence of his Secretary of State on the subject of Oregon.
"Fortunately for the country, the party in the Senate who think with Mr. Hanncgan, is so insignificant, not numbering as it has repeatedly been asserted in the course of the debate. above a fourth, or as some say, a fifth, of that body, that Mr. Polk need have no fear that he wl not be supported amply, both in and out of the Senate, if he should wisely determine to adopt a moderate and pacific course of policy,—but what his real intention in this respect may be, he has given the public no opportunity of judging, since the scene in the Senate of which I have above spoken." * * *
To the Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.