Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/298

This page has been validated.

288

E. G. Bourne

the bucket, and of equal significance. That Whitman influenced American diplomacy in any way at Washington is not only destitute of all evidence but is intrinsically improbable. The belief that he did so originated with Spalding, and the ever-present stamp of his invention in all the varying narratives is the reference to "trading off Oregon for a cod-fishery."^[1]

The fisheries were not a subject of negotiation in 1842, nor were they proposed for the expected negotiation of 1843.^[2] Consequently

Committee of Foreign Affairs, Feb. 25, 1843. Diary, XI. 327. Feb. 9, Representative Reynolds, chairman of a select committee on Oregon, reported a bill for the immediate occupation of the territory. Niles's Register, XLIII. 397; Adams's Diary, XI. 314.

↑ For the recurrence of this note, see Spalding, Exec. Doc. 37, pp. 22, 75; Eells in Miss. Herald, 1866, p. 371; Atkinson, ibid., 1869, p. 79; Gray, Oregon, p. 316; Victor, Overland Monthly, Aug. 1869, p. 155; Poore in Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 1880, p. 534; Eells, History of Indian Missions, p. 174; Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, p. 128–9. Barrows in his Oregon, pp. 224–238, shows that the interviews are unhistorical by a process which completely undermines the rest of his narrative. Leaving the question of candor or honesty aside, what can be said of the truthworthiness of a writer who says, p. 233, that there is no evidence that Sir George Simpson was in Washington in 1842–1843 and yet incorporates the myth in his narrative on pp. 153, 158, 202, 203, 204, going so far on p. 203 as to reconstruct a conversation with Webster out of Sir George's Overland Journey Round the World? Barrows puts into Webster's mouth a remark about Whitman which was made by an anonymous friend of Webster's to an anonymous writer! Cf. Barrows, p. 225, with Exec. Doc. 37, p. 24, or Nixon, p. 133. Spalding does the same thing in his headline. The article is cited by Spalding from the Independent, Jan., 1870, but it is not there and has not been found, although a careful search has been made for it. Again, although Barrows lived near Boston, there is no evidence that he ever looked at the Missionary Herald for 1842–1843 or the Reports of the Board for those years. Barrows's method is unscientific and bewildering to the last degree. He goes over the same ground repeatedly and presents different and inconsistent accounts of the same transactions.

It is but justice to say that Mrs. Victor enjoys the lonely distinction of being the only writer, so far as I know, who, having once published the legend, upon a more careful study of the evidence has had the open-mindedness to see and declare its legendary character. As the avowed author of Bancroft's Oregon, working under his editorial supervision, every student of Oregon history is under obligations to her for her scholarly and honest presentation of the facts derived from the unparalleled collection of materials gathered by Mr. Bancroft. While I have been greatly assisted in this study by the bibliographical notes and in a less degree by the text in the Bancroft History, every important assertion in this article is my own matured conviction. It is a rare experience in a critical examination of sources to find in any general history so faithful and trustworthy a presentation of the contents of those sources as in the parts of the first volume of Bancroft's Oregon that I have subjected to this test. The aspersions cast upon Mrs. Victor and the Bancroft History by writers too lazy to find out the facts or too blinded by prejudice to see them or too dishonest to report them may have goaded her into counter-assertions and judgments not so carefully weighed as the text of the History, but such criticisms and charges as Nixon brought against the History and her work entitle him to rank with Gray in candor and trustworthiness, than which no more can be said. Cf. the San Francisco Call, Sept. 1, 1895, and How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, pp. 205–216
↑ "The only question of magnitude about which I did not negotiate with Lord Ashburton is the question respecting the fisheries." Webster to Mrs. Paige, Aug. 23, 1842, Private Corresp., II. 146. That the fisheries were not to be considered in 1843 is shown by Webster's letter to Minister Everett, Nov. 28, 1842, ibid., 153–4.

[1] For the recurrence of this note, see Spalding, Exec. Doc. 37, pp. 22, 75; Eells in Miss. Herald, 1866, p. 371; Atkinson, ibid., 1869, p. 79; Gray, Oregon, p. 316; Victor, Overland Monthly, Aug. 1869, p. 155; Poore in Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 1880, p. 534; Eells, History of Indian Missions, p. 174; Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, p. 128–9. Barrows in his Oregon, pp. 224–238, shows that the interviews are unhistorical by a process which completely undermines the rest of his narrative. Leaving the question of candor or honesty aside, what can be said of the truthworthiness of a writer who says, p. 233, that there is no evidence that Sir George Simpson was in Washington in 1842–1843 and yet incorporates the myth in his narrative on pp. 153, 158, 202, 203, 204, going so far on p. 203 as to reconstruct a conversation with Webster out of Sir George's Overland Journey Round the World? Barrows puts into Webster's mouth a remark about Whitman which was made by an anonymous friend of Webster's to an anonymous writer! Cf. Barrows, p. 225, with Exec. Doc. 37, p. 24, or Nixon, p. 133. Spalding does the same thing in his headline. The article is cited by Spalding from the Independent, Jan., 1870, but it is not there and has not been found, although a careful search has been made for it. Again, although Barrows lived near Boston, there is no evidence that he ever looked at the Missionary Herald for 1842–1843 or the Reports of the Board for those years. Barrows's method is unscientific and bewildering to the last degree. He goes over the same ground repeatedly and presents different and inconsistent accounts of the same transactions.

It is but justice to say that Mrs. Victor enjoys the lonely distinction of being the only writer, so far as I know, who, having once published the legend, upon a more careful study of the evidence has had the open-mindedness to see and declare its legendary character. As the avowed author of Bancroft's Oregon, working under his editorial supervision, every student of Oregon history is under obligations to her for her scholarly and honest presentation of the facts derived from the unparalleled collection of materials gathered by Mr. Bancroft. While I have been greatly assisted in this study by the bibliographical notes and in a less degree by the text in the Bancroft History, every important assertion in this article is my own matured conviction. It is a rare experience in a critical examination of sources to find in any general history so faithful and trustworthy a presentation of the contents of those sources as in the parts of the first volume of Bancroft's Oregon that I have subjected to this test. The aspersions cast upon Mrs. Victor and the Bancroft History by writers too lazy to find out the facts or too blinded by prejudice to see them or too dishonest to report them may have goaded her into counter-assertions and judgments not so carefully weighed as the text of the History, but such criticisms and charges as Nixon brought against the History and her work entitle him to rank with Gray in candor and trustworthiness, than which no more can be said. Cf. the San Francisco Call, Sept. 1, 1895, and How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, pp. 205–216

[2] "The only question of magnitude about which I did not negotiate with Lord Ashburton is the question respecting the fisheries." Webster to Mrs. Paige, Aug. 23, 1842, Private Corresp., II. 146. That the fisheries were not to be considered in 1843 is shown by Webster's letter to Minister Everett, Nov. 28, 1842, ibid., 153–4.

[1]

[2]