Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 19.djvu/142

 130 LESTER BURRELL SHIPPEE ulation, needed in the older States and in the States and Ter- ritories upon the existing frontier. Very little of that long and extremely tedious discussion, so characteristic of Oregon debates of later days, of the bases of the title of the United States, is to be found in the record of the debate of 1828-9. For the most part it appears that those who approved the bill agreed to the principle that it should) apply to the region between 42 and 54 40', al- though Everett called attention to the fact that the United States had offered 49 during the late negotiations with Eng- land. It is further interesting to note that James K. Polk was one of those who opposed the bill because, as he stated, he believed the provision for military occupation was sure to provoke a collision with Great Britain. He thought no decisive step should be taken until further negotiations had settled the issue as between the two countries. One of the interesting aspects of this episode is the sectional distribution of support and opposition to the measure. The sectional issue was scarcely developed; this is shown both by the record of votes and by the discussion. The bill was strongly supported by Floyd of Virginia, Everett and Richardson of Massachusetts, Drayton of South Carolina, Gurley of Louisi- ana and Ingersoll of Connecticut. Among those who worked against it were Bates of Missouri, Mitchell of Tennessee, Storrs of New York, Weems of Maryland and Gorham of Massachusetts. Moreover, it was not a mere dissatisfaction with the particular bill which produced the opposition of such westerners as Mitchell and Bates. The former said that it was inexpedient to take possession in any manner whatsoever; for no possible good and innumerable evils would result; Bates wished that the Rocky Mountains were a deep sea bordering the United States so that there could be no temptations to ex- pand further in that direction. As there was no sectional division on the measure so there was no strictly party issue made of the vote, if one can call