The inability of the independent fur trader to compete with the English company, and the comparative advantage that the English subject had in the protection by his country’s laws, naturally led to a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the American trader, and a belief that under the cover of a business enterprise the English civil government was gradually settling itself over the country to the exclusion of the American, whose interests and rights were equal according to the treaty of joint occupancy. That John Jacob Astor had not renewed his enterprise after the restoration of the fort at Astoria at the close of the war of 1812, was due to the refusal of the government, during Madison’s administration, to guarantee his company the protection of the United States in case of trouble.[4] Had that been done, company would have been in competition with company, and the conditions would have been more equal. As it was, however, the United States’ interests were represented and her hold maintained only by such independent traders and trappers as ventured into the country, and usually failed of maintaining themselves for any great length of time.
It was such a condition of affairs that came to the knowledge of the people, and finally reached those channels where it gained entrance into our national policy. It was a significant circumstance in the history of civil government in Oregon, that, in the winter of 1820 and 1821, four men were thrown together at a hotel in the City of Washington.[5] Two of them, Ramsey Crooks of New York and Russell Farnham of Massachusetts, were traders who had been connected with the unsuccessful enterprise of Mr. Astor. The other two were members of congress, John Floyd of Virginia and Thomas H. Benton of Missouri. Mr. Benton had for some time been interested in the question, and had been pondering upon a method of procedure. During this period of acquaintance they talked much together and became convinced of the advisability of an aggressive campaign for the protection of American trappers and traders, and the maintenance of the full American rights in the joint territory.
There were probably no better men to take the leadership in a movement of this kind than Floyd and Benton. Both were western in their training and in their sympathies, and both were enthusiastic in any movement pertaining to a westward extension of the country. Western men were already beginning to have weight in the national councils, and were exerting a distinct influence upon national policy. Although rough and unskilled in many of the essentials of good government, their influence tended toward a true American life and a broader idea of American national destiny.