#37: Describe the background for the slogan "54 40 or fight". How was this issue settled? How did it affect American, Canadian and British relations?
Okay as you can see, this is the question for my research essay. Please help me improve this cause I really want to get a high mark for this essay after messing up on my Musqueam one(another essay which I posted here as well)
But anyways, enjoy(but don't enjoy too much to forget editing it!) Help me think of a title as well, "54 40" or fight just isnt gonna cut it.
"Fifty-four forty or fight!" is a campaign slogan that mutated from a slogan targeted to manipulate voters into a nationwide cry for more land. The "fifty-four forty" refers to the latitude line of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes north. The intent of the slogan was to fuel Americans to declare drawing a line along the state of Oregon, which was jointly occupied by the Americans and the British, at the fifty-four forty latitude line. However, this would mean that the British lose the entire state of Oregon, something they would never agree to. The Anglo-American relations worsened during this time because the British made a few diplomatic mistakes, which worsened American hostility against the British. The issue was eventually settled by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree boundary line, but America and its Congress was in hot debate for nearly six months. However, the main reason the boundary issue was settled peacefully was the fact that Americans began to overcome their natural patriotic passion and their hostility against the British to make a logical analysis that fighting for Oregon was simply not profitable.
Why was Oregon the object of so much debate? The state of Oregon has fertile soil for agricultural development, a great market for farm surpluses, and for Americans who were hostile towards the British, it was just a way to cause trouble and gain economical advantages over Britain. Polk's precedent, Tyler, proposed to place the boundary at 49 degrees north but in exchange allowed the British free navigation of the Columbia river. In 1845 James K. Polk , who succeeded Tyler as the next president, renewed this proposal, but removed the section pertaining to free navigation. This was not a really good idea, for the Americans did not lose much from allowing the British to sail through the Columbia River. In fact, free navigation might even bring in revenue from trading along the river banks. One of the few possible reason for removing free navigation was the paranoia that the British might make use of this route to attack America.
The British made a serious diplomatic mistake that made the negotiations of the Oregon state take a turn for the worse. Because the terms Polk proposed was less favorable than what the Tyler government proposed, the minister in London, Richard Pakenham, rejected it without even presenting the proposal to the government in London. Publicly humiliated and deeply hurt, Polk withdrew his proposal and ended all negotiations with the British. Polk then immediately requested the Congress to pass a resolution that would notify the British of the termination of the joint occupation. The British realized Pakenham's mistake too late and could not persuade Polk to come back to the negotiation tables. Pakenham's unwise decision of immediately rejecting Polk's proposal was not something diplomats are supposed to do. Even if the terms are unsatisfactory to Pakenham's standards, he should have still taken them to the government in London and see what they think.
The American community was outraged at Pakenham's outright rejection of Polk's proposal,. The natural distrust towards British people worsened. As a result, radical voices began appearing in Congress debates, voices that call for no compromise, voices that revived the notion of fifty-four forty or fight. One of these voices, McDuffie, stated that he would "Rather make that territory of his fellow citizens and color the soil with their blood than to give in one inch." In modern times, McDuffie would surely have been censured for uttering such words. However, in the first few months after Pakenham's rejection of Polk's proposal, patriotic and passionate voices, however illogical and thoughtless, were commonly accepted and looked upon favorably.
As the months passed, the talk of war and defending Oregon from possible invaders began to fade in Congress. Both America and Britain would not desire a war for it would seriously damage the economy of the two countries. As America slowly realizes this, logic and careful analysis began to show during Congress debates. Yancey, who was originally a proponent of war, stated that America was in the midst of purchasing California, which would provide grandeur and economical importance. If America enters a conflict with Britain, not only would they jeapordize the purchase of California, but the costs of maintaining this war would cost at the very least another $500 million worth of debt. Another Congress member, Evans, also argued that what lies between 49 and 54 degrees and 40 minutes north was simply a stretch of land no larger than 58000 miles square. Fighting for Oregon above the 49 degree latitude was not really worth anything except to mend some broken pride. But the loss of California and the debt on the country imposed on the country would surely be too much for the country to handle.
Eventually, the Congress voted in favor of "preserving peace of country honorably and of settling the question (of Oregon) peacefully... as a suitable and proper and honorable mode of settling national questions." The question of "Fifty-four forty or fight" was finally settled in the treaty of 1846 by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree north latitude line. However, this boundary dispute should not have been such a serious crisis. Firstly, James Polk should not have withdrawn the article regarding free navigation of the Columbia River, seeing that it did not good and eventually in the treaty of 1846 free navigation was given to the British. Secondly, it was unwise for the British minister Richard Pakenham to act on his own and reject Polk's proposal. Being the ambassador of Britain, he was supposed to represent Britain's interest in those affairs, not his own. Even if he did not like the proposal, he was supposed to bring it back to London and let the Parliament debate over it. Lastly, patriotic passions blinded many Americans from the true implications of a war with the British. Such an act would undoubtedly damage the country as they might lose a lot more than the piece of land they might obtain. The shibboleth "fifty-four forty or fight" was an extremely important feature of the Oregon boundary dispute for it expresses the feelings of radical Americans who sate debating in the comfort of the Congress halls, who thought nothing of the loss of live and economy but only of the small portion of land gained in exchange.
For those people with no idea what shibboleth means, search it up on dictionary.com
Capitalize "River" because it is part of a proper noun. Columbia River
I see a little typo:
rejection of Polk's proposal,.
number agreement:
...the economies of the two countries.
Okay, the writing is great, but you need some references to texts. I don't think you can get a good grade on a research paper if you don't cite your sources. What does your teacher say about citations? Do you need to use MLA and have a works cited list?
The writing is very good, with nice transitions and explanations.
