How Did Oregon Get Its Border to Begin With?
July 30, 2024
Moving Oregon's border to the Cascade Mountain Range is not a new idea. In fact, the debate about where to place the border began at the original Oregon constitutional convention in 1857, where eastern Oregon had only 1 delegate out of 60. That sole delegate advocated for the border to be placed along the Cascades. The idea made sense 167 years ago and it still does today. Thank-you to Alicia Zinni for her thorough examination of how Oregon's border came to be.
How was the boundary between Oregon and Idaho originally set? By Alicia Zinni
In 1846, Oregon became a territory, sandwiched between the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountain crest to the east. Counties had been forming within the western portion of the territory, and by 1854, there were 18 counties west of the Cascades while everything east of the Cascades was named Wasco County. It was the largest county ever formed in the United States at 130,000 square miles. Wasco County was the parent from which parts of Idaho and Wyoming were split. It was also the parent from which 17 eastern Oregon counties split. Wasco county is now only 2395 square miles in size.
A territorial legislature had been governing the area, formed by each county sending representatives to the House and Council (now senate). By 1857 the legislature had decided to approach Congress with proposed statehood, which meant recommending a state boundary. A special committee of the legislature met in August of 1857 to determine the best state line.
In this debate, we hear from:
• James Kelly of Clackamas County and Council President
• Thomas Dryer of Multnomah and Clackamas counties
• Mr. Smith who was either from Lane and Benton counties or from Linn County,
• La Fayette Grover of Marion County and House Speaker, and
• Charles Meigs, the lonely voice for the 130,000-square-mile Wasco County.
The group was entertaining a proposed motion for the Snake and Owyhee rivers as the east state boundary. Charles Meigs then moved for an amendment to make the Cascades the eastern boundary instead, leaving parts east of the Cascades as a territory. The following reporting on the debate is excerpted from The Oregon Statesman’s September 1, 1857 edition.
Mr. Meigs moved to amend so as to make the Eastern boundary range on or near the summit of the Cascade range, leaving the Dalles out of the State.
Mr. Dryer was opposed to the amendment. He was opposed to a small State. He was in favor of taking in the Territory east of the Cascade. If we are going to have a State, let us have a large one - we have land enough. There were some people at the Dalles in favor of a new Territory, but he never heard any reason given for it. He was in favor of going to Missouri and taking in Utah if we could.
Mr. Smith . . . saw no good purpose to be promoted by adopting this motion. He could see no motive the people of Wasco County could have for desiring it to be done. The Dalles was a gate through which the people and merchandise of both sides of the Cascades must pass through. The only argument he had heard, was that small states would give us more senators - that was true, but when would we have them. He regretted that Washington Territory had been cut off, and had we it now, he would be in favor of the Cascades as our eastern boundary. He had pride of State and pride of country; he liked large States and large countries, and he thanked God that he belonged to one - a powerful one, that commanded the respect and excited the fear of the other nations of the world. It was true small states had as many votes as large ones, but they had nothing like as much influence. If a
constitution was to be submitted with the Cascades as a boundary, it would not get votes enough to make a shirt collar.
Mr. Grover said we had more wasteland proportionately and less arable land than the other States of the Union. If we were to make the Cascades the boundary, we should have about the same amount of arable land [as] New Jersey, which ranks as one of the small States of the Union had. He said it was the desire of the citizens living in the portion of Washington included in the boundary, that the Cascades should be the boundary, but if it was not, they preferred the boundary named in the report. It was not improbable that at some day not distant, the Dalles would be the seat of government of Oregon. Its position was likely to be more central to the future State of Oregon than say other.
Mr. Meigs said he had expected others than himself would have supported the Cascades boundary, but it seemed he stood alone in support of it. That the Cascades should be our eastern boundary was a self evident proposition. It was a maxim of political science that great natural boundaries should be observed in the organization of States and governments. The Cascades constituted such a boundary. There were but three known trails over those mountains and those trails were impassible for six or eight months of the year. It was entirely gratuitous to presume that the interests of the people east of the Cascades would be promoted by being attached to Oregon. They understood the question, and were united in the opinion that they would be bettered by separation. He tho’t the Territory east of the Cascades would make a sufficiently large State - that it would contain much more arable land than Mr. Grover supposed. He believed there was land enough vacant west of the Cascades for all such purposes. It had been said that if the Cascades was made the boundary, the people west of those mountains would be left in a state of vassalage. The people there preferred to be in a state of Vassalage to the United States than to this part of Oregon.
The amendment of Mr. Meigs was lost.
So there you go. Some things never change. As far back as 1857, eastern Oregon representatives were overturned by a western Oregon power block looking to maximize their wealth and gain. Thank you Mr. Charles Meigs for your effort. The Greater Idaho movement is picking up where you left off.