The vehemence of these words startled the House, although it was not the only belligerent speech on the Oregon question.  Cooler heads, like J.Q.  Adams, who feared the effect of such imprudent utterances falling upon British ears, remonstrated at the unseemly haste with which the bill was being “driven through” the House, and counselled with all the weight of years against the puerility of provoking war in this fashion.  But the most that could be accomplished in the way of moderation was an amendment, which directed the President to give notice of the termination of our joint treaty of occupation with Great Britain.  This precaution proved to be unnecessary, as the Senate failed to act upon the bill.

No one expected from the new President any masterful leadership of the people as a whole or of his party.  Few listened with any marked attention, therefore, to his inaugural address.  His references to Texas and Oregon were in accord with the professions of the Democratic party, except possibly at one point, which was not noted at the time but afterward widely commented upon.  “Our title to the country of the Oregon,” said he, “is clear and unquestionable.”  The text of the Baltimore platform read, “Our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable.”  Did President Polk mean to be ambiguous at this point?  Had he any reason to swerve from the strict letter of the Democratic creed?

In his first message to Congress, President Polk alarmed staunch Democrats by stating that he had tried to compromise our clear and unquestionable claims, though he assured his party that he had done so only out of deference to his predecessor in office.  Those inherited policies having led to naught, he was now prepared to reassert our title to the whole of Oregon, which was sustained “by irrefragable facts and arguments.”  He would therefore recommend that provision be made for terminating the joint treaty of occupation, for extending the jurisdiction of the United States over American citizens in Oregon, and for protecting emigrants in transit through the Indian country.  These were strong measures.  They might lead to war; but the temper of Congress was warlike; and a group of Democrats in both houses was ready to take up the programme which the President had outlined.  “Fifty-four forty or fight” was the cry with which they sought to rally the Chauvinists of both parties to their standard.  While Cass led the skirmishing line in the Senate, Douglas forged to the fore in the House.[207]

It is good evidence of the confidence placed in Douglas by his colleagues that, when territorial questions of more than ordinary importance were pending, he was appointed chairman of the Committee on Territories.[208] If there was one division of legislative work in which he showed both capacity and talent, it was in the organization of our Western domain and in its preparation for statehood.  The vision which dazzled his imagination was that