Historically, issues surrounding British North America were negotiated between the Americans and the British, excluding the people who actually inhabited the land. This is particularly evident in the Anglo-American Convention, following the resolution of the War of 1812. Britain made several concessions to the Americans in order to build their alliance with the USA, a nation that would likely gain influence as a global power. These stipulations included American access to the Atlantic Fisheries, a point that British North Americans fiercely disliked. The British favored the Americans, despite the fact that British North America was their own possession. This pattern is complicated in Vouri’s analysis of the dispute over San Juan Island in his book The Pig War. While civilian officers dealt with British North American Citizens, the issue was ultimately decided without consideration for British North America.
Governor James Douglas, a British North American, exercised a significant amount of power initially in the San Juan dispute. Douglas is considered a British North American, rather than a British citizen because of his deceiving of the British of the nature of the British presence on the island and failure to acknowledge the influx of Hawaiian’s that had arrived to work on the island. This suggests his loyalty lay in the country he inhabited, rather than the country in which he was born. While Douglas aggressively pursued British rights to the island for honor’s sake, the British Navy soon swept in to take control and prevent him from acting rashly. General Scott, the American determined to peacefully solve the San Juan boundary dispute, had little interest in engaging with Douglas. “The general…never left the ship, or his cabin for that matter, throughout his negotiations with Douglas.” (189) The issue of the San Juan boundary dispute was eventually put to Germany. This “impartial” arbiter would determine who had the rights to the island. The choice of Germany as an arbitrator, a nation who was likely to favor the US showed the dwindling interest of the British in British North America. Indeed, Britain was considering dropping BNA as a colony, which results in the forming of the dominion of Canada. The economic benefits of San Juan Island were not lucrative enough to cause the British to wish to engage the issue further. Douglas, and other British North Americans, however, felt the battle should be fought for the principle of the matter. While Douglas is a central character to Vouri’s narrative, he does not ultimately get his way. Rather, the British government decided the value of San Juan Island was less than their continued alliance with the United States.
It was not only the British and the British North Americans who faced divisions. There was also a division in military culture between civilian officers and military officers on both the British and American sides. As previously discussed, James Douglas was firm in his convictions that the island belonged to the Hudson Bay Company, thus making it already British. His anger over the loss of Oregon combined with his own anti-American bias due to his hatred of slavery stemming from his own racial background caused him to be less inclined to settle peacefully. Charles C. Griffin, the man whose pig was shot, catalyzing the San Juan conflict, was not willing to settle for simple repayment from Lyman Cutlar for his killed animal. Instead he passionately began questioning the right of Cutlar to settle on the island. Cutlar reports the incident, “Mr. Griffin flew in a passion and said it was no more than I expected…for you Americans are a nuisance on the island and you have no business here and I shall write Mr. Douglas and have you removed.” (53) Cutler shot back, “I came here to settle for shooting your hog, not to argue the right of Americans on the island for I consider it American soil.” (53) Griffin’s failure to simply accept payment reflects the HBC’s itching to start a conflict.
The British military officers were much less inclined to engage militarily with the Americans. The British Navy was determined to not allow a conflict to come to fruition, but to enforce peace with the knowledge that their forces could blow the Americans out of the water. Their mere presence was enough to maintain an uneasy peace. While the HBC argued that the possession of the island was a matter of national honor, the British navy saw the invasion of San Juan Island as a mistake. Rear Admiral R. Lambert Baynes, the Pacific Station commander was determined to avoid a collision. “I was decidedly adverse to a joint military occupation, which could in no way strengthen our claim, and was very likely, from various causes, to bring about a collision.” (143) In a letter to Captain Geoffrey Phipps Hornby, Baynes writes:
It is now my positive order that you do not, on any account whatever, take the initiative in commencing hostilities by firing on them or in any work the may have thrown up…Should the troops of the United States commit any aggressive act by firing on the Tribune or any of Her Majesty’s ships or boats, you are at full liberty to resent the insult by adopting such measures as you think [desirable] informing me of the circumstances as quickly as possible. (135)
There were clear divisions in the British forces between the hawkish HBC and the Dovish Royal Navy.
The division in the American forces is less clear-cut. Though George Pickett and William Hearny were American Military Officers, their physical occupation of the island, especially when compared with Winfield Scott’s detached position in his cabin, put them in a position to be dealing directly with hawkish HBC officials. It is arguable that Pickett and Hearny became the equivalent of the British civilian officials, manipulating orders and operating without full knowledge of the conflict. Indeed, George Pickett did not even know about the Oregon Treaty or the background of the San Juan dispute. He was simply convinced that the island was American. Harney admitted to not reading the Marcy Letter, which asserted that the island belongs to no one until the British and American governments decide, until Douglas shared his copy with him. (144) Hearny and Pickett were willing to fight for the island. Harney was a former “pet” of Andrew Jackson and had a similar positive attitude toward engagement. Thus, he dispatched 500 soldiers to the small island causing the HBC to set the Northern Indians upon the American forces.
In contrast to the militant Pickett and Hearny, Winfield Scott was known as the “Great Pacificator.” He was horrified with the behavior of the two American officers. “Harney and Pickett were professional officers who should have known better than to intrigue in areas best left to civilian government.” (188) Scott, a former lawyer, had experience in settling boundary disputes. He saw his sole responsibility was to prevent war. There was a clear divide between the two military cultures. While civilian officials, in which I assert Pickett and Harney are included, were much more open to the idea of hashing out the conflict. The British Navy and Winfield Scott were equally determined to prevent war. There are several reasons Britain and America’s reluctance to engage, perhaps one of the most important being the British Naval shield.
The British naval shield made both Britain and the United States unwilling to engage militarily. The British and American alliance had been beneficial for the economy of both nations. Britain’s navy was the strongest in the world. While the navy protected British North America, the United States was also protected from invasion. This allowed the United States to pursue their landward turn, which led to further development and economic prosperity. While the United States became a massive land power, Britain remained a formidable sea power. Both nations benefitted from the other. The British had invested millions of dollars in the American industrial infrastructure and were benefitting economically from that partnership. That partnership was much more valuable to Britain than the possession of San Juan Island. This can partially explain Britain’s seeming lack of effort in their fight for possession. Thus, the nations’ economic ties made war a disastrous prospect. Vouri fails to emphasize the importance of the naval shield in the resolution of this conflict.
During the San Juan conflict, the American Civil War was unfolding. This had several effects on the San Juan conflict. Firstly, the impending civil war distracts the Americans from fully engaging in the San Juan conflict. The possible division of their nation is much more important to the Americans than the possession of a small island. The civil war also causes divisions between the British and the British North Americans. BNA were sympathetic to abolitionist sentiments. Indeed, Douglas was particularly concerned about San Juan becoming an instrument of the slave trade. However, the British begin to toy with the idea of aiding the South, not because they agreed with slavery, but because they saw the benefits of the division of the United States. The British built two warships for the south, angering the Americans and British North Americans. The British never intervened militarily on behalf of the South.
The resolution of the Civil war and the resulting abolition of slavery had an effect on the resolution of the San Juan dispute. The British North Americans were much less vehement in their determined possession of the island, since their fear of the island becoming involved in the slave trade was not to be realized. The United State’s survival of the Civil War also reaffirmed their status of superpower. It was in Britain’s best interest to concede to the United States an island that would become a part of the dominion of Canada anyway. This partially explains the British’s acceptance of Germany as impartial arbiter, despite Germany’s American bias.
Germany was certainly not an “impartial” arbiter. George Bancroft, the US ambassador to Berlin influenced the choice of Germany as arbiter, foreshadowing a US bias. The American’s first choice was Germany, while the British advocated for Austria. Germany was biased toward the United States because the USA was not a European country, and thus not a direct competitor. As Germany was uniting, they sought the United States as an ally. They had no incentive to help Britain, as the nation was a European rival. Thus, the Germans decide two to one that the United States will get San Juan Island. The dissenting vote, Goldschmidt suggested a compromise that was overruled by the other two geographers. Germany was an obviously unfair choice for arbiter, however the British decision to not challenge the choice shows their growing disinterest in North America.
Vouri fails to address this point of unfair arbitration. He is so pleased with the peaceful resolution on the conflict, that he does not address the fact that the Americans were favored. In his preface, he makes it clear that his anti-war sentiments are what drove his desire to write the book. While a peaceful resolution is indeed admirable and desirable, Vouri does not fully address the reasons for this peace. His failure to examine the naval shield and acknowledge the American advantage is a notable oversight.
Vivian Gornick succeeds in writing a biographical account of Elizabeth Cady Stanton that captures her very essence as a woman and an activist. Gornick argues that Stanton’s radical position “among radicals” makes her the most forward thinking feminist thinker of the nineteenth century, one whose ideas gave birth to the present ideals of feminism. However the ambitiousness of her goals for women did not always lead to admiration by her peers. Indeed her decision to fight for suffrage in the late eighteen forties caused her fellow activist and friend Lucretia Mott to initially exclaim, “O Lizzie, thou wilt make us ridiculous.” (41) In her own time, Elizabeth was seen as erratic and impractical, sometimes even racist and insensitive. Gornick notes, “She hardly ever spoke before she thought, but she always spoke without consultation or strategic consideration.” (46) It is this lack of “strategic consideration” replaced with pure passion that led her to say things like, “for the negro can be raised to the dignity of a voter if he possess himself of $250; the lunatic can vote in his moments of sanity; and the idiot too, if he be a male one…” (51) Though her contemporaries judged her harshly, it was her unbridled enthusiasm for women’s rights and individualist spirit that make her such an essential figure for present-day American feminists. Indeed Gornick goes as far as to say, “We are beginning where she left off.” (16)
In her first chapter, “1840 to Begin With,” Gornick begins with Stanton’s stepping down from her position of president of the National Woman Suffrage Association with her “The Solitude of Self” speech. She explains that Stanton felt distant from her beloved cause because of the “kind of single issue, nuts-and-bolts politics she had come to deplore.” (4) For Stanton, pragmatism was less important than principle, thus she felt isolated in this practical, lifeless environment. The book begins with a perceived failure or surrender, yet then continues to Gornick’s own personal journey in feminism, recounting experiences of sexism, “I remembered my young husband and me talking for hours about what we would do with the future, both clearly taking it for granted that his life was to be our life.” (12) Gornick argues that contemporary American feminists share the ideals of the once perceived radical Stanton. “Reading Elizabeth Stanton,” Gornick remarks, “made me feel on my skin the shock of realizing how slowly (how grudgingly!) politics in the modern world has actually moved…” (16) Though Stanton was born nearly one hundred years before Gornick, their politics are incredibly similar. The fact that some people today may even see Gornick as a radical in the twenty-first century, demonstrates how much of an extremist Stanton must have seemed to be.
In her chapter “Radical Among Radicals,” Gornick highlights how even in a movement seen as radical, Stanton’s goals were more ambitious than the rest. Ironically in one way Stanton was a “true woman.” She was a diligent mother of seven, and looked like a modest grandmother from a fairly early age. However she was certainly neither submissive nor pious. She detested religion as she felt it was the institution that most prevented women from advancing. She regarded religion as an “old and worn-out theology full of bigotry and prejudice.” (121) This was not true of some of her peers; Susan B. Anthony was a very pious Quaker. Stanton’s speaking out against Christianity in that period of time was to court public hatred. Stanton spoke openly in favor of divorce causing scandal for the National Woman Suffrage Association. The New York Observer wrote about Stanton, “no true woman could listen to what had been said without turning scarlet, yet words that would turn the world into one vast brothel had been read unblushingly by a person in woman’s attire, named in the programme as Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton.” (67) Though her radicalism may have been a perceived danger to her cause, she never agreed to compromise her own beliefs. Without this strength or stubbornness, it is unclear is modern feminist would be what it is today. Stanton pushed boundaries that no one else was willing to, and therefore remains incredibly pertinent and influential today.
The final chapter “From There to Here” focuses on the far-reaching consequences of Stanton’s politics for modern feminists and an explanation of why feminism is American. She argues the Emersonian ideal of self-reliance is a distinctly American phenomenon, “That famous American loneliness, with its fierce credo of self-reliance, has time and time again become a source of collective dissident strength. It allows us to stay the course of alienation when a protracted action is required to fulfill the (broken) promise of inclusiveness into which the country was born.” (131) Citizens of countries like Israel who are built on the bedrock of family are unable to see themselves as pure individuals the way Americans do. In Stanton’s “The Solitude of Self Speech” she speaks of the isolation and loneliness that perhaps gave her the bravery to speak as openly as she did. Her ability to fight for her own beliefs without concern for the immediate consequences for the National Woman Suffrage Association make it clear that she perhaps had “the long view” in mind. Stanton’s individualist tactics allowed her to become the most influential female activist for woman’s rights in the 19th century: a model and an inspiration.
My “mother-daughter book club” (my Joy Luck Club) consists of my best friends (for 13/14 years) and our mothers. There are a total of six of us in the group, and each mother daughter pair brings different preferences to the table. We have all brought in a book that has been unpopular, but we have also exposed each other to books that we would never otherwise read. Lauren has always been prone to fantasy. Whether it was transforming her kindergarten drawings of horses into Pegasi (God help you if you think it’s a unicorn) or writing about her new crush, Harry Potter, in her elementary school diary, she has always lived in a world more fantastical than the average girl. She and her mother brought in The Night Circus, which admittedly, I never would have picked up. The picture of the gothic priestess A.K.A. author on the back flap was enough to scare me away. The last book we read was Elizabeth Bowen’s Death of the Heart, which Lauren had found far too dull and ordinary. So Olivia and I took pity on Lauren, voting for her choice because she had just endured our literary drudgery. It seemed only fair.
While The Night Circus wasn’t necessarily “my-type” I did recognize its merits. The book revolves around a mysterious, mythical circus whose descriptions are absolutely exquisite. This beauty of description is somewhat undermined by the haphazard organization of the book. The storyline distractingly bounces around thorough time leaving the reader confused about the age and development of the characters. While the setting is beautifully rendered, none of the characters reach their full realization. The plot revolves around a love story between an enchanter and enchantress who are bound to compete in a possibly fatal game that will affect the fate of the circus. The romance is not built up enough to have the readers rooting for it with any sort of passion. In fact, I felt indifference for the characters and concern for the fate of the circus rather than their lives. The protagonist Celia remains a bit too aloof, while her lover Marco is distinctly unlikable. There are other interesting characters introduced, but, again, they lack development. While the book is certainly entertaining, it is not particularly moving. I enjoyed the ride, however I won’t be dwelling on it for long.