Travers Twiss opens his inquiry by declaring that the U.S. case had been 'overstated by her writers and negotiators,' a claim he sets out to test against original records. The preface frames the work as a corrective to what he saw as overreach in Greenhow's history, particularly regarding Drake's and Gali's expeditions. Twiss, a professor of political economy and an advocate in Doctors' Commons, writes with a lawyer's attention to documentary proof and a scholar's willingness to challenge received narratives.

A Lawyer's Approach to Discovery

Twiss structures his argument like a legal brief, weighing evidence for each nation's claim. He scrutinizes the wording of treaties—such as the Convention of October 20, 1818—and the precise language used by diplomats. For instance, he quotes the British commissioners' refusal to agree to a boundary 'unless some arrangement was made with respect to the country westward of the Stony Mountains.' The text is dense with references to state papers and official correspondence, reflecting Twiss's belief that the dispute could be resolved by careful reading of documents rather than rhetorical appeals.

The Role of Early Navigators

Twiss devotes considerable attention to the voyages of Drake and Gali, arguing that previous historians misrepresented their significance. He contends that Greenhow relied on secondhand accounts, specifically the article 'Drake' in the Biographie Universelle, leading to errors. Twiss insists on returning to original logs and charts, though the excerpts only hint at his conclusions. His method is to compare multiple sources, noting contradictions and gaps. This section reveals his broader strategy: to dismantle the U.S. narrative by showing that its foundational discoveries were either misdated or misattributed.

Diplomatic Exchanges and the Columbia River

The negotiations of 1818 receive detailed treatment. Twiss reproduces a letter from Gallatin and Rush to Adams, dated October 20, 1818, in which the American commissioners propose extending the 49th parallel to the Pacific. They assert that the Columbia River 'had derived its name from that of the American ship, commanded by Captain Gray, who had first discovered and entered its mouth.' Twiss juxtaposes this with the British counterclaim that Cook's voyage and purchases from natives gave them prior rights. He notes that the British 'did not make any formal proposition for a boundary' but intimated that the river itself was the most convenient line. The passage shows Twiss's skill in letting primary sources speak while guiding the reader toward his own interpretation.

The Question of Possession and Treaty Obligations

Twiss examines the re-occupation of Astoria after the Treaty of Ghent, arguing that it 'established nothing further than the fact that they were in the possession of it before the war broke out.' He distinguishes between mere occupancy and legal title, a distinction central to his case. The text repeatedly invokes the law of nations, as when he states that 'in order to oust the United States, it would now be necessary for Great Britain to make out a perfect and exclusive title.' Twiss's tone remains measured, but his legal training is evident in every qualification and citation.

Readers should approach this work as a partisan legal argument rather than a neutral history. Twiss's evidence is carefully selected, and his conclusions are shaped by his aim to support the British position. Yet the book remains valuable for its reproduction of diplomatic correspondence and its rigorous questioning of received claims. Those interested in the Oregon boundary dispute will find a detailed counterpoint to American narratives, best read alongside the sources Twiss cites.