User talk:Skookum1
Ft Vancouver and Simpson
According to Mackie, Simpson made three trips to the Pacific Northwest. First in 1824-25, spending the winter at then-headquarters Fort George and selecting the site for Ft Vancouver, even "baptising" the new fort by breaking a bottle of rum on its flag staff and proclaiming it hereby named Fort Vancouver (March 19, 1825). This first visit Mackie describes as an "epochal affair" and resulted in a wholesale reorg of the Columbia Department. Second visit in 1828-29, mainly to determine whether Fort Langley could take over the role of main depot from Ft Vancouver. He thought the Fraser River was entirely navigable but after a "perilous descent" realized it was not and gave up the idea of making Ft Langley the main depot. Third visit in 1841-42, which resulted in his decision to move the headquarters to Fort Victoria. Mackie doesn't say much about Fort Rupert, so I don't know when it was shut down. I think his second and third visits involved issues of the coastal trade and forts, but I'm not sure about the details. Will post again if I read up and learn something. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know I must have mentioned it bvefore, but keep your eyes open for the volume of Jan Morris' Pax Brittannica series, which has a chapter on the fur company and a great passage about Simpson's descent of hte Columbia and the polyglotia of the crew; it's a famous passage it must turn up elsewhere than in Morris, but her views on the region's history are all interesting; hard to believe that Simpson couldn't tell from Fraser's journals that the FRaser was impassable; I gahter this was before Ermatinger and - can never remember the other guy - came via the "Silico Lakes" (Seton and Anderson) shortly after the founding of Fort Langley; a more expensive and time-consuming route, what with all that portaging and but given the lack of success of the trail over hte Cascadces a pity maybe Simpson didn't go that way, or discover the Squamish route, which was only vaguely known about at the time. Lieut. Palmer, by the way, is the land equivalent of George Vancouver; well, him and Frank Swannell, but I'll leave tha for another day/night); that is to say the ranking British military officer in cahrge of mapping and surveying the uncharted areas; establishing "Western" landscpae on the geography of BC by mapping it; him and Frank Black (Frank?) Charles?) aha Samuel and that Campbell guy - did across BC what Vancouver and the Spanish asnd Russiansd had done on the Coast; bring this area into the world map; beforewhich it had been Anian and Bergi and Cibola, even brobdingnag was placed here, as hayes' Atlas points out. Anyway g'nite, got this chest cold, time for bed....Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently Simpson knew of earlier accounts of the impracticality of the Fraser River, but by the 1820s there was some kind of misinformation floating around and he latched onto it, perhaps more out of hope than rationality. By the 1840s the focus was more to the ocean I guess, making Victoria more sensible than a post up a river, among other things. ...didn't get to rebrowsing Mackie this eve. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple passages from Mackie related to Ft Rupert, (1): "[In 1841] Simpson applied a..sharp knife to the northern posts. Since the Beaver was doing such a fine job of collecting coastal pelts, forts Taku, Stikine, and McLoughlin could be closed despite their productive fur trades. ...Fort Simpson, however, would be maintained as the anchor of the North West Coast trade and the only post north of Fort Langley." And (2): "In 1837, Finlayson and McLoughlin agreed 'To remove Fort McLoughlin to the Coal mine when it can conveniently be done.' This was not done; instead Fort Rupert was built there in the summer of 1849." These passages suggest that Fort Rupert did not exist until 1849. I easily confuse Fort Rupert, British Columbia and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Fort Rupert was on Vancouver Island while Prince Rupert seems to have grown up near old Fort Simpson. At least Lax Kw'alaams, British Columbia (Port Simpson) suggests this. That's confusing. If Fort Simpson really was the seed of Prince Rupert, perhaps some mention should be made on the Prince Rupert, British Columbia page. I'd never be able to keep track of these things without looking it up again on my sandbox fort/post list. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- , no, Lax Kw'alaams is Fort Simpson, or rather it's the native village that grew up around the fort; or perhaps like Fort Rupert the fort was sited at a certain chieftaincy; in fact I thiink there's something in Chief Shakes about this - perhaps ihe was put out because the HBC relocated to his rivals in the Tsimshian (one of these same chieftaincies had an ancient alliance with Mssset, or Skidegate; another Tsimshian group was allied to Cumshewa etc; politics was across nations, not between them...the Tsimshian are still fractured and there's no tribal council, partly as a result of ancent enmities expressed through modern rivalries....For a while now I've felt a need for [[Fort Simpson] and Port Simpson, British Columbia to be separate articles from Lax Kw'alaams instead of (at least in teh latter case) a recdirect; or Lax Kw'alaams shoud be renamed to its official name; unless that's officila in BCGNIS, which these days it may be. An arrticle on the HBC fort separate frmo any modern or tribal article is more than justified, as with any other HBC fort....gotta go cook dinner and hustle to the gym. Later.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Rupert", by which modern British Columbians mean Prince Rupert (Prince George being "Prince"), was not established until the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which later became the CNR; AFAIK there was F-all on Kaien Island othr than maybe fishing sites before it was chosen as the railhead/city-site; meant to rival Vancouver, and with even worse weather..... It just happens to be near Port simpson because the point of their locations is the mouth of the Skeena....Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- , no, Lax Kw'alaams is Fort Simpson, or rather it's the native village that grew up around the fort; or perhaps like Fort Rupert the fort was sited at a certain chieftaincy; in fact I thiink there's something in Chief Shakes about this - perhaps ihe was put out because the HBC relocated to his rivals in the Tsimshian (one of these same chieftaincies had an ancient alliance with Mssset, or Skidegate; another Tsimshian group was allied to Cumshewa etc; politics was across nations, not between them...the Tsimshian are still fractured and there's no tribal council, partly as a result of ancent enmities expressed through modern rivalries....For a while now I've felt a need for [[Fort Simpson] and Port Simpson, British Columbia to be separate articles from Lax Kw'alaams instead of (at least in teh latter case) a recdirect; or Lax Kw'alaams shoud be renamed to its official name; unless that's officila in BCGNIS, which these days it may be. An arrticle on the HBC fort separate frmo any modern or tribal article is more than justified, as with any other HBC fort....gotta go cook dinner and hustle to the gym. Later.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple passages from Mackie related to Ft Rupert, (1): "[In 1841] Simpson applied a..sharp knife to the northern posts. Since the Beaver was doing such a fine job of collecting coastal pelts, forts Taku, Stikine, and McLoughlin could be closed despite their productive fur trades. ...Fort Simpson, however, would be maintained as the anchor of the North West Coast trade and the only post north of Fort Langley." And (2): "In 1837, Finlayson and McLoughlin agreed 'To remove Fort McLoughlin to the Coal mine when it can conveniently be done.' This was not done; instead Fort Rupert was built there in the summer of 1849." These passages suggest that Fort Rupert did not exist until 1849. I easily confuse Fort Rupert, British Columbia and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Fort Rupert was on Vancouver Island while Prince Rupert seems to have grown up near old Fort Simpson. At least Lax Kw'alaams, British Columbia (Port Simpson) suggests this. That's confusing. If Fort Simpson really was the seed of Prince Rupert, perhaps some mention should be made on the Prince Rupert, British Columbia page. I'd never be able to keep track of these things without looking it up again on my sandbox fort/post list. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently Simpson knew of earlier accounts of the impracticality of the Fraser River, but by the 1820s there was some kind of misinformation floating around and he latched onto it, perhaps more out of hope than rationality. By the 1840s the focus was more to the ocean I guess, making Victoria more sensible than a post up a river, among other things. ...didn't get to rebrowsing Mackie this eve. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Jedediah Smith etc
Looking in Mackie's book, it seems that Jedediah Smith was the first (known) person to travel overland from California to Oregon. The HBC's Southern Party brigade to California "had its origins in the 1825-29 explorations south of the Willamette [by various HBC people] and it incorporated, as well, Jedediah Smith's 1828 route from the Sacramento and Umpqua." And on anther page a short description of Smith's 1828 trip and how he explored lots of new ground; but also how "his expdition was a catastrophe: fifteen of his nineteen men were killed by the Umpqua people. Simpson, who happened to be at Fort Vancouver, sympathized with Smith but chastised him for his [harsh treatment of Indians]. In September 1828, Simpson sent Alexander McLeod out to rescue the remnants of the Smith part and its effects; McLeod retrieved 700 beaver skins and 39 horses all in very bad condition, for which McLoughlin paid Smith $2,600." As for the Oregon Country page, fur desert policy, and the inability of Americans to compete, there's quite a few good passages in Mackie about that. I'll see if I can edit/source things, time permitting. Pfly (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't he the cousin of Jedediah Springfield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes at Oregon Country, but perhaps made some mistakes. Took out one or two things you had added, I think. Let me know if I made mistakes. I'll try to check things more thoroughly when I have more time. Tried to explain a point on the talk page.. Pfly (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Had a quick look, just left a quickie on your page; about hte British Parliament thing, while that's true and some individuals were even shipped all the way to Montreal for trial, the reality on the ground was known as "club law" and included the company's management methods for its own servants as well as for the client popualtions; google "fur trade"+"club law" for various refs (and a couple include usefully citable refs for "Cariboo Country" and other geographic usages...); there's a number of famous papers about Club Law, in fact. it was underh the imperial_>Canada mandate that Gov Douglas dputized magistrates and so on (most native chiefs were put in charge of administering British law in their areas....). I'd add more about joint occupancy and the actual language used; what was that bit in there about Astor still runing pots s inthe SE; is that meant to be Fort Hall or ??Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, Astor had the American Fur Company, which continued to operate in the Rockies and competed with HBC for a while in the Snake Country, and maybe elsewhere. I don't think Fort Hall was part of it, that was one of Wyeth's projects, I think. I hadn't heard of club law before, but it makes sense, especially given the HBC's long long history and monopoly in extremely remote places. It seems sensible that both the British and the Americans in Oregon/Columbia country needed some kind of system of law and order, and that for the British it would be done by the HBC; and that American settlers who hoped the region would become part of the US would not be thrilled about the de facto HBC rule of law that was already in place. I don't know a huge amount about the American provisional government, but my sense is that it was in part the natural result of American settlers not wanting to be subject to HBC law but needing some kind of system of law and order. Similar short-lived "republics" happened elsewhere in other times beyond the frontiers of US jurisdiction (one in east Tennessee back in the 1790s is often mentioned). On the other hand, it also seems clear that the Oregon Provisional Government was set up with some hope that it would strengthen the US claims and help result in a US-favorable boundary resolution. Supposedly it had little if any effect on the larger picture of boundary resolution; more effect on US-internal issues like the growing slave/free state crisis of the time. There's a sentence on the Oregon Country page about how some Oregonians hoped to make an independent republic, which I find hard to believe was an idea held by any significant number. I suspect the most important issue for most American settlers was making "official" land claims in accord with the US system (and without having to do it through the HBC) so that if/when US jurisdiction came the early settlers would be granted valid land rights. That, I suspect, was the main concern of settlers--getting and keeping land--but it was glossed over with patriotic manifest destiny style words and imagery.
- Also, yea, the map on the Jedediah Smith page is mislabeled with Flathead Post. I left a comment on the map's talk page at the Commons, here. The user has not been active in a long time though, iirc. Hmm, I was going to say something else but I forgot what. I'll try to improve the Oregon Country page more. Oh the Russian boundary thing--yea 54-40 would cut through New Caledonia, but it was only the coast, the panhandle. The east-west boundary was agreed by treaty to be the meridian that today divides Alaska from Yukon, whatever degree that is. I should be able to cite the Russian thing better. I think I found the names of the actual treaties: Convention between the United States of America and Russia, April 5, 1824; and Convention between Great Britain and Russia concerning the limits of their respective possession on the North-West coast of America and the navigation of the Pacific Ocean, Feb. 16, 1825. Haven't looked into it in more detail yet though. Pfly (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and PS, I looked at the Oregon Country history and your edit summaries. One reads →Territorial evolution: citation for that is the Anglo-ameirican Convention itself; that it was deliberate and meant as a provocation is in the statements of the prov gov themsevlves.... I see this treaty of 1818 was hashed out earlier on the talk page. I'm not sure it was meant to be interpreted as strictly as I think you've argued. Maybe... but if it was it still seems like both the British and Americans broke it then. On the provisional government's own statements being provocation and such--that seems more likely! Though closer to "deliberate provocation" rather than deliberate "treaty breaking" I would think. Still looking into it as I can.. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Begg covers the latter in detail once again, though that's the first time I've seen its full name; the wiki article is Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825) though not much is on that stub yet. And 54-40 was meant from the Pacific to the Rockies according to the Americans; the meridional boundary partitioning the Yukon basin was derived some time earlier, maybe even in Cook's ear, with Mt St Elias being the southern point of the latitude drawn northwards - 141st line of longitude maybe?......when baby' not crying, grab a tea and sit down and read through the Begg stuff; his citations and footnotes also contain other references ands well as many formal documents; including treaties and memoranda between and within foreign ministries or between government mininsters and their functionaries....makes for good (if sometimes reptitioius) reading and some different liens of thought than the usual nostra...., though you'll want an atlas close by.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the 141st meridian came out of the 1824 treaty. Just external linked to it on Oregon Country. But perhaps it came up in something earlier. I see your point about how the American claim would bisect New Caledonia by extending 54-40 to the Rockies. There's a difference between the US and British treaties with Russia that may be worth mentioning better than I just did on Oregon Country. I hadn't thought about it that way, but realized once I read your comment that of course the US claim was more extreme than I made it out to be. On Begg-- I have browsed through it some in bits and pieces, but not thoroughly and with great attention. Online reading is a bit annoying. I'd rather have it in book form. Perhaps I could print it out... um... And hey, I always have an atlas close by! Pfly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Begg covers the latter in detail once again, though that's the first time I've seen its full name; the wiki article is Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825) though not much is on that stub yet. And 54-40 was meant from the Pacific to the Rockies according to the Americans; the meridional boundary partitioning the Yukon basin was derived some time earlier, maybe even in Cook's ear, with Mt St Elias being the southern point of the latitude drawn northwards - 141st line of longitude maybe?......when baby' not crying, grab a tea and sit down and read through the Begg stuff; his citations and footnotes also contain other references ands well as many formal documents; including treaties and memoranda between and within foreign ministries or between government mininsters and their functionaries....makes for good (if sometimes reptitioius) reading and some different liens of thought than the usual nostra...., though you'll want an atlas close by.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Waffle as much as you like, Oregon IS actually Canadian. Damn McLaughlin feeding the Oregon Trailer trash. See what happen when you feed the wild animals, they stay! Royal Navy shudda floated more gunboats up the Columbia and taken back the Territory pronto. And also taken and kept Michigan after 1815, that way the 49th line
whud be the 45th. Harrumph, Grumble, Kvetch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
On the topic, Hawaii should be Canadian as well. or at least Maui. Book em Dole-O. Murder and intrigue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
note
hi there, just a quick note from me: Please make use of structuring your talk page edits by grouping them in paragraphs. (I'm working on the PacNW at the German Wikipedia and following some discussion pages here, for example the Columbia River which I may translate some day whenever it is finished;-) ) Anyways, your posts are sometimes very hard to follow so I thougt I'd just leave a quick note. Another thing, having just read the topic above: I don't know if you guys have noticed but at DE-WP the article on Smith has achieved featured status so if you guys have any questions/problems the author (User:h-stt) might be able to help you out. --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Skookum! I wrote it in detail on this page. I've been meaning to go through the main page and re-write a few sections so the main article as a whole flows better. Also, hope you don't mind me creating the archive for you. :) OldManRivers (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)