British claims in the NW (long and detailed)

[Mike Cleven]

At 02:10 PM 1/30/99 -0800, David Lewis wrote:
>There had to be some sort of claim to the lands West of the Rockies,
>probably based on colonizers rights. The idea of formal claim ie. legal
>claim could be a misnomer as nearly all of the efforts of the US government
>in the region was to establish a claim. According to the US's own laws this
>had to be done by surveying the land, something which the Spanish and
>'supposedly' the Indian tribes had not done. This is the reason for the US
>expeditionary forces exploring the land and reporting back to the Sec. of
>Interior what they found and their recommendations. The commander of the
>vessel (who escapes my memory) reported back that the US should claim to
>Puget Sound because of the deep harbors. The issues of Military protection
>zone was in the mind of Congress and the 'last' Imperial  land grab in the
>Pacific was also an issue.
>
>If HBC did not have claim to the PNW then why was there a land settlement
>through Congress. They must have had some rights because otherwise there
>would not have been a huge border settlement issue either.

Imperial claims throughout the world (i.e. by the European powers) operated
on the basis of three criteria (when outright cession, purchase or lease
was not involved):  1) prior discovery (including the silly ceremony of
planting a flag and invoking Crown and God), 2) economic interest/use, and
3) active settlement/colonization.  Occasionally other "mandates" came into
play, such as the Papal Bull of Tordesillas, which divided the whole of the
New World (supposedly) between Spain and Portugal.  The priority was
obviously not in that order, but there were "legal" issues relating to each
context that generally would be resolved by treaty (if not war).  Even
though prior discovery (and "staking") were the least important, they were
still significant issues; Spain's "discovery" of the Pacific at Panama gave
it (in its mind) the "right" to claim all of the Pacific as a "Spanish
lake", even though they had not surveyed any of it.  Also, lands inshore
from a "discovered" coast (which generally had to be mapped to qualify, and
un-landed sightings didn't count) were generally included in the
flag-waving discovery stuff.  The French claim to Louisiana falls in this
category; the French were only dimly aware of the upper reaches of the
Platte and Missouri, but "claimed" those lands anyway; the HBC charter of
"lands draining into Hudson's Bay" (whatever the exact quote) falls into
the same category; even though knowledge of Hudson's Bay itself was rather
sketchy.

The Russian claim to Oregon and California, or the Spanish claim to what
became BC and Alaska, fall into the 'prior discovery' stuff, although the
Russians added economic interest/use into the formula, while the Spanish
never did "develop" any economic interest at Nootka Sound, which was a
military/diplomatic stakeout meant to keep out the British and other
imperial powers (which failed miserably).  The Spanish and Russians
developed a condominium of interest in their overlapping claims, with the
Spanish ceding all interest to Russia of anything east of the line of
longitude that is today's Yukon-Alaska boundary (N. from Mt. St. Elias),
and the Russians evacuating any claim south of the 42nd (43rd?) Parallel,
which is today's California-Oregon boundary (although the Spanish did not
object to the continued Russian America Company posts continuing in and of
themselves).

The British, as was their wont, ignored both "existing" (but nearly
completely unpursued) claims and plunged into the fray, with Cook dropping
by Nootka Sound to stake a claim (before the Spanish, I think, although
I'll have to check that) and navigating the Coast northwards from there as
far as Prince William Sound (or Cook Sound; whichever is easternmost; I'm
not clear on Alaskan geography).  A few other British vessels followed up
on the news brought back to England by Cook's men (which was that sea otter
fur could be traded for silver and porcelain in Canton at fabulous rates)
and set out, some with charters, some with fake papers (in one case issued
by the Austrian government; Barkley, I think) "granting them the right" to
trade in the area.

The Americans who showed up in the area at this time (late 1780s) were all
from Boston shipping companies, hence "Boston man" (which IMHO is probably
one of the earliest English coinages in the Jargon, "ship" probably being
the first, "sail" maybe the second) and in the case of Gray and Meares
weren't exactly reputable (Gray's journals of the lower Columbia are
entirely unrelated to the local landscape, and Meares' assorted swindlings
and frauds at Nootka Sound are an interesting tale), and certainly had no
mandate of any kind from the new Union, which was busy fighting amongst
itself over constitutional twaddle (like impeachment procedures), and had
only the dimmest idea of anything west of the Mississippi.  Even when
British Capt. Vancouver began mapping the coast systematically (1792-4),
the American government had still pressed no formal claim to the region,
while the purpose of Vancouver's visits were principally to establish the
British claim more formally by detailing the outline of the Coast and doing
a survey of economic potentials, as well as to diplomatize with the
by-then-established Spanish stronghold at Nootka Sound (British buildings
from the time of Cook having disappeared, although being on record).  The
Spanish cartographers wound up collaborating with Vancouver's crew on the
survey of the San Juan-Gulf Islands, although this was a 'competitive
collaboration'; Vancouver's crew encountered two Spanish ships who had just
returned from within Burrard Inlet in the outer waters of English Bay
(hence the name "Spanish Banks" for the location of their joint moorage; I
think the Spanish Capt. there was Martinez, who had also previously mapped
the Charlottes, as well as made first European landfall there; Haida Gwaii,
that is).  The Spanish had actively explored the Coast in the period
1788-1792, especially the voyage of the Aranzazu, which was an immense
warship converted to scientific exploration, although it was Vancouver's
cartographical skills that did the first accurate mapping of the complex
BC-Alaska Panhandle coastline (which is actually _longer_ in mileage than
the other continental coastline of Canada).  Vancouver also was the first
to pierce Discovery Passage and Johnstone Strait, thereby circumnavigating
Vancouver Island; this circumnavigation was also the basis for British
claim to the Island in particular......during this mapping, as is well
known in Canada, Alexander Mackenzie also made the first overland crossing
of the continent, missing Vancouver's vessel by a matter of three weeks or
so at Dean Channel (? Bentinck Arm?), which is the inlet at the head of
which is Bella Coola.  Mackenzie's journey is also cited as part of the
"documentation" behind the British claims, as well as the trading rights of
whichever fur company it was he was working for.

Faced with growing British interest in the area, and their own remote
distance from their port-of-origin in Mexico (San Blas), the Spanish wound
up being cannily negotiated into sharing the region with the British in the
successive documents known as the Nootka Convention (the Nootka Crisis
having almost brought Europe to the brink of war until everyone found
imperial France was spoiling for a fight).  The last of the Nootka
Conventions was signed in 1796, although even within the language of the
first or second Convention their craftily vague terminology had done more
than just let the British foot in the door; eventually the British
interests would supersede the Spanish, although the British agreed to
respect those claims so long as the Spanish decided to remain.  They had,
in fact, already decided to withdraw by the time of the signing of the
second convention, and only hung on until the third in order to save face;
they had determined to remove their northern Pacific base of operations to
Monterey around 1793-4, although they hung on at Nootka until 1796.

The Conventions were written to let any power that wanted to occupy the
Fortress (Fort San Miguel) at Nootka Sound take possession of the place,
but the British in the area (all Royal Navy men) felt the call of war
against Imperial France and did not pursue this opportunity; the Russians,
also, did not take up the opportunity although they were informed of it.
Vancouver's intentions of exploiting the coal seams at Coal Harbour
(today's Vancouver) and Fort Rupert (northern Vancouver Island), as well as
of establishing convict and colonist settlements in the Puget
Sound-Vancouver Island (and possibly lower Columbia) were also abandoned in
favour of waging war against the French Republicans and their Little
Emperor.  One other legalism resulting from the Nootka Conventions (I think
the Third, in 1796) was that the Spanish ceded to the British any of their
claims north of the 42nd/43rd (?) Parallel, in other words underscoring the
British cartographical claims to the Coast as far north as Mt. St. Elias
with actual legal documentation (which had nothing to do with the
legalities as perceived by Concomly, Wickanninish, Maquinna, Cumshewa, or
other local "kings" - as "hyas tyee" was translated in those days).  This
same Spanish claim between the California border and Mt. St. Elias was
later ceded to the Americans, the bureaucrats in Madrid (or Mexico City)
having forgotten about it, or having decided to ignore it (I think it
happened when the Napoleonic puppet regency/government was in power in
Madrid, in fact).

The American government, also, did not take active interest in the British
and Spanish absence from the Coast; perhaps they were unaware of the
changed diplomatic status of the region at the time (the Nootka Conventions
were British-Spanish diplomatic documents, although it seems the Russian
Foreign Ministry was fully informed; it's weird to think of Spanish spies
in St. Petersburg and Russian spies in Madrid, but that's the way it was).
The Americans were only a fledgling power, not yet ready for another war
with Britain and in no shape for Spain (which was still the world's largest
empire, and not discernably weak at the time).  But through the early 1790s
there had been more and more Boston traders on the Coast, and with the
British and Spanish warships having made themselves fairly (well, entirely)
scarce, there were more and more Boston ships in Northwest waters, leaving
a "fairly ruinous" wake of smallpox, booze, and cannonade (I'll quote from
the journal of the shelling of Opitsaht sometime to give you an idea of
what pleasant guys they were to do business with).  During this period, of
course, Fort Astoria was established by Hyas Boston-tyee John Jacob Astor,
who hired canadiens away from the HBC to work for him (with better pay and
freer policies), and the Astoria Company also began to probe inland and
establish forts there; the first trading post at Kamloops was, I think, an
Astoria Company fort rather than a NWC one, as were the first posts on
Okanagan Lake.

The HBC and NWC during this time also worked hard at establishing their
posts and forts (notably Colville and Vancouver) in competition with the
Astoria Company (coastal fur stocks having been largely depleted by the end
of the 18th Century).  But it has to be noted that the establishment of
these posts (even in New Caledonia, which was dominated completely by the
HBC) did not establish any legal company monopolies or land claims, but
rather a _British_ claim of "active economic interest".  The HBC,
unfortunately for British policy in the region, remained adamantly
anti-settlement (as a way to protect its fur supply as well as its captive
merchandising markets) and so "active settlement" was not pursued, contrary
to the original intentions of Capt. Vancouver.

As noted above, the Americans picked up a tenuous legal claim to the lands
north of New Spain and west of the Louisiana Territory (which they had just
acquired) and decided to pursue it, and so sent out the Lewis & Clark
expedition to make their own "prior discovery"; the British at the time
were too busy to object, although David Thompson was sent out as a
counterfoil to this (by the NWC, I think, rather than the HBC, but in
either case in favour of _British_ = not company = interests to the
region);  Thompson, "the Stargazer", spent too much time buggering around
hunting in the Tete Jaune Cache-Invermere region of the Rocky Mountain
Trench with his Indian friends and made it to the mouth of the Columbia a
week or two late.  Lewis & Clark's "first traverse" of the Columbia basin
gave the US the "prior discovery" claim to the Columbia basin, adding to
the already existing "economic use" criterion.  A few years later, Fraser
tried to do the same thing, but wound up coming down the Fraser instead
(the American habit of spelling this "Frazer" - or worse, "Frazier", is
truly annoying...;-)); actually he didn't even make it to the salt water,
the Musqueams on the North Arm of the Fraser driving him back, as they had
learned to dislike whitemans considerably in their years of exposure to
"Boston traders" coming from the ocean-side.....Fraser's journey was one of
the criteria which helped the British "hold the line" at the 49th Parallel
in 1846, since there had been no American exploration north of the Columbia
basin.

As can be guessed from the time period - 1800s/1810s - the British were far
too busy in Europe to think about chartering a formal legal claim or
pursuing "active colonization" in the Pacific NW, although it's interesting
to speculate about the region having been among the terms of the treaties
(or battlegrounds) of the War of 1812; it was a bit far from anywhere,
though, and was only recently even incarnated on the map (it's actually the
last place in temperate latitudes to _be_ mapped, in fact).  But because of
their earlier discovery, their treaties with the Spanish, their existing
economic interests (the coastal fur trade, investments in mapping and
exploration), _as_well_as the "active economic use" of the HBC and NWC fur
companies (which were not yet amalgamated), and their expansion of these
interests and claims following the Napoleonic Wars, that their claims had a
"legal" basis (as much as the American claims did, at any rate, if not
more).  The establishment of a major Royal Navy base at Esquimalt and a
Royal Navy coaling station at Fort Rupert didn't hurt, either.......(there
was no American naval presence in the region until after 1846).

I can't remember when the HBC charter to Vancouver Island was created, if
there was one that constituted much more than the Saanich Peninsula-Sooke
area (Greater Victoria), but as Terry noted the HBC charter to the
remainder of the mainland Columbia District was made in 1849, at the same
time as the establishment of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island.....it
was partly on the basis of this chartered claim (an echo of the older and
more entrenched Rupert's Land charter east of the Rockies) that the
foundations of the Crown Colony of British Columbia were made in
1858........which had to be done before American "active
settlement/colonization" of the mainland north of 49 abrogated the British
"prior discovery" (Vancouver, Mackenzie, Fraser, Thompson) and "economic
interest" (NWC/HBC) claim-components......if no colony had been chartered
on the mainland, the British would have had no reason to declare war or
anything else if the Americans had swarmed in and voted for union (after
exterminating most of the natives, most probably, as they had already
learned to do in Colorado and California).

I tried to make this as linear as possible; as far as the early technical
stuff on the imperial claims policy and the Nootka Conventions, I recommend
the work on the subject by Derek Pethick........