Talk:Adams–Onís Treaty

Geography question
The articles states: Spain gave up its claims to Oregon County north of this boundary, but Oregon County links to Oregon County, Missouri. Is this the same Oregon County referenced by the treaty? Unless that county was previously much bigger, it seems pretty inconsequential to mention in a treaty. But there is no mention of historical area on the current county page. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I checked the geography. In the west, the boundary was decided to go along the Sabine River, the Red River and the Arkansas, then north to the 42nd parallel. Spain gave up its claims to Oregon County north of this boundary. It could not possibly refer to any county in Missouri because the northern most point in Missouri is 40°35'N. Since the area north of 42°N and south of 54°40'N was historically called Oregon Country, I changed the link to the Oregon Country article and made Oregon County a disambiguation page. --H C HENEY 20:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the reference to Oregon County was just a typo. There is no reference to that term in the text of the treaty and a quick and dirty check on google did not give any evidence that it was ever called County. older &ne; wiser 21:42, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ratification
Considering that Spain and the U.S. exchanged ratifications in 1821, this statement is somewhat suspicious:
 * The treaty was not ratified by the United States and the new Republic of Mexico until 1831, allowing for a continuation of the border controversy in Texas that was not resolved into the independence of the Republic of Texas in 1836.

When and how did Mexico enter into the picture? older ≠ wiser 21:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that date is wrong. I just pasted it from the other article. But it disagrees with the Sabine River article addiitions I just wrote. I am going to change the date. In any case, according to the Texas handbook online, Mexican Independence did sort of throw a monkey wrench into the Texas border situation, allowing the U.S. actually to reopen the controversy by claiming that the Neches and Sabine rivers were switched on maps, and thus trying to claim lands farther west. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that Mexico gained independence later in 1821, though I haven't been able to find any other reference to the Adams-Onis treaty being re-ratified between U.S. and Mexico. Midwesterner that I am, I was completely unaware of the Mexican independence timeline. There's probably something to this, since I don't think PBS (the other article looks to have been largely derived from the PBS link) would get it completely wrong. But I don't know where to start looking. Avalon had nothing on it between Mexico and US. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's the passage form HofT online (from UT, so I have to trust it :)) -- Decumanus | Talk 21:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC):
 * Spanish delay in ratification of the treaty and Mexican independence (1821) put the boundary again in controversy. The United States for a time claimed that the names of the Neches and Sabine rivers had been reversed (see NECHES RIVER BOUNDARY CLAIM), but no definite settlement was made. On December 19, 1836, the Congress of the Republic of Texasqv set forth the northern and eastern boundaries of the republic as stipulated in the Adams-Onís Treaty, and the United States dropped the claim to the area between the Sabine and the Neches.

Interesting stuff. The things I've learned on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I also have not been able to find any support for the PBS statement that the Treaty was ratified by the recently-independent Mexican Republic in 1831. NorCalHistory 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabine Free State
I came across this a while back when I was writing up something for West Florida, but I didn't know what all to do with it then so I stuck it in the History section of Lousisiana. I had never heard of the Sabine Free State before (it goes by several variations). I don't know much more about it, but I thought it was fascinating. The following is copied from the Louisiana article. older ≠ wiser 01:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The U.S. divided the newly acquired land into two territories: the Orleans Territory (which became the state of Louisiana in 1812) and the District of Louisiana (which consisted of all the land not included in Orleans Territory). The Florida Parishes are annexed from Spanish West Florida by proclamation of President James Madison in 1810. The western boundary of Lousisiana with Spanish Texas remains disputed until the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819, with the Sabine Free State serving as a neutral buffer zone as well as a haven for criminals.


 * It sounds like another name for what is called "Neutral Ground" in the HofT . It was basically between Arroyo Hondo in Louisiana and the Sabine. There's no article in HoT of Sabine Free State, so I'm guess they are identical (?) -- Decumanus | Talk 01:34, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Found out: Arroyo Hondo was the Calcasieu River, which passes through Lake Charles, Louisiana. -- Decumanus | Talk 01:39, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is where I found a bunch of interesting info while researching West Florida and I think is the basis for the stuff above;  (I know, the web layout is horrid, but I've found a lot of good info here). older ≠ wiser 01:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Arroyo Hondo was not the Calcasieu River, but is a tributary of the Red River, approximately 7 mi west of Natchitoches, Louisiana. Can't identify it on modern maps yet. Calcasieu R. was the lower part of this boundary. For ref, here's a map of Orelans Territory, with black part as the neutral ground . Also this timeline is good. It says the eastern boundary of the Neutral Territory was:
 *  The eastern boundary of this Neutral Ground consists of Calcasieu Pass, then along the west bank of Calcasieu Lake the West Bank of the Calcasieu River to its source, thence a straight line running north to Kisatchi Creek, along this creek to the 93-7' line of longitude where the Arroyo Hondo fades into Sibley's Marsh, thence along Arroyo Hondo to its source about 98-8' and 31-47'30", thence a straight line north to the Bayou Pierre settlement.
 * I can find Bayou Pierre, but nothing yet that is obviously Arroyo Hondo. -- Decumanus | Talk 03:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a map Scarykitty 03:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seminole Wars
The article says that the treaty "had the effect of ending the Seminole Wars in Florida." Yet the linked article gives this information as to the dates:


 * The First Seminole War was from 1817 to 1818; the Second Seminole War from 1835 to 1842; and the Third Seminole War from 1855 to 1858. The second clash is often referred to as the Seminole War.

One of these statements must be wrong or at least in great need of clarification. JamesMLane 10:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spain gave up its claims to 'jennifer lopez' north of this boundary?? Is that actually a place name?

Clearly, my good sir, you are an optimist. It's Wikipedia, and unfortunately, somebody decided to suddendly name a Spanish territory "Jeniffer Lopez". I've reverted that, and a mention to Bootylicious in there somewhere... --Mas T  er of Puppets Peek! 00:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

42nd Parallel
Just dropping a note that there was a proir Russo-Spanish Treaty that establiswhed teh 42nd Parallel as the southward limit of Russian claims vs Spain's and also 54-40 as the northward limit of Spanish claims vis a vis the Russians; might hav been in teh wake of the Ukase of 1799...all I know is both 42 and 55/54-40 were pre-existing in diplomatic law at the time, which is why they were mirrored by later agreements; t he 42nd Parallel was also part of the Nootka Conventions, which if they're not mentioned here should be....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Map needs globalization
The term "Oregon Country" should be removed from the map; it is a US-only designation. The Russians considered the area in question was Russian America, to the British it was the Columbia District or Columbia Department. It is not appropriate to feature only US political claims/terminology on such maps. I know it's common, but it should stop. This is wikipedia, Not US-ipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed....
My impression is that the "claims" were in lawsuits, the way it is written-but of course, I am probably wrong. Is there any way to prove/disprove this?76.102.227.227 (talk) My school's IP adress keeps getting banned. Wonder why? —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

"and firmly established the boundary of U.S. territory and claims through the Rocky Mountains and west to the Pacific Ocean in exchange for the U.S. paying residents' claims against the Spanish government up to a total of $5,000,000 and relinquishing its own claims on parts of Texas west of the Sabine River and other Spanish areas."


 * What does that mean? Its senseless, clarification please--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand it either, but it appears to refer to Article XI of the treaty (online here). I don't quite understand what Article XI is saying though. Pfly (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Treaty names
This treaty is also known as the "Florida Purchase Treaty" as well as "A Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Borders Between the United States and His Catholic Majesty"? Ddperk80 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be backed up this book here.--Banana (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, similar, as the Florida Treaty of 1819 here, by EOS Scholefield, a major early 20th C historian in British Columbia, whose choice of language is the British norm. I know of only a few other treaties titled here by the names of the negotiating plenipotentiaries/signees, another being the Hay-Herbert Treaty, generally known in the real world as the Alaska Boundary Treaty or the Alaska Boundary Settlement.  Both need a reqmove, I'd say, to something more "global" and also in line with treaty-naming conventions (such as there are any, if there are).Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NB Florida Treaty already redirects here, and I'd nominate it for most common and easiest use, and most inline with most other treaty articles.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, no, it seems that Wiki lower-caseism has ruled the redirect, and it's "Florida treaty" that redirects here.Skookum1 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * a look at the bibliographies, histories of American diplomacy, and standard reference works suggests that the "Adams-Onis" is the most common usage. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In work on American diplomacy and on the existing mostly-American-source bibliography, perhaps; but this treaty affect Britain and is also part of other country's histories; is it the most common term in Spanish? In non-USian countries?  and which standard reference works - Britannica, Merriam-Webster?  To me the title is obscure and does not go by its most common usage in standard continental histories; same goes for the Hay-Herbert Treaty, where the most common name obviously is the Alaska Boundary Treaty and that's certainly how it's known on our side of the border.  USian-only terminology is not most common usage anywhere but within the US....if it's even more common there, and I dispute that it is at all. I've never even seen the term before seeing it in Wikipedia (and I've read a lot of history, including yours).Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this is an article about the US and Spain. We follow the RS, which mostly use Adams-Onis. What they call it in Paris or Moscow is not really useful. The reference to "most common usage in standard continental histories" is too vague: please cite titles and page numbers of these sources.  (I looked at Bemis on Adams, Howard Jones - 2009 p 112; Bailey textbook; Herring 2009;, Dangerfield 1953, Patterson textbook, Flanders Dictionary, and Dict. Am. History. Also Stacy, Mexico and the United States p 17, Hodge, Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism p 7), Smith, Historical dictionary of United States-Latin American relations p 3; Weeks, John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire p 150; Cash, The Adams-Onis Treaty Claims Commission (1998); Stagg, Borderlines in borderlands (2009) p 287; and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations (2002) vol 1 p 12.  Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother filtering results, though did put each phrase in quotation marks, but here are the results in Google: And I submit that the Alaska Purchase is not known as the "Seward-Nesselrode Treaty".Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adams-Onis Treaty - 28,800 results
 * Florida Treaty - 32,300 results
 * Florida Treaty of 1819 - 24,700 results
 * Florida Purchase - 230,000 results
 * Florida Purchase Treaty (including instances of "Florida Purchase" and "Florida Treaty" - 1,610,000 results
 * nonsense --you have to use quotes or you get garbage out. I get a mere n=89 Google hits for "Florida Purchase Treaty" see Google search here

Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I did use quotes, and don't know why I got a different result here than I did the first time out. However, "Florida Treaty" still gets more results than "Adams-Onis Treaty", 32,300 vs. 28,800. Subtract the Wiki-clones from the Adams-Onis Treaty and it's clear in which direction those figures are going. And what is this treaty's most common name in the Hispanic world anyway? (Spain alone will not suffice, since Mexico/New Spain is at question).Skookum1 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * if you search for "florida treaty" you will get all sorts of interesting results, for example the "Florida Treaty Live Oak" is a famous tree. I suspect the Mexicans historians write in Spanish but note that the Oxford History of Mexico (2000) uses Adams-Onis. Historians have long pointed out that "Florida" is a misnomer. (see Bailey A diplomatic history of the American people p 173). We still are not told what Reliable Sources Skookum1 actually relies upon--only his speculation or actual books? Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be more patronizing than you already have been; I suppose, not being American, I haven't been exposed to American-perspective historical writing so much; all references I've ever seen to this, other than here in Wikipedia, have always been "Florida Treaty"; maybe that's a non-USian term; I've asked on Spanish Wikipedia, where Tratado de Adams-Onis is given, using American references, whether that's actually the common name in Spanish. Scholefield is a British Columbian historian, I'll be looking at others; I'm very familiar with diplomatic history in general and have never seen, before Wikipedia, treaties named for their negotiators/signatory ministers. In the case of Hay-Herbert Treaty that's clearly not in common use in Canada or in British histories, where Alaska Boundary Treaty (or Settlement or Award is what's used....including by Bancroft, I believe (a US historian). I'll see what Bancroft has in this regard, and also Mexican sources (I can read Spanish, don't know if you can).  Will take a while, this is a relatively trivial item; but the titles of both these articles, which are outside the norms evident on List of treaties, has bothered me since I first saw them.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

LOC search comparison
Further note: A search for "Hay-Herbert Treaty", "Alaska Boundary Treaty", and "Alaska Treaty" turned up only two entries each. I'll be searching the NYT online archives next....Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adams-Onis Treaty - 27 results
 * Florida Treaty - 54 results
 * No good. I looked at the first 20--nearly all from 19th century original sources and not one from a RS. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT archive comparative search
More tomorrow maybe; I know the pattern I'm going to find already; these aren't cherry-picked results either....Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Adams-Onis Treaty" - 2 entries, one of which is entitled "Florida Treaty"
 * "Florida Treaty" - 17 entries
 * no good. these are old newspaper stories--mostly before 1900 and none are a RS. None is in last 50 years. Skookum1 seems to want to revive a near-defunct term for reasons he cannot explain. he still has not produced a single reliable source according to Wiki guidelines and I've gioven over a dozen. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, Rjensen, I have forty-five other things on the go than your demand that I produce sources now. What I want here is a recognizable term familiar to more readers than people who've read the specific books you have; there are only two treaties in the whole of Wikipedia named for their negotiators, not by their description or where they are signed, which is the norm. You're being a dimsmissive, demanding jerk about this, as if I should jump up and run off and spend my whole evening doing what you demand of me; I've fielded this issue, now instead of trying to push my into a hole like you're doing with your patronizing insults, why not wait and see what I do turn up, and what others may as well?  I searched the Library of Congress adn NY Times - and the LOC items aren't all 19th C items, and neither are the NYT ones.  I started this because I came across some discussions of continental geopolitical history which used the term you say is "archaic"....well, I must be archaic, then, and sure as shootin' I probably am twice your age.  Or do you WP:OWN this title????Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Does any of this matter much? Most treaties are known by multiple names. The term "Adams-Onis Treaty" is quite common, but there are other names by which it is known. The term "Florida Treaty" is something I have seen in a number of places--probably because at the time Florida was seen as much more important than the Pacific Nothwest. But whatever, does it matter? Pfly (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COMMON NAME, Wikipedia articles are titled with the "name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Skookum will have to show that "Florida Treaty" is the most commonly used name in reliable sources in order to change it. "Florida Treaty" was common in the 19th century, but since at least the 1940s historians seem to avoid it in favor of "Adams-Onis Treaty" or some other name, as the treaty did more than negotiate the sale of Florida. See, for example this. It appears that in sources written since the latter half of the 20th century, "Adams-Onis Treaty" is the most common form, though "Transcontinental Treaty" is also common. It is extremely unlikely that English-language sources from outside the United States are going to have a widely different usage.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That one editor has condemned the term as "archaic" is no reason to not have it in the article at all; I don't have time right now to look up other 20th Century sources (sounds like pre-1940 is "19th Century" or "archaic" by the prejudices evinced here against older sources), but here is a bunch of googlebooks which use the term, including official state documents and academic/legal works from earlier times; the history I mentioned, Scholefield, is on http://www.nosracines.ca and was published in 1914.....it would be more than fair to say, in fact, that it "Florida Treaty" was a common name for it in its own time and for teh rest of the 19th Century and early 20th Century; not saying that, and even more pretending that the term is archaic and obsolete is just not honest, and it's very peremptory, nor is it encyclopedic; I "only" graduated high school in 1972, and I know for a fact it was what was in our (Canadian, but American-influenced) schoolbooks and classroom maps...."Transcontinental Treaty" I'd never heard of until this discussion; sounds like over-correction to me. The Treaty of Utrecht affected even the Columbia District/Oregon Territory and wasn't just about Europe; it of course was named for where it was signed, like so many others.  In general, however, I find the exclusionary attitude towards earlier sources and earlier terminologies in Wikipedia very disturbing....what things were known as in their time, and for decades after, should not be so easily dismissed - nor treated with contempt (as I have been, also).Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text. The only objection as far as I can tell is to moving the article to that title. Again, such a move would require you to show it is the most common term in reliable sources (ie, history books, academic works on Spanish-US relations, etc.) It does appear that "Florida Treaty" was common, especially in older sources, but over the last several decades, many historians have preferred to call it the "Adams-Onis Treaty" (or "Transcontinental Treaty"). For example, in a search of books written since 2000, Google Books returns 376 hits for Florida Treaty, but 2,740 for "Adams-Onis Treaty", and 1,070 for "Transcontinental Treaty". In the absence of evidence to the contrary, "Adams-Onis Treaty" would appear to be the most common name for this subject.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text." - really? Coulda fooled me - read Rjensen's posts and edit comments.  I'm of the opinion myself that treaties, like placenames, should be named in the context of the times they'er from, which is why for a given context we write Koenigsberg (-burg?) for what today is Kaliningrad, and why Danzig in some concepts and not Gdansk.  We don't use "Czech Republic" when referring to pre-mid-19th Century Bohemia.  This treaty was known in its day, and for over a century after, as "the Florida Treaty" and though it's been overtaken by "correctors" who've given it a "better" name, it's certainly not its most common name in historical contexts nor over time.  I think this "recent sources are better than older sources" guideline in Wikipedia, like so many, is prejudicial hogwash.Skookum1 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to disagree with it. From my point of view, "Adams-Oniz Treaty" is the best title for the subject.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you disagree that Florida Treaty should be included in the article, even thought cites using it are rife (even in the 20th Century)?Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I said the article title shouldn't be "Florida Treaty". As I specifically said above, I have no problem with including the term the text.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me cite a recent Spanish article, published in Madris: José A. Armillas Vicente, "Relaciones diplomáticas entre España y los Estados Unidos de América desde el Tratado de San Lorenzo, 1795, al de Adams-Onís, 1819," Revista de Historia Militar, v 51, 2007, pp. 159-200 Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use in other languages doesn't matter; what matters is use in English-language reliable sources. It seems that Skookum has conceded that "Florida Treaty" is less common in more recent sources. Clearly "Florida Treaty" should be mentioned in the article as a historical name for this treaty; is there really any more to discuss here?--Cúchullain t/ c 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Map issue
Posting here if only to remind myself to later make this fix, but the main map here, File:Adams onis map.png, which is mostly quite excellent, says the Oregon Country was claimed by the US, Great Britain, and Russia, when in fact Russia never claimed the Oregon Country as it is known in the US. Russian claims to the south, apart from Fort Ross, which was its own thing, stopped at about 54-40, the present Alaska-BC boundary. In 1821 the Tsar claimed control south to the 51st parallel (which is still north of Vancouver Island), but the US and Great Britain protested and in a few years hammered out the 54-40 boundary. In short, "claimed by Russia" should be removed from the map. (Details and sources at Maritime Fur Trade). Pfly (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge request
There is an improper (requesting editor placed templates with no discussion) request to merge Florida Cession to this article. That article is a mirror stub to this article and has absolutely nothing to offer by "merging". Florida Cession needs to be deleted (speedy if possibly) and redirect to this one. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to delete; I've just redirected the title here. It's at least a reasonable search term.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Invasion of Florida
It's tragically laughable to still, in the 21st century, to see historical write-ups refer to European and US invasions and military occupations and takeovers as 'colonialism' and 'self defense acts'. When does this nonsense stop. The Seminole Wars were purely launched as invasions and territorial-grab operations. How ridiculous to read of pretentious excuses for these invasions being put forth as if believable; similar to the Nazis claiming they invaded Poland to protect German-heritage civilians there - and by the way, many German-heritage poles were screaming this fact out to their deaths as the Nazis led them away to mass executions.

Write history objectively - not with sly prejudices of yesteryear. The US govt. perpetrated methodical evils against the Seminoles for greed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * well actually the "Seminoles" invaded Florida after 1700 and killed off all the native tribes. The problem in 1820 was that Spain had abandoned the territory with only a few hundred soldiers in a few isolated posts. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of Florida's pre-Seminole natives were eliminated by British and native-allied slave raids circa 1680-1720. Of course some of those native allies later joined the Seminoles. It's a complicated history. No doubt this page could be better worded. The stuff about Florida certainly has some pro-US POV issues. Pfly (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As to Invasions (plural) of Florida, United States forces (army I suppose) were directed by James Madison, in concert with Congressional approval, to take possession of Spanish Florida (certainly East and likely West) as early as 1811. Congress discussed this in secret session in both late 1810 and early 1811 (see Congressional Journals at National Archives). Other scholarly works suggest that James Madison was more concerned about West Florida and activities in and around New Orleans, but also equally aware of the expansion of British influence in the Caribbean, and very likely took this action to protect the southern flank of the United States against undesired activities there. The forces were under orders not to evict or harass the Spanish garrisons, but got off on the wrong foot by doing exactly that at Fernandina Beach. In light of this, it should be clear that the US was applying influence, if not outright possession, of East Florida beginning in 1811. Cosmicray (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Nootka Territory
I've been seeing more and more maps showing a "Nootka Territory" with well-defined borders (like on reddit, and usually an image from Wikipedia), but I have been unable to find a good source backing up either the borders or even that there was a "Nootka Territory" as anything other than an informal name for the general region. So since this page makes some claims on the topic I added a "citation needed" tag. I will continue looking for sources myself. Maybe others can find something if I can't.

I tagged this sentence: In negotiations to resolve the crisis, Spain claimed that its Nootka Territory extended north from Alta California to the 61st parallel north and from the Continental Divide west to the 147th meridian west.

There is even a map next to this, showing what it labels "Territorio de Nutca (Nootka territory; claimed by Spain; 1789-1795)". I have numerous problems with this map:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NutcaEN.png

One, the use of Spanish implies that this was an official territory of the Spanish Empire, but I have yet to find any source saying it was more than an informal name for part of northern New Spain. Two, "claimed by Spain; 1789-1795" strongly suggests that this region was not claimed by Spain before 1789 or after 1795, which is most definitely false. Third, the use of precise boundaries, which nicely lines up with the sentence I'm looking for a source about. However the map image itself, on Wikimedia Commons, provides no sources whatever, other than "Own work". Author is the editor "Nagihuin".

As far as I have been able to determine, Nootka Territory was never an official thing, nor was it given precise boundaries, or any boundaries at all. If a good source exists that says these things I'd love to know.

One more thing. The sentence I tagged describes the precise boundaries shown on the map (and other maps like it on other pages), but note it says these precise boundaries come from negotiations to resolve the [Nootka] crisis. But so what? During diplomatic negotiations lots of things get said, proposed, rejected, claimed, denied, etc. The final result of the Nootka Crisis negotiations was the three Nootka Conventions, none of which even mention the existence of a "Nootka Territory", let alone define its boundaries.

In summary, I'm looking for sources that describe Nootka Territory's boundaries, or even Nootka Territory as an official thing at all. If boundaries were described in diplomatic negotiations I'd like to know the context and whether it actually resulted in anything official or important.

It is hard to prove a negative, but if no sources can be found I worry that Wikipedia is spreading false information, especially in the form of maps. A nicely made map can look super-official, but most maps on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cite no sources at all. On the Spanish colonization of the Americas are maps like this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Espa%C3%B1ol_y_Portugu%C3%A9s_1790.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_North_America.png

These both also show a "Territorio de Nutca" with the same precise boundaries. The second one, although very pretty, even says at the large northern boundary: "61°17'N northernmost Spanish claim in Nootka Conventions". You can read the actual Nootka Convention agreements online (there are links at Nootka Convention) and nowhere is any boundary defined at all. At least a "source" is given for this map, but it is a long talk page on another map image. There is a lead there, which I will check out, although the blurb there suggests it was something from the diplomatic negotiations rather than anything resulting from them. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm an experienced map maker and I can answer you. First of all, take a look into this 1817 Spanish map and check the "Posesiones españolas" texts: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Provincias_Ynternas_Nueva_Espa%C3%B1a_1817.jpg The position of the texts and the coloruing clearly indicates Spanish claimed inland territories and not only coastal areas. There are three "Posesiones españolas" labels, one of them is even situated in the eastern side of the continental divide, due to the proximity to the Missouri River, which was fully claimed as part of the Louisiana. Then we have the "Poseciones [sic] inglesas" further to the East. Regarding to the delineation of these territories, I can point to the historical map representation of the Americas in the 1997 Larousse dictionary which takes the continental divide -as suggested from the 1817 map- and a horizontal line around the 60th parallel which I explain later. Nagihuin (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Spanish claim in the Nootka territory was effectively bounded in the East by the British claim on the Hudson's Bay watershed, which was the territory claimed as "Rupert's Land" by the Hudson's Bay Company. So the continental divide is a good compromise. If you don't take into account that British claim, the Spanish claim could be effectively extended even further to the East!, as Aranda suggested in conversations with John Jay as late as the 1780s (he suggested, more or less: "we could take the full West to East extent of Florida and Louisiana and extend that to the North Pole as a claim" -read my source on Rayneval's memoranda in the "big pretty map" of Spanish North America). Remember Spain claimed the entire Western Hemisphere in Tordesillas and waved that type of claims even in the 1790s. Only in 1670, in the Treaty of Madrid, British souvereignty in the Americas was recognized but only in occupied lands, but both powers never drew a clear line between their dominions. To sum up, take the Tordesillas claim minus the British Hudson's Bay watershed claims and due to the 1670 Treaty, and at least from the British perspective, the Spanish claim on Nootka was bounded by the continental divide. Nagihuin (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It may be true that "Nootka Territory" never was a formal name used by colonial administrators but also "Mongol Empire" or even "Spanish Empire" weren't used, it was the "Catholic Monarchy" or the "Kingdom of the Spains and the Indies". All the formers are just historical names, the one we are talking about it's the name for the territories around Nootka, and it must be understood in that way. Check this 1857 reference. https://books.google.es/books?id=GddNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA209&dq=%C2%ABterritorio+de+nutka%C2%BB&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcgN7zueTmAhWOzIUKHYUjBAIQ6AEITjAG All of those territories depended on the Viceroyalty of New Spain. We could add them to the Californias, or the Provincias Internas de Occidente, or maybe Nueva Galicia from where many expeditions departed (San Blas), but it would be even worse. It was just a new territory to be organized.


 * The 61º 17' north boundary -i eventually found the 61st parallel reference and I've given it as a source in the description of the big map- is probably set by the Mondofia and also Fidalgo incursions into the depths of the Alaskan bays. Nagihuin (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So, TLDR version, source for eastern boundary, there are plenty of them, for instance http://www.hbcheritage.ca/things/artifacts/the-royal-charter (Royal Charter assigning the entire Hudson Bay watershed to British companies: Granted by King Charles II of England on May 2, 1670, the Royal Charter gave an exclusive trading monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin to “the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay.), source for northern boundary, https://books.google.es/books?id=-5U-AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA410&lpg=RA1-PA410#v=onepage&q&f=false Niles' National Register, vol. 69-70, William Ogden Niles, 1846 “In all the subsequent communication of the Spanish minister to the French, and in all the correspondence of Spain with England up to the hour of signing the Nootka Sound convention, the same language is in substance held on the part of Spain, claiming up to 61º, and England never denied it”). I worked extensively to find the 17' figure minimal correction, I couldn't find it (update: I found two references, a journal article by Stephen Colston, Beyond the Aztecs, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 76, number 2, pp 257 to 282, and another one in Historia de Iberia Vieja, Mourelle de la Rúa, el «almirante» olvidado, by Javier García Blanco. Both point to the 61° 17 minutes figure of north latitude), but the 61st line runs through the middle of Alaskan bays and Spanish sailors reached the northernmost shores of all bays, as it is written in some texts, so the figure of 61º 17' which is given in some Wikipedia sources can be a real thing, it just needs more investigation. The 1789-1795 dates are not fully incorrect, they are just too strict to the material presence of Spanish military in the area, the claim was at least nominally risen from 1775 -Heceta landings in Sitka- to 1819 - Spanish passes the claim to the US in the Adams-Onís treaty-. Nagihuin (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 19:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I posted my comment on two talk pages, and Nagihuin replied on both, I'm going to just link Talk:Spanish_Empire here. Someday that section will be archived and the link won't work, but searching the Spanish Empire talk page archives will work, if the link no longer does. Better to have a discussion in one place instead of two. Pfly (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)