Talk:Columbia District

Merge
Merge 'em already, they're identical. Fishhead64 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'em with what? Is there another Columbia District article somewhere? I stopped by because I know the putative list of "Lieutenant-Governors" of BC (which mistakenly includes Douglas, Seymour, Kennedy and Musgrave) trodxs on this ground; and in the fr.wikipedia.org (french wiki) there's a list of "Gouverneurs" of British Columbia which includes all the high muckamucks of the HBC in the region; and/or the Governors of the HBC (Simpson, e.g. who visited the Columbia District but wasn't SFAIK directly in charge of it, i.e. around McLoughlin et al). This article needs expansion IMO, because of the complex politics and economic/cultural situation leading up to 1846 and - in the rump portion of the Columbia District, i.e. as far north as the Thompson River - also thereafter, until 1858. Meant to come up with a corrective list for french wiki but need to work over my own French first ;-)

Or do you mean merge them with the Oregon Country article? Thing is the Oregon Country was a claim up to 54'40" and was NOT identical in territory or in scope/nature to the HBC's Columbia District, which was only part of the Oregon Country don't forget; and the Oregon Country had no administration, unlike the Columbia District; it was only a claim, whereas the Columbia District was an operating company territory with a monopolistic license on trade; and its ethos was against settlement, while the Oregon Country's mythology is about encouraging settlement. Quite a set of differences; but I do see what you mean, if it's the Oregon Country article we're talking about; but before we do the "merge" tag let's try and build this one up some, or it'll get swallowed up by the overt American content of the other one (which remains largely American despite my many edits, as also with Oregon boundary dispute and also Alaska Boundary Dispute). A similar but different discussion has happened over in Talk:Pacific Northwest as to whether BC should be included or not (it should, but even Canadians from other provinces don't fully comprehend that or why; but they don't know our history, and that's why). Similarly British Columbia Coast might more have ideally been titled Pacific Northwest Coast and maybe it should be (thoughts?), as both geographically and culturally there's a unity involved (culturally with modern-era living as well as aboriginal history/language/economy/culture).Skookum1 06:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like there used to be an article called Columbia (Oregon Country), which was merged to this page in April, 2006. Pfly 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There may have been, indeed, in which case it was incorrectly titled; see the edit comment of my removal of the statement equating Columbia District to the Oregon Country - some of the same physical space, but one as an operating business territory, the other was a political concept and, oh yeah, a bandwagon. The Oregon included some of New Caledonia, and not all of New Caledonia was in the Oregon Country; the Oregon Country was "identical" (in physical space only) to the Columbia District only south of the Columbia, and the Columbia District included trading rights/privileges with Russian America as far north as 60 degrees latitude, and also in Honolulu (!). The Oregon Country was only an agenda; the Columbia District, as also with New Caledonia and Russian America, were realities. Don't mean to lecture or reprimand; it's just this is the way it is/was, and why there have to be two separate articles; there's no parallel; it's something like the Cascadia<->Pacific Northwest equivocation, which is also based on the one hand on an agenda, on the other on experienced reality.Skookum1 (Talk) 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some administrative history should be here
I'll try and come up with lists of chief factors of the various forts and similar bits of administrative info/history; also things like Fort Shepherd being the replacement for Fort Colville, which was just south of the border after the partition; and "bits of colour", either personalities or episodes related to the District's unique characteristics and working/commercial environment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Correction
Why not correct? I didn’t want you to claim some sort of USPOV, so I left it to someone else to determine what was meant. You see I'm not familiar with history in Canada and as such don't contribute much. And unlike you where you have admitted not knowing NW history south of the border too much, yet insist on chiming in:
 * "as I don't know south-of-the-line history in the NW that well"

And since you keep claiming fuzzy history I thought I would show you it cuts both ways. Plus if you insist on continuing with your campaign here and here of trying to discredit me and the pointless name calling (come on, at what age is the dividing line old timer?) and here just to solict support for your views. I would find it real interesting if someone else said, you know the"kid" is right, would you still keep on going? Anyway, I will ensure that your POV does not dominate. You see, just because you have different recollections does not make them correct. For instance your issue with the “purpose of the PSAC” as you said:
 * “The bit about it being founded to encourage settlement sounds like it came from the HBC corporate site; and no, the HBC was overall very hostile to settlement, especially in Puget Sound”

Yet your favorite reference says:
 * “A major purpose, therefore, of the [p.315] Puget's Sound Agricultural Company was to advance British colonization north of the Columbia. Of this purpose of the PSAC there was never any doubt.”

So, again, just because you believe something to be true, does not make it true. Aboutmovies 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To advance British claims - colonization and settlement are not equivalent in HBC history, not in the Prairies, not in BC. The HBC's agricultural spinoffs were begun to reduce the costs of importing supplies, and as things developed they learned they could profit by sales to the Russians and others; but when London found out, PSAC had to be formed to protect the Company from liability for violating its charter (which was trading in furs only).  Read the sections from Akriggs I posted, and also labour your way through http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/ItemRecord/15438?id=8d361de80195197f J.B. Kerr (1890)] - you should also read what he says in the preface/introduction about Bancroft's distorted views on various matters, and browse through until you find the discussions about PSAC, as well as the surrender of British claims south of 49; it's a common theme in BC historiography that's usually passed over by "Canadian" historians (here meant in the context of BC being distinct from CAnada, which in many ways it still is, but even moreso prior to the modern era).  The HBC's version of colonization did not mean mass settlement; quite the contrary.  But you actually have to read histories written on our side of the line, which discuss the matter at length, instead of the point-form reductions of this as found in transmontane sites ("east of the Rockies"), like the HBC's own records site,which is "Canadianist" in origin.Skookum1 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I’m a little confused here. You see I had looked at your sandbox info and read this:
 * “The Cmopany's directors clearly realized that the only effective way of strengthening their claim to the country north of the Columbia (the south they regarded already as lost) was to open it to settlement and get a substantial British population established there as soon as opssible. A major purpose, therefore, of the [p.315] Puget's Sound Agricultural Company was to advance British colonization north of the Columbia. Of this purpose of the PSAC there was never any doubt.”


 * That’s copy and paste directly from here, and this passage contains the additional sentences from the previous quote I pasted today. It says settlement. Your own hand picked source says settlement. So I’m not sure what you are debating this for. If you want me to look at the Kerr document, let me know what page it is on. The document the link points to does not have an index, and searching for any of the PSAC names comes up with only one page and it doesn’t discuss the company.


 * As to Bancroft, why would I care what Kerr has to say about him? One I’ve never brought Bancroft up or any of his books, and two I think all sources are biased (as I have said), if that is your point. If not what is your point about Kerr and Bancroft? Aboutmovies 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And as far as south-of-the-line history goes, I meant post-1846, not beforehand; history south of the line before 1846 was our history, remember that; I haven't read the self-serving Oregonian histories validating the dream of Manifest Destiny and the mythology of the Oregon Trail, but I have the read the histories concerning the people who were there before the squatters showed up (native and HBC); that this all spun off a stupid comment/addition on either this page or one of the related ones that the so-called Provisional Government began in 1818 is typical of the distortions present in the American mythology about "Oregon"; which tend to be written as though the HBC weren't even there, though without the HBC they wouldn't have survived; "French trappers" also isused in place of "HBC employees" (or NWC), as if it was France who was involved in the region, not British interests, as was actually the case. Read Kerr, read the Akriggs, and you'll see what I mean about the British/British Columbian version/sentiments about the cession/partition of "Columbia" not being present in the article.  Likewise British political debates are under-represented, while esp. on Oregon boundary dispute and Oregon Treaty US politicians and political debates are covered in detail.  And yeah, I wouldn't mind having the time to write on it, but I can't so my comments are put on the talkpages as to what's needed from "our" side of things; but the US-centric views are so strong that even Inside Passage was written as though it were only an Alaskan term....there's other examples of US-centricity but I've got other things on the boil, food to cook, a life to fend for, and arguing with someone who's clearly being passive-aggressive just isn't worth my time.  I've given you references to the BC/British point of view on this; go read them.  NorCalHistory,who's obviously in California, has heard all my point of view on these matters and he/she hears it out with an open mind and wants to know more, not gets snitty like you have.Skookum1 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Provisional Government began in 1843. The 1818 only comes from how you were reading the passage and implying that it meant 1818. It did not say a government began in 1818. No where in good historical accounts claim that 1818 was the year, some go as early as 1841 when a probate court was set up, but I don’t consider that the beginnings.


 * As to the HBC, growing up in the valley the HBC was treated quite favorably and there was a bit of a sense of reverence for the assistance they and more specifically McLoughlin provided. Well talk about French speaking former employees who started the settlement of the area. Now, the old books are very anti-British, but the newer texts are more neutral.


 * As to getting snitty? Are you serious. I kept things civil and to the point until you decided to get personal with talking about me being a student and unworthy of talking about history. So, like claims of POV, you do not have any right to bring it up. If you keep things civil and not personal then I will too. Step over the line, then you can expect the same.


 * Lastly, I brought up the debate in a public forum hoping others would join in. If I wanted to just keep it between you and me I could have done so on your talk page. Also, I’m confused about the passive-aggressive (again personal attack in the very same paragraph you talk about me getting snitty) aspect. I would understand if I had a pattern of disruptive behavior, but I’m not seeing it. If I was delaying some project to make my boss look bad I could see it. Now, if you are talking about stubbornness, maybe you have a case, but then the same would be true of you. Aboutmovies 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
It's my understanding that "Oregon Country" and "Columbia District" refer to largely the same area, from American and British perspectives, respectively. The borders are not the same, but the history overlaps so much that I believe the reader would be best served by finding the information in a single article. I don't really care which name the article uses, so long as the significance of both names is given proper weight in the lead paragraph. -Pete 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there should be a separate "Columbia District" article, but it should refer mostly to the Hudson Bay Company's administration in the region. My rationale for this opinion would be as follows:
 * * There should, and may in the future, be articles for all of the administrative districts of the Hudsons's Bay Company (Saskatchewan Dist., Red River Dist. Athabasca Dist., etc.). While at times the HBC shared territory with the United States, these Districts (including Columbia) were among the earliest European semi-political divisions in what is present-day Canada, and some evolved into our present-day Provinces. At present, there are few to no articles on these, and most that exist are as stubs, but all it will take is someone with an interest in HBC history to get it in process.
 * * To merge the articles might make the Canadian historical content submissive to the American content, or vice-versa. The HBC has a very limited role in American history, but a much more significant one in Canadian history; therefore, a separate "Columbia District" article could remain in the domain of relevant Canadian history WikiProjects and aptly reflect the Canadian history content.
 * So bottom line, I say leave it as-is but consider revising what material this article covers. RPM 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been no further talk on merging, as far as I can tell, and it has been many months, I'll be bold and remove the merge tag. I'll also try to add more material here specifically on the fur trading district / department. Feel free to re-open the merge discussion if it is not resolved. Pfly (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the map
I don't have time to work it right now; it's of the Oregon Country; I'll come up with aversion showing New Caledonia et al., which is more appropriate than showng the Amercan concept of the region, includng 54-40 which has nothing to do with the Columbia District; the map shoud show HBC forts and posts, for one thing, and trails; it wasn't a blank map like the US concept of the Oregon Country. Maybe seeing the boundary will bring an end to the merge discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Skookum, did it really include the entire Columbia Basin? That extends deep into Montana, and also into Nevada and Utah, and includes nearly the entire state of Idaho. If it did that's fine, just checking. Wondering if the eastern extent of the Columbia River Plateau might be closer? (By the way I didn't make up the Columbia-to-Thompson thing, I got it from the History of British Columbia article. Unfortunately, all these articles are pretty poorly sourced, which makes it difficult to resolve this kind of issue.)


 * I don't really have an opinion, as it's not a history I'm very familiar with. But it would be good to get the boundary right, and find a citation to support it. -Pete (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Columbia District did include the entire Columbia River drainage basin, although I can't find a definitive answer (there's a book I have that I am sure would say, but I can't find it at the moment, argh!). My old standby geohistorical book by Meinig give some clues. The old North West Company, which merged with the HBC in 1821, is described as reaching from the upper waters of the Fraser River (New Caledonia) to the southeastern headwaters of the Columbia system (the Snake Country). A few pages later there is this interesting passage about HBC operations under George Simpson in the 1820s or so: Through the use of packhorses New Caledonia was bound to the Columbia system, and Simpson expanded upon the North West Company practice of sending out large trapping parties into the Snake Country. These forays reached California, the Great Basin, the Great Salt Lake, and east into the headwaters of the Colorado and Missouri river systems. Such expeditions were designed to exhaust the resources of a vast borderland, to create a "fur desert" as a barrier to American expansion. Similarly, Simpson expanded earlier coastal ventures, hoping to blunt the Russian advance southward, [and] remain on good terms with the Spanish... By 1830 the British were essentially unchallenged on the Pacific Slope. The "Oregon territory" of the Americans was, operationally, the Columbia Department of the Hudson's Bay Company. I think this was the one time when the HBC conducted operations along the Snake in today's southern Idaho. Their later interest in the "Snake Country" seems to be limited to the lower Snake below Hells Canyon.


 * Additionally there were HBC settlements, at least of retired employees, in the Willamette Valley, notably at the Falls of the Willamette, before American settlers began arriving in large numbers. The Cowlitz Valley was also first settled by the HBC. On the Snake Country and today's western Montana area, the HBC was active in these places and considered them operationally important. A later passage in Meinig says: In [1825] British diplomats were urged [by Simpson] to reopen negotiations in order to obtain a boundary [with the USA] drawn from the Continental Divide at the point of Lewis and Clark's crossing (thought to be 46°20'N) west to the Snake River (at the junction with the Clearwater River) and downriver to the sea. Such a line would preserve the Flathead and Spokane countries (where the British had outposts before the Astorians) and, more important, would preserve (with slight adjustment) the overland trail between Fort Nez Perces (which would be shifted to the north bank) and Fort Colvile on the upper Columbia. Inbound brigades used that trail, and the procurement of hundreds of horses annually from the Cayuse and Nez Perces Indians in the Walla Walla and lower Snake areas was fundamental to the operation of the whole interior system. In the very last stages of boundary negotiations, ... Simpson again nominated this line as the first choice.


 * These quotes from:


 * In the book Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest: Maps of exploration and Discovery there is a map from 1834 titled "British Possessions in North America", on which a huge block of land is labeled "Columbia". It is bounded by the Continental Divide to the east, the Pacific Ocean and Russian Alaska to the west, the Mexican border to the south (as established by the US "Treaty of Florida"), clear to the Arctic Ocean in the north. I'm unclear as to whether this "Columbia" is the same as the "Columbia District". In any case Skookum is right in saying the 54°40' boundary has nothing to do with the Columbia District -- and not much more than sabre rattling on the American side anyway. However, the map clearly says this line was the "extreme U.S. claim" and not a boundary of the Columbia District. On the other hand, the map would probably be clearer if it showed the boundary between the Columbia and New Caledonia districts, and perhaps the full extent of the Columbia District if it really did absorb New Caledonia in 1825.


 * As for showing forts -- it looks like quite a few HBC forts are shown (Colvile, Nez Perce, Vancouver, Nisqually, etc). It could show more (like Spokane, Kooteney, etc). Showing trails could quickly led to map clutter, but at least one or two of the main HBC routes should be shown if the Oregon Trail is shown.


 * Anyway, this thread triggered my curiosity, so I thought I'd post what I managed to find. If I get the chance and remember, and find more sources with more precise definitions, I'll try to make an improved map. ....but don't hold your breath. And sorry for the length of this comment. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll happily make adjustments, I wanted to add some HBC routes but couldn't find a good source. All of the forts shown are HBC forts.  The Columbia/New Calendonia boundary would be a good addition - I'll do that as soon as I get a chance.Kmusser (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh.. When making comments I didn't consider who made the map -- of course it was you! I shoulda known. :-) Pfly (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion; a couple of things I can "answer". One thing to remember about maps such as the 1834 British Possessions one, and its American and Russian counterparts, and as Derek Hayes explains, such maps are inherently propagandistic and meant to advance the respective powers' diplomatic agenda. At least one Russian map in the collection shows Russian America extending indefinitely eastward, beyond the Mackenzie River...I thnk there's an American one which apes it; similarly all the Oregon Country maps are "creative political fiction". So the inclusion of the Yukon/Arctic shoreline does not reflect the HBC's administrative goals/territory/reality, rather the desires of British interests; it would be interestng to know who had commissioned that map, for instance. A bit of a side tangent, but consider that ths whole region was one of the last areas in temperate latitudes to reach the world map, and that goes especially for the Interior (Samuel Black and John Campbell mapped the Stikine-Finlay valleys in the same way G. Vancouver mapped the coast...). I had the Atlas - it's a pity there's no map showing the Columbia District vs. New Caledonia, although I know I've seen one somewhere (i.e. a period map). There are a couple of indeterminacies - Fort McLoughlin and Fort Simpson were administered by the New Caledonia Dept, but I doubt if their locations were considered part of New Caledonia. Likewise Fort Langley, after its founding is referred to as being n New Caledonia though a very long way from the region that usually means (and which sometimes still refers to itself that way, the Prince George-Omineca region, i.e. Ft St James, Fraser Lake, etc); the Fraser Valley area had been dubbed "New Hanover" or "New Bremen" or some such by Vancouver, but it had never caught on (it's in Hayes' Atlas somewhere). Not sure about Nisqually, although certainly it was started up from the Columbia Dept., obviously later run from Victoria. Anyway, Fort Shuswap/Fort Kamloops - I think - was part of the New Caledonia administration, despite the AFC/PFC inroad that far; the NWC had founded it "from the north", and I guess that stuck. I thnk after 1825 it may be a moot point, if not for the Company's own parctice of contnung to refer to New Caledonia as a region or subordinate district anyway, and HBCers did think of New CAledonia and teh Columbia Dept as separate "countries", despite the admnistrative merger. I think the convention may have evolved that the Fraser/Thompson basin was New Caledonia, but I'm not sure that the interbasin boundary was ever enshrined in company policy or on a map; I'd say Ft. Shuswap/Kamloops is "on" the vague boundary, or sitting astride it; as noted teh lower Fraser and the Canyon were soon referred to as New Caledonia, although with a new subadministration out of Ft. Langley (hence Fts Hope and Yale). The reference to the headwaters of the Fraser is clearly the Tete Jaune Cache-Valemount area, which is the Fraser/Columbia divide (and very near the headwaters of the North Thompson, via the Canoe River.....a non-"line" boundary, maybe a fuzzy-change of colour, might be more suitable to map than a hard-and-fast single line, but generally it would be the same; the divide of the Monashees south from the Mica Dam-Canoe Pass/Tete Jaune area then across the Armstrong/Spallumcheen divide between the Okanagan and Shuswap to the Thompson Plateau, then down the Cascades....and I'm really not sure where Puget Sound belongs in that schema; I'll rough out a line when I get a chance and also once I figure out my new software (I recently switched to Mac). Important trails to have are the Alexander MacKenzie Heritage Trail ("The" grease trail), t he route of the Express (company books/profits bound for York Factory), basically up the Columbia itself, the Okanagan Trail-Brigade Trail connection, the Williamette/Siskiyou Trail, and wahtever eastwards. The Brigade Trail from Yale/Spuzzum to Kamloops is historically/geopolitically significant but was never used much due to its difficulty. OK, it's time for breakfast....Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC
 * And in retrospect, I almost wonder whether this shoulldn't have been Columbia Department although that's less of a territorial term than a bureaucratic division; the Columbia Dept being in charge of the Columbia District. Both terms occur, but with slightly different contexts; still, as above, the Columbia Department does get used in a territorial sense.  Re the Arctic extension thing - it might help to look at North-West Territory (I'll fix that link if it's wrong), which was the HBC  terminology for north of New Caledonia to the Arctic; it also came under Columbia Dept administration, nominally, which might account for that 1834 map. But like the US claims to 54-40, such designations were speculative/ambitious and implicitly had a political context, specifically as an assertion of counter-claim against Russian American interests in the same region (despite the Russo-British treaty establishing the boundary between their interests as beng the longitudinal line northwards from Mt St Elias). Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the book I thought would have a good geographical description, and it does -- at length and in detail. The book is The Great Columbian Plain by Meinig. It includes a map showing the boundary between the Columbia and New Caledonia departments, as well as the approximate boundaries of fur districts within the Columbia Department. There is a great deal of information, I can't write it all up here, but in a nutshell, a passage from p. 92: Summary View, ca. 1830 ... Columbia Department, an imperial domain ... reaching from the waters of the Peace River to and beyond those of the Humboldt deep in the Great Basin, and from the Continental Divide to the islands, bays, and estuaries of the Pacific coast. The districts within the Columbia Dept. are named for their headquater posts, listed as: Fort Vancouver (dept. headquarters, also a district that incl. everything west of the Cascades and south of Juan de Fuca, incl. post at Fort Umpqua), Colvile (incl. the Flathead and Kootenay posts), Thompsons River (= Kamloops, incl. Okanogan post), Nez Perces, and Langley. New Caledonia is listed as a district of the Columbia Dept. after they were merged, with its main post at Stuarts Lake (Fort St. James) and others posts at Frasers Lake, McLeods Lake, Alexandria, Babines, Connolly's Lake, and Fort George. There were also posts at Fort Boise and Fort Hall, but the "Snake Country" was not a fur district administratively. A trail ran north from Kamloops to New Caledonia's southernmost post at Alexandria. Anyway, that's all for now -- maybe later I'll sketch up a rough map showing some of these things more clearly. Pfly (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That trail is known as the Brigade Trail and there's a not-bad map in various books on the Cariboo I read this summer; I've mentioned Mark Wade's The Cariboo Road before and I think you may even find it at U.W. or even in the Seattle library; it's an "old history" from the 1920s - he was an MD at the Kamloops Home for Men at the time and interviewed many veterans of the original gold rushes...; Robin Skelton's "This is Cariboo" had a map in it too, it's more modern and may be easier to find. "Langley" we always refer to as Fort Langley; perhaps "in period" they didn't but now it's a convention in BC English to distinguish it from the Township of Langley.  BTW reading up on Dalles des Morts there's mention in the story of the Fort of the Lakes or Fort of the Lake, at hte head of Upper Arrow Lake.  Hadn't heard of it before.  "The Express" had a certain route, usually up the Columbia to Boat Encampment but by which pass out I'm not sure; Howse Pass maybe; I think Hudson's Bay Company Express might exist, though in its day it was never referered to that way; but rather by the direction; the York Factory Express or the Columbia Express; the latter was en route when the (second) Dalles des Morts disaster happened....Jan Morris' series of essays Pax Brittannica (sp?) includs a passage about Gov. Simpson's arrival with the Express; highly colourful, if you haven't read it worth looking up....after 1846 the Express was no more; a new Brigade Trail was attempted over the Canadian Cascades but it was a fiasco and never worked out as a usable route....oh, about New Caledonia; formal definitions of fur company terminology are not the whole of who it came to be used; as I said, New Cledonia is used to refer to Fort Langley adn the Fraser Canyon at the onset of the gold rush....in '58.  Maybe because the name New Caledonia had by then become a convention for the Mainland, since the Columbia Department was no more (it was not reapplied until Queen Victoria chose it  with te "British" prefixed).  After the colony's name was established New Caledonia fell back to referring to the northern fur forts and their region, as distinct from Cariboo, and the usage including southwestern/south coastal BC faded away apparently rapidly.; New Caledonia is still the name used for the originally-named that of the province btw....though never formally defined with boundaries just in names like College of New Caledonia.; roughly Prince George adn the Omineca and Nechako Countries, and not including the North Cariboo (i.e. Alexandria); one of a few vaguely-defined terms for that area, including either Central Interior or Northern Interior, take your pick.... (but Northern Interior means a lot more, and people in Kamloops and Kelowna think they are Central Interior).Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW by "the Humboldt, deep in the great Basin"....had a look for a Humboldt River, can't find one; there's a Humboldt Gulch in Idaho, and some Humboldt names in Cali, but that's not Great Basin, not Humboldt County anyway; there's some Humboldt placenames at 40 degress North - on the inside of the Sierras?.....do they mean the Snake, or one of its tributaries??Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Humboldt River in Nevada. On New Caledonia -- yea, New Caledonia seems to have become used for the Mainland after the Columbia Department got decapitated with the final boundary settlement. It seems to have been just the 1830s and 40s during which the Columbia Department was this big and functional machine. I thought the York Express went via Athabasca Pass, but would have to check. And yea, the word "Fort" was left off in the above lists. Pfly (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and PS, I'll try to find and check out those books. Having grown up in the shadow of Toronto yet being an American I always feel a kind of duty to learn more about Canadian history, geography, etc (though I'll never really understand Canadian politics!). It's a crying shame how little most Americans know about Canada. Thanks for the tips. Pfly (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a crying shame, also, that Torontonians and other Canadians know little of BC history. And I'm one of the few British Columbian historians, or British Columbians period, who takes any kind of interest in Washington and Oregon et al. history, even when it was ours, or shared post-1846; maybe because it's because I'm "part Californian" (my Mom was raised in Bellflower).  Only a few BC histories, for instance, have bridged the Fraser Canyon War with the Yakima War or related to the Colville Gold Rush as an offshoot of the various BC ones, and only histories of the Kootenays really dwell on US-side development, but even then only second-hand.  In my view despite the regions' partition it still has to be taken as a whole...native history of course must be studied/written about conjointly, likewise as we have seen with the Inside Passage and the various steamboat articles/templates and the Columbia article ... to say nothing of the boundary disputes ;-).Skookum1 (talk)

A source with maps
I began to try to figure out what exactly the Columbia District/Department was, but got bogged down in the rather complex history of it all. Still I thought I'd post about some interesting maps in a book online at Google Books: Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific, 1793-1843. Interesting map on pages xvi (showing a huge Columbia Department), xix, 19, and 97. Pfly (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to get at the xvi map page, but it jumps right from the copyright page to the ToC at xxxvii orwhatever; is the map page linkable directly here?Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the book out of the library and, having a half-decent basemap of Canada I'd made before, I roughly hand-drew the fur districts shown on the book's map 1, page xvi, and put it online here. I've yet to read much of the book, but thought this rough map might be interesting. I'm curious about how there was a Southern Department and a Northern Department, each with fur districts, as well as a Columbia Department. Another map shows the fur districts of the Columbia Department, but I've only barely skimmed the book so far. If nothing else it appears that there was a Columbia District and New Caledonia District in the North West Company, and these terms stuck around even after the HBC created the Columbia Department. It may even be that for a while there was a Columbia District within the Columbia Department. Anyway, more later. Pfly (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A start to edits
Finally got around to starting some edits to the actual article. It's still rough, but hopefully accurate. On the terms district and department, it seems that the North West Company officially called the southern part "Columbia District", which was separate from the "New Caledonia District", while after the HBC merger the whole was called the "Columbia Department", which included within it the "New Caledonia District" along with a bunch of other districts, mainly named for the forts/posts. Let me know if I made any blatantly wrong statements though. My knowledge gets sketchier toward the northern interior and after the 1840s. Pfly (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Express"
Need a title resolved.....Hudson's Bay Company Express? HBC Express?? Columbia Express and York Factory Express are how they were referred to, when not simply "the Express". Need a good title, partly because of the Express disambiguation page. This term is going to turn up more and more with more history articles on the HBC, like Dalles des Morts. Got any suggestions, or have you (pfly) found a good summary/catch-all name in the books on the Columbia Department you've been looking over?Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the best name would be. The Mackie book maps it as "York Factory Express". In the text the book describes an "express brigade" between York Factory and Fort Vancouver, "via the Athabasca Pass and Fort Edmonton ... This was not a fur but an express brigade, carrying departmental accounts and letters ... based on the NWC's old spring and fall express linking Fort George on the lower Columbia [Astoria] with Fort William on Lake Superior. Known as the York Factory Express on its spring/eastern journey, and the Columbia or Autumn Express on its fall/westward journey..." If both names are equally accurate, I'd be inclined toward "York Factory Express" -- there are probably a number of other, unrelated Columbia Expresses that have existed.


 * There's some detail about the route and the way it operated in both the Mackie book and Meinig's "Great Columbia Plain". Pfly (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * York Factory Express it is, then; when you get a chance could you crib the route details from Mackie or Meinig and start a stub? Then we can ask karl for a map ;-)  The passage from Gov Simpson's diary I mentioned, which I've seen in various secondary accounts, would be worth having as well; Columbia Express we can just redirect to York Factory Express, plus other variations.  BTW re the line in the article on this page about the Columbia Department ceasing to exist after 1846, I don't think that's quite right; operations at Victoria were still the Columbia Department in name, I think; don't have any main source handy, but I think that's right; not sure when the name shifted, or what it shifted to; it was the Columbia District that virtually ceased to exist; the administrative divisioni of hte company still continued on.  I'm looking for a spot to insert why Fort Langley was founded - as a precaution against US claims, and in anticipation of the 49th Parallel; same idea as Victoria but earlier.  I have some reply-comments to the Aboutmovies stuff WAY up this page somewhere about ports north of the Columbia and the US position, which are related, but I'll save that for anjother time; not wanting to re-engage Aboutmovies but there's somee interesting issues I need to address that he raised....anyway off to the gym finallySkookum1 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW questions on HBC history, particularly biography, in our region, you might want to consult lisa@fortlangley.ca who's the webmistress of http://www.fortlangley.ca and her "Children of Fort Langley" network...also a speicalist on the Royal Engineers in British Columbia (which needs a separate article from Royal Engineers IMO).Skookum1 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea I am not sure about the end of the Columbia Department, other than knowing that the fur trade declined in the 1840s. That line should be corrected/verified, etc. Sure I'll make a York Factory Express stub.. sooner or later. Maybe a map too -- I'm slowly working on a map or two for this page as well. Pfly (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fur business dropped off, but the HBC operations/office on "the Pacific Slope" continued on, I don't think there was a change of name of hte administrative department, except insofar as you get stuff like the cdreation of Puget's Sound Agricultural Company and the technicalities of hte HBC's lease of Vancouver Island; I think the department, i.e. the corporate subdivision, was still "addressed"/ titled as the Columbia Department; not sure at all about that but some HBC site somewhere must say something about it...I think it's in the Akriggs but my copies are far from here...with Lisa, actually.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS the fur trade was falling off because the fashion for beaver hats was waning; jokes about the price of beaver playing a crucial role in Canadian history aside ;-| it's axiomatic in Canadian history, and the reason by why when the 1860s came along the HBC was willing to divest itself of its former empire, which was no longer as lucrative as it had been a few decades earlier; falling profitability was also one reason UK interests were no longer much interested in protecting teh HBC's interests in the 1840s and hence the Oregon Treaty's retreat from the HBC position to hold the line of the Columbia, at least (the little triangle of land Aboutmovies mentioned above was Gray's Harbour, I think; and as the location of Vancouver shows, there really are no other ports on the BC coast worth talking about; not with city-capability anyway or not for a long ways ot the north; right in the range of 54-40, in fact; Aboutmovies' earnest American diplomat he cites was talking through his hat; he would have known none of the harbours north from the Olympic Peninsula have good access inland; the Cascades are relatively passable by comparison to the Coast Mountains, but of course there's no opening to the Interior as easy as along the Columbia; it's why the US wanted to shut the HBC and Britain out; without hte Columbia British tenure on th region would prove difficult; as indeed the history of BC serves to prove, e.g. the Dewdney Trail and Southern mainline of the CPR and the competition for N-S transportation - steamer and rail - between the US Interior and the BC Interior....anyway g'nite, or for now, I still haven't had that smoke....wikidiction strikes again....Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Made that page. Will attempt a map sooner or later. While reading about the York Factory Express in the Mackie book I was pleasantly surprised to find a picture of an 1845 watercolour titled "Hauling Up a Rapid, Les Dalles des Morts". Also, I'm getting slightly conflicting info about whether the North West Company used Athabasca Pass for their express or not. They (David Thompson) discovered it and apparently used it, but the text vaguely suggests that it was not used for the express until Simpson came over in 1824. What other pass might have been used before I don't know -- something slightly north perhaps. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the Paul Kane one, right? I saw it, too.  I just worked up the 1838 section on Dalles des Morts and so mentioned the York Factory Express; see my wording there, I think it was useful/clear.  I hesitated to add to Steamboats of the Arrow Lakes because of style/consistency issues but the details about the Forty-Nine were there to be added and seemed necessary; there's probably old photos of the Dalles des Morts, prob not gold rush era but 1880s I'd think, railway survey photos, or Swannell's....(see Frank Swannell if you don't know t the name yet); I'm going to do a Dalles (disambiguation) page; go to http://www.topozone.com and search for "Dalles" using "contains"; there's one on the White River, I think it is, near Tacoma?  Also at Northport; anyway excellent about York Factory Express; I'll see if there's web source on Gov Simpson's diaries, maybe there is; otherwise keep your eyes open for Jan Morris' "Pax Britannica" books, and her little tidbit on the Columbia Department, and on the flavour of the Governor's arrival at Fort Vancouver on the Express; a rich bit of local flavour, to be sure; maybe already on a wiki page somewhere, I think....Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually this watercolour is by Henry Warre. The caption says that he came overland to the Columbia in 1844 "and compiled the best extant pictorial record of the western operations of the HBC." Just tried a google image search on his name and got a bunch of drawings, but not one of Dalles des Morts. I used to work in Tacoma doing county geography stuff and can't recall a "Dalles" anywhere around there. Could be though. I've read bits and pieces about Simpson's trip to the Columbia and it does sound fairly epic. I'm sure there's a copy online somewhere -- I'll add to my growing list. :) I just added a map of the York Factory Express. Could be better, but seems good enough for now. Pfly (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, you are right about a "The Dalles" along the White River near Tacoma. My mistake. Pfly (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs a better map
While the current map is fine for illustrating the American claims known as the Oregon Country, it's unsuitable for the Columbia District. The definition's pretty clear, and is in Mark S. Wade's The Thompson Country in the intro. The map should show it, the Thompson Country (vague in those days, granted) and New Caledonia. The US claim at 54-40 will bisect the last-named....and while Forts Taku and Stikine were not in the Columbia District proper, they were part of the operations of the Columbia Department, as was, come to think of it, Yerba Buena and Hawaii's post (Honolulu? - not sure where it was). Fort Langley was also not in the Columbia District, but was in the Columbia Department, ditto (eventually Forts Victoria, Rupert, McLoughlin and Simpson; these were in the non-fur district sense of New Caledonia, though not in that fur district as such; although by their time the operations of the New Caledonia district had become part of the functionings of hte Columbia Department (though still not part of the Columbia District). The map perpetuates the notion that the Columbia District and Oregon Country were identical; they were not.  A new map would also give the chance to show the outlier posts of the Columbia Department, those outside the Columbia District proper (though maybe it's too ahrd to show Honolulu and Yerba Buena....).  Just an idea, I'm not a mapmaker...a map designer maybe....I'll rough it out somehow and post a suggested revisions here, unless I can talk Karl User:Kmusser or User:Qyd to oblige (Paul, I know you're busy...).Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably won't get to it soon, but if I just extend the map a little to the north so it included one or both of Stikine or Tatu that would make it clear that HBC operations existed north of 54-40 (I was already trying to imply that by making that area similarly colored, but a fort would make it clearer). I don't think you should try to show the more far-flung operations on the same map as then the Fraser and Columbia basins which should remain the focus would become hard to see. You could potentially show those on a separate map, although I'm not sure it's really necessary, for the most part they're already wiki-linked if people want to know where they are.Kmusser (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not quite as simple as moving the northern boundary to a new line of latitude; the Columbia District wasn't defined that way. It was not a territorial license like Rupert's Land, and did not include New Caleodonia; essentially it was the basin of the Columbia, plus maybe Puget Sound, but nothing north of that; Thompson's River Post/Fort Shuswap/Fort Kamloops was in a separately defined Thompson Country, New Caledonia did not begin until Fort Alexandria and did not have technically-drawn boundaries, was more of a web of forts and trails. Fort Langley, when it was founded, nonetheless was considered to be in New Caledonia, the meaning of which changed variously over the years; the northern coastal forts, past Simpson, were defined as being in Russian America, and tehre is a lease there (1838 onwards) that was dedicated HBC sphere of operations (from the Portland Canal to the Stikien) ;that area was not considered New CAledonia, but AFAIK Simpson and McLouglinand (fort( reuprt were; but not by the definition of NC as a fur district, but as a geographic region...what I'll do is sketch out hte variables in the rough no some basemap I have; maybe a close up mayp of the Columbia District proper, howing hte main forsts and trails, and a wider-area one showing the operational posts of the Columbia Department'....I'll find the passage in Wade where he defines these....Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't suggesting a new boundary, just extending the area that the map covered, as it is it just misses being able to put Stikine on there, it might be easier to talk about the HBC-Russian America relationship if I show more of that area, but it sounds like a 2 map solution may be better anyway. Kmusser (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Russo-British/Anglo-Russian Convention is one of the back-burner articles I keep on putting off doing while makign geo-stubs instead LOL...it'll need its own map in time, and it's realted to the Alaska boundary dispute materials. the pacNw being the huge chunk of geography that it is, and so much of its history being geographic in nature, there's all kinds of potential maps relating to its history...eg. read Alexander "Buck" Choquette, and consider the Black and Cmpabell expeditions which mapped the rivers of northern BC.....somewhere I've eseen a map of the New Caledonia posts; luckily all of those are in BCGNIS so mapping them via their latlogns is more than easy...Iv'e also been looking for some old waypoint sets of rivers etc for you, but maybe with GeoGRatis that's no logner necessary.....back to you later, just checking in, and again I'll try to rembmer to get that passage in Wade, not that he's definitive but more in-reac-=of-the0riginal-time (1910s-1920s ,interviewed veterans of the early rushes/ fur traders...).  Douglas or Simpson might say something even more definitive, or one of gtehir underlings, Il'l keep my eyes open....Skookum1 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)