Talk:HMS Racoon (1808)

Taking of Ft Astoria

 * ''Before the Racoon arrived at their proposed destination of the fur trading outpost of Fort Astoria, the North West Company had completed a deal with the Pacific Fur Company that since British ships would be imminently arriving to "take and destroy everything American on the Northwest coast," that they would purchase the assets, for a third of their value. Black arrived to find the matter already settled, though he went through a ceremony of possession and renamed the facility Fort George.

This isn't quite what went down; the BC sources I provided at the creation of this article are evidently more accurate than the Royal Navy ones. The PFC sold out to the NWC - on-site, not in London/NY/Mtl - due to squabbling among the partners and financial difficulties resulting from a collapse of teh sea otter trade and/or a cessation of trading activity due to fears of more reprisals from Maquinna and other chifes to the north. There was no threat of British vessels convincing the PFC to sell out; in fact, most of hte PFC staff were the same; I was gonna expand this part as it's a key detail of early history in the Pacific Northwest; note the terminoogy I changed also - this was not yet Oregon, not yet the Columbia District, and not hte city of Astoria. "Sailing to Columbia" all by itself, with that spelling, is a poetic phrasing for "sailing to America", or sounds like it....Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that they didn't sell out on site. The purchase was arranged at Ft. Astoria by the North West Company's agent Mr Angus Shaw, and the PFC's agent Mr M'Dougal. M'Dougal then became a NWC agent after the purchase was concluded. The article does not perhaps cover all the reasons that M'Dougal chose to sell out, but when the Racoon arrived, M'Dougal went out to meet the ship. He had told his men to be prepared to pass themselves off as either Englishmen or Americans, depending on the identity of the unknown vessel, in case the ship was American and might be able to defend against the anticipated British arrival. It was not, and M'Dougal duly announced that the fort was now under British control. Black was not happy, he felt cheated that rather than having the opportunity to reduce the fort and claim prize money, the job had been done by scheming businessmen. I have no problem with how you fix the terminology, but if you want to alter the account of the takeover, please be prepared to acknowledge discrepancies among different sources. Benea (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, but only bearing in mind that some sources are more accurate/detailed than others; the notion that the Fort was sold because of fears of an arriving ship must come from your RN source, and sounds spurious/speculative in the way of making RN power sound like the reason the fort was sold; that's my main issue. Begg is a major-historian source with extensive detail, as also with Scholefield & Howay and Bancroft and other accounts....the diplomatic consequences of Black's egotistically-motived "takeover" didn't play out well, as you probably know, but we'll get to that....for now I'll just add other "Further reading" links from S&H and Bancroft and any others online I'm aware of, and stitch in what I can.  Appreciate your finding out the back-story of this vessel and its building-date etc., there's others that are still redlinked on the RN list that I have PacNW info about but am unsure of which ship sometimes, or sometimes they're not date-disambigged and again, I don't know where to start.  HMS Blossom can be started from Begg, too, but again I don't know its disambig-date - it would be teh Blossom that was in the PacNW in 1818......Skookum1 (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Samuel Black (ship-captain) is because of the crisis notable for his own article; note also prominent in regional history is Samuel Black (fur trader), which is why the ship-captain disambig. Do you have anything on his previous career/training et al.?Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw your change to William.....guess I was just confused because of the "resonance" of the name Samuel Black in these parts; oh well, thought I had it right....Begg only calls him Capt. Black.15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just the Royal Navy source, see this article, this book and this one for starters. Ignoring them to be honest would also be spurious and speculative since it makes it seem that the fort would have been sold anyway, which as these make clear, the arrival of British warships was a major factor (but not perhaps the only one) in their decision. I'd be happy to look into other ships for you. Benea (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'd forgotten those bits about the message coming to Ft Spokane, and the arrival of the NWCers et al. - they're in the Akriggs' British Columbia Chronicle, which I don't have on-hand anymore; it's interesting that Begg and Scholefield/Howay gloss over that bit given other details. It was a complicated matter and I still don't understand how, with Astoria returned to the US in 1818 because of the complications of the Treaty of Ghent (thanksx to Captain Black's rashness) it came about that Ft George was among NWC assets transferred to the HBC, and how it was that the HBC was operating the fort again from 1829, following its temporary abandoment 1825-1829; no US title was recognized by the treaty/convention of the same year (nor any British title) so was the flag-raising, do you think, symbolic more than practical; or was the fort operated/owned by Americans during its re-opening after 1829 and I'm mistaken about the HBC's continuing tenure there?Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure to be honest, the later history of the area is a bit outside my area of expertise. The initial situation after the end of the War of 1812 was that since the post had been legitimately transferred by purchase from an American to a British company, it did not fall under the terms of the status quo ante bellum settlement and remained under British control, though operations continued much as they had done under the PFC, often with the same employees and agents, just working for a different company. This seems to imply that Black's flag raising was regarded as more symbolic than anything, though this may just have been a ruse to retain control of the station. The general area that Black theoretically claimed seems to have been considered, by 1818 and the Treaty of Ghent, to have been regarded as sovereign British territory and could be therefore be negotiated and ceded by the government, but perhaps the belief that the ownership of the fort was a private rather than a public matter allowed the NWC and then the HBC to continue in control of it until the arrangement in 1845 between the US and Britain transferred company territory back to US control. The most likely explanation is that the fort remained under HBC control, but just happened to be in American territory, until the matter was cleared up in 1845. Benea (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[undent]That would have to be it, unless HBC histories are wrong, which is unlikely (they're very exacting). Doesn't make sense any other way; how to adjust my rewording of the opening paragraph of Fort Astoria I'm not sure until this is sorted out somehow; the common reference "the first permanent US settlement in the Pacific Northwest" seems such a nostrum in US history despite the facts - it wasn't permanent (empty in 1825-29) and staffed throughout its early life by almost no Americans at all.....from this sideo f the border, it's always sounded like a propaganda claim, like so many in the histories of this region (from both sides).Skookum1 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, both sides probably have some claim but the main thing is that it was at one time an American company, and then a British company, rather than being an official representation of either side's government. The people who worked there seem to have had no strong nationalistic ties, and when the ownership of the post changed, they simply carried on with their business as they had done before. Money meant more to them than patriotism it would seem. The NWC wanted the Royal Navy to take it over not for the glory of Britain, but to eliminate a competitor and incorporate their assets. The PFC weren't interested in making a stand for America but were more concerned about having their livelihoods confiscated, and so were ready to cut a deal. They story of the settlement is far more one of pragmatic business decisions than it is one of patriotic fervour. Benea (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto with the ongoing trade between the Russian America Company and Hudson's Bay Company during the Crimean War; there was even a secret agreement to that effect, made more complicated when the British and French fleets showed up in teh wake of the Siege of Petropavlovsk. Also with Governor Douglas' loan of the Otter and Beaver during the Puget Sound War of the 1850s.....(for use against his old customers Leschi, Owhi, Kitsap and Sealth....).  Basic gist was that in this far-flung corner of the planet, local loyalties and ties were always more important than flag-wating; until the 1840s anyway.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Repair in San Francisco Bay
On the page Raccoon_Strait there is a discussion of the HMS Racoon being repaired in 1814. I think that should be mentioned on this page too. Kevink707 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Done. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)