Talk:Columbia District

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Some administrative history should be here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A source with maps

message: 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)
thread_title: A start to edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Needs a better map