quote:

to create a "fur desert" to keep the Americans out of the Oregon Country and control westward expansion. By the way, it didn't work.

Yes, they wanted to keep all Americans out, not just the American trappers or fur companies. And it didn't work. I'm sitting in "old Oregon" right now. Shoot sharp, Mike

Mike,
I'm sitting in Old (1833) Oregon Territory myself, and it's a very long drive from me to you. It takes another several hour drive from here to the east for me to get out of the territory. Oregon Territory was all of what is now Oregon, Idaho and Washington...plus northern Montana west of the Continental Divide (the part that would have been Idaho except for a surveying error).
Sparks

NOT TOTALY

You're correct but that's the problem with a 4 paragaraph history lessong, it ends up being very "general."

Load fast and aim slow.

I thought I'd better get in a couple of words here about the NWC & the HBC.

The HBC didn't 'take over' the NWC... it was a merger forced on them by pressure from the King. It occurred in 1821 and the first Columbia representative was George Simpson.

The HBC Charter did not include anything other than everything draining into Hudson's Bay to the 'height of land'. The Montreal Traders (NWC) were the men who first headed west to start organized trading. They traveled by canoe, horseback & shanksmare. They were comprised of Voyageurs and 'company' men (factors, clerks, traders and such).

The Native Americans preferred the NWC because they came to their country instead of having to ship furs to Hudsons Bay Trade Houses through middlemen.

The Fur Trade started shortly after 1500 with the Americans coming in during the latter days. The Americans wanted fur but the Canadians wanted more (in the way of meat & fat) for their Northern Brigrades. Simply put... the Native Americans could trade more items to the Canadians than to the Americans.

'Free Trapping' is sort of an illusion since you have to get your trade goods from somewhere! The trade goods were pretty generic and were imported by some 'company' somewhere and therefor... you were working for the 'company' any way you looked at it.

Perhaps someone will ask the right questions and this discussion will get right interesting real fast.

quote:

Originally posted by Pilgrim:


Regarding the HBC: another one of their predatory practices was to move into areas already being served by independent traders, and sell goods at or below cost. The independents couldn't compete and would either quit or went bankrupt, at which point the HBC would raise their prices back up to "mountain price" One such independent trader allegedly specified in his last will and testament that he wanted to be buried on a hill overlooking the HBC trading post that ran him out of business, so that he could "piss on the HBC for all eternity."

Pilgrim,
I realize I'm a bit late in responding. I was casting back through these posts with nothing better to do, and want to comment about this statement of yours. You are correct that HBC engaged in this practice--especially later on, as they crossed into what later became US territory--and they won because they were more successful at it! In the earlier days, before the "mountain man" era, many if not all of the various companies, large and small, did a little undercutting and credit-stealing when it served their purposes. A lot of it was maybe in response to the practices of the big companies (HB and NWCo, who were better able to bear the losses) but it was also simply to drive out the competition from their small-scale peers. The Mackinac Company and its precursers from the 1780s onward organized primarily not because they were all good buddies, but because they knew they couldn't succeed against each other with all their shenanigans, let alone those of the NW Co. HBC was still too far north at that point, I think. Not arguing just trying to add to the discussion.

So far I haven't mentioned a favorite. Mine is Robert Dickson and Company operating out of Mackinac and Prairie du Chien.

Dick

Voyageur; What are the right questions?

Load fast and aim slow.

# 1. Why did the Native Americans prefer the French trade goods over the English trade goods.

P.S. Should we start a new thread for the 'questions'?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voyageur:
'Free Trapping' is sort of an illusion since you have to get your trade goods from somewhere! The trade goods were pretty generic and were imported by some 'company' somewhere and therefor... you were working for the 'company' any way you looked at it.

Well that is true you had to get supplied, but you we're not in a day to day being told by the patron or booshway we're to trap or we're to camp.The Free Trapper was an important part of the trade,they could decide for themselves were they spent there time trapping and witch company they would sell to or if they we're going to winter in Taos and sell there furs there.
In the old journals there are to many references to the free men to simply dissmiss them as an illusion.In my humble opionion.
Woodman

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with you woodman. I would like to say that it was never my intent to 'dismiss them'. Such men were likely to be the original 'pioneers' listed in the rolls of Pioneer Societies that are to be found in many an old settled area. The Willamette Valley springs to mind.

No... you have to look at the 'bottle necks' for outgoing fur and incoming Trade Items. If you simply consider the Rendezvous system, you will recall the race to 'get there first' and make the trades before the trappers had the chance to trade anywhere else. If you are going to trade at some fort... just who does the fort belong to, are they 'middlemen' and who is going to take the furs while resupplying the Trade Items? And this is just the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by Voyageur:
# 1. Why did the Native Americans prefer the French trade goods over the English trade goods.

P.S. Should we start a new thread for the 'questions'?

Voyageur,
I'm curious about this statement. I was under the belief that while the natives may have prefered DEALING with the French or French Canadians,(they often got along with them better) the English goods were often considered superior. They were certainly considered superior to American-made products in the early days of our entry into the fur trade.

Dick

quote:

Originally posted by Voyageur:
I'm not sure to what extent I agree with you woodman.

No... you have to look at the 'bottle necks' for outgoing fur and incoming Trade Items. If you simply consider the Rendezvous system, you will recall the race to 'get there first' and make the trades before the trappers had the chance to trade anywhere else. If you are going to trade at some fort... just who does the fort belong to, are they 'middlemen' and who is going to take the furs while resupplying the Trade Items? And this is just the beginning.

I would have to say on the second part of your post you answered how important the Free Trappers we're they would be the reason for the race to get there and secure there trade before the other company.
As far as the bottlenecks for trade goods coming out and furs coming back in. In my humble opionion the Choutoues and there reletaves had more irons in the fire and relationshiops with all of the major companies in one way or the other. They dealt with American fur(being Astors Western division, They supplied Ashley and Sublette with some goods).
Woodman

quote:

I'm curious about this statement. I was under the belief that while the natives may have prefered DEALING with the French or French Canadians,(they often got along with them better) the English goods were often considered superior. They were certainly considered superior to American-made products in the early days of our entry into the fur trade. Dick

Sorry about not getting back to you right away Dick... somehow I completely missed your reply.

Exclusive of the trade gun... the French items were lighter and more ornate. Transport was everything when it came to the plains and western trade.

As far as the trade gun was concerned... everyone was essentially going to the same well.

quote:

I would have to say on the second part of your post you answered how important the Free Trappers we're they would be the reason for the race to get there and secure there trade before the other company.

As far as the bottlenecks for trade goods coming out and furs coming back in. In my humble opionion the Choutoues and there reletaves had more irons in the fire and relationshiops with all of the major companies in one way or the other. They dealt with American fur(being Astors Western division, They supplied Ashley and Sublette with some goods). Woodman

When you speak about 'Free Trappers' you have to keep in mind that they were simply a lesser percentage of the men involved in the brigade system. Hollywood and popular books have made them seem like the dominant personages of the fur trade and that is mightily debatable. The whole concept kept getting repeated like the myth of the Hawken rifle... that is, until Hanson stepped in and exploded that particular myth. So the 'Free Trapper' has become the ultimate persona that re-enactors emulate.

The 'bottlenecks' were further up the line. Trade goods had to come from somewhere and that 'somewhere' usually ended up being the same place. I don't think anyone is going to believe that there were hosts of competing factories producing trade goods. In journals it speaks of all the different blacksmiths making traps for the outgoing trapping expeditions. Do you believe that individual 'smiths made different traps for each individual trapper? Even 'cottage industry' would never be able to accomplish such a feat. You made your parts that contributed to the whole.

That is the American end of it. The NWC & HBC were faced with the same problems with the exception that the British had a corner on the production of NW Trade Gun. If you speak just about the period from the 1820s forward (percussion rifles) then the Americans had their own sources/makers.

But all that aside... there is the problem of the disposal of the furs. The furs were not 'money' until they were converted into 'money'. What this means is that you have to follow the route that the fur took to be traded off. Who were they traded to, for what were they traded and how long did all this take?

Missouri Fur Co

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voyageur:


Sorry about not getting back to you right away Dick... somehow I completely missed your reply.

Exclusive of the trade gun... the French items were lighter and more ornate. Transport was everything when it came to the plains and western trade.

As far as the trade gun was concerned... everyone was essentially going to the same well.
[unquote]

Voyageur, I don't have any resources in front of me, and truth be told only have a few pages of lists of goods carried by licensed traders out of Montreal/Mackinac, etc. But the guns were normally a small part of the inventory, in terms of pounds/dollars/livres. Textiles (from all over, including India)tin-ware and brass-ware, beads from Italy, etc. as well as tools of various sizes and kinds (and high wine if not for sale then to "sweeten" the sale) were the larger portions of the canoe or batteau. I will hazard a guess that in general the quality was somewhat better coming from the English merchants--but I know little about the pre-1763 French merchandise. Quality control of American-made materials, unfortunately, wasn't good for some time... At least, that's what I read.
I'm speaking of the Canadian-based fur trade, not so much that based in St. Louis and heading for the Shining Mountains.

Dick

Jumping in very late here... sorry.

I don't like reading AFC stuff, cause Astor was a real... well... stool sample.

I mostly read the NWCo stuff, but my fav's are the XY Co, AKA Alexander MacKenzie Co. If you think AFC stuff is hard to find, try researching XY.

r/e to russian american company ,
one thing overlooked here is that the russians were extremely cruel to the people they subjigated the aleuts in particular when they tried it in sitka with the tlingit they got their but handed to them eventually ,tlingit are also known to have paddled down here to wa st and made war on the locals in comparrison our trappers were quite mild unlessen ya riled em up just a bit one of the better eads i did recently was "scotsman in buckskins" told much of the era that is discussed herein
thanx smitty

The Russian-Tlingit situation was one of dire respect. They didn't like each other yet for the most part, learned to get along. The Tlingit were never placed in the same situation as the Aleut's.

The Tlingit's went on great raiding trips with their war conoes. These trips were in search of slaves.

Say what one wishes about the introduction of Christianity, it still prepared the natives for the century that was to follow.

By the way, Christianity in the form of the Russian Orthodox faith didn't just introduce Christianity, it brought schools and hospitals. OK, it wasn't as we know them but it was a start.

When the US bought Alaska and miltary rule was introduced, it was in reality a step backwards for the natives rather than a step forward. So who's the kettle calling the pot black?

Load fast and aim slow.

Man Mike...this is a tough question...I dont know if it fits the parameters of the question, but I like to research any of the "companies" involved in the "Beaver Wars" of the 17th century...though at the time those companies were generally kings of countries and those to whom they gave royal patents...after that the local doins of the AFC here in my neck of the woods is fun to study too...
TCA