Talk:Nootka Convention

interesting tidbit

thx for the edits/clarifications; I was writing from spin-memory when I stubbed or rescrubbed it a long time ago. this bit of yours caught my eye:

The United States argued that it acquired from Spanish rights to exclusive ownership

Which is interesting because just last week I'd been musing on Pethick's retellings of the Meares Dispute is that this was precisely the point of the Nootka Conventions: that Spain opened up the coast and its former seat of power to all comers, though retaining the right to return and participate itself, which of course the Spanish Empire never had a chance to do, what with Bonaparte and all. So what rights and obligations Spain held to sell in the area were derived from the Nootka Conventions and the gentlemanly dinner negotiations between Vancouver and Quadra (or so one has this picture); in the shadow of the power of Chief Maquinna, whose rights as Hyas Tyee (or whatever his proper title is in Nuu-chah-nulth) both Great Powers recognized. So that's the interesting bit - the US claims it had acquired sole ownership from Spain, although Spain didn't have it to sell (perhaps forgiveable because of lack of continuity in diplomatic personnel from 1792 through 1819); the Nootka Conventions were certainly cited by the British in stating their case against the American one, even though by then Meares' land tenure fable was recognized as such; Spain had claimed sole rights and which were rejected by Britain as a result of Meares' come-uppance of them, but eventually was forced to acknowledge shared dominion. The most interesting detail, in terms of diplomatic history, is that the Great Powers referred to Maquinna as king, and in the course of these negotiations his position was simply that it was his land to decide who could do what on, not Spain's to tell anybody anything on. Although that's not in the text of the Conventions, it's partly because of his good graces that the negotiations took place at all, as well as the general onset of the fur trade as a whole in the Pacific Northwest. It's not just Nootka being a convenient anchorage to the North Pacific currents and winds; it's that of all the coastal chiefdoms (or whatever the proper term is) he was the most amenable - or perhaps the least punishing - to his guests. Nootka was a safe harbour; you could sleep at night, which in many harbours in BC wasn't a good idea, even with nets up...Skookum1 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Original text now on Wikisource

I've added the text of the 3 conventions to wikisource. I just added a wikisource template link to this page, but only to the 1st convention, as I don't yet know how to make the template link to multiple pages. The wikisource page links to the other 2 anyway. Here are the direct URLs if it matters:

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention
• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Claims_Convention
• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Mutual_Abandonment_of_Nootka

Now to make a page on the Nootka Crisis (one that isn't just a redirect). Pfly (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon

I found a related political cartoon at the national archives. If you think it can be incorporated, you can upload it to commons. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It definitely can, thogh maybe more relevant to Nootka Crisis than this article - but my eyes are bad, what does the writing on the bags/bait say?Skookum1 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

your eyes aren't bad, it's just slightly too small to read. The description page says: A hand coloured copper etching concerning the Nootka Sound controversy (1789-91) between Britain and Spain over sovereignty of the NW coast and navigational rights of Nootka Sound depicting British PM Pitt and Navy Treasurer Dundas, in a rowboat, using million pound sterling bags as bait tied to a fishing line. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know where it belongs, so I'll leave it to you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction, please

It is too simplistic to say that England did not recognise the Papal Bulls of Alexander VI just because it was "governed by protestants". First of all, the territories that he "gave away" to Spain and Portugal were not his to dispose of; furthermore he disposed of territories that did not exist or were not known to exist. Both the Papal Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas were illegal at the time and as antecedents would not be recognised in today's courts. For example, Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands is partly based on the Papal Bulls - this mythical claim is nonsense.David1gla (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of international law at the time, the Bull of Tordesillas was seen as having weight, although it wsa rejected by the non-Iberian powers they still made efforts to overturn it or challenge it. Also the Bull was claimed by Spain to apply to all areas west of the Line of Tordesillas, including the whole of the Pacific Ocean. It may be that the "because it was governed by protestants" is a conjectural but I think it's most likely in one of the sources; fundamentally it was one of the reasons England could reject other Spanish policies, too....Skookum1 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rereading this now, the sentence, This papal bull was not recognized by Britain (which was governed by Protestants) or by Russia (which was governed by Orthodox Christians), I also feel it is too simplistic--maybe even outright wrong. The Inter caetera has a better explanation (which I admit I added a while back). I'm going to copy it over here and removed those bits about England Russia. Pfly (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Falkland Islands dispute

I noticed some back and forth reverting here recently about the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (explicit or implied), and thought I'd try to improve the wording on the topic. Researching the issue quickly shows that it is complicated and controversial (go figure!). The relationship of the Nootka Convention to the Falklands dispute is mentioned in a great many sources which make a great many claims--some of which blatantly contradict each other, others make definitive, but dubious statements. For an in-depth look at the mess, check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation. Apparently there was a Wikipedia mediation case on the topic. After reading that page I decided not to try to write something brief about how the Nootka Convention is argued to apply, or not, to the Falklands--instead just pointing out that they "play a role" and that their applicability "is controversial and complicated." Anyone wanting to know more can read the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute page now linked (esp. the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Current claims section). I kept the source already used (the one in Spanish), which seemed a decent but somewhat biased toward the Argentine position, if I read the Spanish right. I added another source, which seems to be trying to be neutral but is probably somewhat biased toward the British position. Both are used on the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) most in

Looks fine to me now. "Controversial and complicated" seems fair - there are several issues that are unclear and it seems logical to expect people to go to the article on the dispute for detail. The Spanish-language source does take a pro-Argentine line. Pfainuk talk 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor Spain the signatories of the treaty ever applied Nootka to the Falklands. The claim referred to was first advanced by Paul Groussac in the mid 1880s, nearly a century after the fact. It is also worth noting under the secret article, even were it applicable Britain was freed of any obligation upon the intervention of a 3rd party ie Argentina. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Nootka was about the Pacific, and Britain's desire to get a foothold on the North Pacific; this section needs more content about the reasons the Second Convention was necessary re the Northwest Coast; it's sorely missing. And although Russian America wasn't declared formally until 1799, Russian interests in the area were already known; can't remember which Russian admiral it was - he'd sailed to San Francisco - a Russian claim in the region might have been formal had he chosen to sail up the Columbia; they didn't find its mouth, but knew it was there, but chose not to explore (from what I remember). The context of the Third Convention, re the abandonment of Nootka, was observed I think by Derek Pethick at the end of his book, was that any power was a given in the agreement; that anyone could have taken over Nootka, by the terms of the Convention and it as intentional, for whatever reason; whether that had gotten to St Petersburg or the RAC management (diplomatic notes not getting all that rapidly circulated in those days, without telegraphy) I'm not clear on; though when the Tsar did re-affirm Russian America in 1800, the line of claim was down south of the mouth of the Columbia, at about 43:50 as I remember somehow (not at 42), though there were no Russian settlements south/east of Kodiak at the time, not even Sitka. This resulted in a quick drawback to 50 degrees north (Cape Scott, Vancouver Island) and the resulting negotiations produce the pair of treaties with the US and Britain in 1824 and 25 which set it at 54:40. Ships of various nations had called in the area, including official envoys such as de la Perouse of France, and hmmmm whoever it was that had an Austrian flag; the Portugese had also displayed interest. The overriding importance of the original Nootka Crisis is that had nearly brought Spain and Britain to war on a global scale; and the blank slate that was left open by the Third Convention got sidelined "in the headlines" by the Napoleonic Wars; Vancouver, who had envisioned a transplantation colony (a convict colony) on Puget Sound and on the lower Columbia, shelved that proposal because of the outbreak of war and the massing of fleets in the Atlantic. An interesting sideshow, but important somewhere to note that the cast included background performances by the other Empires. Somewhere on a paper on the Alaska Boundary Dispute, I think by Alexander Begg and referenced on that page, gets into some interesting detail on the various agreements and the composition of the fur fleets that dropped in Nootka and Norfolk Sound (where Nootka is, can't remember its American name).......Pethick's other book "First Voyages to the Northwest Coast" is an interesting companion read, less focussed on the geopolitics but more on the actual vessels and their voyages; all of them.Skookum1 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam-Onis claim

It is said in the article that the US had no claim prior to the Adam-Onis treaty of 1819. However, according to the Oregon boundary dispute page, the United States had negociated joint occupation with the British in the treaty of 1818, which would seem to indicate that they were already claiming the region at that point...--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, actually the article says, "The fledgling United States had no claim in this area at the time of the Nootka Conventions. The Spanish claims to the Pacific Northwest were later acquired by the United States by the Adams-Onís Treaty, signed in 1819." I can see though that these two sentences suggest there was no US claim from the time of the Nootka Conventions (1790) until the Adams-Onis Treaty (1819), which was not the case. I'll see if I can rewrite it for more clarity. Pfly (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Name should be Nootka Conventions per lede and reality

The opening line uses the plural, and in history they're usually referred to that way. There are three.Skookum1 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nootka Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129140146/http://www.eumed.net/libros/2007b/278/3.htm to http://www.eumed.net/libros/2007b/278/3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)