Talk:Fort Astoria

Canada: British Columbia / History Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

Military history: Fortifications / Canadian / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages and various Indigenous peoples project article/talk pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my posting of this: if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issues relating to Oregon Country/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest history/historical geography, colonialist or aboriginal/indigenous, please feel free to drop by the forum and start a thread/topic, or just butt in at yer leisure.Skookum1 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not the first permanent US settlement

In in-lined commented that because a citataion request would only garner a US-side cite saying that this was the case. It's not. From 1813 through Fort George was HBC ownership until its closure 1825-29, then reopened 1830-48 also under the HBC....how a place that was British-run for most of its existence was "the first permanent American settlement on the Northwest Coast" is a bit of a reach; part of US national/manifest destiny mythology I know, but untrue; I'll add some stuff later on the diplomatic upshot of the Raccoon's erstwhile seizure of the fort and how it played into US hands.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Astoria was the first permanent US settlement west of the Rocky Mountains. The word "permanent" differentiates it from the temporary fortified camps of the explorers like Lewis & Clark's Fort Clatsop. Astoria is 199 years old. It was founded in 1811, by Americans, and is still inhabited today. The British were there and in control for only 35 years. 199 - 35 = 164 years that it has been in American hands. So I don't understand why you make the argument that it was "British-run for most of its existence." The only competitor for the title of First American Settlement West of the Rockies is Oregon City. Oregon City was founded in 1829, by John McLaughlin, a French Canadian and British Subject until the Champoeg Meetings in which local pioneers voted on whether or not to join with Britain or America. At these meetings he didn't even want to join America, but have the Oregon Country claim itself to be an independent nation. So technically, Oregon City wasn't even founded by Americans, just a guy who later became one in 1849. Oregon City is the first incorporated American city West of the Rockies, but Astoria was the first one founded. Tsarevna (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver ship

As should be obvious from the date in this article in reference to the Beaver compared to the launch date in the Beaver (steamship) (the HBC ship) and the fact that Beaver (steamship) was not linked in this article, these are not the same ships. Many ships have had the same name as other ships (see also HMS Beaver (F93)). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There was only one mention in the article, without any ref at all never mind a linked article, and the PAC wasn't around long enough to do business with the RAC; if you want it back in, cite what's needed - if there was any PAC/RAC contact it was a mere blip, and it wasn't until Douglas' tenure at Ft Langley that t he RAC had many dealings at all with southern traders. You had it in your power to make a PAC-Beaver article; or at least to put something in about this ship; instead you chose to delete the query about its existence. As you can see, I also removed the citation about Ft. Astoria playing an important role in American exploration of the region; gee, there was a LOT of that in 1811-13 wan'st there.....waht's in Oregon history books anyway?????Skookum1 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found a reference, in Alexander Begg's history, mentioning the PFC's Beaver but without any further details about what kind of vessel it was; for a link to Begg's book see new footnotes or those on HMS Racoon; if I see the line again I'll come back with the precise link.

American re-possession

OK, I'm a bit confused as Fort George was among the properties of the NWC sold to the HBC in 1821....but there was a re-possession by the US in 1818 due to treaty complications arising from Capt. Black's importunate "seizure" of the already-British post in 1813. At what point did it revert to the NWC/Britain in time to become an HBC installation? Or was it a reposseession where the NWC stayed in charge;operational ownership?Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy quotes are hard to read

The lengthy quotes from early 20th c. historians are hard to read. They could be paraphrased and made more succinct.--Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 1914 is the 20th Century, I tend to think of Scholefield & Howay as a pre-Great War work....you're welcome to try and condense the points, I put these passages in wholesale in order to explain the complications of the transfer of assets between the PAC/NWC and the reasons for the restitution; this article in its earlier incarnation made almost no mention of the NWC or HBC and I'd added in "British"-side historians ("BC-side" is more apt) to what was previously American-oriented content, including a couple of serious gaffes which apparently are common fare in US history...I'm not sure it's Capt. Black who renamed the fort, I think that was done by the NWC purchasers, also, I'll ahve to re-read some other materials to be sure; User:pfly turned up the interesting fact also that Fort George and Fort Astoria were actually two different buildings, which explains how Ft Astoria was "restored to US possession" in 1818 (17?) when Fort George continued to operate and became HBC property in 1821....I can't remember which talkpage we went over that on, it might be in one of pfly's sandboxes, I'll check around....anyway if you'd care to condense what's in those sections, please go ahead....i was being lazy ;-). And admittedly they do write in an older style of English which has vanished in the Age of Media and is now "hard to read", even though in there own terms they were being clear and actually fairly terse, compared to other writings from the pre-Great War era I've seen...untangling the complcations of so-called "Joint occupancy' was part of the point; it's a common term in history but not actually in teh agreement, which in fact allowed for any other power to also partake of economic activity in teh region, so long as no active claim of possession was pressed; it was an agreement not to press the issue of owndership and nothing else; with the proviso that any economic activity or associated settlement would not be construed as proof/basis of ownership of the territory-at-large. That issue is not directly bearing upon Fort Astorai,/Fort George, but the fort does bear on it, that's why I included that particular passage....Skookum1 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Astoria. 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:

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) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]