Talk:Nootka Crisis

New page

Being somewhat unsatisfied with the Nootka Convention page I wrote this one up, describing the larger pictures as well as the details of what happened at Nootka Sound (calling one the Nootka Crisis and the other the Nootka Incident). The Nootka Convention page could perhaps be reduced to focus more on the conventions themselves. I meant to polish the text up more before I made this page, but I probably won't have the time for a while, so I'm just putting it up as is. Please excuse the choppy flow and feel free to polish -- it could use it! It may also be too long and might be improved through some paraphrasing and such like. I copied the wikiproject templates from Nootka Convention to here. Pfly (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Start class is too modest, I bumped it to B. Have only skimmed through it so far, but it's a very thorough overview of that important moment in history -- clearly represents a lot of thought and research. Great job! Looking forward to a more thorough reading. -Pete (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

cats

I'm not sure at all what to look for, as with hte edit comments about WPs.....but this is an article also to do with Euorpean politial/diplomatic history, and not just hte UK's and Spain's....there must be a couple of EuroCats that apply, no?Skookum1 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite for a lead paragraph

I've rewritten the lead's second paragraph, mostly taking out a number of statements, and thought I should explain why. At first I took out the statements about Spanish expeditions to the PNW, but just put them back. It seemed that they read as painting Spain's position as correct and Britain in the wrong. But then, that may be essentially what happened, and Britain was simply able to muscle through with the threat of war. But I did take out these sentences:

In 1788 a number of British vessels using Portuguese-flags entered Nootka Sound and established a fur trading base, challenging Spain's claims. This led to the seizure of these ships by the Spanish Navy and the building of Fort San Miguel in 1789.

There's a number of problems with this text. First, it was two ships, Meares's Felice and Iphigenia, that entered Nootka Sound in 1788 (plus arguably the North West America, built by Meares's people in Nootka Sound that summer). They did use Portuguese flags, but to say that here in a summary of the cause of the crisis suggests that the use of Portuguese flags was important in causing the crisis. But the Portuguese disguise was mostly about Meares avoiding having to acquire licenses from the East India Company and South Sea Company, as required for British subjects under British law. That is, it didn't have anything to do with Spain. It arguably played a small role in the way the crisis played out, but only in the details. I did add a mention about it, and a link to flag of convenience, later down the page, where the Felice and Iphigenia are first described.

Second, and more important, the text above makes it sound as if Spain's occupation of Nootka Sound in 1789 was caused by Meares's entry in 1788--that he "established a fur trading base". In fact, the decision to occupy Nootka Sound was made, and command given to Martínez, in 1788, before Spain knew anything about Meares's activity in 1788. The direct cause was the 1788 voyage of Martínez and Haro to Alaska, where they saw Russian activity and were told that the Russians were planning to occupy Nootka Sound in 1789. News about Russian activities reached Spain through other channels as well. The point is clearly made in Viceroy Flores's instructions to Martínez, which said "the essential object of this new expedition is none other...than we take possession of the port of San Lorenzo or Nootka before the Russians do..." (the quote comes from At the Far Reaches of Empire, p. 132). Also, the text above suggests that Meares's two, or three ships at Nootka in 1788 were the ones seized in 1789, and that the reason they were seized was because of their activities in 1788. The Iphigenia and North West America were among those seized, but the Felice was not, and other ships seized were not at Nootka in 1788: the Argonaut, Princess Royal, and Fair American (the last being American, not British). All this isn't to say that Spain was not aware of, and suspicious about British and American fur traders becoming active on the coast, or that the occupation of Nootka Sound was not partially intended as a message to the British and Americans. It was, but the link was not quite as direct, nor was it linked directly to Meares. In fact, Martínez was directed to be firmer with American traders than British (as it turned out he was lenient, even friendly toward the Americans). In short, the reason for Spanish occupation of Nootka was complex.

Anyway, for all these reasons I took out that text and replaced it with "A complex series of events led to several British fur trading vessels being seized by the Spanish Navy at Nootka Sound." This may not be the best way to word it, but it really was a complex series of events--too complex to easily summarize. The whole thing is described at length later on the page. The lead should focus on what the Nootka Crisis was in a general sense--which was Britain and Spain nearly going to war. The trigger was the seizure of ships at Nootka Sound. Details about how the ships came to be seized are better explained latter, I think. Pfly (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Princess Royal / Princess Royale / Princesa Real

There is something wrong with references to the warship Princess Royal.

• Final narrative of the Background section reads: „In early 1789 the Spanish expedition under Martínez arrived at Nootka Sound. The force consisted of the warship Princesa Real, commanded by Martínez, and the supply ship San Carlos, under Gonzalo López de Haro...”
• Princesa Real links to another WP entry titled Princess Royal, about the very warship. This entry claims that she operated as a British warship, until some time between “the spring of 1789” and “21 June 1789” she was captured by the Spanish in Nootka
• In following paragraphs the Nootka Crisis entry claims that “on July 2, the British ships Princess Royal and Argonaut arrived”, and then that “On July 12, Hudson returned to Nootka Sound with the Princess Royal”, to be seized by the Spanish; when discussing July 13, she is already referred to as “newly captured Princess Royal”
• A Spanish historian claims that “En 1788 la Princesa y el San Carlos, a las órdenes de Esteban Martínez y Gonzalo López de Haro, navegaron hasta Alaska para comprobar el avance ruso” - Jorge Alvarez Palomino, Los confines del Imperio: la exploración de Alaska y la crisis de Nootka, [in:] Revista de Historia Militar LXVII/I (2023), p. 172. The same author claims that Princess Royale [sic! note different spelling!] and Argonaut “quedaron incautados y pasaron al servicio de la Real Armada” and Princess Royale was renamed Princesa Real (p. 175).

Apart from the problem with the name (Princess Royal or Princess Royale) there is obviously an issue with the date she was seized by the Spanish: either before 21 June 1789 (Princess Royal entry) or on July 12/13 (Nootka Crisis entry). Also, given the Spanish Princesa Real was the same ship as Princess Royal, Martínez could have not arrived with her in Nootka “in early 1789”.

Hope someone smart will come and sort it out.

rgds, --2A02:A317:2144:1A80:FDE8:1D80:592D:C71A (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)