Talk:RAC–HBC Agreement

Title

I welcome this article, which is long overdue in terms of regional treaty history and the histories of both fur companies. But I've always thought of this as the Anglo-Russian convention of 1839, or is there some other "Anglo-Russian convention" I'm confusing it with. I'll look through some of the earlier histories to see what they use (e.g. Begg, Howay & Scholefield, Bancroft...Ormsby and the Akriggs aren't online). No doubt it has a formal name of some kind; the original document may be online, or quoted by one of the authors somewhere. It would of course have a Russian name, and perhaps there's even an article in Russian Wikipedia. @Ezhiki:?Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, this company compact was just that, something between private interests and not nations. Yes the RAC was the face of Russia in the New World, but that is besides the point. If the formal name can be found, that'd be great. James Gibson's Farming the Frontier merely calls it the "Russian contract" and Tikhmenev refers to it as the "lease agreement." Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I thought there'd be more about it in the Begg works on the Alaska boundary, but no, only passing references with no formal name or even much detail. I read the Review of the Alaska Boundary Question in toto just now and wound up expanding the Ukase of 1821 article with more detail and corrections inherited from the extant cites which were there e.g. "Italian miles" instead of just "miles". The last pages have some of that different world-view/tone re US and UK sources I was referring to before; and digs into the "bad geography" of the US position (so redolent of the same bad geography of the Oregon/San Juans questions); main thing established is that the lease area was not the same as the BC position that 56 north latitude was where the mainland boundary should begin (roughly at the Stikine) but went all the way to Cross Sound; and also in Statement of Facts Regarding the Alaska Boundary Question that there was never any issue that the RAC-HBC lease was not relevant to the territorial boundary issue (that particular page may not be the right one). The latter work Iv'e read before in detail...it's very complicated...but the former work is shorter and contains some of the implications of the Russian ukases not seen in other works...and also points out the initial line was at 45-50, not at 51 north.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Map?

Reading the material mentioned in the previous section, needless to say some illustrative maps of the lease, and of the various ukase and 1824/25 boundaries/positions and such, are needed at some point. Much more in those cites than I added to that one article, and there's much more about this lease out there, too.Skookum1 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)