Talk:Puget Sound Agricultural Company

Name Discussion

Moved from various user talk pages:

Puget's Sound vs. Pugets Sound

OK, let's work together; just popped by your new Pugets Sound Agricultural Company and my first reaction is I'm pretty certain the primary title should be Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and there should probably be a redirect from Puget Sound Agricultural Company. There's quite a bit on this in that Akriggs book I mention on the Oregon etc pages; the PSAC owned land around Victoria, also, and kept on functioning as a corporate entity there even after the founding of the Colony of Vancouver Island (1849). If you're a student, you might want to ask your librarian to use interlibrary loan to get the British Columbia Chronicle by Helen B. Akrigg and G.P.V. Akrigg, Discovery Press, Vancouver, and read both volumes cover to cover, although for pre-colonial history only Vol. 1 need apply. Also recommended just as a great read, but also involving cross-border territorial/colonial politics, is D. Hauka's McGowan's War (cf. McGowan's War) and Okanagan Trail.. Skookum1 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PSAC

There definatly should be several re-directs. Since the HBC corporate page lists it as Puget Sound I think we might want to go with that, then re-direct all the other variations. I know there are many variations. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be the proper incorporation name- with the apostrophe-s as it appears in all the major historical resources (which the HBC corporate site, being corporate, doesn't pay any attention to - they're in Winnipeg btw, and now owned by Zeller's...or is it the other way around?). But let me fly it by a couple of other BC Wikipedians and I'll get back to you tonight about it. The bit about it being founded to encourage settlement sounds like it came from the HBC corporate site; and no, the HBC was overall very hostile to settlement, especially in Puget Sound; more on this later; but PSAC was meant to be a money-making operation, notably connected with the sale of staples (dairy, meat, grain etc) to the Russian America Fur Company.....Skookum1 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Puget Sound wins the google search test (500 +), followed by Puget's in a distant second, than Pugets with only 50 something. Probably the guiding principle here should be most common usage, as per Wiki naming conventions, even if the most common is not necessarily the legally correct version. Bobanny 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking around in some of the settlement negotiation documents from the 1860s and it uses both spellings.[1] So hopefully you can get a more definative answer. I added some, but left the settlement part in for now. Unfortunately I found few useful sights from Canada, they mainly just said that the PSAC was in their area without any details, maybe you will have better luck. PS it might be time to archive some discussions here as your page is taking a long time to load.Aboutmovies 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource has a full copy of the Oregon Treaty....but it may be in modernized spelling; don't have the link handy will find it later when I get home, or just search at Wikisource. It's also on-line here and there, maybe somewhere an original scan?Skookum1 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

'=0 ....well, gee, so do I! ;-) Yeah, getting to be time for another archive I guesss. Anyway, I've polled half-a-dozen BC Wikipedians here, those who I know are experienced with BC/NW history anyway; Bobanny true to form was right back quick, but we'll see else who pops in before this evening; the Google-rating thing is kind of a standard; what triggered this off was that if the "archaic possessive" form of the company's name was going to be used, it should have been apostrophized; it's usually given in modern writeups as simply "Puget Sound", whether in ref to the company or to the sound, even if the sources had had the apostrophe; but I'm not sure if there are corporate naming conventions around. Let's wait and see....saw the bit about settlement re Simpson's intent....hmmm; the settlement agenda definitely wasn't taken seriously by Douglas, IMO (see that book by Hauka on McGowan's War, if you can find it, as he discusses the ways Douglas made things difficult for settlement in there...).

I don't have any knowledge of this body, but I do know about the lack of apostrophe in historical possessives (e.g., Browns River on Vancouver Island). So I suppose I'm agnostic. Fishhead64 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not heard of this company before, but I offer these thoughts on general principles:
I don't think "most familiar form" rightly applies in this case, because this company is not well enough known. (Puget Sound itself is another matter, of course.) I say use the actual name under which the company was incorporated, but if that was "Pugets Sound..." then modernise the possessive to "Puget's", whereas "Pugets" is archaic. I happened to read, lately, that the writing of the possessive form was in transition, at the time concerned, from using no apostrophe to using one. But this is a mere matter of notation -- a difference in the manner of writing the word concerned, not a difference in the word itself. In other words, if the incorporation used "Pugets", then the word so indicated is, in modern notation, "Puget's", yet the same word as ever.
(It is curious that "Puget Sound" did not fossilise as "Pugets Sound", in the way that, for instance, "Grays Harbor" and a number of other "Grays" this-and-thats did. I suspect this was because the sound of the "s" at the end of "Pugets" naturally became attached to "Sound" through merger with the sound of the initial "S" -- or, to put that another way, the "s" dropped off of "Pugets" because the doubled "s"-sound was less easily pronounced.)
-- Lonewolf BC 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably why; if we looked around we could probably come up with other examples (Howe's Sound, actually...). But this is getting interesting in an arcane sort of way. Reading back through everybody's posts it occurred to me that my reference to the sources using "Puget's" is what I've seen in the Akriggs and Hauka and so on (if Hauka uses it, which I can't remember just now; I'll check in a few local histories which cite some material and see there); point is I haven't seen what the actual period documents look like, either the charter or any correspondence or news items, except as quoted by later writers. I know Stephen Hume at the Sun made reference to PSAC in a series on Metis life in the BC/Northwest fur trade a few weeks ago so I'll try and see what he used. Puget Sound itself was originally Puget's Sound, but the Wiki article is Puget Sound; although in this case it's a company, and there's that distinction between Hudson Bay and the Hudson's Bay Company that's not just a standard in Wikipedia; even though "Hudson's Bay" is the original form of "Hudson Bay" as it's on the map now.....gotta eat and go have a life for a few hours. All food for thought, what's here, though....PSAC supplied meat, dairy and produce to Victoria, and actually owned several farms around there, in Cadboro Bay, Metchosin etc; although some were HBC owned directly. This topic actually has enough meat to be an FA, y'know....Skookum1 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could find the articles of incorporation. Not only for the name, but also for the founding date. I have found about three different years used as the year it all began, long long ago in a galaxy far far away. Aboutmovies 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to the Akriggs looking for the date (February, 1839) and found a whole bunch of stuff on the political background of PSAC, including its primary genesis as a corporate legal dodge in order to be able to lawfully engage in trading other things than furs; and discusses the colonization/settlement agenda that emerged as a result; It's four pages and a bit, so I transcribed it to my sandbox resources page. Information in it will be useful for other articles, including Oregon boundary dispute, Oregon Treaty, Alaska Boundary Dispute, the one on McLoughlin, and for projected articles on Fort Stikine, the Dryad Incident, and so on (read the passage and you'll see what those are about). I've left the usages of Puget's Sound Agricultural Company vs other forms as encountered in each quote, as the quoted materials vary from the Akrigg's own preference for the "Puget's" version. One comment on that subject, however: re the Hudson Bay vs. Hudson's Bay Company conventions, I suggest we apply the same here; this page's title would therefore need the apostrophe in Puget's instead of "Pugets", though...not sure if that's a move, or just a redirect/transfer.Skookum1 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1, on your sandbox, could you add a wiki footnote with all the info filled in for the BC Chronicle? That way people can copy and paste the cite for any information they use. I'd do it but I don't have all the info to fill it out such as ISBN, year, publisher, etc.. Thanks. Aboutmovies 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! (on sandbox page); there's two ISBN numbers, by the way....Skookum1 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Not sure what proper Wiki ref format is, so I'll leave that to you if you don't mind...provided all relevant data that you usually see in refs, though, and note that I made a point of putting the page number-breaks in the text itself...Skookum1 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Added the cite template. Looked up the full ISBN and hopefully that will keep it from being a redlink. I left the page number blank, that way someone citing the book can put the page number of the info they are using. Aboutmovies 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP Oregon

How is this part of WP Oregon? PSAC lands and operations were only in what is now Washington and British Columbia, weren't they?Skookum1 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, they did not operate in what became Oregon, but they did operate in what became the Oregon Territory, which has a direct lineage to the state. Also the treaty that had a huge impact on the state specifically mentions the company. So, there are connections, though not the strongest out there, which is why it is Low importance for the project. But just like Fort Astoria was not in BC (and numerous other things not in BC such as Fort Nisqually), it still had an impact on the history. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Red River Families

I've seen it repeated quite frequently across Wiki articles that roughly 200 people from the Red River colony migrated west under James Sinclair (fur trader). Simpson supposed ordered this movement in 1841, with Alexander Ross (fur trader) to lead them. Neither statement is true, as both primary (Simpson) and secondary (Galbraith) sources demonstrate. Simpson, who saw them assembled in person, gives the total number to be 121 people, while when they got to Fort Vancouver they are numbered at 116 people by Galbraith. Simpson in turn had ordered Duncan Finlayson (fur trader) to recruit Red River families in 1839, who appointed Sinclair in turn to lead them west. Ross may have been a part of the effort, but it isn't in the manner currently described on particular Wiki articles. I've updated all articles accordingly. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)