Talk:Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States–Japan)

Moved from "United States-Japan Treaty of Commerce"

According to the reference given in the article, the treaty is entitled "Treaty of Amity and Commerce..."

• Do any other treaties have the same name? If so, the names of the nations are essential parts of the article title. If no other treaties have the same name, then I support the renaming. Fg2 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good point; I've now moved the page to "Treaty of Amity and Commerce (USA-Japan)" as "this naming format alos follows WP:MoS disambiguation pattern, anticipating Treaty of Amity and Commerce (USA-France) etc." I've also created a Treaty of Amity and Commerce disambiguation page. Thanks, David Kernow 09:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gross error

The entrance of foreigners to the port of Edo, the Imperial capital, and the placement of an official from a foreign government in proximity to the Emperor was threatening, even to those who supported opening to the West publicly

Edo was the shogun's capital. The Imperial capital was Kyoto.

The Treaty of Amity and Commerce was also a military alliance. The US promissed to dispatch its naval forces to protect Japan should any other country try to monopolize access to its ports. FDR had to unilaterally break off the treaty before arranging an embargo to Japan, which was practically an act of war that, eventually, lead to Pearl Harbor. Can somebody please add that to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsumugi (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I also am curious about the official end of this treaty as it obviously is no longer in effect. When did this treaty officially cease? Is it prior to Pearly Harbor as the above commenter indicates?--23.119.205.88 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Harris/Hotta 1857

I stumbled across this interesting link, but it's not quite developed enough for inclusion in the article -- not yet.

• Selected comments from Harris's recolletion of his side of a conversation with Bakufu Grand Councillor Hotta Masayoshi on December 12, 1857

The web page identifies a reference source: "Foreign Relations of the U.S., Series 1902, 1879." The "Foreign Relations Series" comprises collections of official papers relating to United States foreign relations, including diplomatic correspondence both to and from foreign governments and their representatives and to and from U.S. representatives abroad. The series is more fully described here. In my view, this potentially illuminating excerpt needs to be placed in a better context. My guess would be that a little more needs to be done by checking this index:

• Hasse, Adelaide R. Index to United States documents relating to foreign affairs, 1828-1861. Washington, DC: Carnegie Inst., 1914-21. 3v.

I suppose this further research could be incorporated into a number of other related articles, e.g., Townsend Harris, Foreign Relations of Japan, Ii Naosuke, etc.? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

Someone stated that this treaty was the direct result of the Manifest Destiny policy of spreading American policy across the "Pacific". Whilst it is true that Manifest Destiny played a role, Manifest Destiny did not apply to the Pacific.Munsterdevil (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where was the treaty signed. Text discrepancy

There are conflicting accounts in the article, one saying the treaty was signed in a temple in Shimoda, the other on board the U.S.S. Powhatan. So which is it? -- Alexf^(talk) 16:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to update entry about the status of this treaty

I am not going to do it now, but it would be worthwhile to update the page on status of this treaty vis a vis other treaties. All relevant info available from links here https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans.php E.g., this treaty (per its Art. XII) revoked parts of 1854 and 1857 treaties, this treaty was revoked by a superseding Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, signed 11/22/1894, when it entered into force on 7/17/1899, that one was partly superseded by a 1911 treaty and the rest of it expired in 1940. 169.252.4.22 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This would also respond to comments above discussing whether this treaty was terminated by the Pearl Harbor attack (it was not).