Fur Trade Letters of Francis Ermatinger, Written to his Brother Edward During His Service with the Hudson's Bay Company, 1818–1853. By Lois Halliday McDonald. Glendale, California, The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1980. Pp. 317. $29.00

1982 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 464-465
Author(s):  
Ann Carlos
Keyword(s):  
Fur Trade ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

Trapped?

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Ashley Riley Sousa
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
San Jose ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Trade Network ◽  
Central California ◽  
The North ◽  
White Settlers ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

This article re-evaluates the nature of Indigenous labor at Central California’s New Helvetia colony. The fur trade in Central California was not simply a vehicle for settler exploitation of Indigenous labor but a dynamic trade network shaped by Plains Miwok– and Valley Nisenan–speaking trappers and traders, Mission San José, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and white settlers. Analysis of the financial aspects of trade for the Indigenous trappers and ethnohistorical examination of their motives for engaging in the trade suggest that the fur trade was not a source of degradation and dependency, but a vehicle by which they creatively and purposefully engaged colonial forces and markets. This article orients the histories of Plains Miwok– and Valley Nisenan–speaking communities into the larger story of the North American fur trade and suggests New Helvetia and its fur trade can be better understood as what historian Lisbeth Haas calls “Indigenous colonial” creations.

A Critique of Milgrom and Roberts' Treatment of Incentives vs. Bureaucratic Controls in the British North American Fur Trade

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary P. Spraakman
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
North American ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
Profit Sharing ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Senior Managers ◽  
North West ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
British North American ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

In their 1992 textbook, Economics, Organization and Management, Milgrom and Roberts used 19th century fur trading companies as examples of effective (the incentive-based North West Company) and ineffective (the bureaucratic-based Hudson's Bay Company) organizations. Findings from detailed examinations of both companies' archives suggest that Milgrom and Roberts were not completely accurate in their depictions of the two companies' incentives and bureaucratic controls. In response to complexities of intercontinental trade, both companies used bureaucratic controls for coordination as well as profit sharing to motivate senior managers. More generally, the findings raise questions about Milgrom and Roberts' relatively negative conclusions concerning the effectiveness of bureaucratic controls.

Before the Medicine Line

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-406
Author(s):  
Ryan Hall
Keyword(s):  
Fur Trade ◽  
Missouri River ◽  
Canadian History ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Indian People ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

This article argues that Blackfoot people played a central role in the emergence of the northwest plains as a vibrant borderland between British and U.S. fur trade empires. When the British Hudson’s Bay Company monopolized the northern fur trade in 1821, Blackfoot traders abandoned their previous opposition to American expansion and deliberately encouraged U.S. trading companies to expand onto the Upper Missouri River. In so doing, the Blackfeet forced fur trading companies to compete for their favor and gained crucial economic and political advantages over their neighbors. This episode reveals the centrality of indigenous agency to early western geography, sheds new light on the ways Indian people understood and created borderlands relationships, and underscores the importance of linking early U.S. and Canadian history.

scholarly journals The Hudson’s Bay Company as a Context for Science in the Columbia Department

2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Schefke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

Abstract This article aims to elucidate and analyze the links between science, specifically natural history, and the imperialist project in what is now the northwestern United States and western Canada. Imperialism in this region found its expression through institutions such as the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). I examine the activities of naturalists such as David Douglas and William Tolmie Fraser in the context of the fur trade in the Columbia Department. Here I show how natural history aided Britain in achieving its economic and political goals in the region. The key to this interpretation is to extend the role of the HBC as an imperial factor to encompass its role as a patron for natural history. This gives a better understanding of the ways in which imperialism—construed as mercantile, rather than military—delineated research priorities and activities of the naturalists who worked in the Columbia Department.

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AT THE HISTORICAL HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY: A COMPARISON TO 20TH CENTURY PRACTICES

1999 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary P. Spraakman
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Management Accounting ◽  
Dynamic Environment ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Geographical Expansion ◽  
Contingency Approach ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

Using an environmental contingency approach, Johnson and Kaplan [1987] argued that virtually all management accounting practices used at the time of their study had been developed by 1925 in response to increased uncertainty caused by geographical expansion and large-scale operations. During the 1821 to 1860 subperiod, the Hudson's Bay Company had significant uncertainty which was largely a result of the dynamic environment of its fur-trade operation. Consequently, it should have developed management accounting practices in response to uncertainty. Moreover, the management accounting practices should have been less extensive in the subperiods before and after 1821 to 1860, as these subperiods had less uncertainty. The Company's accounting and related records were examined for 1670 to 1914, and provided evidence to support the contention of Johnson and Kaplan that management accounting practices evolved positively with uncertainty.

Potential Fishery for Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Indicated by the Returns of the Hudson's Bay Company Lac la Pluie District

1988 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 921-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Holzkamm ◽  
Michael McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Drainage Basin ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
Lake Sturgeon ◽  
Acipenser Fulvescens ◽  
Commercial Fishing ◽  
Commercial Fishery ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
Lake Of The Woods ◽  
High Production ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

The isinglass returns for the Hudson's Bay Company Lac la Pluie District have been used to estimate the Ojibway harvest of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) from 1823 to 1885. The majority of these fish were taken in the Rainy River from spawning runs originating in Lake of the Woods. American commercial fishing of sturgeon in Lake of the Woods began in 1888, with commercial operations on the Canadian side following within a few years. Initially high production levels characterize the non-Ojibway fishery for the first 20 yr, with rapid declines due to depleted sturgeon populations in the following years. Similar responses to commercial sturgeon fishing in other areas have led many to conclude that fisheries stocks could not support a significant sustained commercial fishery. In contrast, the Ojibway harvest during 63 yr of fur trade records indicates potential for a substantial sustained commercial sturgeon harvest from the Lake of the Woods basin. The same conclusion is not evident from American and Canadian records of sturgeon harvests from the same drainage basin.

The History of the Hudson's Bay Company

Polar Record ◽  
1935 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Keyword(s):  
Fur Trade ◽  
Hudson Bay ◽  
Hudson's Bay Company ◽  
History Of ◽  
Charles Ii ◽  
Privy Councillor ◽  
Hudson’S Bay Company

Early in the reign of Charles II two Frenchmen—Radisson and Groseilliers—were unsuccessful in eliciting interest in their own country in a scheme for establishing a fur trade with Hudson Bay, whither they had penetrated a few years previously. They consequently made their way to Boston, where they met Sir George Carteret, Privy Councillor to Charles II, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, Treasurer of the Navy, then on a commission to Massachusetts. Sir George took them with him to England and introduced them to the King and Prince Rupert, who were much interested in their scheme. Action was delayed temporarily owing to the war with Holland and because the command of the sea was held by the Dutch, but meanwhile Radisson and Groseilliers were housed in Windsor at the expense of the King.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document