North American fur trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from North American Fur Trade)
Jump to: navigation, search
A fur trader in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta in the 1890s.

The North American fur trade was the industry and activities related to the acquisition, trade, exchange, and sale of animal furs in North America. Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Native Americans in the United States of different regions traded among themselves in the Pre-Columbian Era, but Europeans participated in the trade beginning from the time of their arrival in the New World and extended its reach to Europe. The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada in the 17th century, and the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The 19th-century North American fur trade, when the industry was at its peak of economic importance, involved the development of elaborate trade networks and companies.

The fur trade became one of the main economic ventures in North America attracting competition among the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and Russians. Indeed, in the early history of the United States, capitalizing on this trade, and removing the British stranglehold over it, was seen as a major economic objective. Many Native American societies across the continent came to depend on the fur trade as their primary source of income. By the mid-1800s, however, changing fashions in Europe brought about a collapse in fur prices. The American Fur Company and some other companies failed. Many Native communities were plunged into long-term poverty and consequently lost much of the political influence they once had.


French explorer Jacques Cartier in his three voyages into the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the 1530s and 1540s conducted some of the earliest fur trading between European and First Nations peoples associated with sixteenth century and later explorations in North America. Cartier attempted limited fur trading with the First Nations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the St. Lawrence River. He concentrated on trading for furs used as trimming and adornment. He overlooked the fur that would become the driving force of the fur trade in the north, the beaver pelt, which would become fashionable in Europe.[1]

Fur cleaning tools

The earliest European trading for beaver pelts dated to the growing cod fishing industry that spread to the Grand Banks of the North Atlantic in the 16th century. The new preservation technique of drying fish allowed the mainly Basque fishermen to fish near the Newfoundland coast and transport fish back to Europe for sale. Drying fish enabled gathering greater yields, which justified the economic cost and time of long voyages across the Atlantic. The fisherman sought suitable harbors with ample lumber to dry large quantities of cod. This generated their earliest contact with local Aboriginal peoples, with whom the fisherman began simple trading.

The fishermen traded metal items for beaver robes made of sewn-together, native-tanned, beaver pelts. They used the robes to keep warm on the long, cold return voyages across the Atlantic. These castor gras in French (or "beaver coat" in English) became prized by European hat makers in the second half of the 16th century, as they converted the pelts to fur felt.[2] The discovery of the superior felting qualities of beaver fur, along with the rapidly increasing popularity of beaver felt hats in fashion, transformed the incidental trading of fishermen in the sixteenth century into a growing trade in the French and later English territories in the next century.

New France in the 17th century[edit]

Map of New France (Champlain, 1612)

The transition from a seasonal coastal trade into a permanent interior fur trade was formally marked with the foundation of Quebec on the St. Lawrence River in 1608 by Samuel de Champlain. This settlement marked the beginning of the westward movement of French traders from the first permanent settlement of Tadoussac at the mouth of the Saguenay River on the Gulf of St. Lawrence, up the St. Lawrence River and into the pays d'en haut (or "upper country") around the Great Lakes. What followed in the first half of the 17th century were strategic moves by both the French and the indigenous groups to further their own economic and geopolitical ambitions.

Samuel de Champlain led the expansion while centralizing the French efforts. As native peoples had the primary role of suppliers in the fur trade, Champlain quickly created alliances with the Algonquin, Montagnais (who were located in the territory around Tadoussac), and most importantly, the Huron to the west. The latter, an Iroquoian-speaking people, served as middlemen between the French on the St. Lawrence and nations in the pays d'en haut. Champlain supported the northern groups in their preexisting military struggle with the Iroquois Confederacy to the south. He secured the Ottawa River route to Georgian Bay, greatly expanding the trade.[3] Champlain also sent young French men to live and work among the natives, most notably Étienne Brûlé, to learn the land, language, and customs, as well as to promote trade.[4]

Champlain reformed the business of the trade, creating the first informal trust in 1613 in response to increasing losses due to competition.[5] The trust was later formalized with a royal charter, leading to a series of trade monopolies during the term of New France. The most notable monopoly was the Company of One Hundred Associates, with occasional concessions, such as to habitants in the 1640s and 1650s, permitting them limited trading. While the monopolies dominated the trade, their charters also required payment of annual returns to the national government, military expenditures, and expectations that they would encourage settlement for the sparsely populated New France.[6]

The vast wealth in the fur trade created enforcement problems for the monopoly. Unlicensed independent traders, known as coureurs des bois (or “runners of the woods”), began to do business in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Over time, many Métis were drawn to the independent trade; they were the descendants of French trappers and native women. The increasing use of currency, as well as the importance of personal contacts and experience in the fur trade, gave an edge to independent traders over the more bureaucratic monopolies.[7] The newly established English colonies to the south quickly joined the lucrative trade, raiding the St. Lawrence River valley and capturing and controlling Quebec from 1629 to 1632.[8]

While bringing wealth to a few select French traders and the French regime, the fur trade also brought profound changes to the indigenous groups living along the St. Lawrence. European wares, such as iron axe heads, brass kettles, cloth, and firearms were bought with beaver pelts and other furs. The widespread practice of trading furs for rum and whiskey led to problems associated with inebriation and alcohol abuse.[9] The subsequent destruction of beaver populations along the St. Lawrence heightened the fierce competition between the Iroquois and Huron for access to the rich fur-bearing lands of the Canadian Shield.[10] The competition for hunting is believed to have contributed to the earlier destruction of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the valley by 1600, likely by the Iroquois Mohawk tribe, who were located closest to them, were more powerful than the Huron, and had the most to gain by controlling this part of the valley.[11]

Iroquois access to firearms through Dutch and later English traders along the Hudson River increased the casualties in the warfare. This greater bloodshed, previously unseen in Iroquoian warfare, increased the practice of “Mourning Wars”. The Iroquois raided neighboring groups to take captives, who were ritually adopted to replace the dead Iroquois; thus a cycle of violence and warfare escalated. More significantly, new infectious diseases brought by the French decimated native groups and broke up their communities. Combined with warfare, disease led to the near destruction of the Huron by 1650.[10]

British and French competition[edit]

Map of French and British North American possessions in the early 18th century. Note French expansion into Lake Winnipeg and British control of Hudson Bay, both prime fur-producing areas.

The era from roughly 1660 through 1763 saw a fierce rivalry grow between France and Great Britain as each European power struggled to expand their fur-trading territories. The two imperial powers and their native allies competed in conflicts that culminated in the French and Indian War, a part of the Seven Years' War in Europe.

The 1659-1660 voyage of French traders Pierre-Esprit Radisson and Médard Chouart des Groseilliers into the country north and west of Lake Superior symbolically opened this new era of expansion. Their trading voyage proved extremely lucrative in furs. More importantly, they learned of a frozen sea to the north that provided easy access to the fur-bearing interior. Upon their return, French officials confiscated the furs of these unlicensed coureurs des bois. Radisson and Groseilliers went to Boston and then to London to secure funding and two ships to explore the Hudson Bay. Their success led to England's chartering of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1670, a major player in the fur trade for the next two centuries.

French exploration and expansion westward continued with men such as La Salle and Marquette exploring and claiming the Great Lakes as well as the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys. To bolster these territorial claims, the French constructed a series of small fortifications, beginning with Fort Frontenac on Lake Ontario in 1673. Together with the construction of Le Griffon in 1679, the first full-sized sailing ship on the Great Lakes, the forts opened the upper Great Lakes to French navigation.[12]

During the 1640s and 1650s, the Iroquois Wars forced a massive demographic shift as Iroquois western neighbors fled the violence. They sought refuge west and north of Lake Michigan.[13] More native groups learned about European wares and became trading middlemen, most notably the Ottawa. The competitive impact of the new English Hudson's Bay Company trade was felt as early as 1671, with diminished returns for the French and the role of the native middlemen. This new competition directly stimulated French expansion into the North West to win back native customers.[14] What followed was a continual expansion north and west of Lake Superior. The French used diplomatic negotiations with natives to win back trade and an aggressive military policy to temporarily eliminate the Hudson's Bay Company competition.[15] At the same time, the English presence in New England grew stronger, while the French were occupied with trying to combat the coureurs de bois and allied Indians from smuggling furs to the English for often higher prices and higher quality goods than they could offer.[16]

The settlement of native refugees from the Iroquois Wars in the western and northern Great Lakes combined with the decline of the Ottawa middlemen to create vast new markets for French traders. Resurgent Iroquoian warfare in the 1680s also stimulated the fur trade as native French allies bought weapons. The new more distant markets and fierce English competition stifled direct trade from the North West with Montreal. The old system of native middlemen and coureurs de bois traveling to trade fairs in Montreal or illegally to English markets was replaced by an increasingly complex and labor-intensive trade network. Licensed voyageurs, allied with Montreal merchants, used water routes to reach the far-flung corners of the North West with canoe loads of trade goods. These risky ventures required large initial investments and had a very slow return. The first revenues from fur sales in Europe did not arrive until four or more years after the initial investment. These economic factors concentrated the fur trade in the hands of a few large Montreal merchants who had available capital.[17] This trend expanded in the eighteenth century, and reached its zenith with the great fur-trading companies of the nineteenth century.

It was a common practice on the part of the Indian women to offer marriage and sometimes just sex in exchange for fur traders not trading with their rivals.[18] Radisson described visiting one Ojibwa village where during the welcoming ceremony: "The women throw themselves backwards on the ground, thinking to give us tokens of friendship and wellcome [welcome]".[19] Radisson was initially confused by this gesture, but as the women started to engage in more overtly sexual behavior, he realized what was being offered. Radisson was informed by the village elders that he could have sex with any unmarried women in the village provided that he did not trade with the Dakota [Sioux], who were the enemies of the Ojibwa at the time.[19] Virtually all Indian communities encouraged fur traders to take an Indian wife in order to built a long-term relationship that would ensure the continual supply of European goods to their communities and discourage fur traders from dealing with other Indian tribes.[19] Indian men were the trappers who killed the animals for their furs, but normally it was the women who were in charge of the furs that their menfolk had collected, making women into important players in the fur trade.[20] Indian women normally harvested the rice and made the maple sugar that were such important parts of the traders' diets, for which they were usually paid for with alcohol.[20] Manufacturing canoes was work done by both Indian men and women, and accounts of fur traders often mentioned bartering goods with women in exchange for canoes.[21] For the Indians, dreams were viewed as messages from the world of the spirits.[22] Gender roles were not fixed in Indian communities, and it was possible for a woman who had dreams of herself performing a masculine role on the basis of her dreams to be allowed to take part in work that was normally performed by men, since this was evidently what the spirits wanted.[22] The Indians who lived around the Great Lakes believed that when a girl started to menstruate (regarded as giving women a special spiritual power) that whatever her dreams she might have were messages from the spirits, and many fur traders mentioned how women who were regarded as being especially favored with their dream-messages from the world of the spirits played important roles as decision-makers within their communities.[22]

Fur traders found that marrying the daughters of chiefs would ensure the co-operation of an entire community.[23] Marriage alliances were also made between Indian tribes. In September 1679, the French diplomat Daniel Greysolon, sieur du Lhut, called a peace conference at Fond du Lac (modern Duluth, Minnesota) of the "nations of the north" which was attended by Ojibwa, Dakota, and Assiniboine leaders, where it was agreed that the daughters and sons of the various chiefs would marry each other to promote peace and ensure the flow of French goods into the region.[24] The French fur trader Claude-Charles Le Roy wrote that the Dakota had decided to make peace with their traditional enemies, the Ojibwa, in order to obtain French goods that the Ojibwa were blocking them from receiving.[24] Indian marriages usually received a simple ceremony involving the exchange of valuable gifts from the parents of the bride and groom, and unlike European marriages, could be dissolved at anytime by one partner choosing to walk out.[24] The Indians were organized into kinship and clan networks, and marrying a woman from one of these kinship networks would make a fur trader into a member of these networks, thereby ensuring that Indians belonging to whatever clan the trader had married into were more likely to deal only with him.[25] Furthermore, the fur traders discovered that the Indians were more likely to share food, especially during the hard months of winter, to those fur traders who were regarded as part of their communities.[25] The converse of such marriages was that a fur trader was expected to favor whatever clan/kinship network that he had married into with European goods, and a fur trader who did not would ruin his reputation. One fur trader who married a 18-year old Ojibwa girl described his "secret satisfaction at being compelled to marry for my safety".[26] Fur-trading companies encouraged their employees to take Indian wives, not only to built long-term relationships that were good for business, but also because an employee with a wife would have to buy more supplies from his employer, with the money for the purchases usually subtracted from his wages.[25] The American historian Bruce White decried the tendency of many historians to see these women as simply "passive" objects that were bartered for by fur traders and Indian tribal elders, writing that these women had "exert influence and be active communicators of information" to effective as the wife of a fur trader, and that many of the women who married fur traders "embraced" these marriages to achieve "useful purposes for themselves and for the communities that they lived in".[27] One study of the Ojibwa women who married French fur traders maintained that the majority of the brides were "exceptional" women with "unusual ambitions, influenced by dreams and visions-like the women who become hunters, traders, healers and warriors in Ruth Landes's account of Ojibwa women".[28] Out of these relationships emerged the Metis people whose culture was a fusion of French and Indian elements.

Aboriginal response to French-English competition - over exploitation and depletion of beavers[edit]

The effect on beaver stocks of competition between the English and the French was disastrous. The status of beavers changed dramatically as it went from being a source of food and clothing for the Aboriginals to a vital good for exchange with the Europeans. The French were constantly in search of cheaper fur and trying to cut off the Aboriginal middleman which led them to explore the interior all the way to Lake Winnipeg and the Central Plains. While some historians dispute the claims that the competition was predominantly responsible for over-exploitation of stocks,[29] others have used empirical analysis to emphasize the changing economic incentives for Aboriginals and role of the Europeans in the matter.[30] Innis holds that the population of beavers decreased dramatically even before the rivalry in the 1700s and stocks in far-flung western areas were increasingly being tapped before there was any serious competition between the English and the French.[citation needed] However, there is widespread agreement on the matter in ethnohistory literature that Aboriginals depleted the resource. Calvin Martin holds that there was a breakdown of the relationship between man and animal in the values of the Aboriginals which made them drastically accelerate the exploitation of reserves.[31]

The English and French had very different trading hierarchical structures. The Hudson's Bay Company had a technical monopoly of the beaver trade within the drainage basin of Hudson Bay while the Compagnie d'Occident was given a monopoly of the beaver trade farther south. The English organized their trade on strictly hierarchical lines while the French used licenses to lease the use of their posts. This meant that the French incentivized the extension of trade, and French traders did indeed infiltrate much of the Great Lakes region. The French established posts on Lake Winnipeg, Lac des Praires and Lake Nipigon which represented a serious threat to flow of furs to the York Factory. The increasing penetration near English ports now meant that the Aboriginals had more than one place to sell their goods.

As competition increased between the English and French in the 1700s, the fur was still predominantly caught by Aboriginal tribes which acted as the middleman. The response to increased competition led to a severe over-harvesting of beavers. Data from three of the trading posts of the Hudson's Bay Company show this trend.[32] The simulation of beaver populations around trading posts are done by taking into account the beaver returns from each trading post, biological evidence on beaver population dynamics and contemporary estimates of beaver densities. While the view that increased competition between the English and the French led to over-exploitation of beaver stocks by the Aboriginals does not receive uncritical support, most believe that Aboriginals were the primary actors in depleting animal stocks. However, there has been a lack of critical discussion on other factors such as beaver population dynamics, the number of animals harvested, nature of property rights, prices, role of the English and the French in the matter.

The primary effect of increased French competition was that the English raised the prices they paid to the Aboriginals to harvest fur. The result of this was greater incentive for Aboriginals to increase harvests. Increased price will lead to a gap between demand and supply and to a higher equilibrium in terms of supply. Data from the trading posts show that the supply of beavers from the Aboriginals was price-elastic and therefore traders responded with increased harvests as prices rose. The harvests were further increased due to the fact that no tribe had an absolute monopoly near any trade and most of them were competing against each other to derive the maximum benefit from the presence of the English and the French.[citation needed]

Additionally, the problem of the commons is also glaringly visible in this matter. Open access to resources leads to no incentive to conserve stocks, and actors which try to conserve lose out compared to the others when it comes to maximizing economic output. Therefore, there appeared to be a lack of concern by tribes of the First Nations about the sustainability of the fur trade. The problem of over-exploitation is not helped by the fact that the efforts by the French to remove the middlemen such as the Huron who increasingly resented their influence meant that stocks were put under more pressure. All these factors contributed to an unsustainable trade pattern in furs which depleted beaver stocks very fast.[citation needed]

An empirical study done by Ann M. Carlos and Frank D. Lewis shows that apart from the settling to a lower level of stable population, further declines were caused by over-harvesting in two of the three English trading posts (Albany and York). The data from the third trading post are also very interesting in that the post did not come under French pressure and was therefore shielded from the kind of over-exploitation of stocks which resulted at the other trading posts. At Fort Churchill, the stocks of beaver adjusted to the maximum sustained yield level. The data from Churchill further reinforce the case of over-exploitation of stocks caused by the French-English competition.[citation needed]

English colonies[edit]

By the end of the 18th century the four major British fur trading outposts were Fort Niagara in modern New York, Fort Detroit and Fort Michilimackinac in modern Michigan, and Grand Portage in modern Minnesota, all located in the Great Lakes region.[33] The American Revolution and the resulting resolution of national borders forced the British to re-locate their trading centers northward. The newly formed United States began its own attempts to capitalize on the fur trade, initially with some success. However, by the 1830s the fur trade had begun a steep decline. Fur was never again the lucrative enterprise it had once been.

Company formation[edit]

New Netherland Company[edit]

Hudson's Bay Company[edit]

North West Company[edit]

Missouri Fur Company[edit]

American Fur Company[edit]

Russian-American Company[edit]

Fur trade in the western United States[edit]


Mountain men[edit]

Great plains[edit]

Pacific Coast[edit]

On the Pacific Coast of North America, the fur trade mainly pursued seal and sea otter. In northern areas, this trade was established first by the Russian-American Company, with later participation by Spanish/Mexican, British, and U.S. hunters/traders. Non-Russians extended fur-hunting areas south as far as the Baja California Peninsula.

Southeastern fur trade[edit]


Starting in the mid-16th century, Europeans traded weapons and household goods in exchange for furs with Native Americans in southeast America.[34] The trade originally tried to mimic the fur trade in the north, with large quantities of wildcats, bears, beavers, and other fur bearing animals being traded.[35] The trade in fur coat animals decreased in the early 18th century, curtailed by the rising popularity of trade in deerskins.[35] The deerskin trade went onto dominate the relationships between the Native Americans of the southeast and the European settlers there. Deerskin was a highly valued commodity due to the deer shortage in Europe, and the British leather industry needed deerskins to produce goods.[36] The bulk of deerskins were exported to Great Britain during the peak of the deerskin trade.[37]

Effect of the deerskin trade on Native Americans[edit]

Native American—specifically the Creek's -- beliefs revolved around respecting the environment. The Creek believed they had a unique relationship with the animals they hunted.[36] The Creek had several rules surround how a hunt could occur, particularly prohibiting needless killing of deer.[36] There were specific taboos against taking the skins of unhealthy deer.[36] However, the lucrative deerskin trade prompted hunters to act past the point of restraint they had operated under before.[36] The hunting economy collapsed due to the scarcity of deer as they were over-hunted and lost their lands to white settlers.[36] Due to the decline of deer populations, and the governmental pressure to switch to the colonists’ way of life, animal husbandry replaced deer hunting both as an income and in the diet.[38]

Rum was first introduced in the early 1700s as a trading item, and quickly became an inelastic good.[39] While Native Americans were for the most part acted conservatively in trading deals, they consumed a surplus of alcohol.[36] Traders used rum to help form partnerships.[39] Rum had a significant effect on the social behavior of Native Americans. Under the influence of rum, the younger generation did not obey the elders of the tribe, and became involved with more skirmishes with other tribes and white settlers.[36] Rum also disrupted the amount of time the younger generation of males spent on labor.[39] Alcohol was one of the goods provided on credit, and led to a debt trap for many Native Americans.[39] Native Americans did not know how to distill alcohol, and thus were driven to trade for it.[36]

Native Americans had become dependent on manufactured goods such as guns and domesticated animals, and lost much of their traditional practices. With the new cattle herds roaming the hunting lands, and a greater emphasis on farming due to the invention of the Cotton Gin, Native Americans struggled to maintain their place in the economy.[38] An inequality gap had appeared in the tribes, as some hunters were more successful than others.[36] Still, the creditors treated and individual’s debt as debt of the whole tribe, and used several strategies to keep the Native Americans in debt.[39] Traders would rig the weighing system that determined the value of the deerskins in their favor, cut measurement tools to devalue the deerskin, and would tamper with the manufactured goods to decrease their worth, such as watering down the alcohol they traded.[39] To satisfy the need for deerskins, many males of the tribes abandoned their traditional seasonal roles and became full-time traders.[39] When the deerskin trade collapsed, Native Americans found themselves dependent on manufactured goods, and could not return to the old ways due to lost knowledge.[39]

Post European contact in the 16th and 17th centuries[edit]

Spanish exploratory parties in the 1500s had violent encounters with the powerful chiefdoms, which led to the decentralization of the indigenous people in the southeast.[40] Almost a century passed between the original Spanish exploration and the next wave of European immigration,[40] which allowed the survivors of the European diseases to organize into new tribes.[41] Most Spanish trade was limited with Indians on the coast until expeditions inland in the beginning of the 17th century.[34] By 1639, substantial trade between the Spanish in Florida and the Native Americans for deerskins developed, with more interior tribes incorporated into the system by 1647.[34] Many tribes throughout the southeast began to send trading parties to meet with the Spanish in Florida, or used other tribes as middlemen to obtain manufactured goods.[34] The Apalachees used the Apalachiola people to collect deerskins, and in return the Apalachees would give them silver, guns, or horses.[34]

As the English and French colonizers ventured into the southeast, the deerskin trade experienced a boom going into the 18th century.[36] Many of the English colonists who settled in the Carolinas in the late 1600s came from Virginia, where trading patterns of European goods in exchange for beaver furs already had started.[42] The white-tailed deer herds that roamed south of Virginia were a more profitable resource.[36] The French and the English struggled for control over Southern Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley, and needed alliances with the Indians there to maintain dominance.[39] The European colonizers used the trade of deerskins for manufactured goods to secure trade relationships, and therefore power.[35]

Beginning of the 18th century[edit]

At the beginning of the 18th century, more organized violence than in previous decades occurred between the Native Americans involved in the deerskin trade and white settlers, most famously the Yamasee War. This uprising of Indians against fur traders almost wiped out the European colonists in the southeast.[39] The British promoted competition between tribes, and sold guns to both Creeks and Cherokees. This competition sprang out of the slave demand in the southeast – tribes would raid each other and sell prisoners into the slave trade of the colonizers.[39] France tried to outlaw these raids because their allies, the Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Yazoos bore the brunt of the slave trade.[39] Guns and other modern weapons were essential trading items for the Native Americans to protect themselves from slave raids; motivation which drove the intensity of the deerksin trade.[36][43] The need for Indian slaves decreased as African slaves began to be imported in larger quantities, and the focus returned to deerskins.[39] The drive for Indian slaves also was diminished post-Yamasee War to avoid furture uprisings.[43]

The Yamasees had collected extensive debt in the first decade of the 1700s due to buying manufactured goods on credit from traders, and then not being able to produce enough deerskins to pay the debt later on in the year.[44] Indians who were not able to pay their debt were often enslaved.[44] The practice of enslavement extended to the wives and children of the Yamsees in debt as well.[45] This process frustrated the Yamasees and other tribes, who lodged complaints against the deceitful credit-loaning scheme traders had enforced, along with methods of cheating or trade.[44] The Yamasees were a coastal tribe in the aread that is now known as South Carolina, and most of the white-tailed deer herds had moved inland for the better environment.[44] The Yamasees rose up against the English in South Carolina, and soon other tribes joined them, creating combatants from almost every nation in the South.[35][42] The British were able to defeat the Indian coalition with help from the Cherokees, cementing a pre-existing trade partnership.[42]

After the uprisings, the Native Americans returned to making alliances with the European powers, using political savvy to get the best deals by playing the three nations off each other.[42] The Creek were particularly good at manipulation – they had begun trading with South Carolina in the last years of the 17th century and became a trusted deerskin provider.[44] The Creeks were already a wealthy tribe due to their control over the most valuable hunting lands, especially when compared to the impoverished Cherokees.[42] Due to allying with the British during the Yamasee War, the Cherokees lacked Indian trading partners and could not break with Britain to negotiate with France or Spain.[42]

Mid-18th century[edit]

Deerskin trade was at its most profitable in the mid-18th century.[38] The Creeks rose up as the largest deerskin supplier, and the increase in supply only intensified European demand for deerskins.[38] Native Americans continued to negotiate the most lucrative trade deals by forcing the England, France, and Spain to compete for their supply of deerskins.[38] In the 1750 and 1760s, the Seven Years' War disrupted France’s ability to provide manufactures goods to its allies, the Choctaws and Chickasaw.[42] The French and Indian War further disrupted trade, as the British blockaded French goods.[42] The Cherokees allied themselves with France, who were driven out from the southeast in accordance with the Treaty of Paris in 1763.[42] The British were now the dominant trading power in the southeast.

While both the Cherokee and the Creek were the main trading partners of the British, their relationships with the British were different. The Creeks adapted to the new economic trade system, and managed to hold onto their old social structures.[36] Originally Cherokee land was divided into five districts; however, the number soon grew to thirteen districts with 200 hunters assigned per district due to deerskin demand.[39]

Both Charleston and Savannah were the main trading ports for the export of deerskins.[39] Deerskins became the most popular export, and monetarily supported the colonies with the revenue produced by taxes on deerskins.[39] Charleston’s trade was regulated by the Indian Trade Commission, composed of traders who monopolized the market and profited off the sale of deerskins.[39] From the beginning of the 18th century to mid-century, the deerskin exports of Charleston more than doubled in exports.[36] Charleston received tobacco and sugar from the West Indies and rum from the North in exchange for deerskins.[39] In return for deerskins, Great Britain sent woolens, guns, ammunition, iron tools, clothing, and other manufactured goods that were traded to the Native Americans.[39]

Post-Revolutionary War[edit]

The Revolutionary War disrupted the deerskin trade, as the import of British manufactured goods with cut off.[36] The deerskin trade had already begun to decline due to over-hunting of deer.[44] The lack of trade caused the Native Americans to run out of items, such as guns, on which they depended.[36] Some Indians, such as the Creeks, tried to reestablish trade with the Spanish in Florida, where some loyalists were hiding as well.[36][42] When the war ended with the British retreating, many tribes who had fought on their side were now left unprotected and now had to make peace and new trading deals with the new country.[42] Many Native Americans were subject to violence from the new Americans who sought to settle their territory.[46] The new American government negotiated treaties that recognized prewar borders, such as those with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, and allowed open trade.[46]

In the two decades following the Revolutionary War, the United States’ government established new treaties with the Native Americans the provided hunting grounds and terms of trade.[36] However, the value of deerskins dropped as domesticated cattle took over the market, and many tribes soon found themselves in debt.[36][38] The Creeks began to sell their land to the government to try and pay their debts, and infighting among the Indians made it easy for white settles to encroach upon their lands.[36] The government also sought to encourage Native Americans to give up their old ways of subsistence hunting, and turn to farming and domesticated cattle for trade.[38]

Social and cultural impact[edit]

The fur trade and its actors has played a certain role in films and popular culture. It was the topic of various books and films, from James Fenimore Cooper via Irving Pichels Hudson's Bay of 1941, the popular Canadian musical My Fur Lady (music by Galt MacDermot) of 1957, till Nicolas Vaniers documentaries. However, in contrast to "the huddy buddy narration of Canada as Hudson's country", propagated either in popular culture as well in elitist circles as the Beaver Club, founded 1785 in Montreal[47] the often male-centered scholarly description of the fur business does not fully describe the history. Chantal Nadeau, a communication scientist in Montreal's Concordia University refers to the "country wives" and "country marriages" between Indian women and European trappers[48] and the Filles du Roy[49] of the 18th century. Nadeau says that women have been described as a sort of commodity, "skin for skin", and they were essential to the sustainable prolongation of the fur trade.[50]

Nadeau describes fur as an essential, "the fabric" of Canadian symbolism and nationhood. She notes the controversies around the Canadian seal hunt, with Brigitte Bardot as a leading figure. Bardot, a famous actress, had been a model in the 1971 "Legend" campaign of the US mink label Blackglama, for which she posed nude in fur coats. Her involvement in anti-fur campaigns shortly afterward was in response to a request by the noted author Marguerite Yourcenar, who asked Bardot to use her celebrity status to help the anti-sealing movement. Bardot had successes as an anti-fur activist and changed from sex symbol to the grown-up mama of "white seal babies". Nadeau related this to her later involvement in French right-wing politics. The anti-fur movement in Canada was intertwined with the nation's exploration of history during and after the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, until the roll back of the anti-fur movement in the late 1990s.[51] Finally, the PETA celebrity campaign: "I'd rather go naked than wear fur", turned around the "skin for skin" motto and symbology against fur and the fur trade.

Métis people[edit]

As men from the old fur trade in the Northeast made the trek west in the early nineteenth century, they sought to recreate the economic system from which they had profited in the Northeast. Some men went alone but others relied on companies like the Hudson Bay Company and the Missouri Fur Company. Marriage and kinship with native women would play an important role in the western fur trade. White traders who moved west needed to establish themselves in the kinship networks of the tribes, and they often did this by marrying a prominent Indian woman. This practice was called a “country” marriage and allowed the trader to network with the adult male members of the woman’s band, who were necessary allies for trade.[52] The children of these unions, who were known as Métis, were an integral part of the fur trade system.

The Métis label defined these children as a marginal people with a fluid identity.[53] Early on in the fur trade, Métis were not defined by their racial category, but rather by the way of life they chose. These children were generally the offspring of white men and Native mothers and were often raised to follow the mother’s lifestyle. The father could influence the enculturation process and prevent the child from being classified as Métis[54] in the early years of the western fur trade. Fur families often included displaced native women who lived near forts and formed networks among themselves. These networks helped to create kinship between tribes which benefitted the traders. Catholics tried their best to validate these unions through marriages. But missionaries and priests often had trouble categorizing the women, especially when establishing tribal identity.[55]

Métis were among the first groups of fur traders who came from the Northeast. These men were mostly of a mixed race identity, largely Iroquois, as well as other tribes from the Ohio country.[56] Rather than one tribal identity, many of these Métis had multiple Indian heritages.[57] Lewis and Clark, who opened up the market on the fur trade in the Upper Missouri, brought with them many Métis to serve as engagés. These same Métis would become involved in the early western fur trade. Many of them settled on the Missouri River and married into the tribes there before setting up their trade networks.[58] The first generation of Métis born in the West grew up out of the old fur trade and provided a bridge to the new western empire.[59] These Métis possessed both native and European skills, spoke multiple languages, and had the important kinship networks required for trade.[60] In addition, many spoke the Michif Métis dialect. In an effort to distinguish themselves from natives, many Métis strongly associated with Roman Catholic beliefs and avoided participating in native ceremonies.[61]

By the 1820s, the fur trade had expanded into the Rocky Mountains where American and British interests begin to compete for control of the lucrative trade. The Métis would play a key role in this competition. The early Métis congregated around trading posts where they were employed as packers, laborers, or boatmen. Through their efforts they helped to create a new order centered on the trading posts.[62] Other Métis traveled with the trapping brigades in a loose business arrangement where authority was taken lightly and independence was encouraged. By the 1830s Canadians and Americans were venturing into the West to secure a new fur supply. Companies like the NWC and the HBC provided employment opportunities for Métis. By the end of the 19th century, many companies considered the Métis to be Indian in their identity. As a result, many Métis left the companies in order to pursue freelance work.[63]

After 1815 the demand for bison robes began to rise gradually, although the beaver still remained the primary trade item. The 1840s saw a rise in the bison trade as the beaver trade begin to decline.[64] Many Métis adapted to this new economic opportunity. This change of trade item made it harder for Métis to operate within companies like the HBC, but this made them welcome allies of the Americans who wanted to push the British to the Canada–US border. Although the Métis would initially operate on both sides of the border, by the 1850s they were forced to pick an identity and settle either north or south of the border. The period of the 1850s was thus one of migration for the Métis, many of whom drifted and established new communities or settled within existing Canadian, American or Indian communities.[65]

A group of Métis who identified with the Chippewa moved to the Pembina in 1819 and then to the Red River area in 1820, which was located near St. François Xavier in Manitoba. In this region they would establish several prominent fur trading communities. These communities had ties to one another through the NWC. This relationship dated back to between 1804 and 1821 when Métis men had served as low level voyageurs, guides, interpreters, and contre-maitres, or foremen. It was from these communities that Métis buffalo hunters operating in the robe trade arose.

The Métis would establish a whole economic system around the bison trade. Whole Métis families were involved in the production of robes, which was the driving force of the winter hunt. In addition, they sold pemmican at the posts.[66] Unlike Indians, the Métis were dependent on the fur trade system and subject to the market. The international prices of bison robes were directly influential on the well-being of Métis communities. By contrast, the local Indians had a more diverse resource base and were less dependent on Americans and Europeans at this time.

By the 1850s the fur trade had expanded across the Great Plains, and the bison robe trade began to decline. The Métis had a role in the depopulation of the bison. Like the Indians, the Métis had a preference for cows, which meant that the bison had trouble maintaining their herds.[67] In addition, flood, drought, early frost, and the environmental impact of settlement posed further threats to the herds. Traders, trappers, and hunters all depended on the bison to sustain their way of life. The Métis tried to maintain their lifestyle through a variety of means. For instance, they often used two wheel carts made from local materials, which meant that they were more mobile than Indians and thus were not dependent on following seasonal hunting patterns.[68]

The 1870s brought an end to the bison presence in the Red River area. Métis communities like those at Red River or Turtle Mountain were forced to relocate to Canada and Montana. An area of resettlement was the Judith Basin in Montana, which still had a population of bison surviving in the early 1880s. By the end of decade, however, the bison were gone and Métis hunters relocated back to tribal lands. They wanted to take part in treaty negotiations in the 1880s, but they had questionable status with tribes such as the Chippewa.[69] Many former Métis bison hunters tried to get land claims during the treaty negotiations in 1879-1880. They were reduced to squatting on Indian land during this time and collecting bison bones for $15–20 a ton in order to purchase supplies for the winter. The reservation system did not ensure that the Métis were protected and accepted as Indians. To further complicate matters, Métis had a questionable status as citizens and were often deemed incompetent to give court testimonies and denied the right to vote.[70] The end of the bison robe trade was the end of the fur trade for many Métis. This meant that they had to reestablish their identity and adapt to a new economic world.

Modern day[edit]

Modern fur trapping and trading in North America is part of a wider $15 billion global fur industry where wild animal pelts make up only 15 percent of total fur output.

In 2008, the global recession hit the fur industry and trappers especially hard with greatly depressed fur prices thanks to a drop in the sale of expensive fur coats and hats. Such a drop in fur prices reflects trends of previous economic downturns.[71]

In 2013, the North American Fur Industry Communications group (NAFIC)[72] was established as a cooperative public educational program for the fur industry in Canada and the USA. NAFIC disseminates information via the Internet under the brand name “Truth About Fur”.

Members of NAFIC are: the auction houses American Legend Cooperative in Seattle, North American Fur Auctions in Toronto, and Fur Harvesters Auction[73] in North Bay, Ontario; the American Mink Council, representing US mink producers; the mink farmers’ associations Canada Mink Breeders Association[74] and Fur Commission USA;[75] the trade associations Fur Council of Canada[76] and Fur Information Council of America;[77] the Fur Institute of Canada, leader of the country’s trap research and testing program; Fur wRaps The Hill, the political and legislative arm of the North American fur industry; and the International Fur Federation,[78] based in London, UK.

See also[edit]




  1. ^ Innis, Harold A. (2001) [1930]. The Fur Trade in Canada (Revised and reprint ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 9–12. ISBN 0-8020-8196-7. 
  2. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 9–10.
  3. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 25-26.
  4. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 30-31.
  5. ^ Innis 2001, p. 33.
  6. ^ Innis 2001, p. 34.
  7. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 40-42.
  8. ^ Innis 2001, p. 38.
  9. ^ White, Richard (2011) [1991]. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge studies in North American Indian history (Twentieth Anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-00562-4. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  10. ^ a b Innis 2001, pp. 35-36.
  11. ^ Trigger, Bruce G. (2000) [1976]. "The Disappearance of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians". The People of Aataenstic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. Carleton library series. Volume 2 (reprint ed.). Montreal, Quebec & Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 214–218. ISBN 978-0-7735-0627-5. Retrieved 2 Feb 2010. 
  12. ^ Innis 2001, p. 46.
  13. ^ White 2011.
  14. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 47-49.
  15. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 49-51.
  16. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 53-54.
  17. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 55-57.
  18. ^ White 1999, pp. 128-129.
  19. ^ a b c White 1999, pp. 129.
  20. ^ a b White 1999, pp. 123.
  21. ^ White 1999, pp. 125.
  22. ^ a b c White 1999, pp. 127.
  23. ^ White 1999, pp. 130.
  24. ^ a b c White 1999, pp. 128.
  25. ^ a b c White 1999, pp. 131.
  26. ^ White 1999, pp. 132.
  27. ^ White 1999, pp. 133-134.
  28. ^ White 1999, pp. 134.
  29. ^ Innis 2001, pp. 386-392.
  30. ^ Ray, Arthur J. (2005) [1974]. "Chapter 6: The destruction of fur and game animals". Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870 (reprint ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  31. ^ Martin, Calvin (1982) [1978]. Keepers of the Game: First Nations-animal Relationships and the Fur Trade (reprint ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  32. ^ Carlos, Ann M.; Lewis, Frank D. (September 1993). "Aboriginals, the Beaver, and the Bay: The Economics of Depletion in the Lands of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1700-1763". The Journal of Economic History. The Economic History Association. 53 (3): 465–494. doi:10.1017/S0022050700013450. (Subscription required (help)). 
  33. ^ Gilman (1992), p. 72–74.
  34. ^ a b c d e Waselkov, Gregory A. (1989-01-01). "SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TRADE IN THE COLONIAL SOUTHEAST". Southeastern Archaeology. 8 (2): 117–133. 
  35. ^ a b c d Ramsey, William L. (2003-06-01). ""Something Cloudy in Their Looks": The Origins of the Yamasee War Reconsidered". Journal of American History. 90 (1): 44–75. ISSN 0021-8723. doi:10.2307/3659791. 
  36. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u McNeill, J.R. (2014-01-01). Richards, John F., ed. The World Hunt. An Environmental History of the Commodification of Animals (1 ed.). University of California Press. pp. 1–54. ISBN 9780520282537. doi:10.1525/j.ctt6wqbx2.6. 
  37. ^ Clayton, James L. (1966-01-01). "The Growth and Economic Significance of the American Fur Trade, 1790-1890". Minnesota History. 40 (4): 210–220. 
  38. ^ a b c d e f g Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet. "Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period". American Antiquity. 72 (01): 5–33. doi:10.2307/40035296. 
  39. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Dunaway, Wilma A. (1994-01-01). "The Southern Fur Trade and the Incorporation of Southern Appalachia into the World-Economy, 1690-1763". Review (Fernand Braudel Center). 17 (2): 215–242. 
  40. ^ a b Gallay, A (2003). The Indian slave trade: the rise of the English empire in the American South, 1670-1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 
  41. ^ Trigger, Bruce G.; Swagerty, William R. Entertaining strangers: North America in the sixteenth century. pp. 325–398. doi:10.1017/chol9780521573924.007. 
  42. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Salisbury, Neal. Native people and European settlers in eastern North America, 1600–1783. pp. 399–460. doi:10.1017/chol9780521573924.008. 
  43. ^ a b Ethridge, Robbie (2009). Mapping the Mississippian shatter zone: the colonial Indian slave trade and regional instability in the American South. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 
  44. ^ a b c d e f Haan, Richard L. (1981-01-01). "The "Trade Do's Not Flourish as Formerly": The Ecological Origins of the Yamassee War of 1715". Ethnohistory. 28 (4): 341–358. doi:10.2307/481137. 
  45. ^ Corkran, D. H. (1967). The Creek frontier, 1540-1783. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 
  46. ^ a b Green, Michael D. The expansion of European colonization to the Mississippi Valley, 1780–1880. pp. 461–538. doi:10.1017/chol9780521573924.009. 
  47. ^ Nadeau, Chantal (2001). Fur Nation: From the Beaver to Brigitte Bardot. London: Routledge. p. 58, 96. ISBN 0-415-15874-5. 
  48. ^ Van Kirk, Sylvia (1980). Many Tender Ties : Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670-1870. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Watson & Dwyer. p. 115. ISBN 0-920486-06-1. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  49. ^ Gagné, Peter J. (2000). King's Daughters and Founding Mothers: The Filles du Roi, 1663-1673. Volume 2. Quintin. ISBN 978-1-5821-1950-2. 
  50. ^ Nadeau 2001, p. 31.
  51. ^ Nadeau 2001, p. 135.
  52. ^ Douaud, Patrick, ed. (2007). The Western Metis: A Profile of A People. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina Press. p. 25. ISBN 0-8897-7199-5. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  53. ^ Jackson, John (2007) [1995]. Children of the Fur Trade: The Forgotten Metis of the Pacific Northwest (reprint ed.). Oregon State University Press. p. X. ISBN 0-8707-1194-6. 
  54. ^ Douaud 2007, p. 50.
  55. ^ Jackson 2007, p. 146.
  56. ^ Jackson 2007, p. 24.
  57. ^ Jackson 2007, p. 150.
  58. ^ Foster, Martha Harroun (2006). We Know Who We Are: Metis Identity in a Montana Community. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 24, 25, 26. ISBN 0806137053. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  59. ^ Jackson 2007, p. 70.
  60. ^ Foster 2006, pp. 15, 16, 17.
  61. ^ Sleeper-Smith, Susan (1998). New Faces of the Fur Trade: Selected Papers of the Seventh North American Fur Trade Conference Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995. Michigan State University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-8701-3434-5. 
  62. ^ Jackson 2007, pp. X, 15.
  63. ^ Foster 2006, pp. 20, 30, 39.
  64. ^ Foster 2006, pp. 26, 39.
  65. ^ Jackson 2007, p. 147.
  66. ^ Foster 2006, p. 38.
  67. ^ Foster 2006, pp. 54, 55.
  68. ^ Foster 2006, p. 101.
  69. ^ Sleeper-Smith 1998, pp. 141, 144.
  70. ^ Jackson 2007.
  71. ^ "Modern fur trappers caught in economic steel jaws". National Post. 2008-12-18. Retrieved 2009-01-03. [dead link]
  72. ^ "Home". Truth About Fur. North American Fur Industry Communications group (NAFIC). Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  73. ^ Fur Harvesters Auction Inc.
  74. ^ Canada Mink Breeders Association.
  75. ^ Fur Commission USA.
  76. ^ Fur Council of Canada.
  77. ^ Fur Information Council of America.
  78. ^ International Fur Federation.
  79. ^ Bourgeault, Ron (1983). "The Indians, the Metis and the Fur Trade: Class, Sexism and Racism in the Transition from "Communism" to Capitalism". Studies in Political Economy. 12. 


External links[edit]