text:
Oregon boundary dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Oregon Country/Columbia District stretched from 42°N to 54°40′N. The most heavily disputed portion is highlighted.
The Oregon boundary dispute or the Oregon Question was a controversy over the political division of the Pacific Northwest of North America between several nations that had competing territorial and commercial aspirations over the region.
Expansionist competition into the region began in the 18th century, with participants including the Russian Empire, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States. By the 1820s, both the Russians, through the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 and the Russo-British Treaty of 1825, and the Spanish, by the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819, formally withdrew their territorial claims in the region. Through these treaties the British and Americans gained residual territorial claims in the disputed area.[1] The remaining portion of the North American Pacific coast contested by the United Kingdom and the United States was defined as the following: west of the Continental Divide of the Americas, north of Alta California at 42nd parallel north, and south of Russian America at parallel 54°40′ north; typically this region was referred to by the British as the Columbia District and the Oregon Country by the Americans. The Oregon dispute began to become important in geopolitical diplomacy between the British Empire and the new American republic, especially after the War of 1812.
In the 1844 U.S. presidential election, ending the Oregon Question by annexing the entire area was a position adopted by the Democratic Party. Some scholars have claimed the Whig Party's lack of interest in the issue was due to its relative insignificance among other more pressing domestic problems.[2] Democratic candidate James K. Polk appealed to the popular theme of manifest destiny and expansionist sentiment, defeating Whig Henry Clay. Polk sent the British government the previously offered partition along the 49th parallel. Subsequent negotiations faltered as the British plenipotentiaries still argued for a border along the Columbia River. Tensions grew as American expansionists like Senator Edward A. Hannegan of Indiana and Representative Leonard Henly Sims of Missouri, urged Polk to annex the entire Pacific Northwest to the 54°40′ parallel north, as the Democrats had called for in the election. The turmoil gave rise to slogans such as "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" As relations with Mexico were rapidly deteriorating following the annexation of Texas, the expansionist agenda of Polk and the Democratic Party created the possibility of two different, simultaneous wars for the United States. Just before the outbreak of the Mexican–American War, Polk returned to his earlier position of a border along the 49th parallel.
The 1846 Oregon Treaty established the border between British North America and the United States along the 49th parallel until the Strait of Georgia, where the marine boundary curved south to exclude Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands from the United States. As a result, a small portion of the Tsawwassen Peninsula, Point Roberts, became an exclave of the United States. Vague wording in the treaty left the ownership of the San Juan Islands in doubt, as the division was to follow "through the middle of the said channel"[3] to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. During the so-called Pig War, both nations agreed to a joint military occupation of the islands. Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire was selected as an arbitrator to end the dispute, with a three-man commission ruling in favor of the United States in 1872. There the Haro Strait became the border line, rather than the British favored Rosario Strait. The border established by the Oregon Treaty and finalized by the arbitration in 1872 remains the boundary between the United States and Canada in the Pacific Northwest.
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
1.1 Spanish colonisation
1.2 Russian interest
1.3 Early Anglo-American competition
2 Joint occupation
2.1 Treaty of 1818
2.2 Proposed partition plans
2.3 Renewal
3 Significance in America
3.1 Regional Activities
3.2 John Floyd
3.3 1844 Presidential election
3.3.1 "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"
4 British interest
4.1 Hudson's Bay Company
4.2 Domestic
4.3 Naval presence
5 Political efforts during Tyler Presidency
6 Polk Presidency
7 War crisis
7.1 Congressional pressure
7.2 British reaction
7.2.1 Pacific naval forces
7.2.2 War plan
8 Resolution
9 Oregon Treaty
10 Historical maps
11 Citations
12 Bibliography
12.1 Primary sources
12.2 Secondary sources
13 Further reading
14 External links
Background[edit]
The Oregon Question originated in the 18th century during the early European or American exploration of the Pacific Northwest. Various Empires began to consider the area suitable for colonial expansion, including the Americans, Russians, Spanish and British. Naval captains such as the Spanish Juan José Pérez Hernández, British George Vancouver and American Robert Gray gave defining regional water formations like the Columbia River and the Puget Sound their modern names and charted in the 1790s. Overland explorations were commenced by the British Alexander Mackenzie in 1792 and later followed by the American Lewis and Clark expedition, which reached the mouth of the Columbia River in 1805. These explorers often claimed in the name of their respective governments sovereignty over the Northwest Coast. The knowledge of fur-bearing animal populations like the California sea lion, North American beaver and the Northern fur seal were used to create an economic network called the maritime fur trade. The fur trade would remain the main economic interest that drew Euro-Americans to the Pacific Northwest for decades. Merchants exchanged goods for fur pelts along the coast with indigenous nations such as the Chinookan people, the Aleuts and the Nuu-chah-nulth.
Map of the Columbia River and its tributaries, showing modern political boundaries and cities.
Spanish colonisation[edit]
A series of Expeditions to the Pacific Northwest were financed by the Spanish to strengthen their claims to the region. Creating a colony called Santa Cruz de Nuca on Vancouver Island, the Spanish were the first white colonisers of the Pacific Northwest outside Russian America to the north. A period of tensions with the United Kingdom, called the Nootka Crisis, arose after the Spanish seized a British vessel. However the three Nootka Conventions averted conflict, with both countries agreeing to protect their mutual access to Friendly Cove against outside powers. While the Spanish colony was abandoned, a border delineating the northern reaches of New Spain wasn't included. Despite the Nootka Conventions still allowing the Spanish to establish colonies in the region, no more attempts were made as other geopolitical and domestic matters drew the attention of the authorities. With the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819, the Spanish formally withdrew all formal claims to lands north of the 42° north.
Russian interest[edit]
The Imperial Russian government established the Russian-American Company in 1799, a monopoly among Russian subjects for fur trading operations in Russian America with the Ukase of 1799. In part from the growing Russian activities to the north, the Spanish created the Catholic Missions to create colonies in Alta California. Plans for creating Russians colonies in what became the modern American states of Washington and Oregon were formulated by Nikolai Rezanov. He aimed to relocate the primary colony of Russian America to the entrance of the Columbia River, though was unable to enter the river in 1806 and the plan was abandoned.[4] In 1808 Alexander Andreyevich Baranov sent the Nikolai, with the captain "ordered to explore the coast south of Vancouver Island, barter with the natives for sea otter pelts, and if possible discover a site for a permanent Russian post in the Oregon Country."[5] The ship wrecked on the Olympic Peninsula and the surviving crew didn't return to New Archangel for two years. The failure of the vessel to find a suitable location led to the Russians to not consider much of the Northwest coast worth colonizing.[6] Their interest in the Puget Sound and the Columbia River was diverted to Alta California, with Fort Ross soon established. The Russo-American Treaty of 1824 and the Treaty of Saint Petersburg with the British formally created the southern border of Russian America at parallel 54°40′ north.
Early Anglo-American competition[edit]
Both the Russian and Spanish empires held no significant plans at promoting colonies along the Northwest Coast by the 1810s. The British and the Americans were the remaining two nations with citizens active in commercial operations in the region. Starting with a party of the Montreal based North West Company (NWC) employees led by David Thompson in 1807, the British began land-based operations and opened trading posts throughout the region. Thompson extensively explored the Columbia River watershed. While at the junction of Columbia and Snake Rivers, he erected a pole on July 9, 1811, with a notice stating "Know hereby that this country is claimed by Great Britain as part of its territories..." and additionally stated the intention of the NWC to build a trading post there.[7] Fort Nez Percés was later established at the location in 1818. The American Pacific Fur Company (PFC) began operations in 1811 at Fort Astoria, constructed at the entrance of the Columbia River. The eruption of the War of 1812 didn't lead to a violent confrontation in the Pacific Northwest between the competing companies. Led by Donald Mackenzie, PFC officers agreed to liquidate its assets to their NWC competitors, with an agreement signed on 23 November 1813.[8] The HMS Racoon was ordered to capture Fort Astoria, though by the time it arrived, the post was already under NWC management. After the collapse of the PFC, American mountain men operated in small groups in the region, typically based east of the Rocky Mountains, only to meet once a year at the annual Rendezvous.
Joint occupation[edit]
Treaty of 1818[edit]
Main article: Treaty of 1818
In 1818, diplomats of the two countries attempted to negotiate a boundary between the rival claims. The Americans suggested dividing the Pacific Northwest along the 49th parallel, which was the border between the United States and British North America east of the Rocky Mountains. The lack of accurate cartographic knowledge led American diplomats to declare the Louisiana Purchase gave them an incontestable claim to the region.[9] British diplomats wanted a border further south along the Columbia River, so as to maintain the North West Company's (later the Hudson's Bay Company's (HBC)) control of the lucrative fur trade along that river.[9] The diplomatic teams couldn't agree upon mutually satisfactory terms and remained in deadlock by October. Albert Gallatin, the main American negotiator, had previously instructed to have a tentative agreement by the convening of the 3rd session of the 15th United States Congress, set for 16 November.
A final proposition was made to the British plenipotentiary, Frederick John Robinson, for the continuation of the 49th parallel west while leaving the United Kingdom, as Gallatin stated, "all the waters emptying in the sound called the Gulf of Georgia."[9] This would have awarded "all the territory draining west from the Cascade divide and north from the Columbia River divide into the gulf" and the entirety of the Puget Sound along with the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca to the United Kingdom.[9] Robinson demurred from the proposal. However, the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, which settled most other disputes from the War of 1812, called for the joint occupation of the region for ten years.
Proposed partition plans[edit]
As the expiration of the Joint Occupation treaty approached, a second round of negotiations commenced in 1824. American Minister Richard Rush offered for the extension of agreement with an additional clause on 2 April. The 51° parallel would be a provisional border within the Pacific Northwest, with no British additional settlements to be established south of the line, nor any American settlements north of it.[10] Despite Rush's offering to modify the temporary border to the 49° parallel, the British negotiators rejected his offer. His proposal was seen as the likely basis for the eventual division of the Pacific Northwest. The British plenipotentiaries William Huskisson and Stratford Canning on 29 June pressed instead for a permanent line along the 49° parallel west until the main branch of the Columbia River. With the British formally abandoning claims south or east of the Columbia River, the Oregon Question thence became focused on what later became Western Washington and the southern portion of Vancouver Island.[10] Rush reacted to the British proposal as unfavorably as they had to his own offer, leaving the talks at a stalemate.
George Canning has been appraised the most active Secretary of Foreign Affairs in maintaining the British claims of a division along the Columbia River.[11]
Throughout 1825, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs George Canning held discussions with Governor Pelly of the HBC as to a potential settlement with the United States. Pelly felt a border along the Snake and Columbia Rivers was advantageous for the United Kingdom and his company.[11] Contacting American minister Rufus King in April 1826, Canning requested that a settlement be reached over the Oregon dispute. Gallatin was appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom and given instructions by Secretary of State Henry Clay in July 1826 to offer a division of the Pacific Northwest along the 49th parallel to the British.[12] In a letter to Prime Minister Lord Liverpool in 1826, Canning presented the possibilities of trade with the Qing Empire if a division of the Pacific Northwest was to be made with the Americans. He felt the recognition of American rights to ownership of Astoria, despite its continued use by the NWC and later HBC, was "absolutely unjustifiable."[13] This diplomatic courtesy Canning felt weakened the territorial claims of the United Kingdom. A border along the Columbia River would give "an immense direct intercourse between China and what may be, if we resolve not yield them up, her boundless establishments on the N. W. Coast of America."[13]
Renewal[edit]
Huskisson was appointed along with Henry Unwin Addington to negotiate with Gallatin. Unlike his superior, Canning, Huskisson held a negative view of the HBC monopoly and found the region held in dispute with the Americans "of little consequence to the British."[11] At time the HBC's staff were the only continuous white occupants in the region, though their economic activities weren't utilized by Huskinisson in exchanges with Gallatin.[11] The division suggested by Pelly and Canning's 1824 offer of a Columbia River boundary was rejected. The argument used to counter these offers was the same as in 1824, that a boundary along the Columbia would deny the U.S. an easily accessible deep water port on the Pacific Ocean. The British negotiators to allay this attack offered a detached Olympic Peninsula as American territory, giving access to both the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.[11] This was seen as unsatisfactory by the Americans however. The diplomatic talks were continued but failed to divide the region in a satisfactory manner for both nations. The Treaty of 1818 was renewed on 7 August 1827,[14] with a clause added by Gallatin that a one-year notice had to be given when either party intended to abrogate the agreement.[12] After the death of Canning and the failure to find a satisfactory division of the region with the Americans, "Oregon had been almost forgotten by the [British] politicians..."[11]
Significance in America[edit]
Regional Activities[edit]
American Protestant missionaries began to arrive in the 1830s and established the Methodist Mission in the Willamette Valley and the Whitman Mission east of the Cascades.[15] Ewing Young created a saw mill[16] and a grist mill in the Willamette Valley early in the 1830s.[17] He and several other American colonists formed the Willamette Cattle Company in 1837 to bring over 600 head of cattle to the Willamette Valley, with about half of its shares purchased by McLoughlin. Over 700 U.S settlers arrived via the Oregon Trail in the "Great Migration of 1843". The Provisional Government of Oregon was established in the Willamette Valley during 1843 as well. Its rule was limited to those interested Americans and former French-Canadian HBC employees in the valley.
John Floyd[edit]
The first attempts by the American Government for proactive action in colonising the Pacific Northwest began in 1820 during the 2nd session of the 16th Congress. John Floyd, a Representative from Virginia, spearheaded a report that would "authorize the occupation of the Columbia River, and to regulated trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes thereon."[18] Additionally the bill called for cultivating commercial relations with the Qing Empire and the Tokugawa shogunate. His interest in the distant region likely began after meeting former PFC employee Russell Farnham. Floyd had the support of fellow Virginian Representative Thomas Van Swearingen and Representative Thomas Metcalfe of Kentucky. The bill was presented to both the House and to President Monroe. In the House, Floyd's bill was defended by one member who stated that it didn't "attempt a colonial settlement. The territory proposed to be occupied is already a part of the United States."[19] Monroe inquired the opinion of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams for potential revisions. Adams retorted that "The paper was a tissue of errors in fact and abortive reasoning, of invidious reflections and rude invectives. There was nothing could purify it but the fire."[20] Read twice before the legislature, "most of the members not considering it a serious proceeding", it didn't pass.[18]
Representative John Floyd was the most prominent early Congressional member in favor of extensive American claims in the Pacific Northwest.
Floyd continued to authorise legislation calling for an American colony on the Pacific. His career as a Representative ended in 1829, with the Oregon Question not discussed at Congress until 1837. The northern border proposed by Floyd was at first the 53°, and later 54°40′.[21] These bills were still met with the apathy or opposition of other Congressional members, one in particular being tabled for consideration by a vote of 100 to 61.[21] Missouri Senator Thomas H. Benton became a vocal supporter of Floyd's efforts, and thought that they would "plant the germ of a powerful and independent Power beyond the Rockies."[21] John C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, while somewhat interested in Floyd's considered bills, gave his opinion to that the HBC was an economic threat to American commercial interests in the west.
"....so long as the traders of the British Fur Company have free access to the region of the Rocky Mountains from the various posts... they will in great measure monopolize the Fur Trade West of the Mississippi, to the almost entire exclusion in the next few years of our trade." * [21]
1844 Presidential election[edit]
The 1844 presidential election was a definitive turning point for the United States. Admitting the Texas Republic by diplomatic negotiations to begin a process of annexation of Texas into the nation was a contentious topic. At the same time, the Oregon Question "became a weapon in a struggle for domestic political power."[22] At the Democratic National Convention, the party platform asserted "That our title to the whole of the Territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power, and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period are great American measures..."[23] By tying the Oregon dispute to the more controversial Texas debate, the Democrats appealed to expansionist members from both the Northern and Southern states.[22] Enlargement in the Pacific Northwest offered a means of mollifying Northern fears of allowing Texas, another slave state, by a counterbalance of additional free states. Democratic candidate James K. Polk went on to win a narrow victory over Whig candidate Henry Clay, in part because Clay had taken a stand against immediate expansion in Texas. Despite the use of the Oregon Question in the election, according to Edward Miles, the topic wasn't "a significant campaign issue" as "the Whigs would have been forced to discuss it."[2]
"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"[edit]
A popular slogan later associated with Polk and his campaign of 1844, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" wasn't actually coined during the election. It only appeared by January 1846, promoted and driven in part by the Democratic Party associated press. The phrase has since become frequently misidentified as a Polk campaign slogan, even in many textbooks.[2][24][25][26] Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes the slogan to William Allen. 54°40′ was the southern boundary of Russian America, and considered the northernmost limit of the Pacific Northwest. One actual Democratic campaign slogan from this election (used in Pennsylvania) was the more mundane "Polk, Dallas, and the Tariff of '42".[24]
British interest[edit]
Hudson's Bay Company[edit]
Main article: Columbia Department
George Simpson, manager of HBC operations in North America, reported in 1837 that the Pacific Northwest "may become an object of very great importance, and we are strengthening that claim to it... by forming the nucleus of a colony through the establishment of farms, and the settlement of some of our retiring officers and servants as agriculturalists."[27]
The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) merged with the North West Company in 1821 and assumed its various fur trading stations. The HBC held a license among British subjects to trade with the populous aboriginal peoples of the region, and its network of trading posts and routes extended southward from New Caledonia, another HBC fur-trade district, into the Columbia basin (most of New Caledonia lay south of 54-40). The HBC's headquarters for the entire region became established at Fort Vancouver (modern Vancouver, Washington) in 1824. During that year George Simpson while discussing the company's "uncertain tenure of the Columbia" with Governor Colville, discussed the possibility of closing operations along the river.[27] "If the Americans settle on the mouth of the Columbia it would in my opinion be necessary to abandon the Coast [south of the river]..." Simpson stated, with the company posts to "move to the Northward..."[28] At its pinnacle in the late 1830s and early 1840s, Fort Vancouver watched over 34 outposts, 24 ports, six ships, and 600 employees.
Domestic[edit]
The Edinburgh Review declared the Pacific Northwest "the last corner of the earth left free for the occupation of a civilized race. When Oregon shall be colonised, the map of the world may be considered as filled up."[29]
Naval presence[edit]
Royal Navy ships were dispatched to the Pacific Northwest throughout the decades, to both expand cartographical knowledge and protect fur trading stations. The British established the Pacific Station in 1826 at Valparaíso, Chile, increasing the strategic capabilities of their navy. A squadron was moved there and later vessels sent to the Pacific Northwest were based out of the port. HMS Blossom was in the region during 1818. The next surveying expedition was commenced by HMS Sulphur and HMS Starling in 1837, with operations lasting until 1839. Dispatched from the Pacific Station to gather intelligence on the HBC posts, HMS Modeste arrived at the Columbia River in July 1844. Chief Factor James Douglas complained that the naval officers "had more taste for a lark than a 'musty' lecture on politics or the greater national interests in question."[30] The Modeste visited the HBC trading posts of Forts George, Vancouver, Victoria and Simpson.[31]
Political efforts during Tyler Presidency[edit]
Missouri Senator Lewis Linn tabled legislation in 1842, inspired in part by Floyd's previous efforts. Linn's bill called for the government to create land grants for men interested in settling the Pacific Northwest. The arrival of Baron Ashburton in April 1842, sent to resolve several territorial disputes with the United States, delayed Linn's legislation. Initially focusing on the Pacific Northwest, Ashburton presented Secretary of State Daniel Webster the 1824 partition proposal made by Canning of a division along the Columbia River.[14] Webster rejected the offer for the same reasons it was previously repudiated; the division would leave the United States with no suitable locations for a large Pacific port. Webster suggested that Ashburton's proposal may have been found acceptable by the Americans, if the United States could be compensated with the Mexican owned San Francisco Bay.[14] Ashburton passed on the offer to his superiors, but no further action was taken. Both diplomats became focused on settling the Aroostook War and formulated the Webster–Ashburton Treaty.
At the final session of the 27th Congress on 19 December 1842, Linn presented a similar bill to colonize the Pacific Northwest as he put it, "by the Anglo-American race, which will extend our limits from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean."[19] Arguments over the bill lasted over a month, and it was eventually passed in the Senate 24-22.[19] In opposition to Linn's bill, Calhoun famously declared that the U.S. government should pursue a policy of "wise and masterly inactivity"[32] in Oregon, letting settlement determine the eventual boundary.[19] Many of Calhoun's fellow Democrats, however, soon began to advocate a more direct approach.[33]
By early 1843, Webster returned to the Oregon Question, formalising a plan that included the 1826 British offer of the Olympic Peninsula enclave and the purchase of Alta California from Mexico.[14] The increasing hostility President Tyler had with the Whig Party led to Webster's disinterest in continuing to act as the Secretary of State and his plan was shelved. The American minister to the UK, Edward Everett, was given authority to negotiate with British officials to settle the Oregon Question in October 1843. Meeting with Prime Minister Robert Peel's Foreign Secretary, Earl of Aberdeen on 29 November, Everett presented the terms considered by President John Tyler. The old offer of the 49th parallel was once more presented, along with a guarantee to free access to the Columbia River.[34] However during President Tyler's State of the Union address that year on 6 December, he claimed "the entire region of country lying on the Pacific and embraced within 42° and 54°40′ of north latitude."[35] After receiving this declaration, Aberdeen began to consult with the committee and Governor Pelly, previously left out of the most recent diplomatic exchanges.[36]
Polk Presidency[edit]
President James K. Polk was elected in 1844 in part from his support for substantial claims against the British. Much of this rhetoric was to make the United Kingdom accept the long tabled proposed division along the 49th parallel.
In his March 1845 inaugural address, President Polk quoted from the party platform, saying that the U.S. title to Oregon was "clear and unquestionable".[37] Tensions grew, with both sides moving to strengthen border fortifications in anticipation of war. Despite Polk's bold language, he was actually prepared to compromise, and had no real desire to go to war over Oregon. He believed that a firm stance would compel the British to accept a resolution agreeable to the United States. While meeting with Representative James A. Black on 4 January 1846, Polk stated that "the only way to treat John Bull was to look him straight in the eye... if Congress faultered [sic]... John Bull would immediately become arrogant and more grasping in his demands..."[38] But Polk's position on Oregon was not mere posturing: he genuinely believed that the U.S. had a legitimate claim to the entire region.[39] He rejected British offers to settle the dispute through arbitration, fearing that no impartial third party could be found.[40]
Many newspaper editors in the United States clamored for Polk to claim the entire region as the Democrats had proposed in the 1844 campaign. Headlines like "The Whole of Oregon or None" by The Union editor Thomas Ritchie appeared on 6 November 1845.[2] In a column in the New York Morning News on December 27, 1845, editor John L. O'Sullivan argued that the United States should claim all of Oregon "by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us..."[41] Soon afterwards, the term "Manifest Destiny" became a standard phrase for expansionists, and a permanent part of the American lexicon. O'Sullivan's version of "Manifest Destiny" was not a call for war, but such calls were soon forthcoming.
After Polk's inauguration, British diplomats began to receive instructions influenced from HBC officials like Simpson, whose suggestions were transmitted through Pelly and then Aberdeen to the British Ambassador Richard Pakenham. In a letter written to Calhoun in August 1844, Pakenham pressed for a border along the Columbia River. He made an offer that likely originated from Simpson: Americans could select naval bases on the portion of Vancouver Island south of the 49th parallel or along the Strait of Juan de Fuca in return.[36] Diplomatic channels continued negotiations throughout 1844; by early 1845 Everett reported the willingness of Aberdeen to accept the 49th parallel, provided the southern portion of Vancouver Island would become British territory.[34]
In the summer of 1845, the Polk administration renewed the proposal to divide Oregon along the 49th parallel to the Pacific Ocean. U.S. Secretary of State James Buchanan on 12 July[42] offered the British any desired ports on the portion of Vancouver Island south of this line,[19] though navigation rights of the Columbia River weren't included. Because this proposal fell short of the Tyler administration's earlier offer, Pakenham rejected the offer without first contacting London.[42] Offended, Polk officially withdrew the proposal on August 30, 1845, and broke off negotiations. Aberdeen censured Pakenham for this diplomatic blunder, and attempted to renew the dialogue. By then, however, Polk was suspicious of British intentions, and under increasing political pressure not to compromise. He declined to reopen negotiations.[43][44]
War crisis[edit]
Important figures in the Oregon question
United States
United Kingdom
James K. Polk
President Robert Peel
Prime Minister
James Buchanan
Secretary of State Earl of Aberdeen
Foreign Secretary
Louis McLane
Minister to the UK Richard Pakenham
Minister in Washington
Congressional pressure[edit]
Senator Lewis Cass was a leading advocate of 54°40′, but backed away from the claim when it became untenable. Like James Buchanan, Cass had presidential ambitions and did not want to alienate Americans on either side of the Oregon question.
In his annual address to Congress on December 2, 1845, Polk recommended giving the British the required one-year notice of the termination of the joint occupation agreement. Democratic expansionists in Congress from the Midwest, led by Senators Lewis Cass of Michigan, Edward A. Hannegan of Indiana, and William Allen of Ohio, called for war with the United Kingdom rather than accepting anything short of all of Oregon up to Parallel 54°40′ north. These pronouncements were fueled by a number of factors, including traditional distrust of the British and a belief that the U.S. had the better claim and would make better use of the land.
The debate was not strictly divided along party or sectional lines, with many who clamored for the 54°40′ border were Northerners upset at Polk's willingness to compromise on the Pacific Northwest border. Polk's uncompromising pursuit of Texas, an acquisition seen favorable for Southern slave owners, angered many advocates of 54°40′, as the President was a Southerner and a slave owner. As historian David M. Pletcher noted, "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" seemed to be directed at the southern aristocracy in the U.S. as much as at the United Kingdom.[45]
Moderates like Webster warned that the U.S. could not win a war against the British Empire, and that negotiation could still achieve U.S. territorial goals. Webster confided to Viscount Ossington, a personal friend, on 26 February 1846, that it would be a "stupendous folly and enormous crime" for the two nations to declare war over the Pacific Northwest.[46]
British reaction[edit]
Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen was committed to maintaining peaceable relations with the Americans, evaluating the disputed territory in the Oregon Question as unimportant.
Pacific naval forces[edit]
During the height of tensions with the United States in 1845 and 1846, there were at least five Royal Naval vessels operating in the Pacific Northwest.[47] The 80-gun ship-of-the-line HMS Collingwood was deployed to Valparaíso under the CinC Rear Admiral Sir George Seymour in 1845, with orders to report on the situation in the region.[31] HMS America, under the command of Captain John Gordon (younger brother Foreign Secretary Aberdeen), was therefore sent north that year.[31] Roderick Finlayson gave a tour of Vancouver Island to the visiting naval officers, where Gordon aired his negative appraisal of the Northwest region. During a deer hunt on the island, Gordon informed Finlayson that he "would not give one of the barren hills of Scotland for all he saw around him."[48] The America departed from the Straits of Juan de Fuca on 1 October. The Modeste entered the Columbia River and arriving at Fort Vancouver on 30 November 1845,[31] where it remained until 4 May 1847.[47] The Modeste was not favorably viewed by American colonists in the Willamette Valley, threatened by the large warship. Relations were improved when the officers organised a ball at Vancouver on 3 February 1846,[49] later theatrical performances by the ship's crew, including Love in a Village and The Mock Doctor, along with picnics.[50]
HMS Fisgard was first reinforcement, ordered from the Pacific Station by Rear Admirial Seymour in January 1846. Captain Duntze was to "afford Protection to Her Majesty's Subjects in Oregon and the North West Coast..." and avoid any potential confrontations with American settlers.[47] On 5 May the Fisgard reached Fort Victoria, later moving to Fort Nisqually on the 18th, where it remained until October. Sent to aid other British vessels navigate difficult channels and rivers, HMS Cormorant, a Paddle steamer, arrived at the Strait of Juan de Fuca in June.[47] Two survey ships were dispatched from Plymouth in June 1845, HMS Herald and HMS Pandora, for charting the coast of the Americas.[47] The vessels reached Cape Flattery on 24 June 1846. The Cormorant towed the Herald to Fort Victoria three days later.[51] The Herald and the Pandora spent several months charting the Puget Sound and Vancouver Island until 2 September, when the vessels sailed for Alta California.[52] The Fisgard and Cormorant both departed for Valparaíso in October.[47] As the Modeste was the only British ship in the region during 1847, the Oregon Treaty "seemed to have taken the edge off of the Royal Navy's interest in the Northwest Coast."[47]
War plan[edit]
Due to his extensive travels throughout the western stations of the HBC, Governor Pelly instructed George Simpson to draft a plan for the British Government if hostilities were to arise with the Americans.[53] Finalizing the proposal on 29 March 1845, Simpson called for two areas to launch offensives. The Red River Colony would be the base of operations for forays into the Great Plains, an expansive region then only lightly colonized by Americans.[53] A militia composed of Métis riflemen and neighboring First Nations like the Ojibwe would be created, along with a garrison of Regular Army infantry. To secure the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River, Simpson felt Cape Disappointment was of critical importance. A naval force of two steamboats and two ships of the line would bring a detachment of Royal Marines to create a coastal battery there.[53] Recruitment was hoped by Simpson to gain a force led by Regular Army officers of 2,000 Métis and indigenous peoples in the region. His proposal quickly earned the interest of the British Government as he met with Prime Minister Peel and Foreign Secretary Aberdeen on 2 April. £1,000 were awarded to lay the ground work for defensive operations in the Pacific Northwest.[53] Secretary of State for War and the Colonies Lord Stanley favored the plan, declaring that the HBC had to finance military operations west of Sault Ste. Marie.[42]
Resolution[edit]
Aberdeen had no intention of going to war over a region that was of diminishing economic value to the United Kingdom. Furthermore the United States was an important trading partner, especially with the need of American wheat in the onset of famine in Ireland. Aberdeen and Pakenham were negotiating from a position of strength. The key was the overwhelming naval power which Britain could have brought to bear against the United States, combined with a diplomatic and political landscape that ultimately favored the British government's aim of protecting her interests robustly but without resort to armed conflict. Ultimately British politicians and naval officers recognized that any conflict over the Oregon boundary, however undesirable, would be decided, like the War of 1812, on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. and the Great Lakes. The Royal Navy’s presence on the Atlantic seaboard wasn't as numerically prominent as the American forces, yet its overall superiority to the U.S. Navy was decisive upon American decision-making during the crisis, especially their decision to compromise.[54] Louis McLane, the American minister in the United Kingdom, reported to Buchanan on 2 February that the British were prepared "to commission immediately some thirty ships-of-the-line in addition to steamers and other vessels held in reserve..."[55] Polk’s bluff had been called.
American diplomat Edward Everett contacted the Whig leader John Russell on 28 December 1845, supporting a revision of the American offer so as to allow the British to keep the entirety of Vancouver Island. He warned Russell that influence among the Whigs could stifle the negotiations. "If you choose to rally the public opinion of England against this basis of compromise, it will not be easy for Sir. R. Peel and Lord Aberdeen to agree to it."[28] While still considering the Columbia River important for British interests, Russell assured Aberdeen of his support in settling the Oregon Question. While Everett's was influential in this political move, Russell felt it was, as Frederick Merk stated, "prudent Whig policy" to support Aberdeen in this case.[27]
Although Polk had called on Congress in December 1845 to pass a resolution notifying the British of the termination of joint occupancy agreement, it was not until April 23, 1846. that both houses complied. The passage was delayed especially in the Senate by contentious debate. Several Southern Senators, like William S. Archer[56] and John M. Berrien,[57] were wary of military capabilities of the British Empire. Ultimately a mild resolution was approved, the text of which called on both governments to settle the matter amicably.
By a large margin, moderation had won out over calls for war. Unlike Western Democrats, most Congressmen—like Polk—did not want to fight for 54° 40′. [58] The Polk administration then made it known that the British government should offer terms to settle the dispute. Despite the cooling diplomatic relations, a repeat of the War of 1812 was not popular with either nation's government. Time was of the essence, because it was well known that the Peel government would fall with the impending repeal of the Corn Laws in the United Kingdom, and then negotiations would have to begin again with a new ministry. At a time when the European continental balance was a far more pressing problem, a costly war with a major trading partner was not popular with the British government. Aberdeen and McLane quickly worked out a compromise and sent it to the United States.
Oregon Treaty[edit]
Main article: Oregon Treaty
The Oregon Territory, as established after the Oregon Treaty, superimposed over the current state boundaries.
Pakenham and Buchanan drew up a formal treaty, known as the Oregon Treaty, which was ratified by the Senate on June 18, 1846, by a vote of 41–14. The border was set at the 49th parallel, the original U.S. proposal, with navigation rights on the Columbia River granted to British subjects living in the area. Senator William Allen, one of the most outspoken advocates of the 54° 40' claim, felt betrayed by Polk and resigned his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. The signing of the treaty ended the joint occupation with England, making most Oregonians below the 49th parallel American citizens.[59]
Henry Commager appraised the factors leading to the settlement as "a combination of temporary, fortuitous, and circumstantial phenomena, extraneous to the local situation, largely outside of American control, and foreign to American influence."[60] Canadian Hugh LL. Keenlyside and American Gerald S. Brown wrote a century after the treaty that
under the existing conditions, [it] was just and equitable. Neither nation had a clear legal title to any of the territory, and the result was practically an equal division. Great Britain was given the better harbors, and greater resources in minerals, timber, and fish; the United States received much more agricultural land, and a district that has, on the whole, a better climate. This decision, moreover, is almost unique among the solutions of American boundary troubles, in that it has been accepted with reasonable satisfaction by both nations. A better proof of its justice could hardly be demanded.[61]
The terms of the Oregon Treaty were essentially the same ones that had been offered earlier by the Tyler administration, and thus represented a diplomatic victory for Polk.[62] However, Polk has often been criticized for his handling of the Oregon question. Historian Sam W. Haynes characterizes Polk's policy as "brinkmanship" which "brought the United States perilously close to a needless and potentially disastrous conflict".[63] David M. Pletcher notes that while Polk's bellicose stance was the by-product of internal American politics, the war crisis was "largely of his own creation" and might have been avoided "with more sophisticated diplomacy".[64] According to Jesse Reeves, "Had Palmerston been in Aberdeen's position at the time of Polk's 'firm' pronouncement, Polk might have lost Oregon."[65] Aberdeen's desire for peace and good relations with the United States "are responsible for the settlement that Polk thought to gain by a firm policy. That Aberdeen was "bluffed" by Polk is absurd."[65]
The treaty was ambiguously phrased about the route of the boundary, which was to follow "the deepest channel" out to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, leaving the fate of the San Juan Islands in question. After the "Pig War", arbitration by Kaiser William I of the German Empire led to the Treaty of Washington, which awarded America all of the islands.
Upper Canada politicians and public, already angry with the Oregon Treaty, were once again upset that Britain had not looked after their interests and sought greater autonomy in international affairs.
Historical maps[edit]
The boundary between British and American territory was shown differently in maps at the time:
The 1826 proposal of Huskisson and Addington
An 1841 American map showing the 54°40′ line near Fort Simpson as the boundary
An 1844 British map showing the Columbia River as the boundary
An 1846 map showing the 49th parallel as the boundary through Vancouver Island
Citations[edit]
Jump up ^ Mackie 1997, p. 29, 124–126, 140.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Miles 1957.
Jump up ^ Oregon Treaty from Wikisource. Accessed 12 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Langsdorff 1927, p. 21.
Jump up ^ Donnolly 1985, p. 4.
Jump up ^ Donnolly 1985, p. 30.
Jump up ^ Elliott 1911.
Jump up ^ Chittenden 1902, pp. 222-223.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Merk 1950.
^ Jump up to: a b Marshall 1911, p. 166.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Galbraith 1957, pp. 184-188.
^ Jump up to: a b Meany 1914.
^ Jump up to: a b Canning 1887, pp. 71-74.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Shewmaker 1982.
Jump up ^ Oregon History: Land-based Fur Trade and Exploration
Jump up ^ Ewing Young Route. compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White.
Jump up ^ Salem Online History: Salem's Historic Figures
^ Jump up to: a b Benton 1854, pp. 13-14.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wilson 1900.
Jump up ^ Adams 1875, p. 238.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Shippee 1918, p. 118.
^ Jump up to: a b Graebner 1995, p. 35.
Jump up ^ "Democratic Party Platform of 1844". The American Presidency Project. Retrieved 16 February 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Rosenboom 1973, p. 123.
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, p. 223.
Jump up ^ Sperber 1970, pp. 5-11.
^ Jump up to: a b c Merk 1968, p. 339.
^ Jump up to: a b Merk 1932, pp. 653-677.
Jump up ^ Edinburgh Review, p. 185.
Jump up ^ McLoughlin, p. 180.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Longstaff & Lamb 1945a.
Jump up ^ The phrase "wise and masterly inactivity", which Calhoun used more than once, originated with Sir James Mackintosh. (source)
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, pp. 109-110.
^ Jump up to: a b Government Printing Office 1872, pp. 6-11.
Jump up ^ 1843 State of the Union Address. Accessed 6 November 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Galbraith 1957, p. 231.
Jump up ^ Polk 2014.
Jump up ^ Polk 1910, pp. 153-155.
Jump up ^ Haynes 1997, pp. 118-120.
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, p. 322.
Jump up ^ Horsman 1981.
^ Jump up to: a b c Galbraith 1957, p. 240.
Jump up ^ Haynes 1997, p. 322.
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, pp. 237–249, 296–300.
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, pp. 335–337.
Jump up ^ Wiltse 1973.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Longstaff & Lamb 1945b.
Jump up ^ Finlayson 1891, p. 15.
Jump up ^ The Oregon Spectator (Oregon City, OR), Ball at Vancouver. 19 February 1846, p. 2.
Jump up ^ Oregon Spectator (Oregon City, OR), Theatre at Vancouver. 14 May 1846, p. 2.
Jump up ^ Seemann 1853, p. 100.
Jump up ^ Seemann 1853, p. 112.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Galbraith 1957, pp. 236-237.
Jump up ^ Gough 1971, pp. 70-83.
Jump up ^ Hunter 1937, p. 58.
Jump up ^ Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 1st Sess. 520 (1846)
Jump up ^ Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 1st Sess. 511 (1846)
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, p. 351.
Jump up ^ Walker 1999, p. 60.
Jump up ^ Commager 1927.
Jump up ^ Knopf 1952, p. 171.
Jump up ^ Haynes 1997, p. 136.
Jump up ^ Haynes 1997, p. 194.
Jump up ^ Pletcher 1973, p. 592.
^ Jump up to: a b Reeves 1907, p. 263.
Bibliography[edit]
Primary sources[edit]
Adams, John Quincy (1875), Adams, Charles F., ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 5, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and Co.
Benton, Thomas H. (1854), Thirty years' view, 1, New York: D. Appleton and Co.
Canning, George (1887), Stapleton, Edward J., ed., Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, II, London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Donnelly, Alton S. (1985), Owens, Kenneth N., ed., The Wreck of the Sv. Nikolai, Portland, OR: The Press of the Oregon Historical Society
Edinburgh Review (1843), The Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal: For July, 1843.... October, 1843, 78, Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes
Finlayson, Roderick (1891), Biography of Roderick Finlayson, Victoria, B.C.
Government Printing Office (1872), Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, V, Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office
Langsdorff, Grigory (1927), Langsdorff's Narrative of the Rezanov voyage to Nueva California in 1806, translated by Russell, Thomas C, San Francisco, CA: The Private Press of Thomas C. Russell
McLoughlin, John (1944), Rich, E.E., ed., The Letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, Third Series, 1844-1846, London
Merk, Frederick (1968), Fur Trade and Empire; George Simpson's Journal 1824-25, Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Miller, Hunter, ed. (1937), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, 5, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office
Polk, James K. (2014), "Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk", The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, retrieved 18 November 2014
Polk, James K. (1910), Quaife, Milo M., ed., The Diary of James K. Polk during his Presidency, 1845 to 1849, 1, Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.
Seemann, Berthold (1853), Narrative of the Voyage of the H.M.S. Herald during the years 1845-51, London: Reeve & Co.
Secondary sources[edit]
Chittenden, Hiram M. (1902), The American Fur Trade in the Far West, 1, New York City: Francis P. Harper
Commager, Henry (1927), "England and Oregon Treaty of 1846", Oregon Historical Quarterly, Oregon Historical Society, 28 (1): 18–38
Elliott, T. C. (1911), "David Thompson, Pathfinder and the Columbia River", The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, 12 (3): 195–205
Galbraith, John S. (1957), The Hudson's Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821-1869, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Gough, Barry M. (1971), The Royal Navy and the Northwest Coast of North America, 1810-1914, Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press
Graebner, Norman A. (1955), Empire on the Pacific; a study in American continental expansion, New York: New York Ronald Press Co.
Haynes, Sam W. (1997), James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse, Arlington: University of Texas
Horsman, Reginald (1981), Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Knopf, Alfred A. (1952), Keenlyside, Hugh LL.; Brown, Gerald S., eds., Canada and the United States: Some Aspects of Their Historical Relations, Alfred A. Knopf
Longstaff, F. V.; Lamb, W. K. (1945), "The Royal Navy on the Northwest Coast, 1813-1850. Part 1." (PDF), The British Columbia Historical Quarterly, 9 (1): 1–24
Longstaff, F. V.; Lamb, W. K. (1945), "The Royal Navy on the Northwest Coast, 1813-1850. Part 2." (PDF), The British Columbia Historical Quarterly, 9 (2): 113–128
Mackie, Richard Somerset (1997), Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific 1793–1843, Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press
Merk, Frederick (1932), "British Party Politics and the Oregon Treaty", The American Historical Review, 37 (4)
Merk, Frederick (1950), "The Ghost River Caledonia in the Oregon Negotiation of 1818", The American Historical Review, 50 (3): 530–551
Marshall, William I. (1911), Acquisition of Oregon and the Long Suppressed Evidence about Marcus Whitman, 1, Seattle: Lowman & Hanford Co.
Meany, Edmond S. (1914), "Three Diplomats Prominent in the Oregon Question", The Washington Historical Quarterly, University of Washington, 5 (3): 207–214
Miles, E.A. (1957), ""Fifty-Four Forty or Fight"—An American Political Legend", Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 44 (2): 291–309
Pletcher, David M. (1973), The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon, and the Mexican War, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press
Reeves, Jesse S. (1907), American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press
Rosenboom, Eugene H. (1970), A History of Presidential Elections: From George Washington to Richard M. Nixon (3rd ed.), New York: Macmillan
Shewmaker, Kenneth E. (1982), "Daniel Webster and the Oregon Question", Pacific Historical Review, 51 (2): 195–201
Shippee, Lester B. (1918), "The Federal Relations of Oregon", The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Oregon Historical Society, 19 (2): 89–133
Sperber, Hans (1957), ""Fifty-four Forty or Fight": Facts and Fictions", American Speech, 32 (1)
Walker, Dale L. (1999), Bear Flag Rising: The Conquest of California, 1846, New York: Macmillan, ISBN 0312866852
Wilson, Joseph R. (1900), "The Oregon Question. II", The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Oregon Historical Society, 1 (3): 213–252
Wiltse, Charles M. (1973), "Daniel Webster and the British Experience", Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 85: 58–77
Further reading[edit]
Sir James Douglas, Chapter V The Oregon Boundary, Robert Hamilton Coats and R. Edward Gosnell, publ. Morang, Toronto, 1908
A history of British Columbia, Chapter IX "The Oregon Boundary", pp 89-96, E.O.S. Scholefield, British Columbia Historical Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1913
External links[edit]
Party platform and speeches
Polk's March 1845 inaugural address, in which he reasserted the "clear and unquestionable" claim
Polk's December 1845 message to Congress, in which he called for the end of the joint occupation of Oregon
Political cartoons from Harper's Weekly, 1846
"Polk's Dream", in which the Devil, disguised as Andrew Jackson, advises Polk to fight for the 54°40′ line
"Present Presidential Position", in which the Democratic Party's "jackass" is standing on the 54°40′ line
"Ultimatum on the Oregon Question", Polk talks with Queen Victoria, while others make comments
"War! or No War!", two Irish immigrants face off over the boundary question
Other
Fifty-Four Forty or Fight at About.com, an example of a reference that mistakenly describes the phrase as an 1844 campaign slogan
54-40 or Fight shows the quilt block named after the slogan. In this time period, women frequently used quilts to express their political views.
[show]
v
t
e
Pioneer history of Oregon (1806–1890)
Topics
American Fur Company
Columbian Exchange
Executive Committee
Ferries
Hudson's Bay Company
Oregon & California Railroad
Oregon boundary dispute
Oregon Country
Oregon Lyceum
Oregon missionaries
Oregon Spectator
Oregon Territory
Oregon Trail
Oregon Treaty
Organic Laws
Pacific Fur Company
Provisional Government
Events
Treaty of 1818
Russo-American Treaty of 1824
Willamette Cattle Company
Champoeg Meetings
Star of Oregon
Whitman massacre
Cayuse War
Donation Land Claim Act
Holmes v. Ford
Rogue River Wars
Constitutional Convention
Modoc War
Great Gale of 1880
Places
Albina
Applegate Trail
Barlow Road
Canemah
Champoeg
Elliott Cutoff
Fort Astoria
Fort Dalles
Fort Vancouver
Fort William
French Prairie
Linn City
Meek Cutoff
Methodist Mission
Oregon City
Oregon Institute
Philip Foster Farm
Thomas and Ruckle Road
Tualatin Academy
Whitman Mission
Willamette Trading Post
People
George Abernethy
Jesse Applegate
Ira Babcock
Sam Barlow
François Blanchet
William H. Boring
Elijah Bristow
Tabitha Brown
Matthew Deady
Abigail Scott Duniway
Thomas Lamb Eliot
Philip Foster
Peter French
Joseph Gale
Cornelius Gilliam
David Hill
Chief Joseph
Joseph Kellogg
H.A.G. Lee
Jason Lee
David Thomas Lenox
Asa Lovejoy
Morton M. McCarver
John McLoughlin
Joseph Meek
Ezra Meeker
James D. Miller
John Minto
Robert Newell
Joel Palmer
Osborne Russell
Sager orphans
Levi Scott
Henry Spalding
William Vandevert
Elijah White
Marcus Whitman
Narcissa Whitman
Geo. H. Williams
Ewing Young
Transportation
Columbia
Lot Whitcomb
Canemah
Colonel Wright
Gazelle
Oregon Steam Navigation Company
Oregon history
pre-Pioneer
Pioneer
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_boundary_dispute&oldid=803506393"
Categories:
Canada–United States border disputes
Pre-Confederation British Columbia
History of the Pacific Northwest
History of United States expansionism
Oregon Country
Pacific Northwest
Presidency of James K. Polk
Pre-statehood history of Idaho
Pre-statehood history of Oregon
Pre-statehood history of Wyoming
United Kingdom–United States relations
1840s
Resistance to the British Empire
British colonization of the Americas
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Nederlands
日本語
Русский
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 2 October 2017, at 23:24.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

value: b

attrs: href title

value: p

values: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

values:
/wiki/Russo-British_Treaty_of_1825
mw-redirect
Russo-British Treaty of 1825

values:
/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1844
mw-redirect
U.S. presidential election, 1844

values:
/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party
mw-redirect
United States Democratic Party

values:
/wiki/Political_slogan
mw-redirect
Political slogan

values:
/wiki/Annexation_of_Texas
mw-redirect
Annexation of Texas

values:
/wiki/Wilhelm_I_of_Germany
mw-redirect
Wilhelm I of Germany

values:
/wiki/Robert_Gray_(sea-captain)
mw-redirect
Robert Gray (sea-captain)

values:
/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark
mw-redirect
Lewis and Clark

values:
/wiki/Chinookan_people
mw-redirect
Chinookan people

values: Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest

values:
/wiki/Friendly_Cove
mw-redirect
Friendly Cove

values:
/wiki/Imperial_Russian_government
mw-redirect
Imperial Russian government

values:
/wiki/New_Archangel
mw-redirect
New Archangel

values: Edit section: Early Anglo-American competition

values:
/wiki/Donald_Mackenzie_(explorer)
mw-redirect
Donald Mackenzie (explorer)

values:
/wiki/Mountain_men
mw-redirect
Mountain men

values: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon

values:
/wiki/Cascade_Mountains
mw-redirect
Cascade Mountains

values: Stratford Canning, 1st Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe

values:
/wiki/Sir_John_Pelly,_1st_Baronet
mw-redirect
Sir John Pelly, 1st Baronet

values: United States Minister to the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Qing_Empire
mw-redirect
Qing Empire

values:
/wiki/Methodist_Mission
mw-redirect
Methodist Mission

values:
/wiki/Russell_Farnham
mw-redirect
Russell Farnham

values: Edit section: 1844 Presidential election

values: United States presidential election, 1844

values:
/wiki/Texas_Republic
mw-redirect
Texas Republic

values:
/wiki/Slave_and_free_states
mw-redirect
Slave and free states

values:
/wiki/United_States_Whig_Party
mw-redirect
United States Whig Party

values: Edit section: "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"

values:
/wiki/Columbia_Department
mw-redirect
Columbia Department

values:
/wiki/George_Simpson_(administrator)
mw-redirect
George Simpson (administrator)

values: Edit section: Political efforts during Tyler Presidency

values: George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen

values:
/wiki/Inauguration_Day
mw-redirect
Inauguration Day

values:
/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
mw-redirect
Manifest Destiny

values: United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom

values: List of British Ambassadors to the United States

values: text-align: center; margin: 0px 5px 10px 10px;

values:
/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address
mw-redirect
State of the Union Address

values:
/wiki/George_Francis_Seymour
mw-redirect
George Francis Seymour

values:
/wiki/Ball_(dance)
mw-redirect
Ball (dance)

values:
/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_people_(Canada)
mw-redirect
Métis people (Canada)

values:
/wiki/Coastal_battery
mw-redirect
Coastal battery

values: Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest

values:
/wiki/British_pound
mw-redirect
British pound

values: Secretary of State for War and the Colonies

values: Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby

values:
/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine
mw-redirect
Irish Potato Famine

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values: U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

values: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

values:
/wiki/William_I_of_Germany
mw-redirect
William I of Germany

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Fort_Simpson,_British_Columbia
mw-redirect
Fort Simpson, British Columbia

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1038.html

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://archive.org/stream/cihm_14981

values: United States Government Publishing Office

values:
nofollow
external text
https://archive.org/details/cihm_15845

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20609875

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40474377

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20610098

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20609465

values:
/wiki/Quilt_block
mw-redirect
Quilt block

values:
navbox-image
6
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Canada–United States border disputes

values: Category:History of the Pacific Northwest

values: Category:History of United States expansionism

values: Category:Pre-statehood history of Oregon

values: Category:Pre-statehood history of Wyoming

values: Category:United Kingdom–United States relations

values: Category:Resistance to the British Empire

values: Category:British colonization of the Americas

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: Litige sur la frontière de l'Oregon – French

values: オレゴン境界紛争 – Japanese

values: Спор о границе Орегона – Russian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Oregon_boundary_dispute rootpage-Oregon_boundary_dispute vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Corporate identity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (July 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Marketing
Marketing
Marketing management
Key concepts[show]
Distribution
Pricing
Retail
Service
Activation
Brand licensing
Brand management
Co-creation
Corporate identity
Dominance
Effectiveness
Ethics
Operations
Promotion
Research
Segmentation
Strategy
Account-based marketing
Digital marketing
Product marketing
Social marketing
Promotional content[show]
Advertising
Branding
Corporate anniversary
Direct marketing
Loyalty marketing
Mobile marketing
On-hold messaging
Personal selling
Premiums
Prizes
Product placement
Propaganda
Publicity
Sales promotion
Sex in advertising
Underwriting spot
Promotional media[show]
Behavioral targeting
Brand ambassador
Broadcasting
Display advertising
Drip marketing
In-game advertising
Mobile advertising
Native advertising
New media
Online advertising
Out-of-home advertising
Point of sale
Printing
Product demonstration
Promotional merchandise
Publication
Visual merchandising
Web banner
Word-of-mouth
v
t
e
A corporate identity or corporate image is the manner which a corporation, firm or business presents themselves to the public (such as customers and investors as well as employees).
Corporate identity is a primary goal of the corporate communications, for the purpose to maintain and build the identity to accord with and facilitate the corporate business objectives.
The corporate identity is typically visualized by way of branding and the use of trademarks, [1]but it can also include things like product design, advertising, public relations etc.. .
In general, this amounts to a corporate title, logo (logotype and/or logogram) and supporting devices commonly assembled within a set of corporate guidelines. These guidelines govern how the identity is applied and usually include approved colour palettes, typefaces, page layouts, fonts, and others.
Contents
[hide]
1 Integrated marketing communications (IMC)
2 Organizational point of view
2.1 Best practices
3 Visual identity
4 Corporate colours
5 Visual identity history
6 Media and corporate identity
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
Integrated marketing communications (IMC)[edit]
Corporate identity is the set of multi-sensory elements that marketers employ to communicate a visual statement about the brand to consumers (Businessdictionary.com, n.d.). These multi-sensory elements include but are not limited to company name, logo, slogan, buildings, décor, uniforms, company colours and in some cases, even the physical appearance of customer facing employees (Businessdictionary.com, n.d.). Corporate Identity is either weak or strong; to understand this concept, it is beneficial to consider exactly what constitutes a strong corporate identity.
Consonance, in the context of marketing, is a unified message offered to consumers from all fronts of the organisation (Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). In the context of corporate identity, consonance is the alignment of all touch points (Bailey, 2015). For example, Apple has strong brand consonance because at every point at which the consumer interacts with the brand, a consistent message is conveyed. This is seen in Apple TV advertisements, the Apple Store design, the physical presentation of customer facing Apple employees and the actual products, such as the iPhone, iPad and MacBook laptops. Every Apple touch point is communicating a unified message: From the advertising of the brand to the product packaging, the message sent to consumers is 'we are simple, sophisticated, fun and user friendly' (Marketing Minds, 2014). Brand consonance solidifies corporate identity and encourages brand acceptance, on the grounds that when a consumer is exposed to a consistent message multiple times across the entirety of a brand, the message is easier to trust and the existence of the brand is easier to accept (Hoyer, MacInnis & Pieters, 2012). Strong brand consonance is imperative to achieving strong corporate identity.
Strong consonance, and in turn, strong corporate identity can be achieved through the implementation and integration of integrated marketing communications (IMC). IMC is a collective of concepts and communications processes that seek to establish clarity and consistency in the positioning of a brand in the mind of consumers (Ang, 2014). As espoused by Holm (cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011), at its ultimate stage, IMC is implemented at a corporate level and consolidates all aspects of the organisation; this initiates brand consonance which in turn inspires strong corporate identity. To appreciate this idea with heavier mental weight it is important to regard the different levels of IMC integration.
The communication-based model, advanced by Duncan and Moriarty (as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011) contends that there are three levels of IMC integration; Duncan and Moriarty affirm that the lowest level of IMC integration is level one where IMC decisions are made by marketing communication level message sources. These sources include personal sales, advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing, public relations, packaging and events departments. The stake holders concerned at this stage are consumers, local communities, media and interest groups (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). At the second stage of IMC integration Duncan and Moriarty (as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011) establish that level one integration departments still have decision making power but are now guided by marketing level message sources. At stage two integration the message sources are those departments in which product mix, price mix, marketing communication and distribution mix are settled; appropriately, stakeholders at this stage of integration are distributors, suppliers and competition (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). It should also be noted that it is at this stage of integration that consumers interact with the organisation (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). Moving forward, the last stage Duncan and Moriarty's Communication Based Model (as cited in Laurie and Mortimer, 2011) is stage three where message sources are at the corporate level of the organisation; these message sources include administration, manufacturing operations, marketing, finance, human resources and legal departments. The stake holders at this level of IMC integration are employees, investors, financial community, government and regulators (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 as cited in Laurie & Mortimer, 2011). At the final stages of IMC integration, IMC decisions are made not only by corporate level departments but also by departments classed in stages one and two. It is the inclusion of all organisational departments by which a horizontal, non linear method of communication with consumers is achieved. By unifying all fronts of the marketing firm, communications are synchronised to achieve consistency, consonance and ultimately strong corporate identity.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Organizational point of view[edit]
In a recent monograph on Chinese corporate identity (Routledge, 2006), Peter Peverelli, proposes a new definition of corporate identity, based on the general organization theory proposed in his earlier work, in particular Peverelli (2000). This definition regards identity as a result of social interaction:
Corporate identity is the way corporate actors (actors who perceive themselves as acting on behalf of the company) make sense of their company in ongoing social interaction with other actors in a specific context. It includes shared perceptions of reality, ways-to-do-things, etc., and interlocked behaviour.
In this process the corporate actors are of equal importance as those others; corporate identity pertains to the company (the group of corporate actors) as well as to the relevant others;
Best practices[edit]
The following four key brand requirements are critical for a successful corporate identity strategy.
Differentiation. In today's highly competitive market, brands need to have a clear differentiation or reason for being. What they represent needs to stand apart from others in order to be noticed, make an impression, and to ultimately be preferred.
Relevance. Brands need to connect to what people care about out in the world. To build demand, they need to understand and fulfil the needs and aspirations of their intended audiences.
Coherence. To assure credibility with their audiences, brands must be coherent in what they say and do. All the messages, all the marketing communications, all the brand experiences, and all of the product delivery need to hang together and add up to something meaningful.
Esteem. A brand that is differentiated, relevant and coherent is one that is valued by both its internal and external audiences. Esteem is the reputation a brand has earned by executing clearly on both its promised and delivered experience.
Visual identity[edit]
Corporate Brand Attributes example — Brand Signature: Brand Mark (trademark), Brand Logotype, Brandline (or Brand Slogan) and Supergraphic.
Corporate visual identity plays a significant role in the way an organization presents itself to both internal and external stakeholders. In general terms, a corporate visual identity expresses the values and ambitions of an organization, its business, and its characteristics. Four functions of corporate visual identity can be distinguished. Three of these are aimed at external stakeholders.
First, a corporate visual identity provides an organisation with visibility and "recognizability".[15] For virtually all profit and non-profit organisations, it is of vital importance that people know that the organization exists and remember its name and core business at the right time.
Second, a corporate visual identity symbolizes an organization for external stakeholders, and, hence, contributes to its image and reputation (Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000). Van den Bosch, De Jong and Elving (2005) explored possible relationships between corporate visual identity and reputation, and concluded that corporate visual identity plays a supportive role in corporate reputations.
Third, a corporate visual identity expresses the structure of an organization to its external stakeholders, visualising its coherence as well as the relationships between divisions or units. Olins (1989) is well known for his "corporate identity structure", which consists of three concepts: monolithic brands for companies which have a single brand, identity in which different brands are developed for parts of the organization or for different product lines, and an endorsed identity with different brands which are (visually) connected to each other. Although these concepts introduced by Olins are often presented as the corporate identity structure, they merely provide an indication of the visual presentation of (parts of) the organization. It is therefore better to describe it as a "corporate visual identity structure".
A fourth, internal function of corporate visual identity relates to employees' identification with the organization as a whole and/or the specific departments they work for (depending on the corporate visual strategy in this respect). Identification appears to be crucial for employees,[16] and corporate visual identity probably plays a symbolic role in creating such identification.
The definition of the corporate visual identity management is:[17]
Corporate visual identity management involves the planned maintenance, assessment and development of a corporate visual identity as well as associated tools and support, anticipating developments both inside and outside the organization, and engaging employees in applying it, with the objective of contributing to employees' identification with and appreciation of the organization as well as recognition and appreciation among external stakeholders.
Special attention is paid to corporate identity in times of organizational change. Once a new corporate identity is implemented, attention to corporate identity related issues generally tends to decrease. However, corporate identity needs to be managed on a structural basis, to be internalized by the employees and to harmonize with future organizational developments.
Efforts to manage the corporate visual identity will result in more consistency and the corporate visual identity management mix should include structural, cultural and strategic aspects.[17] Guidelines, procedures and tools can be summarized as the structural aspects of managing the corporate visual identity.
However, as important as the structural aspects may be, they must be complemented by two other types of aspects. Among the cultural aspects of corporate visual identity management, socialization – i.e., formal and informal learning processes – turned out to influence the consistency of a corporate visual identity. Managers are important as a role model and they can clearly set an example. This implies that they need to be aware of the impact of their behaviour, which has an effect on how employees behave. If managers pay attention to the way they convey the identity of their organization, including the use of a corporate visual identity, this will have a positive effect on the attention employees give to the corporate visual identity.
Further, it seems to be important that the organization communicates the strategic aspects of the corporate visual identity. Employees need to have knowledge of the corporate visual identity of their organization – not only the general reasons for using the corporate visual identity, such as its role in enhancing the visibility and recognizability of the organization, but also aspects of the story behind the corporate visual identity. The story should explain why the design fits the organization and what the design – in all of its elements – is intended to express.
Corporate colours[edit]
Corporate colours (or company colours) are one of the most instantly recognizable elements of a corporate visual identity and promote a strong non-verbal message on the company's behalf. Examples of corporate colours:
The SMRT logo.
Red for Coca-Cola and SMRT
Blue for IBM, nicknamed "Big Blue"
Brown for UPS, "What can Brown do for you"
Blue for Korean Air
Purple and Orange for SBS Transit
Visual identity history[edit]
Rod of Asclepius
Nearly 7,000 years ago, Transylvanian potters inscribed their personal marks on the earthenware they created. If one potter made better pots than another, naturally, his mark held more value than his competitors'. Religions created some of the most recognized identity marks: the Christian cross, the Judaic Star of David, and the Islamic crescent moon. In addition, Kings and nobles in medieval times had clothing, armour, flags, shields, tableware, entryways, and manuscript bindings that all bore coats of arms and royal seals. The symbols depicted a lord's lineage, aspirations, familial virtues, as well as memoirs to cavalry, infantry, and mercenaries of who they were fighting for on the battlefields.[18]
A trademark became a symbol of individuals' professional qualifications to perform a particular skill by the 15th century. For example, the Rod of Asclepius on a physician's sign signified that the doctor was a well-trained practitioner of the medical arts. Simple graphics such as the caduceus carried so much socio-economic and political weight by the 16th century, that government offices were established throughout Europe to register and protect the growing collection of trademarks used by numerous craft guilds.[18]
The concept of visually trademarking one's business spread widely during the Industrial Revolution. The shift of business in favour of non-agricultural enterprise caused business, and corporate consciousness, to boom. Logo use became a mainstream part of identification, and over time, it held more power than being a simple identifier. Some logos held more value than others, and served more as assets than symbols.[19]
Logos are now the visual identifiers of corporations. They became components of corporate identities by communicating brands and unifying messages. The evolution of symbols went from a way for a king to seal a letter, to how businesses establish their credibility and sell everything from financial services to hamburgers.[19] Therefore, although the specific terms "corporate image" and "brand identity" didn't enter business or design vocabulary until the 1940s, within twenty years they became key elements to business success.[18]
Media and corporate identity[edit]
As technology and mass media have continued to develop at exponential rates, the role of the media in business increases as well. The media has a large effect on the formation of corporate identity by reinforcing a company's image and reputation. Global television networks and the rise of business news have caused the public representation of organizations to critically influence the construction and deconstruction of certain organizational identities more than ever before.
Many companies pro-actively choose to create media attention and use it as a tool for identity construction and strengthening, and also to reinvent their images under the pressure of new technology. The media also has the power to produce and diffuse meanings a corporation holds, therefore giving stakeholders a negotiation of the organizational identity.[20]
See also[edit]
Brand equity
Brand management
Corporate anniversary
Federal Identity Program
Graphic charter
Marketing
Product management
Product naming
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Pat Matson Knapp; Judith Evans; Cheryl Dangel Cullen (2001). Designing Corporate Identity: graphic design as a business strategy. Rockport Publishers. ISBN 1-56496-797-2.
Jump up ^ Ang, L. (2014). Principles of Integrated Marketing Communications. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ Bailey, P. (2015). Marketing to the senses: A multisensory strategy to align the brand touchpoints. Retrieved December 8, 2015 from WARC: www.warc.com
Jump up ^ Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2012). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Jump up ^ Businessdictionary.com. (n.d.). Corporate identity. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-identity.html
Jump up ^ Businessdictionary.com. (n.d.). Personal communication. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/personal-communication-services-PCS.html
Jump up ^ Dahlen, M., Lange, F., & Smith, T. (2010). Marketing communications: A brand narrative approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Jump up ^ Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Disire. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/desire?s=t
Jump up ^ Effie Worldwide. (2015). LifeBeat: Know your status stage. Retrieved December 8, 2015 from WARC: http://www.warc.com/
Jump up ^ Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J., & Pieters, R. (2012). Consumer behavior (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Cenage Learning.
Jump up ^ Laudon, K.C., & Laudon, J.P. (2013). Essentials of management information systems (10th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Jump up ^ Laurie, S., & Mortimer, K. (2011). 'IMC is dead. Long live IMC': Academics' versus practitioners' views. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(13-14),1464-1478.
Jump up ^ Marcom Projects (2007). Persuasion in everyday life. Retrieved from Kanopy: https://aut.kanopystreaming.com/video/persuasion-everyday-life/
Jump up ^ Marketing Minds. (2015). Apple brand architecture. Retrieved March 18, 2016 from http://www.marketingminds.com.au/apple_branding_strategy.html
Jump up ^ Balmer and Gray, 2000; Dowling, 1993; Du Gay, 2000
Jump up ^ Bromley, 2001; Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail, 1994; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000
^ Jump up to: a b Van den Bosch, 2005
^ Jump up to: a b c Brown, 1998
^ Jump up to: a b Bercume, 2009
Jump up ^ Chouliaraki, 2010
Further reading[edit]
Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R., (2000). Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive advantage. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32 (7), pp. 256–262.
Balmer, John M. T. & Greyser, Stephen A. eds. (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing, London, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-28421-X.
Birkigt, K., & Stadler, M.M., (1986). Corporate identity. Grundlagen, Funktionen, Fallbeispiele. [Corporate identity. Foundation, functions, case descriptions]. Landsberg am Lech: Verlag Moderne Industrie.
Bromley, D.B., (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation, European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), pp. 316–334.
Brown, Jared & A. Miller, (1998). What Logos Do and How They Do It. pp. 6-7.
Chouliaraki, Lilie & M. Morsing. (2010) Media, Organizations and Identity. pp. 95
Dowling, G.R., (1993). Developing your company image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26 (2), pp. 101–109.
Du Gay, P., (2000). Markets and meanings: re-imagining organizational life. In: M. Schultz, Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V., (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (2), pp. 239–263.
M.J. Hatch, & M.H. Larsen, (Eds.). The expressive organisation: linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand (pp. 66–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kiriakidou, O, & Millward, L.J., (2000). Corporate identity: external reality or internal fit?, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5 (1), pp. 49–58.
Olins, W., (1989). Corporate identity: making business strategy visible through design. London: Thames & Hudson.
Paksoy, HB (2001). IDENTITIES: How Governed, Who Pays?
Rowden, Mark, (2000) The Art of Identity: Creating and Managing a successful corporate identity. Gower. ISBN 0-566-08318-3
Rowden, Mark, (2004) Identity: Transforming Performance through Integrated Identity Management. Gower. ISBN 978-0-566-08618-2
Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J., & Larsen, M., (2000). The expressive organisation: linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stuart, H, (1999). Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4 (4), pp. 200–207.
Van den Bosch, A.L.M., (2005). Corporate Visual Identity Management: current practices, impact and assessment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Van den Bosch, A.L.M., De Jong, M.D.T., & Elving, W.J.L., (2005). How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10 (2), pp. 108–116.
Van Riel, C.B.M., (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London: Prentice Hall.
Veronica Napoles, Corporate identity design. New York, Wiley, 1988. With bibl., index. ISBN 0-471-28947-7
Wheeler, Alina, Designing brand identity. A complete guide to creating, building, and maintaining strong brands, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley, 2006. With bibl., index. ISBN 0-471-74684-3
Wally Olins, The new guide to identity. How to create and sustain change through managing identity. Aldershot, Gower, 1995. With bibl., index. ISBN 0-566-07750-7 (hbk.) or 0-566-07737-X (pbk.)
[hide]
v
t
e
Aspects of corporations
Abuse
Appointeeship
Citizenship
Communication
Crime
Design
Despotism
Entertainment
Ethics
Identity
Interlocks
Liability
Machiavellianism
Narcissism
Nationalism
Opportunity
Pathos
Power
Promoter
Propaganda
Psychopathy
Raid
Recovery
Resolution
Scandals
Security
Services
Social entrepreneurship
Social media
Social responsibility
Sourcing
Statism
Sustainability
Synergy
Tax
Taxonomy
Title
Trainer
Transparency
Travel
Trust
Veil
Video
See also templates
Aspects of jobs
Aspects of occupations
Aspects of organizations
Aspects of workplaces
Corporate titles
Companies portal
Authority control
GND: 4193565-2
NDL: 00999829
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporate_identity&oldid=796886739"
Categories:
Brand management
Product management
Promotion and marketing communications
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing style editing from July 2008
All articles needing style editing
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Български
Čeština
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
فارسی
한국어
Italiano
Lietuvių
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Slovenčina
Svenska
ไทย
Türkçe
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 23 August 2017, at 17:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: td

value: span

value: i

value: small

value: tr

value: tbody

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-Tone

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em;font-size: 130%; background: #ddf;

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;border:none;

values: font-size:105%;background:transparent;text-align:left;background: #eef; text-align: center;

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/Corporate_communications
mw-redirect
Corporate communications

values:
/wiki/Colour_palette
mw-redirect
Colour palette

values: Edit section: Integrated marketing communications (IMC)

values: Edit section: Organizational point of view

values:
/wiki/Coats_of_arms
mw-redirect
Coats of arms

values:
/wiki/Craft_guild
mw-redirect
Craft guild

values:
/wiki/Corporate_image
mw-redirect
Corporate image

values: Edit section: Media and corporate identity

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: International Standard Book Number (identifier)

values:
/wiki/Corporate_abuse
mw-redirect
Corporate abuse

values:
/wiki/Corporate_citizenship
mw-redirect
Corporate citizenship

values:
/wiki/Corporate_Machiavellianism
mw-redirect
Corporate Machiavellianism

values:
/wiki/Corporate_narcissism
mw-redirect
Corporate narcissism

values:
/wiki/Corporate_power
mw-redirect
Corporate power

values:
/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals
mw-redirect
List of corporate scandals

values:
/wiki/Corporate_trainer
mw-redirect
Corporate trainer

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
noprint metadata navbox
navigation
Portals
font-weight:bold;padding:0.4em 2em

values:
nofollow
external text
http://d-nb.info/gnd/4193565-2

values: Category:Promotion and marketing communications

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing from July 2008

values: Category:All articles needing style editing

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Corporate_identity
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: هوية الشركة – Arabic

values: Корпоративна идентичност – Bulgarian

values: هویت سازمانی – Persian

values: 코퍼레이트 아이덴티티 – Korean

values:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arculat
Arculat – Hungarian
hu
hu
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huisstijl
Huisstijl – Dutch
nl
nl
interlanguage-link-target

values: コーポレートアイデンティティ – Japanese

values: Корпоративная идентичность – Russian

values: เอกลักษณ์องค์กร – Thai

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Corporate_identity rootpage-Corporate_identity skin-vector action-view