The Difference Between Two Companies

      To understand the history of the latter part of the of the North American Fur Trade, one must understand the major policy differences between the two chief companies.  The two companies that dominated the fur trade were the Hudson's Bay Company, and the North West Fur Company. 
      The Hudson's Bay Company was the oldest of the two, and was established in the early 17th century.  Its charter placed it under the direct control of the British crown.  Those who ran it were usually members of the extended royal family.  A fine example of this was Lord Selkirk, one of the more famous chief executives of the company.  It had a long history of fighting for British interests in the fur trade.  
      It was the Hudson's Bay Company that fought first during the Beaver Wars (using invested crown monies to fund this war, and British soldiers to do much of the actual fighting).  They also paid/bribed certain groups of natives to fight for them too.  A few trinkets and a barrel of booze went a long way.  

      By the time of the treaty of 1703 they had pretty much lost their control in North America, but Louis XIV got afflicted with a bout of religiosity and threw his victory away.  He was convinced by the Jesuits that the fur trade was having an irreversible moral effect on the native population, and was making conversion impossible.  For this reason Louis threw away his victory and allowed the HBC (Hudson's Bay Company) to gain control over the entire fur trade (the Dutch had already ceased to be major players - a couple of costly wars saw to that). 
      The British, under control of the HBC had full control over the fur trade until Cadillac's folly, Ft. Detroit.   He built one single fur post/fort in North America there.  It had long been French policy to bring the trading to the native, rather than make the natives travel long distances to them.  Before Louis' religious epiphany the French had smaller posts all over the place.  In about 1721 however, Louis was convinced to allow trading again, but only one fort would be allowed.  Cadillac was only using the resources he was allowed to use, but his folly came in inviting every tribe within 800 miles to come and live in the region around the fort.  In a short time the nations that hated each other really hated each other.  Trade guns were fired and tomahawks were crossed.  Due to their aggravating ways the Sauk and the Fox were almost completely annihilated.  Also it didn't take too long before every animal there was completely hunted out.  It became hard to even find a mouse.  Detroit was such a failure that it was abandoned.  
      By the latter 1740's a different Louis was on the throne, and this one believed in the monetary advantage of investing in the fur trade.  French forts were popping up all over the place.  This of course created a great deal of tension with the British.  British policy in North America was primarily that of settling, and colonization, and to have a place where they could get rid of the people they didn't like for whatever reason.  Although they liked the money they got from it, the fur trade was a secondary goal.  They were actually trying to settle matters diplomatically with the French when an upstart British Colonel from the colonies tried to make a name for himself, and due to his actions plunged the North American colonies into the Seven Years War (a previous provision between the two combatant nations was that the war should never spill over into the colonies, as that would bring too much suffering to the colonies which were struggling to survive as it was - but Col. Washington's attack on Ft. Duquesne nullified that agreement).  Along with British regulars, and colonial militia the HBC fought hard for the British interest in North America.  
      After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and the war was over, the British under the HBC had full control over the fur trade again.  They then operated as they always had.  They had one fort for the entire continent located on James Bay on the southern end of Hudson's Bay.  They figured as always, according to their policy, that "if the Indians want to trade, they can come and trade."  For many native populations this would mean a 1500 mile journey, one way and across territories controlled by people with whom they had a hostile relationship.  
      Throughout this period there were Coureur de bois (pronounced Coor de bwah) - unlicensed traders who had posts set up in various places in the interior.  For most of these if the HBC would hear of them they would send out a bunch of their best thugs to go destroy the place and seize all the furs and trade goods.  If in the process they happened to kill the Coureur de bois, that was quite acceptable.  One of the longest standing of these was the post at La Pointe, near present day Ashland, Wisconsin.  La Pointe was founded in 1675 by a French Monsignor, who gave up his chastity and poverty vows.  He married an Ojibwe woman and became a successful fur trader.  His sons also married Ojibwe women, and his grandsons, great-grandsons, and so forth down the line married Ojibwe women too.  By the end of the 1700's their family was almost full blood Ojibwe with only a French name to remind them of their European past.  
      In the Late 1700's most of the remaining Coureur de bois, along with other investors (primarily of Scottish descent) banded together and formed a rival fur company - the North West Fur Company (the NWCo).  

      The HBC didn't allow its employees to be married at all (they were supposed to be married to their work), and especially not to a savage which they felt was only a half step above that of a common beast.  The NWCo operated the opposite.  They encouraged their employees, the voyageurs to go out and find themselves native wives.  This kept their men happy, brought ties of allegiance and loyalty to the company from the native populations, and meant they didn't have to feed them or clothe them during the long cold winters.  
      They NWCo built many posts all over the place, and brought the fur trade to the natives.  In other words they adopted all the French policies to their multinational corporation.  And that was another major difference between the two companies.  The HBC was purely Georgian British and operated purely Georgian British.  Their noses were so high in the air they could have flown a Union Jack from them.  The NWCo had shareholders who were Scottish, Brittish, British Colonials who later became Americans, and a couple of Ojibwe with French surnames.  Their employees were primarily French, and also Scottish, Americans, and there were even some Swiss and Germans.  Languages spoken within the company were English, French, Scots Gaidhlig, and Ojibwe which was the official trade language.  
      The NWCo became way more successful than the HBC because of their policies, especially the policies of building many smaller posts right where the natives lived, and marrying into the native populations.  This success eventually created jealousy and hatred in the HBC.  Lord Selkirk finally started to build more forts around the continent, but when he saw that as an expense he sent out mercenary armies to take over the NWCo fur posts by military force.  Yes he used British crown money to hire soldiers to fire upon other British citizens purely for financial gain.  He ran into a hitch with this plan though, when he sent soldiers into US held lands - one year after the Crown had signed a peace treaty that ended the War of 1812.  In Fact, he got arrested by the Sheriff of Detroit for his exploits.  
      All NWCo possessions north of the American border became HBC property, and all on American soil changed hands a few times until John Jacob Astor owned them all.  The HBC ended up adopting the policies of the NWCo, and gained success. Astor didn't do too bad either, as he also operated like the NWCo.  

      In addendum to this post:  While watching some other documentaries of a different subject entirely, I saw a link for a BBC documentary about "The Company That Created a Country", and I knew immediately it must be about the HBC.  It's a good documentary, and used some fur trade reenactors, and had interviews with the official historian of the HBC.  Below is a link to part six of the documentary.  In this part the HBC historian talks about some of the very things mentioned in this article - comparison of business models and tactics, the physical violence that occurred between the two companies, and the eventual uniting of the two companies on the Canadian side of the border.  

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ao06-GrVFYw&feature=endscreen