Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I placed it as the term China Trade is not exclusive to US history; in British historiography, it tends to refer to the British Empire's own trade-in and with China, and to people and companies in the business; hence the term Chinaman in its original ship meaning - a ship engaged in the China Trade - or onshore dealers in Chinese wares, specifically porcelain aka "china" hence the term applied also to a dealer in china, and in Britain still does (long story; just survived a complex and in relation to that article...). But it's not just the British either, but also, of course, the Dutch and Portuguese and French and Germans; the China Trade in a certain phase is also tied into the marine fur trade, as furs from the Pacific Northwest and California would be traded for porcelain and other wares in Canton, then shipped around the other way to England; this initiated British sales of opium in the other direction, and also the transplantation of tea to India, undermining china's main source of silver, and hence all the economic and sovereignty fuss which led to the Opium War. Not that this article should be about the economics; it's more the story of the trade; who had ports were in Europe and the Americas as well as china, and what the various concessions were and the investments in industry and railways, etc, the importance of the China Trade in international development (it's why the CPR got built, and also in part Suez...and why Singapore is what it is, and so on...); and the US was a relative latecomer, to boot. I'm sorry I don't have materials to resource this or the time to develop the material; I'm just pointing out the absence of the British story of the China Trade, and presumably at least France's and Germany's; it seems more related to marine-based trade and western powers investment; i.e. Russian trade with China doesn't seem included as it was of a different nature, and relatively long-established (again to do with fur, re the great market at Khiatka (sp?) on the Manchurian border. It's a complex topic, all the more complex because it's not just about the US; hopefully, somebody with the inclination will see this explanation/suggestion and dig up all the rest and get it in the article; I'm sorry I don't have time myself...Skookum1 08:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should just be simply China Trade, both capitalized (as also UK norm), with the explanation that in the US the phrasing is usually/sometimes Old China Trade; redirects from various non-capitalizations should all point to China Trade.Skookum1 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This point is well taken, but this "old" trade deserves an article on its own to distinguish it from what went before (though the articles in Chinese history do not seem to cover foreign trade in a rich way) and after, 20th century and PRC -- maybe "Canton Trade"? This now redirects to Canton System, which is actually different, though maybe should be merged or at least better coordinated? Just a few rambling thoughts... ch (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at some of the books that come up on a Google Books search on Old China Trade makes it clear that it is widely used to describe a specific historic era, so it makes sense to use the word "old" in the page name. But it is also clear that the term is not specific to the United States. Plenty of books describe it as specifically British, and others as a general trade involving Europe, the US, etc. So either this page ought to be expanded to cover more than the US Old China Trade, or the page name could be changed to indicate a US-specific focus--something like "Old China Trade in the US"--but better phrased. Pfly (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs to be reshaped to take better advantage of its good material and coordinated with several other articles, primarily Canton System. I will try to get to it eventually, but if anyone is feeling energetic, please go ahead! ch (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, coordinate with it, but not merge: it's a different topic, i.e. Qing trade policy. The China Trade does not mean "trade with China" either, it refers to a particular era of the Age of Sail. As above, it also involves the marine fur trade, which needs a separate article and was touched off by 18th C. sale of furs garnered in explorations of the Pacific Northwest Coast (fur was an acceptable trade item, and considerably lighter than silver bullion...).Skookum1 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a marine fur trade article. Just started--who knows if I'll get far, but for now it is tentatively called Sea otter trade and in progress at User: Pfly/Sandbox2. Pfly (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took a while but it is done, Maritime Fur Trade. While working on it at first I thought the "Old China Trade" should be about at least the British as well as the American trade at Canton, early 1800s. But after a while, I was not so sure. The British-China trade in those days was monopolized by the East India Company and I'm not sure the term "Old China Trade" is often used for the EIC's China trade. But "Old China Trade" is definitely the term used for the American--especially New England based--trade at Canton, circa 1790 to the 1840s. In any case, it seems like this page should include information about the British traders--especially since the Americans and British competed pretty strongly at Canton in those days--I'm just not sure if the term "Old China Trade" is not primarily about the US-China trade. Even if it is, some mention of Britain should be made. But the main topic on the old Britain-China trade might be more appropriately described on the East India Company page or someplace similar. Not sure though, will think about it. Pfly (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a lot of the sources that refer to "the old China trade" don't capitalize any of the words besides China. What is the rationale for capitalizing them? Is it a legitimate proper noun, or just a commonly used phrase? Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the global template from the article for the following reasons:

• Google search predominantly returns links that reference American trade with China although inevitably the words pull up more generic usages.
• All trade with China from the 17th century until the end of the First Opium War in 1842 went (or was supposed to go) through the Canton System with merchants operating from the Thirteen Factories under the supervision of the Cohong The "Old China Trade" refers to a specific part of this - i.e American trade that focused on tea and furs as opposed to the British who traded predominantly in the much more lucrative opium. This is why amalgamating this article with the Canton System would not make sense.
• As Wikipedia develops it becomes more coherent and the logical relationship between articles becomes more apparent. "Niche" articles like this one will grow to support the main theme. In this case the main theme is trade with China (i.e. the Canton System) and the Old China Trade will be referenced as the main topic when the section "American traders in Canton" is written, which will happen when I've finished all the other stuff needed. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]