Talk:Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States-Japan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

[edit] Moved from "United States-Japan Treaty of Commerce"

According to the reference given in the article, the treaty is entitled "Treaty of Amity and Commerce..."

  • Do any other treaties have the same name? If so, the names of the nations are essential parts of the article title. If no other treaties have the same name, then I support the renaming. Fg2 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gross error

The entrance of foreigners to the port of Edo, the Imperial capital, and the placement of an official from a foreign government in proximity to the Emperor was threatening, even to those who supported opening to the West publicly

Edo was the shogun's capital. The Imperial capital was Kyoto.

The Treaty of Amity and Commerce was also a military alliance. The US promissed to dispatch its naval forces to protect Japan should any other country try to monopolize access to its ports. FDR had to unilaterally break off the treaty before arranging an embargo to Japan, which was practically an act of war that, eventually, lead to Pearl Harbor. Can somebody please add that to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsumugi (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Harris/Hotta 1857

I stumbled across this interesting link, but it's not quite developed enough for inclusion in the article -- not yet.

The web page identifies a reference source: "Foreign Relations of the U.S., Series 1902, 1879." The "Foreign Relations Series" comprises collections of official papers relating to United States foreign relations, including diplomatic correspondence both to and from foreign governments and their representatives and to and from U.S. representatives abroad. The series is more fully described here. In my view, this potentially illuminating excerpt needs to be placed in a better context. My guess would be that a little more needs to be done by checking this index:

  • Hasse, Adelaide R. Index to United States documents relating to foreign affairs, 1828-1861. Washington, DC: Carnegie Inst., 1914-21. 3v.

I suppose this further research could be incorporated into a number of other related articles, e.g., Townsend Harris, Foreign Relations of Japan, Ii Naosuke, etc.? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)