The Alaskan Boundary Settlement

This series has eight easy 5 minute installments. This first installment: Background of the Dispute.

Introduction
An event which President Roosevelt called “the greatest diplomatic victory of the United States in the present generation” is not to be lightly passed over. To most eyes, however, the true greatness of the treaty which settled the dispute between the United States and Canada is not to be found in the amount of territory gained or lost, but in the fact that an evenly divided tribunal succeeded in settling the issue at all, that a new and practical mode of arbitration was introduced into diplomacy, and that England made a long stride toward winning the confidence and friendship of the United States. The story of this tribunal is here told by one of the chief agents to take part in its work. Hon. John W. Foster, LL.D., former Secretary of State of the United States, was the chief counsel for her cause, and delivered this account of the controversy and its settlement as a lecture before the students of Columbian University. As the decision of the tribunal caused bitter heart-burnings in Canada, we give also an abridgment of the attack upon it published by one of the Canadian counsel before the tribunal. Then, lest our readers should think that all Canadians felt as hostile toward the decision as did Mr. Wade, we give the calmer view of Canada’s most noted sage and historian, Prof. Goldwin Smith.

The selections are from:

• Lecture by John W. Foster.
• Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 20 by F. C. Wade published in 1914.
• Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 20 by Goldwin Smith published in 1914.

For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Summary of daily installments:

We begin with John W. Foster (1836-1917). He was the U.S. Secretary of State under Benjamin Harrison.

Time: 1903
Place: Border Between Alaska and Canada

The tribunal which was recently in session in London and which adjusted the irritating and dangerous controversy respecting the Alaskan boundary was a unique body. It was not an arbitration tribunal in the usual acceptation of that term, as there was no umpire or neutral judge. Its membership was composed of three persons nominated by each government, and as a decision to be effective required the concurrence of a majority of the court, it was necessary for the settlement of the controversy that at least one member should decide against the contention of his own Government.

It was insisted by the opponents of the measure that it would prove a useless proceeding, as a majority decision could not be obtained. Its friends, however, felt that the question was of such a character as to offer a solution by sober-minded judges, before whom the facts should be presented in a judicial manner; and, even if unhappily, there should be a failure to secure an effective decision, the effort would not be in vain, as the evidence upon which each party relied in support of its contention would be accessible to the public, and it would be enabled to make an intelligent study of the controversy.

From the very beginning of our independence as a nation the boundary line dividing the United States and Canada has been the source of almost constant discussion, often of angry controversy, and more than once has brought the countries to the brink of war. As in the Alaskan question, these disagreements have arisen mainly from a want of correct geographic knowledge on the part of the negotiators of the treaties. For instance, in the treaty of peace and independence of 1783, in which an attempt was made, as stated, to set forth the boundary with such accuracy that all disputes which might arise in the future would be prevented, the initial point on the east was fixed at the mouth of the St. Croix River, in the Bay of Fundy. But when it was sought to establish the boundary line, it was found that there was no river in that locality popularly known as the St. Croix, but that there were two considerable rivers emptying into the Bay of Fundy, both of which had other names than that mentioned in the treaty. This question was settled amicably by the unanimous action of a commission.

It was, however, followed by a controversy as to the ownership of the islands in and near Passamaquoddy Bay. After years of diplomatic discussion, it was referred to a commission of one American and one Englishman, and they reached a settlement without the intervention of an umpire.

The commission established the line to the head of the St. Croix River, but the boundary from the St. Croix along the Maine-York frontier to the St. Lawrence proved to be the most irritating, difficult, and tedious of the disputes between the United States and Great Britain. It was first referred to com missioners, who failed to agree, and after much diplomatic wrangling was submitted to the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands, the validity of whose decision was questioned, and it was thrown back into diplomacy. New surveys were made and a temporary boundary established, but it was not observed by the people in the vicinity. Strife occurred; a state of border warfare was created; Congress authorized the President to call out the militia, and voted $10,000,000 for public defense. An open conflict between the two nations seemed imminent. The commander-in-chief of the army, General Scott, was dispatched to the frontier, and through his interposition a temporary border truce was arranged. After still further delays, in 1842 the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, and a special plenipotentiary from Great Britain, Lord Ashburton, agreed upon a treaty fixing accurately that boundary. It is an interesting fact that the essential points of that dispute were similar to those as to the Alaskan boundary. The “highlands” and the “ocean” became the words about which the northeastern controversy raged. Likewise the late subject of discussion at London was in great measure that respecting the phrase in the treaty, “the summit of the mountains,” and the words “ocean” and “coast.”

The line through the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes was adjusted by a commission after careful surveys, by which various islands which had been claimed and occupied by the Canadians were transferred to the American side of the line, and others claimed by the Americans were placed on the Canadian side.

The fixation of the boundary from Lake Superior to the northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods was entrusted to a commission, but after five years of labor, during which they visited the region and expended $200,000 in surveys, they failed to agree. Under the stipulations between the two Governments, the question should then have been referred to arbitration; but the experience in the arbitration of the Maine boundary did not encourage such a course. After long delays this portion of the frontier was adjusted by the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842, but this settlement has not proved completely satisfactory, owing to defective landmarks, as it is charged by Canadians that the United States Land Office has surveyed, platted, and sold to Americans a considerable extent of land in the Minnesota-Wisconsin section, which really belongs to Canada.

The line from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains was fixed by the treaty of 1818 to run along the 49th degree of north latitude.

F. C. Wade begins here. Goldwin Smith begins here.

More information here and here and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history