Talk:Webster-Ashburton Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Confusing section

Part of the article currently reads "The Treaty is notable for two geographic oddities. First, since Fort Montgomery, a U.S. fort in northeastern New York, had been constructed on Canadian soil, the border between Maine and the St. Lawrence was adjusted to 3/4 of a mile north of the 45th parallel, this placing the abandoned fort on U.S. soil."

Maine doesn't border the St. Lawrence River, nor does it come near New York. Why would the Maine boundary line be adjusted because of an abandoned fort in New York? Sorry if this seems dense. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(This has been fixed to refer to the northern borders of New York and Vermont)

[edit] Mesabi Range a Bonus?

This article states: The treaty was an unforeseen bonus for the United States. The British, in adjusting the US-Canadian boundary farther west, lost a vital area to the US that contained the valuable Mesabi iron ore of Minnesota. However, the Treaty of Paris states that the border lies through Lake Superior ... to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods ... thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi. Since the Mississippi River actually ends almost due south of the Lake of the Woods, an adjustment was clearly needed. I can think of four ways to fix this:

1) Adjust the line to "south" from "west" (commonly drawn on maps);

2) Continue the line "due west" until you reach the edge of the Mississippi watershed — which is, after all, what France had claimed as the Louisiana Territory (seems like I've seen this drawn on maps, too);

3) Continue the line "due west" until you reach something else significant like the mountains or the ocean (the result of the Treaty of 1818, after the U.S. had purchased the Louisiana Territory);

4) Completely drop the language about Long Lake and the Lake of the Woods and move the line south from Lake Superior to the Mississippi.

Only the last would result in the loss of the Mesabi, but would require the most violent reinterpretation of the Treaty, so it doesn't seem like something that could really be taken seriously. However, I also saw this claim in a seemingly good book summarizing U.S. history (Encyclopedia of American History / edited by Richard B. Morris, associate editor, Jeffrey B. Morris), so perhaps I'm missing something. Can anyone elaborate about how this suggestion even came about?

Andy Anderson 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Territorial evolution of the United States has some nice images to illustrate the exchange of territories. The confusion was not with the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods -- that was settled in the Treaty of 1818 -- but rather the boundary from the Lake of the Woods east to Lake Superior. It was unclear what body of water was intended by "Long Lake" in the Treaty of Paris (1783). older ≠ wiser 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The treaty specifies the "water communication between" the Lake of the Woods and the Long Lake. There is a clear east-west flowage into Lake of the Woods from the Rainey River, which connects to Rainey Lake and then to an extensive chain of lakes, including Lac La Croix. This was well known to the travelers in the area and would be the most obvious candidate for the "Long Lake"; see the Mitchell Map, which was used in the Treaty of Paris (1783). It shows this water connection and clearly places its eastern end at Lake Superior directly west of Isle Royale. The only questions would be how exactly one got from Lake Superior to the eastern end of the "Long Lake", as there appear to be a few portages required, and therefore multiple routes are possible. But these are all minor issues, so I don't see how the Mesabi region could be disputed. Not that it couldn't have been (politicians won't cede anything unnecessarily), but do you know for certain a border much further to the south was seriously discussed by Webster-Ashburton?

All I know is that the location of that boundary was the subject of dispute for a considerable time. While it might appear clear to us now with modern maps, was not at all the case at the time. This had come up previously and I found an account, I think in a public from something like a Minnesota Historical Society that recounted the affair in some detail. I had included links to it -- but unfortunately, I can't recall which article's talk page it was on. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, turns out it was on a User talk page [1] here is link to Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society. Volume 15 "NORTHERN MINNESOTA BOUNDARY SURVEYS IN 1822 TO 1826, UNDER THE TREATY OF GHENT" at the Library of Congress. older ≠ wiser 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting article; thanks for locating it! However, it confirms my speculations, i.e. everyone pretty much accepted the current boundary in its major features, except for the British negotiator Barclay, who decided — apparently after the boundary committee had begun to meet — that he would push for a southern boundary. This led to a very complete survey of the St. Louis/Embarrass Rivers from Duluth to Biwabik, and the Vermilion Lake and Rivers down to Rainey Lake (I assume at British expense :-). However, once the American negotiator Porter brought in the Mitchell map (maybe even one of the originals with the red lines drawn on it), it was fairly irrefutable that the boundary was along the Pigeon River, and Barclay had to yield. The commission failed to reach a final agreement because of Barclay's continued insistence on a minor detail along the Lake Superior shore. The guy sounds like a real stick in the mud!

I have to note two things, then. One is that there appears that there was never a major controversy regarding the Arrowhead Region of Minnesota, it was all in one guy's head. The second is that, even with the boundary Barclay promoted, the bulk of the Mesabi Range was still in U.S. territory (see Google map). So the claim that the "Mesabi Range was a Bonus" still seems inaccurate to me. — Andy Anderson 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Mesabi Range as a bonus statement seems spurious. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is inaccurate and I am removing it. A book by William Lass shows the summary above is basically correct (but I don't believe the original marked Mitchell map was used). Lass, William E. (1980). Minnesota's Boundary with Canada. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society. ISBN 0-8735-1153-0.  There is a little more detail at Height of Land Portage. Kablammo 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic oddities?

This treaty was not responsible for the "geographic oddity" of the Northwest Angle. As the article mentions, that was a function of the 1783 treaty of Paris, and the incorrect assumption of the location of the Mississippi was well-known by the time of the Webster-Ashburton pact. The Convention of 1818 and Treaty of Paris were responsible for the Northwest Angle. Therefore I propose to remove the second of the "geographic oddities", as the Northwest Angle was established before 1843. Kablammo 21:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's also mentioned in the article on the Treaty of 1818 as one of its results. I removed it, leaving only one "geographic oddity". — Andy Anderson 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)