Talk:Webster–Ashburton Treaty

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very confused by the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.196.162 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

Map

A map sure would be nice in this article . . . Unschool (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Border with Canada?

"The Webster-Ashburton Treaty, signed August 9, 1842, settled the dispute over the location of the Maine-New Brunswick border between the United States and Canada, then a colony of Britain." New Brunswick was not part of Canada in 1842. I have changed the wording to "the British North American colonies" which should be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.203.25 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my!

This article is terrible: terrible, terrible terrible. It is so far from what actually happened during the extremely HOT summer of 1842, and so far from what took place between 1783 and 9 August 1842 that it should not be in any encyclopedia, let alone one on-line.

The 59 years it took to settle the Northeastern Boundary Dispute was like passing a two inch kidney stone. In trying to help the two embittered countries settle their boundary, King Philip of the Netherlands lost half his empire: Belgium and Luxemburg. As reward for his troubles the the stinking US Senate refused to ratify his NEUTRAL decision, although it was fine by President Jackson and Queen Victoria. Senator Preble of Maine was the incendiary figure. In response, angry boundary residents between Quebec and New Hampshire formed THEIR OWN NATION, the Republic of Indian Stream.

This is one of the most fascinating diplopmatic events in U.S. history. Both negotiators, Daniel Webster and Alexander Baring - Lord Ashburton, were running agents and operatives along the border, sending/receiving secret dispatches. Each had FAKE maps purported to have been used in Paris 1783 AND on Christmas Eve 1814 at the Treaty of Ghent. EACH of them had one or more conflicts of interest of which their superiors were quite unaware. Ashburton thought it was wrong for Britain to retain ANY colonies in North America, and said so at least three times. Richer than God, he wanted an honorific title superior to that of mere Baron for his difficult services to England, but did not get it. So he retired to "The Grange" and said Up Yours to the Crown. - - Ed Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This follows up my comment above, made 25 months ago. This article remains an embarrassing disservice to American and British history. THREE surveying teams went afield to determine the New England Boundary: British, USA, and Neutral. Misusing their theodolite on the Connecticut River, they mis-located the 45th Parallel by nearly half a mile! Then - freezing their asses off - they self-treated coldness with rum, and ran a boundary line west that looked rather like the blades of pinking shears. Later, Lord Ashburton [Alexander Baring] had the right to demand a re-survey but he demurred, knowing hundreds of people would then have their nationality changed as a result. Baring regarded Dan Webster as a weasel and thief, but a likable weasel and thief. For much of the negotiations the temperature in Washington DC was nearly 100 degrees F - and humid. Baring was literally afraid that he was going to die there and never see his wife again. He did not =give away the store= as Brits later claimed, but he did not waste time putting up fights merely for the sake of British honour. He wanted to get home. He wanted to get home.

By the way, few Americans are aware that Alex Baring negotiated down the price demanded by France for the Louisiana Purchase. He got in the "frogs" face and said the House of Baring was making a loan, and that they would only loan America This Much. France conceded. --Ed Chilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.56.107 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Winner/Loser?

The article Aroostook War states "Ultimately, the real winners were the original Brayon (and Native) inhabitants of the region, who saw their territory reap the advantages of occupying land in both the American state of Maine and the British colony of New Brunswick." Curiously enough, this article with regards to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty claims exactly the opposite. So what is it? Were the Brayon and the Natives the winners or the losers? You can't be both... This clearly needs to be sorted out. -- fdewaele, 4 March 2010, 19:20 CET.

Misleading bullets

In the article we see a list of bullet points that detail provisions of the treaty. However, arguably the most famous provision, the settlement of the border of Maine with the British colonies, is not listed. Now I do see that that provision is listed immediately before the bullets. But it matters not, because someone might easily look at the article and understandably presume that the bullet points in fact do constitute all the major provisions. I'm going to try to fix it, but would not mind someone improving on my efforts. Unschool 04:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)