United States and Canada have had conflict over the interpretation and demarcation of the exact boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada. This case discusses some underlying reasons why the U.S.-Canada Border, the longest undefended border in the world, has been and is a point of contention between the U.S. and Canada. In particular, this case will focus on the Alaska Border Dispute in the early 1900s. Some people might question the importance of delineating a precise border dividing the two allied nations, particularly the 2,379 miles which runs under the water and is physically invisible. Yet, it has taken five treaties over a period of 120 years, from 1783 to 1903, to define the division of land and water between the two nations. Even today more accurate mapping is being considered using satellite technology to further define the boundary. Following several temporary boundary agreements in the 1800s, the boundary was largely determined by 1903. However, it was not until 1908 that a formal treaty was signed by the United States and Great Britain (Canada was a colony of Great Britain at that time). This treaty created a joint International Boundary Commission to mark the 5,525 mile long border, roughly the distance from Seattle to Shanghai. In order to meet treaty requirements of keeping a well-marked border, the United States and Great Britain found it necessary to make amendments. In 1925, a new Treaty was signed agreeing to maintain a visible border and making the International Boundary Commission (IBC) a permanent agency responsible for the upkeep of the border and to help resolve disputes along the border as they arise. Furthermore, the 1925 Treaty stipulates that the Commission is legally required to clear brush and trees, regardless of the impact on wildlife and the landscape, keeping a 10-foot-wide boundary on each side. Today the commission maintains approximately 9,000 visible land markers made of granite, concrete or steel and lighted buoys that float in the water, dividing jurisdictions over such rights as one's fishing domain.
Britain did not support either side in the Spanish Civil War.
No they didn't
steve.
It meant war with Britain and America wouldn't have the support of Britain like it did as a colony.
Britain didn't support slavery - it had abolished it thirty years earlier, in all the British possessions all over the world. However, Britain was quite pleased to see the USA split into two, partly because it was becoming an economic rival, and partly because some of the older aristocrats still thought the American Revolution had been a bit of cheek. So Britain was watching the rebellion with interest, to see if it had a chance of succeeding. Then they might offer to mediate the dispute, or if that was refused by Lincoln, perhaps send miliary aid to the Confederates. It was to prevent this that Lincoln urgently issued the Emancipation Proclamation - to turn it into a war on slavery, so that Britain could not intervene without looking pro-slavery.
Polk negotiated a treaty with Britain which provided a peaceful settlement to the northern boundary dispute. He compromised his 54-40 or fight slogan, settling for less.
The opposite of dispute is agreement or consensus.
He wasn't in dispute with France, but there to get support from the king.
they were loyal to Britain.
they were loyal to Britain.
actually US supports Britain
Britain did not support either side in the Spanish Civil War.
No they didn't
Yes he competed for Great Britain in 2008 and 2012.
why did gb support france
steve.
They wack