Borderlands and Diplomacy: Rethinking Canada and the Alaska Boundary Dispute

Historians have been critical of the Canadian position during the Alaska boundary dispute, arguing that Canada brought a weak and unfounded case to the 1903 boundary tribunal and blamed Britain for sacrificing its interests when the decision went in the United States’ favour. This article reassesses the Canadian position. First, it examines the written arguments submitted to the tribunal, demonstrating that the Canadian position was stronger, and the American position weaker, than the historiography has assumed. Second, the article examines how the tribunal viewed local history. The Americans effectively used evidence of occupation to support their claims, but Canadian officials chose not to present their own evidence because they were unable to reconcile local negotiations during the Klondike gold rush with their diplomatic position. These actions complicated the Canadian government’s ability to counter the American case but shielded Canada from an unfavourable ruling. Together, written documents and local history show that, far from being helpless victims, inexperienced Canadian officials took a pragmatic, if haphazard, approach to the challenges of a boundary dispute with its powerful neighbour, providing a broader understanding of how Canada’s borders were negotiated during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.