Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast Boundary: [From the Report of the Council of the American Antiquarian Society, presented at the Annual Meeting held in Worcester, October 21, 1896]

In Short

This account details the historical failure to define the maritime border between the United States and Canada near Passamaquoddy Bay. From the ambiguous language of the 1783 Treaty of Paris to the failed 1892 commission, the text explores how vague treaties and competing national interests fueled decades of jurisdictional disputes. The author, serving as the American commissioner, chronicles his attempts to survey this "twenty unsettled miles," ultimately illustrating how diplomatic hesitation and a lack of precise terminology can keep two nations in a state of perpetual, low-level conflict.

The Story

The narrative begins with the realization that the 1783 treaty, intended to bring lasting peace, left a glaring omission in the Northeast boundary. While the St. Croix River is identified as the natural border, the line abruptly ends at the river’s mouth, leaving twenty miles of open, tidal water leading to the Atlantic entirely undefined. For nearly three hundred years, this gap has fostered confusion, smuggling, and periodic skirmishes between American and Canadian fishermen.

The author traces the history of this ambiguity, beginning with the early French explorations of the 1600s, where the naming of the St. Croix River—and the subsequent discovery of a small island settlement—set the stage for centuries of competing land claims. By the time the Revolutionary War concluded, the United States and Great Britain were already locked in a debate over which river actually held the title of "St. Croix." Though a 1798 commission eventually settled the river’s identity, it failed to extend the boundary line through the twenty miles of open bay, leaving the ownership of various islands and fishing grounds in limbo.

The dispute intensified after the War of 1812, when British forces occupied Eastport, Maine, seeking to solidify claims to nearby islands. Subsequent commissions attempted to parcel out these islands, but they often worked with incomplete mandates and used language so imprecise that it invited further litigation. The author highlights how the British, represented by more shrewd diplomats, consistently gained the upper hand by adhering to the letter of flawed treaties while Americans suffered from an indifference toward the long-term value of the region’s maritime resources.

In 1892, a fresh attempt at resolution began following the seizure of American fishing boats by a Canadian cruiser. The author, appointed as the American commissioner, meets with his British counterpart to finally mark the line. Together, they achieve a breakthrough by drafting a rational, scientific boundary on charts, only to have the project stall over trivial but politically charged obstacles: the ownership of a tiny islet called Pope’s Folly, the precise path of a dredged shipping channel, and the inclusion of a lucrative fishing shoal.

The story concludes in 1895 with the commissioners failing to reach a final, binding agreement. Despite their shared work in the field and the construction of permanent stone range-signals, the two nations remain at an impasse. The author departs with a sense of frustration, noting that while the physical markers remain as a practical guide for locals, the legal boundary remains as unsettled as it was a century prior.

How It Unfolds

The missing link The author identifies the twenty-one-mile stretch from the St. Croix River to the ocean as a significant, undefined gap in the international boundary. He explains that this oversight is not merely a technicality but a source of persistent diplomatic strain.

Historical roots of confusion The narrative moves to the early European charters that granted overlapping territory to French and English settlers. This era of reckless land-giving establishes the long tradition of ignoring existing claims, which created the initial confusion regarding the identity of the St. Croix River.

The cycle of failed commissions The author recounts the series of 18th- and 19th-century treaties and commissions that attempted to fix the border. Each effort failed to provide a permanent solution, often because the diplomats lacked either the jurisdiction or the foresight to extend the line to the open sea.

The intervention of 1892 The seizure of American fishing vessels at Cochran’s Ledge necessitates a new diplomatic convention. This section details the mandate given to the commissioners to finally mark the line in front of Eastport.

The field work begins The commissioners meet to survey the water, erecting stone monuments and signals. They succeed in mapping a scientific, logical boundary but hit a wall when negotiating the sovereignty of Pope’s Folly Island.

Agreement and disagreement The author describes the final negotiations, where the commissioners trade proposals but fail to reconcile their views on the small island and fishing rights. They eventually decide to file separate reports, leaving the boundary technically unresolved.

The People

The account is centered on the author, T. C. Mendenhall, who serves as the American Commissioner. He is a man of precise scientific temper, frustrated by the "hasty and ill-considered phraseology" of diplomats who preceded him. He advocates for a logical, equitable division of water, prioritizing clear, straight lines over historical sentiment.

Opposing him is the British Commissioner, W. F. King, who represents the Canadian interests. While not portrayed as a personal enemy, he functions as the embodiment of British diplomatic caution and legalism. He relies on the strict, often literal interpretation of past, flawed reports, which allows him to maintain control over contested points like Pope’s Folly.

In the background stands Winslow Bates, a local resident and owner of Pope’s Folly. He represents the human element of the dispute—a man who holds deeds, pastured sheep, and defended his land against British encroachment. His testimony provides the author with the practical, local proof of American ownership that the diplomatic records lack. Finally, there is the historical figure of David Owen, a man of colonial ambition who attempted to claim the island during the British occupation. His failed attempt to seize the territory via proclamation serves as an example of the aggressive, opportunistic behavior that characterized the border disputes of the early 19th century.

In Its Own Voice

Describing the early colonial tendency to ignore reality in favor of expansive legal claims, the author writes:

“In 1603, the King of France (Henry IV.) made the famous grant to De Monts of all the territory in America between the fortieth and forty-sixth degrees of north latitude, thus furnishing a beautiful example of the definition of a most uncertain quantity in a most certain and exact manner.”

Reflecting on the tendency of his own nation to rely on poorly prepared representatives in international negotiations, he notes:

“We are particularly liable to this sort of thing in the United States, by reason of the fact that most of our diplomatic affairs are too often conducted by men of little experience and no training, and who are unaccustomed to close criticism of the possible interpretation of phrases.”

What It's Really About

At its core, this is a study of how language shapes sovereignty. The author argues that international conflicts are rarely the result of natural barriers but are instead manufactured by the "faulty descriptions" and "ill-considered phraseology" of treaties. The book explores the tension between two ways of governing: the "spirit" of geographical logic—which seeks an equitable, permanent, and scientifically sound border—and the "letter" of legal precedent, which favors historical, even if flawed, claims. Ultimately, the question is one of national character: the author posits that the American failure to secure its maritime borders reflects a broader, persistent indifference toward the long-term value of national resources, a trait he finds as prevalent in his own time as it was a century earlier.

Why Read It Today

This book will appeal to readers who enjoy the meticulous, behind-the-scenes look at how history is made—and how it is left undone. It is a quiet, analytical read, devoid of modern flash, offering instead the dry, reasoned voice of a scientist navigating the murky waters of international law. The reader should be prepared for the dense, Victorian-era prose and the occasional technical discussion of cartography and maritime law, which reflect the author’s background as a scientist and academic.

What stays with you is the irony of the situation: that two great nations could spend a century arguing over a tiny, rocky islet of little material value, all while failing to address the fundamental ambiguity of their shared border. The author’s honest admission of failure, and his frustration with the "general indifference" of his fellow citizens, feels strikingly relevant. It is a sobering reminder that many of the geopolitical tensions we assume were settled in the past remain, in practice, merely "settled" by mutual, often fragile, consensus. For those interested in regional history, diplomacy, or the quirks of state-building, it offers a rare, ground-level perspective on a border that exists more in theory than in fact.