This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I don't know anything about the specifics of the Lumberjack's War. I merged information that was in what appeared to be a duplicate article [1] named the Rush-Bagot Agreement into this one [2]. I didn't bother to validate any of the info from the other article and, not to cast aspersions, but the other article was written by two anonymous IPs. So if anything here seems squiggly, go ahead and remove it. older≠wiser 02:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Aroostook War was in the late 1830s and this treaty had nothing to do with the border dispute in question, which was resolved by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. I've moved the information there.
Sorry, I see that now. See your talk page. Amcfreely 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When exactly was this treaty signed? Ryoji.kun 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No place for discussion provided. When it is, this link should be included, as evidence that the situation was complicated. (For example, it did receive the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several errors of fact on this particular article that I suggest be changed. The Rush-Bagot Treaty did not become a treaty approved by Congress until the year 1818. In the year 1817, Acting Secretary of State Richard Rush and British Minister to Washington Charles Bagot exchanged a series of notes. The notes exchanged between Rush and Bagot in 1817 actually constitute the "Rush-Bagot Agreement" which is distinct from the "Rush-Bagot Treaty" (ratified by US Congress onApril 28, 1818). The Rush-Bagot Agreement stipulated that British North America and the United States could each maintain one vessel (not more than 100 tons) on Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain. The remaining Great Lakes could harbor two vessels from British North America and two vessels from the United States. It was an agreement of demilitarization, but it did not completely eradicate all military vessels from these waters. Looking forward to hearing thoughts and suggestions on this matterDdperk80 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Ddperk80[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
