Editing Alaska boundary dispute (section)

==Aftermath==

===Growth of a distinct Canadian identity===
Keenlyside and Brown wrote that{{r|keenlyside1952}}

{{blockquote|Had the United States been willing to submit her case to [[The Hague]], or to an impartial juridical body, as Canada had desired, the result would have been, in all probability, substantially the same, except that Canadians could not feel that they had been unfairly treated. ... Had justices of the [[United States Supreme Court]] been appointed in the place of the two Senators, Canadian criticism of the award would not have been audible.{{r|keenlyside1952}}}}

The Canadian judges refused to sign the award, issued on 20 October 1903, due to the Canadian delegates' disagreement with Lord Alverstone's vote. Canadians protested the outcome, not so much the decision itself but that the Americans had chosen politicians instead of jurists for the tribunal, and that the British had helped their own interests by betraying Canada's.{{r|keenlyside1952}} This led to intense anti-British emotions erupting throughout Canada (including [[Quebec]]) as well as a surge in [[Canadian nationalism]] as separate from an imperial identity.<ref>John A. Munro, "English-Canadianism and the Demand for Canadian Autonomy: Ontario's Response to the Alaska Boundary Decision, 1903". ''Ontario History'' 1965 57(4): 189–203.</ref> Although suspicions of the U.S. provoked by the award may have contributed to Canada's rejection of a [[Canadian nationalism#Free trade with the U.S.|free trade with the United States]] in the 1911 "[[1911 Canadian federal election|reciprocity election]]",{{r|keenlyside1952}} historian F. W. Gibson concluded that Canadians vented their anger less upon the United States and "to a greater degree upon Great Britain for having offered such feeble resistance to American aggressiveness. The circumstances surrounding the settlement of the dispute produced serious dissatisfaction with Canada's position in the British Empire."<ref>Gibson (1943) at notes 60–61</ref> Infuriated, like most Canadians, Prime Minister [[Wilfrid Laurier]] explained to Parliament, "So long as Canada remains a dependency of the British Crown the present powers that we have are not sufficient for the maintenance of our rights."<ref>Joseph Schull, ''Laurier'' (1965) pp 431–32</ref> Canadian anger gradually subsided, but the feeling that Canada should control its own foreign policy may have contributed to the [[Statute of Westminster 1931|Statute of Westminster]].{{r|keenlyside1952}}