You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
This task is about creating an unanswerable question based on a given passage. Construct a question that looks relevant to the given context but is unanswerable. Following are a few suggestions about how to create unanswerable questions:
(i) create questions which require satisfying a constraint that is not mentioned in the passage
(ii) create questions which require information beyond what is provided in the passage in order to answer
(iii) replace an existing entity, number, date mentioned in the passage with other entity, number, date and use it in the question
(iv) create a question which is answerable from the passage and then replace one or two words by their antonyms or insert/remove negation words to make it unanswerable.

Passage: In 1763, Spain traded Florida to the Kingdom of Great Britain for control of Havana, Cuba, which had been captured by the British during the Seven Years' War. It was part of a large expansion of British territory following the country's victory in the Seven Years' War. Almost the entire Spanish population left, taking along most of the remaining indigenous population to Cuba. The British soon constructed the King's Road connecting St. Augustine to Georgia. The road crossed the St. Johns River at a narrow point, which the Seminole called Wacca Pilatka and the British named "Cow Ford", both names ostensibly reflecting the fact that cattle were brought across the river there.
Solution: Who owned Cuba after the Eight Years War?
Why? This question appears to be relevant to the passage as both involves words such as 'Cuba' and 'War' which also exist in the passage. The passage mentions that "after the war, almost the entire Spanish population left, taking along most of the remaining indigenous population to Cuba". This information is not sufficient to conclude that which country owned cuba.

New input: Passage: Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.
Solution:
What historical event illustrated that dividing sovereignty was possible?