Talk:Indiana Territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Map accuracy

This map is not completely accurate. When Michigan Territory was formed in 1805, the boundary extended through Lake Michigan from the southermost extreme to the northermost extreme. This moves the line in the northern peninsula west. The map also does not reflect the 30 townships transferred to Indiana upon formation of the state -- these were never a part of Indiana Territory. A much larger error, Illinois Territory was formed in 1809, reducing the size of Indiana Territory to roughly the size of the current state (less the 30 townships). The current map indicates that land was a part of the territory until statehood in 1816. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The revised map is an improvement in accuracy, though perhaps a little difficult to parse. But it does make sense if you ponder it long enough, so it probably is not such a problem. One very tiny detail, when Indiana became a state in 1816, the middle portion of the UP technically became unorganized territory until Illinois became a state when the entire area was joined to Michigan Territory. Perhaps you may have seen this already, but this page has a pretty good dissection of the disposition of the various lands in the NWT. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

mel gibson

[edit] Louisiana District

My addition of Louisiana District was reverted. I have it referenced and the article makes note that it was only nine months. The reverter said in the summary it was only temporary. Even it was temporary it is in sequence of events for the territory. The enabling legislation never said anything about it being temporary. The annexation is a source of considerable controversy and adds a lot to the notability of the territory. Americasroof 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No part of the Louisiana Purchase was ever part of the Indiana Territory. The Governor and the judges were temporarily given jurisdiction, but the area did not become a part of the Indiana Territory. Including the map is misleading. Describing the sequence of events in the article is fine--I left that in. But the map is out of place here as it is tangential to the Territory itself. The acts which gave the governors and judges did make very explicit that it was for temporary government. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're replacing referenced material with unreferenced material including a great deal about how the territory was governed. It's unfortunate but you're ruining the article. Americasroof 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've cited my references. You cite yours and we could turn this into a pretty good article. Just reverting is going to piss both of us off. Americasroof 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

References below. Could you point out what specifically in the reference you've cited supports the notion that Louisiana District was ever annexed to Indiana Territory? I don't see anything there in that regard. My main objection is to the map, which is very misleading. older ≠ wiser 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Relevant legislation:

• The act of Oct. 31, 1803, which enabled the president to take possession was titled An Act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last ; and for the temporary government thereof. [1] (emphasis added)
• The act of March 26, 1804, that created Orleans Territory and the District of Louisiana was titled An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof. (emphasis added)[2]
• Section 12 of that act established the residue of the province of Louisiana as the "district of Louisiana". It did not merge or attach that to Indiana Territory. But rather stated that the "executive power now vested in the governor of the Indiana Territory, shall extend to, and be exercised in the said district." Similarly for the judges. They were to administer the district, but the district remained distinct from the Indiana Territory. Section 16, explicitly put an expiration into the act: the act was to become effective on October 1, 1804, and "shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress which may happen thereafter."
• The act of March 3, 1805, which was among the last acts passed by the 8th Congress, established the permanent government of the district under the name Territory of Louisiana." [3]

There is nothing in any of this to suggest that the district was ever "annexed" to Indiana Territory. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and explanation. The Houck reference which gives details of the governance refers to it as annexation. Houck's book is the definitive book on early Missouri history (even if it's old). I'm o.k. with the map being off. My main focus was writing about the early governance of Missouri. I think we're getting to a good article now. Thanks. Americasroof 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The details about the complaints of the district residents really doesn't seem especially relevant in an article about Indiana Territory, as the complaints seem more about federal policies and actions in the region rather than any specific connection to Indiana Territory. Seems like those details would be more appropriate in the article about the District. older ≠ wiser 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the obsession with "temporary." The section clearly states that it occurred for only nine months. Harrison et al was charged with creating laws in the district and met at least twice in St. Louis. The fact these were the first time that folks west of the Mississippi came under United States law is notable (and it is notable that they resisted). There were some heavy duty changes including the slavery. These are all notable. The District of Louisiana article as written focuses on the military commandant before Indiana assumed control. During the Indiana period the district was definitely a part of Indiana and reporting up through its command. You should definitely read the 15 pages of the Houck article giving the detail of governance. This is all noteworthy for Indiana Territory history. I put in headings to break out the Louisiana section from the rest of the Northwest Territories section. All this information can coexist in the same article!!! As a side note I don't understand the request for citations about French governance. In Louisiana (New France), France claimed the entire Mississippi valley and all its tributaries (e.g., the Ohio and Missouri). It was governed as Upper Louisiana by a commandant. See: List of commandants of the Illinois Country. Americasroof 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I emphasized "temporary" because your previous edits gave the impression that the district had been annexed to Indiana Territory, which it was not. It was NEVER a part of Indiana Territory. Whatever went on in the district certainly may have had some notability. But it had only tangential relevance for Indiana Territory. I have read Houck, and the complaints are quite clearly about federal policy--Indiana Territory is barely mentioned. I don't disagree that there should be some mention here of the district and the extension of Harrison's powers. But I don't see how all this detail about the district (which, recall was NEVER a part of Indiana Territory) is particularly relevant for an article about Indiana Territory.

Re citations for similarities -- you make the statement that "This first attempt to govern the Upper Louisiana portion of the Louisiana Purchase was somewhat similar in how Louisiana (New France) had governed both sides of the Mississippi River as Illinois Country before France ceded the land east of the Mississippi to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris (1763) the land west of the Mississippi to the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) (which was announced in a 1764)." What are the similarities in the governments? The basis of comparison is unclear. Making such a comparative statement entails some synthetic analysis, which if it is not to be considered original research, needs a citation for the comparison. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The specific reference in the enabling legislation is [Section 12 http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=324] in which it specifically lays that the District of Louisiana "shall be organized and administered as follows" and then proceeds to say the Indiana Governor and Courts will have jurisdiction, that Indiana will draw up its laws and that the Indiana governor will organize militias in the district. The District of Louisiana is not self-governing. It has no governor of its own and no capital. So if its governors, laws, militia and courts are all governed from Indiana what territory is it a part of? The nine months of Indiana governance of the west side of Mississippi is very notable.

P.S. I'm going to take the sentence out about Upper Louisiana. There's a point to be made about the courses of both sides of the river had dramatically changed since their unified government until 1763. Americasroof 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it. The district never became a part of Indiana Territory -- in other cases, Congress was explicit when it was combining territories or expanding the area of a territory. Congress very clearly did not do so in this case -- the district remained a distinct entity from Indiana Territory. The Governor and judges were merely appointed to exercise temporary administrative oversight. Perhaps an analogy might help. Suppose a corporation buys up another company and the scope of the acquisition increased dramatically at the last stages of negotiations. The corporation had not determined what it was going to do with the entire acquisition. Rather than make a rushed decision, it asked the leader of one of its existing divisions to serve as a caretaker for a portion of the new acquisition while it decided what to do. By asking that leader to assume responsibilities for the new acquisition, it was not merging the new acquisition with the existing division. It was merely asking the leader to temporarily take on additional responsibilities. That the district was not self-governing at that time is irrelevant. There are other examples of unorganized U.S. territories that were externally administered. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I see you're a big Michigan writer, I updated the Timeline of Michigan history to show how this history fits into the overall French control of North America and its subsequent governance. I was surprised the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Quebec Act had not been included in that timeline. The District of Louisiana is a subset of Indiana on the initial governance plan (and was a sore point as the District of Louisiana should be its own self-contained territory). The District of Louisiana is clearly spelled out. It is NOT unorganized territory. The early attempt to govern Louisiana is notable and I see by your latest edit that you have knocked out that notable fact. Americasroof 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it was not an organized territory and it had not been added to Indiana Territory, it was by default unorganized territory as there were no other organic acts pertaining to it up to that time. I'm not sure what you're referring to in you're last sentence. My last edit to the article [4] removed a sentence fragment that you had left behind. I was unable to discern any significance behind the fragment. NB, I am going to move the complaints by the District residents to that article, as it is by far more relevant to that article than to this one. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading section 12, the act is in fact an organic act in that it organizes government of the District. But the District does explicitly remain a distinct entity from the Indiana Territory. Rather the powers of the Governor and Judges were temporarily extended to the District. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I did my edits adding details about Louisiana the article was unreferenced and would be considered either a stub or a start. The Louisiana portion is just a small but important piece of Indiana history and greatly adds to its notability. The complaints give background to the discussion of the slavery issue. The section is divided from the rest of the article. Americasroof 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the various edits now. It keeps the history cleaner to keep them on either of the river (although mentioning where they mingle). Thanks for the vigorous debate. Americasroof 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)