Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article candidate This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Did You Know An entry from Territorial evolution of the United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 August 2006.
Wikipedia
Peer review Territorial evolution of the United States has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Map size

TCashion This is a very thoughtful article, and it certainly accords with my (admittedly somehwat limited)understanding of the USA's territorial expansion. However, I think the very handsome maps are too small on the main page. They are quite legible when one clicks on any of them. I may try to rework this page so that the textual descriptions run above much larger map images, unless anyone objects.

You could try, I suppose, but we don't want to make the maps too big, not everyone has large monitors. I figure, you can SEE most of the borders on the thumbnail, and if you have the text right next to you, you don't need to read the map all that much... --Golbez 05:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see the maps a little larger. Rmhermen 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what the size of the monitor has to do with the issue; the chief reason why I wanted some input was whether people with slow connections would have trouble with loading the page. If I go ahead and modify, I'll try to work in the notes below. TCashion
Because if the maps are too big, people will have to move the page left and right, the text will be squashed, mass histeria. See what you can do though. :) It's already a bandwidth-intensive page as it is, so making the thumbs bigger probably won't impact people too much. --Golbez 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The text explains the change (which will become more detailed with time, no doubt), and if one wants more detail, it is easy enough to enlarge. If the images are enlarged, 400px seems to be the upper limit. —Twigboy 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] questions

Some questions/fixes that need to be made:

  1. Was the unorganized territory that became Arkansaw Territory really split off from Missouri Territory, or was Arkansaw Terr. split off directly from Missouri Terr.?
  2. Should the area that became Oregon Country be labelled 'unclaimed', or something else? There were a handful of Europeans there, but it wasn't officially controlled by any power that I can tell, until the Oregon Treaty. I think New Spain claimed the land, but had no de facto control of it whatsoever.
  3. What should the name of Hawaii be prior to the establishment of the Kingdom? I put the generic term of 'Hawaiian islands' due to that question.
  4. Yes, I should probably reinsert the dispute in southwest Louisiana and New Spain once Louisiana becomes a state.
  5. I wonder if I need to go back and add the strip of the Gadsden area negotiated by some treaty mentioned in the US atlas.
  6. I've been working on this article for the last *4 months*, I'm just happy that one, it's done, and two, people appreciate it. :) --Golbez 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I am lacking access to a good image editor, can someone please add the Jackson Purchase information for KY and West TN? 136.165.46.150 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to that article: "It was technically part of Kentucky at its statehood in 1792, but did not come under definitive U.S. control until it was purchased from the Chickasaw Indians by Andrew Jackson in 1818." Unlike the Platte Purchase, which was not part of Missouri until purchased. --Golbez 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Your map and text regarding the eastern portion of the Upper Peninsula does not match the maps and text of the article on the Michigan Territory. Rmhermen 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's my chart of all the changes to the UP:
  1. May 26 1790: Part of Northwest Territory
  2. July 4 1800: Most becomes part of Indiana Terr, eastern tip stays part of NW Terr
  3. March 1 1803: All becomes part of Indiana Terr
  4. January 11 1805: Eastern tip becomes part of Michigan Terr
  5. March 1 1809: Western part becomes part of Illinois Terr, middle part becomes part of Indiana Terr
  6. December 11 1816: Middle part becomes unorganized
  7. December 3 1818: All becomes part of Michigan Terr; I left out the unorganized part here, so I'll fix that.
The map on Michigan Territory leaves out fact that Indiana Territory originally created a tiny bit on the eastern tip of the UP as part of Michigan Territory: See this handy evolution of the NW Territory page, which I will link in the article. Michigan Territory needs to have its maps updated. --Golbez 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering that the Michigan Territory article draws its line based on a direct quote from the act founding the Territory, I think will have to look more deeply into this. Rmhermen 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know where I can find a copy of that online? --Golbez 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Found it - it was filed under Indiana: [1]. "all that part of the Indiana Territory, which lies North of a line drawn east from the southerly bend or extreme of lake Michigan, until it shall intersect lake Erie, and East of a line drawn from the said southerly bend through the middle of said lake to its northern extremity, and thence due north to the northern boundary of the United States, shall, for the purpose of temporary government, constitute a separate territory, and be called Michigan." This does not match your maps. Rmhermen 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Since we cleared up the issue about the whole thing not being transferred from Wisconsin Terr, etc., can you please specify what the problem is? --Golbez 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes. It is a little tricky though, considering that the boundaries were drawn before there were any accurate maps of the area (and in fact before the U.S. had even securely established control over the area and long before there was any significant population of white settlers in the region). The cited source [2] distinguishes between J1 and J2 to indicate the small shift between the original boundary, which is an northward extension of the western boundary of Ohio, and the later boundary defined when the Michigan Territory was established. In addition, Image:United States 1805-01-1805-07.png and the next few maps also miss the small detail that the southern boundary of the Michigan Territory ran from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. A strip was transferred when the state of Indiana was established (the Toledo Strip was disputed with Ohio for many years, but that is another story). older ≠ wiser 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I appears that the problem is that the maps makes no account for the J2 region of Golbez's source (evolution of the NW Territory) It appears that the Indiana territory's initial definition was based on a line north from Fort Recovery which purely coincidentally runs through the head of Lake Michigan. This then conflicts with the definition of Michigan Territory (the line north from "middle of said lake (Lake Micigan) to its northern extremity") giving the J2 region - possibly claimed by both Indiana and Michigan or perhaps just reassigned by this to Michigan. As for exactly where the western boundary of J2 would have fallen I can't tell. Maybe as far west as Munising. Rmhermen 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The J2 region I believe accords with the description of the boundary as going through the middle of Lake Michigan to its northernmost extreme. The northernmost point on the shore of Lake Michigan is a short distance west of the original boundary represented by J1. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As for J1/J2, the map is so small there that I think they would be a small handful of pixels apart, so I likely used the same line for both. Is it that major a thing that I need to go back and add it? Or am I again misunderstanding the issue? --Golbez 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vsually it appears to be the same width as the entire Indiana coastline (on southern Lake Michigan). I am more concerned by the mistaken impression it gives that the line was set at the head of Lake Michigan. Rmhermen 17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, instead of me trying to guess which maps are wrong, could you tell me where the error is introduced? --Golbez 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It affects Image:United States 1805-01-1805-07.png through Image:United States 1818-10-1818-12.png. Rmhermen 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
On another matter entirely, I notice that the article indicates that the Northwest Territory was created on May 26, 1790 -- but this is wrong -- The NWT was formed in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation and was then confirmed by Congress on August 7, 1789 -- the 1790 date applies only to the Southwest Territory. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently on my timeline, I dropped the first date, and moved Northwest Territory's date up - I had its date as the ratification of the Constitution. Thanks, it's fixed now. --Golbez 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Boundary Dispute

This article should probably make mention of the fact that the Alaska panhandle was disputed by Canada and had to be put to arbtration to be resolved. (where Britton sided with the U.S. and was a driving factor in the creation of Canadian soverenty.)

-NDR August 2nd

I slipped that in to the Notes section a few hours ago. ;) --Golbez 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern external borders

In the Gadsen Purchase entry, the article states that the external borders of the continental US are as they are today. I have reservations over the use of the term 'continental United States' (which, as that article suggests, has two meanings, the less common one including Alaska). However, I also am concerned that the statement may have overlooked the minor changes to the border with Mexico, e.g. the cession of the Horcon Tract. Bastin 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be nuked. --Golbez 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nebraska/Dakota boundary

When Dakota Territory was created, it also included land south of 43° N and north of the Keya Paha and Niobrara rivers. This land was not part of Nebraska when it became a state, and was transferred to Nebraska in 1882. – Swid (talk | edits) 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This should go in the Notes, as it's too tiny a change to really be noticed. --Golbez 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Job and one Suggestion

Without getting on a soapbox, I've got to say that this is an outstanding article. Very informative. And I love the maps. I hope the author of this article can incorporate some of the changes suggested above.

"Territorial Evolution" as a title sounds kind of bland and not very informative. In fact, I would posit that "Evolution" is not what happened. I would be more blunt: "Territorial Expansion of the United States."OrangeMarlin 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a map of the expansion. Such a map would have ten frames. It's primarily a map of what happened *within* the United States, the vast majority of the changes are to the internal borders and designations. --Golbez 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree - great article

Though it doesn't include Narnia, the central ice desert, or Westeros (see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 )...

Seriously, great article and maps. I'm from near the Western Reserve area and didn't realize it used to be part of Connecticut!

  • As someone who lives in the nation's only remaining unorganized territory, I had no idea about some of forgotten spots of territory, like the western part of Kansas remaing unorganized for a month. Great article, and great maps. I think this could easily be an FA. Lovelac7 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I fully intend to quickly bring it up to FLC (I think it fits better as a featured list). :) As for unorganized territory, I will admit I had no clue AS was the only [inhabited] one. That's what I get for ignoring the unincorporated territories. ;) As for the western part of Kansas, I'm sure no one at the time noticed - due to the slow movement of information back then, the western half was probably part of Colorado Territory before they knew the eastern half had been made a state. :) I think it's purely a quirk of history, with no actual meaning for the day, but it was a peculiarity I discovered while researching this list. --Golbez 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

What should this article be named? I don't think anything about 'expansion' is reasonable, since the focus is not on expansion. Borders? States and territories? Evolution or 'list of changes' or what? --Golbez 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you should keep the current name, but I'm open to other ideas. Lovelac7 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin Territory and the UP

The comments and map about the Wisconsin Territory and the western UP are not quite accurate. In the act forming the WI Terr., the boundary between WT and the UP was pretty much as it is now. This is also supported by the cited source [3] WT never included the western UP. oundary There was a much later boundary dispute between the states of WI and MI over precisely which waterway formed the boundary. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to that link, let's see... Wisconsin Territory was organized with N-S, which includes Wisconsin, the Door Peninsula, all of Minnesota, NE Dakota, and Iowa. That does support what you say. However, according to Toledo War, the UP was given to Michigan Territory in consolation for giving up the Toledo Strip. And that's said on that article as well, "When Michigan finally achieved statehood in 1837, it was "awarded" the western three-quarters of the upper peninsula after losing in a border dispute with Ohio." So yes, while the organic act must take precedence, how do we reconcile this? --Golbez 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
What is there to reconcile? The UP was not included in the Wisconsin Territory. The state of Michigan (which formed itself in 1835 without an organic act from the Congress), apparently at first did not include the western part of the UP--I'd like to find a source showing what the boundaries of the 1835 state were. When Congress admitted Michigan in 1837, the boundaries were defined so as to include the western UP. As far as Congressional Acts are concerned, the Western UP was a part of the Michigan Territory. I think the stages could be simplified to remove the entry for December 14, 1836 -- I think that is merely the date that the Michigan constitutional convention accepted the terms dictated by the Congress. The entry for July 4, 1836 can be simplifies to merely indicate the creation of the Wisconsin Territory. older ≠ wiser 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is, the UP was always part of MT, but it wasn't until the Toledo War that it was going to be part of the state of Michigan? I can imagine a situation where, having not given up the Toledo Strip, the lower peninsula joined as the state of Michigan, and the UP reverted to unorganized, or to WT. Is that basically what you're saying? It's a simple enough matter to remove that map and alter the dates, sure. --Golbez 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. As far as the Congress is concerned, the original boundaries adopted by the state in 1835 were never recognized. At the time Congress created the Wisconsin territory, it had already determined the terms of the compromise. In the event Michigan had rejected the terms, it would not have been accepted as a state of the Union and Congress would have had to pass another act to adjust the territorial boundaries. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixes

I think I've fixed everything but the problem that arose when I found out the date of Pinckney's Treaty. I need to do some minor map juggling. Just putting this here as a note to self. Also, need to change when Louisiana moved to France. --Golbez 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miller County, Arkansas Territory

I don't know if this will affect your map, but from 1821 through 1838 the northeast corner of Texas (roughly north of the Arkansas-Louisiana border) was part of (or claimed by) Miller County, Arkansas Territory (see map from Chronicles of Oklahoma and article from The Handbook of Texas Online). OkieDokie 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, that makes me a very sad panda. Do you have a more zoomed-out view, so I can get a better context for the size and region? --Golbez 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unincorporateds

I'm moving this here, in case we ever want to do work on it and put it back. However, I think I've made my case adequately that these don't really belong on this list. --Golbez 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other territories

April 11, 1899

The 1898 Treaty of Paris came in to effect, transferring Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States, all three becoming unorganized, unincorporated territories.

April 2, 1900

The Foraker Act organizes Puerto Rico.

June 7, 1900

The United States takes control of its portion of the Samoan Islands given to it by the Treaty of Berlin of 1899, creating the unorganized, unincorporated territory of American Samoa.

March 2, 1917

Jones-Shafroth Act reorganizes Puerto Rico.

March 31, 1917

The United States takes possession of the U.S. Virgin Islands under the terms of a treaty with Denmark.[1]

May 17, 1932

The name of Porto Rico changed to Puerto Rico.[2]

July 14, 1947

The United Nations grants the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the United States, consisting primarily of many islands fought over during World War II, and including what is now the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau. It was a trusteeship, and not a territory.

July 1, 1950

The Guam Organic Act came into effect, organizing Guam as an unincorporated territory.[3]

July 25, 1952

Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth of the United States, an unincorporated organized territory, with the ratification of its constitution.[2]

July 22, 1954

The Organic Act for the United States Virgin Islands goes into effect, making them an unincorporated, organized territory.[3]

July 1, 1967

American Samoa's constitution became effective. Even though no Organic Act has been passed, this move to self-government made American Samoa similar to an organized territory.[3]

January 1, 1978

The Northern Mariana Islands leave the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to be a commonwealth of the United States, making it unincorporated and organized.[3][4]

October 21, 1986

The Marshall Islands attain independence from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, though the trusteeship granted by the United Nations technically did not end until December 22, 1990.

November 3, 1986

The Federated States of Micronesia attained independence from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and remained in free association with the United States.

December 22, 1990

The United Nations terminated the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for all but the Palau district.

May 25, 1994

The United Nations terminated the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for the Palau district, ending the territory, making Palau de facto independent, as it was not a territory of the United States.

October 1, 1994

Palau attained de jure independence, but remained in free association with the United states.[5]

References
  1. ^ Transfer Day. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.
  2. ^ a b Municipalities of Puerto Rico. Statoids. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.
  3. ^ a b c d Relationship with the Insular Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.
  4. ^ Municipalities of Northern Mariana Islands. Statoids. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.
  5. ^ Background Note: Palau. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.
Hey Golbez, on the off chance that you ever want to include these in the main article, here's a couple of notes/tweaks for you. First, Puerto Rico was actually organized by the Foraker Act, aka the Organic Act of 1900. In 1917, there was another act, the Jones-Shafroth Act, that substantially reorganized the island's government. The current government is based on the 1952 law (I wish I could find the name of it), but Puerto Rico has been an organized territory since 1900.
Also, the law that established the current political status of the Northern Marianas -- its Organic Act, though it isn't called such by name -- is the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. --Jfruh (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Added to list, thanks. :) --Golbez 07:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Incorportated Areas Must be Included on All Maps

If you are going to go by this policy of excluding the unincorporated areas, then you must include ALL of the incorporated areas, including Palmyra Atoll, on ALL of the maps. Until this article is reformed to include every incorporated area of the United States, it must be considered biased toward a limited comprehension of the extent of the United States. Palmyra should be included separately because it was eventually broken off from Hawaii and is currently separate though still fully incorporated.Reaganamerican 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You would be surprised, I'm sure, to know that I consider how to do that every time I come here to examine what needs to be done next. --Golbez 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am. But it also makes me very glad. If you can tell me a process to go by to add Palmyra to every map, I will assist. It must be done though, because people are getting a slightly skewed picture of the United States when they come to this page (even though the entire country should really be included). Reaganamerican 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it myself, and it only needs to be added to the final map - it was part of the Hawaiian Islands and Hawaii Territory prior to statehood. I don't know what you mean about "even though the entire country should really be included", apart from Palmyra Atoll it is. --Golbez 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This island needs to be on all maps since incorporated areas of the US which reached different political statuses at any time during this long process were included on the all the maps from the beginning as seperate parts. What I mean is that all the areas which would eveuntually change their status are included as seperate geographical units from the beginning map. What I mean by 'the whole country' is that this page seeks to make US unincorporated areas look like they are not part of the US which is certainly not true. The first goal though is to add Palmyra to all the maps so that people aren't confused about the true extent of the incorporated US. Reaganamerican 12:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is true, unincorporated territories are not part of the United States proper, but rather possessions of it. --Golbez 16:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I love this article

It is genuinely remarkable. One request--could all the maps be unified into an animated digital flipbook of sorts so that the changes flow over time? jengod 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

^_^ and look, you've forced me to make a cutesy smiley --Golbez 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And yes, that was planned - just see my Canadian map. (Territorial evolution of Canada has the individual maps, the full animated map is, I believe, on Canada) However, when I realized it would have over 50 frames (and ended up with 96 frames total) I put off work on making it animated, since at even 3 seconds a frame, it would take nearly 5 minutes to complete. So maybe I'll do one for each major phase (expansion to Mississippi, division of purchase, mexican cession, etc.) or each decade, along of course with el gordo in case anyone wants it. --Golbez 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Texas suggestion

Hi Golbez! A terrific article and series of maps -- really astoundingly impressive and useful, should be linked to from as many places as possible.

One suggestion for you: The boundary dispute between the Republic of Texas and Mexico really ought to be illustrated for the State of Texas as well in the period between the Annexation of Texas and the signing of the Treaty of Guadelupe Higaldo. After all, it was that dispute that was the proximate cause of the Mexican War, which led to the aforementioned treaty. --Jfruh (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which brings up another question - should the "Republic of Texas" be colored disputed, or did the Texans have sufficient de facto and de jure control of that piece of territory for it to be shown as independent? You probably have a good point, I'll look into it when going over the maps. --Golbez 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. Texas had formal diplomatic relations with the US and Britain, at minimum, which is more than Vermont could say (and Vermont is not colored as disputed on the maps). It definitely had de facto control of the territory colored grey in your 1836-1845 maps. Santa Anna signed a treaty recognizing Texan independence but it was rejected by the Mexican Congress, so that's sort of ambiguous. The Mexican War didn't really start until the US sent troops south of the Nueces. My gut would be to keep the disputed coloring you're using now for the Rep. of Texas and transfer it to the state, but I could see going the other way. I guess my main point is that the republic and the pre-Guadelup Hilgaldo state ought to be treated in the same way, whichever way that should be, as the same dispute was inherited by the US after annexation. --Jfruh (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Texas suggestion

It's also worth notingthat Texas was a U.S. territory for nine months. On March 1, 1845, President Jon Tyler signed the bill annexing Texas. It was admittd to the Union on December 28, 1845. --Captain Caveman (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, thanks. Was it called "Texas Territory", or was it simply always referred to as Texas? --Golbez 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the way the Texas Annexation page explains it, in the period between 3/1/45 and 12/28/45 Texas was still an independent state; indeed Texas didn't officially vote to approve the annexation until 7/4/45. Presumably the gap was an administrative expedient? Confusingly the official ceremony indicating the handover of power didn't occur until the following February, and according to the Thomas Jefferson Rusk page, the Texas legislature elected the state's first US Senators that month. I think you have it right on this page. --Jfruh (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Anson_Jones page makes it clear that annexation was still a live political question in independent Texas even after the joint resolution was passed. --Jfruh (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refining

OK, I decided to take a look at this and pick out things that could use refining.

  1. First of all, I think I'm going to add the territories, but as an "external" map, only showing a snapshot of the nation. It'll make more sense when you see it.
  2. The main reason I consider certain areas "disputed" is that, later, there are specific treaties fixing the issue. It's not just that two parties disagree, it's that they later came to an official agreement. Definite de facto control helps too, which is why Vermont Republic is not colored disputed.
  3. Texas. Should I consider the western half 'disputed' until the end of the Mexican-American War? I'm leaning in that direction, since the annexation didn't automatically confer control over west Texas to the United States.
  4. Are there any other notable disputed counties like Greer County? Someone mentioned on in Arkansas, but I can find little information on it. The Greer County dispute is apparently so important that it's noted in US Government educational maps, so I'm inclined to keep it, and only it.
  5. Think it's worth sneaking in the Alaska Boundary Dispute? I still think it would show up as unbearably tiny on the map.
  6. Whoops - the two easternmost counties of West Virginia did not switch from VA to WV til after the war. Could probably note that. --Golbez 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Palmyra Atoll.
  8. De-dispute west Texas before it joins, dispute it after it joins? --Golbez 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? --Golbez 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think adding the territories would be neat, especially areas that are no longer part of the U.S. (like the Phillipines and the Canal Zone, there are more at List of U.S. colonial possessions, but that list definitely isn't complete).
I would consider the western half of Texas 'disputed'. Regarding other 'disputes' - if you're going to show any inter-state disputes you should probably show all of them that would be large enough to show up. I think Vermont and Greer ought to be shown in a similar fashion as they were somewhat similar in nature - both being a dispute between states that was resolved by the Federal government. Others that are similar that might be large enough to show up include the Erie Triangle, Toledo Strip, Honey Lands, Walton War [4], Delaware wedge (may be too small).
Also though I know some of the documentation is unclear I think TN should be shown as part of NC until the Southwest Ordinance. I don't know about the Alaska dispute, maybe just mention it in the text if it's too small to show up in the map? Kmusser 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Erie Triangle, thanks for reminding me about that. Toledo Strip might be too small to show up. Delaware wedge is definitely too small, that would be sub-pixel scale. And that's a good idea, all of these changes - even if too small to show up on the maps - should be mentioned in the text, perhaps with a micro-view of the area. Grand idea, I'm glad I thought of it. ;) I'm still not prepared to shift the Vermont Republic to disputed since it seems they had full de facto control over their territory, which so far as I know is not true for any of the other 'disputed' areas on the list, except perhaps post-annexation West Florida. Thanks for your comments. :) --Golbez 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops I did it again

I know it's sparse, and some of the images need work, but it's quarter to 7am and I haven't been to sleep yet and somehow I decided, hey, I'll shlomp it up. So please check out User:Golbez/sandbox for what will in a few hours be Territorial evolution of Mexico. --Golbez 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSA

I'll add to the chorus by saying this is indeed an exemplary article and same for the accompanying maps, just wondering why the CSA is shown as green on the map? As another country, shouldn't it be grey, like the seceded Mexican territories on Territorial evolution of Mexico? It is a little more clear on Image: CSA states evolution.gif, the CSA is depicted as grey, but seceded states, before joining the Confederacy (or, after the fall of the fall of the CSA, before being re-admitted) are green. So, what is the status of a seceded state, if it's no longer a US state, but not yet a member of the Confederacy, as Image: CSA states evolution.gif ably shows? --Canuckguy 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points, all. Complex answers, too, so pardon if this comes across as a stream of consciousness.
  1. I made the USA map first; I wanted to set the CSA apart, but not necessarily draw it as a foreign country. It never achieved its independence, and was never fully recognized. (To compare, it took the USA 7 years to achieve independence; the CSA lasted for four years. So it can take time between 'independence' and 'becoming independent'.) I wanted to also have a 'special' status for the seceded states between that of a state and a foreign country, but not necessarily disputed. This is first and foremost a map of the evolution of the states, not necessarily a simple map of the country. It's to show how the borders and status of the nation, states, and territories have changed over time. This is also why the map of Mexico, by the present day, is nearly half USA.
  2. The CSA map is kind of drawn from the CSA's point of view, which is why the USA's territories aren't shown. By 'point of view' I simply mean 'looking from the CSA', not in any terms of bias.
  3. I set the CSA off as a 'foreign' nation in the CSA map in part to show people how its borders evolved, to see how the functionally independent nation grew and how its borders shifted. That's less important here, since the list/map jumps directly to full-CSA situation. (Having made the CSA map, I now know that to include all those steps would have meant 30 more images/entries in the list or so).
  4. A few others have expressed concern with the color scheme used in the CSA map, I basically have a set of colors that I use, changing meanings if necessary. Initially, I chose green for this map because it was very unlike all the other colors - pink, brown, gray, magenta - used. Perhaps at some point I'll go back and change it, though I kind of like it. :)
  5. I should probably go back and change Texas on the Mexico maps to be all disputed until their fight for independence was concluded.
  6. So far as I can tell, Yucatan was never really disputed, Santa Anna had little sway over it, so its split from Mexico was relatively clean and without much dispute.
  7. The Republic of the Rio Grande has brought up concerns from others, and I should find another way of dealing with that than by simply marking it as independent. I'll probably recolor it 'disputed'.
  8. As for the status of a seceded state prior to joining the CSA - To Washington, it was a member of the United States. To the state itself and Richmond, it was an independent nation. All seceded states joined the CSA. (though Kentucky, which had its elected government secede, was never functionally a member; Missouri's secessionist government was not the elected one, and I should note this on the CSA map.)
Like I said, kind of rambling. Let me know if you need any clarifications. --Golbez 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toledo Strip again

I was about to add the Toledo Strip to the list, but there's a minor discrepancy. The list presently says that the UP was added to Michigan Territory in July 1836; however, this 'offer' was rejected until December 1836. My question is: What was the UP's political status after it was split from Wisconsin Territory, and was the UP part of Michigan Territory prior to statehood, or did it take legal possession of that land the moment it became a state? --Golbez 12:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Upper Peninsula had been a part of the Territory of Michigan since 1818 when Illinois was preparing for statehood and the remainder of Illinois Territory was attached to Michigan Territory -- the U.P. was not later "added" to the Territory. In July 1836, when Congress created Wisconsin Territory, the boundaries of Wisconsin Territory did not include the UP, which remained as part of the Michigan Territory. However, Michigan organized a state government in 1835 -- although the state government and its boundaries were not recognized by Congress until 1837 when it was admitted into the Union. Although I have not found a good source for precisely what the boundaries of the pre-Union state were, based on discussions surrounding the conflict, it seems clear that the boundaries did not include the majority of the U.P. (it is likely that the boundaries did include the eastern tip of the U.P., which had always been a part of Michigan Territory since it was formed in 1805 and was a strategically valuable location). Congress offered to accept Michigan into the Union if it would relinquish its claim to the Toledo Strip and accept the U.P. as a part of the state. A convention was in September 1836 rejected this offer. A second convention in December 1836 accepted the conditions and the state was admitted to the Union in January 1837 (with more or less all its current boundaries -- there was a boundary dispute with Wisconsin and an ongoing remnant of the dispute with Ohio over the boundary in Lake Erie).
OK, I should stop writing things at that time in the morning. I made a quick timeline of it here and I understand it all now. The feds gave the UP to Michigan Territory, but would only admit them as a state if they gave up the Toledo Strip - but the giving of UP was a done deal either way. If Michigan didn't give up on the Toledo Strip, then they would have remained a territory. Yes?
And what dates should I give for the Toledo Strip issue? March 31 1835 to December 14 1836? --Golbez 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking the boundary dispute originated with how Ohio defined the northern boundary in its constitution differently than how it was defined in the Enabling Act of 1802 and Congress failed to address the issue before admitting Ohio as a state. The dispute simmered for the first third of the century and didn't become a hot issue until Michigan was preparing for statehood. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So, looking at the issue again, do we even need to note the start of the Toledo Strip issue? We can simply say that, to induce Michigan to give it up, blah blah, and that be the only mention of it? Or should we include it for completeness, like the mention of Greer County? --Golbez 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In the context of this article, I don't think the origins are so important. It might be worth an entry in the timeline to note that Michigan formed an unrecognized state government with elections held in November 1835 and that the original boundaries included the Toledo Strip but not most of the U.P. older ≠ wiser 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
A minor territorial transfer that might be worth noting, if not representing in the maps is the transfer in 1816 of an area consisting of approximately 30 survey townships from Michigan Territory to Indiana Territory. This was very roughly a westward extension of the Toledo Strip, intended to provide Indiana with greater access to Lake Michigan. older ≠ wiser 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The opening list notes the tiny adjustments to Indiana Territory already. ;) --Golbez 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry I missed that. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Talk%7ETerritorial_evolution_of_the_United_States_9d89.html"