Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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: [2]. "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 [3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

May 17 1932

The name of Porto Rico changed to Puerto Rico.

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.

July 25 1952

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

July 22 1954

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

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.

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.

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.

References

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.

Ah ha, found it: the law that established Puerto Rico's current government (its Organic Act, though not so titled) is the Puerto Rico-Federal Relations Act. Not Wiki article on it as of the moment. --Jfruh (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Palmyra Atoll

Can some modification of this crude map be made so that all of the areas that will become incorporated territories of the Untied States show up on all of the maps in this article, as is implied? File:With Palmyra.PNG CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Palmyra is too small to justify including in the map, its situation is already discussed in the text. Kmusser 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Palmyra is technically shown; it's one of the many unshown islands of the Hawaiian Islands. It is set apart only when it becomes relevant. I'm still entertaining suggestions on this, though. --Golbez 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, your image page does not properly cite me as creator of the original map. Fix it. --Golbez 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it but I can not stop myself from making sure this island is no longer overlooked. Its size is not the determinant factor here: Palmyra is unique in that it is not part of the Northwestern Hawaiians and is also in a territorial class of its own that qualifies it as the American homeland. The emphasis is needed and I believe a variation on my crude map will be perfect to make this article end its lack of showing all the incorporated territories of the United States seperately. If this isn't clear, come to my talk page please! This issue is very important to me.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You fix it by putting the proper copyright information on the image page. --Golbez 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Until 1959 Palmyra had the same status as the northwestern Hawaiian islands, to show it without showing them would be bizarre - to show both would be nice but it would severely warp the scale of the map. Kmusser 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Heck, it could be sped up and Youtubed for repeat enjoyment. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unorganized land south of Missouri Territory?

Is there some better basis than this site for the claim that the southern portion of the Missouri Territory became unorganized before it was organized as the Arkansaw Territory? The only statement I see there is in an otherwise unreferenced timeline with the entry 1812-12-07: Louisiana territory split into Missouri territory and unorganized land. The first capital of Missouri was Saint Louis.

Probably not, but since Statoids was my source for a huge part of the list, I figured I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. When I get my computer set back up within a week, I'll probably remove that. --Golbez 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant legislation that I can find:

• March 26, 1804, "An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof." [5] This act organized all that portion of the country ceded by France to the U.S. south of the Mississippi Territory and south of a east-west line starting on the Mississippi River at 33 degrees north latitude to the western boundary of the said cession as the territory of Orleans. Beginning with Section 12, the remainder of the province of Louisiana ceded to the U.S. was organized as the district of Louisiana under the jurisdiction of the governor and judges of Indiana Territory, effective for a maximum of one year beginning October 31, 1804. The western boundary was left unspecified.

• March 3, 1805, "An Act further providing for the government of the district of Louisiana." [6] This act organized the district of Louisiana as the territory of Louisiana with a separate government.

• February 20, 1811, "An Act to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union, on an equal footing with the original states, and for other purposes." [7] This act set the boundaries for the new state as from the mouth of the Sabine River along the middle of that river and including all islands, to 32 degree north latitude and then due north to 33 degrees north latitude then due east to the Mississippi River, then south along the middle of that river to the Iberville River and then along that river through the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the gulf of Mexico.

• April 8, 1812, "An Act for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union, and to extend the laws of the United States to said state." [8] This act admitted Louisiana as as state with the same boundaries as the enabling act, effective April 30, 1812.

• April 14, 1812, "An Act to enlarge the limits of the state of Louisiana." [9] This act expanded the boundaries of Louisiana to include a a portion of West Florida to the Pearl River.

• May 22, 1812, "An Act supplementary to an act entitled 'An act for the admission of the state of Louisiana into the Union, and to extend the laws of the United States to the said state'". [10] This act provided for continuity between the government of the territory of Orleans and the state of Louisiana.

• June 4, 1812, "An Act providing for the government of the territory of Missouri." [11] This act renamed the territory of Louisiana as the territory of Missouri, effective on the first Monday of December 1812.

• March 2, 1819, "An Act establishing a separate territorial government in the southern part of the territory of Missouri." [12] This act organized the Arkansaw territory from "all that part of the territory of Missouri which lies south of a line, beginning on the Mississippi River, at thirty-six degrees, north latitude, running thence west to the river Francois; thence up the same to thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude; and thence west to the western territorial boundary line. The western and southern boundaries were unspecified.

Am I missing something? Where in all of this does the territory fall unorganized? On the face of it, the cited reference for this [13] seems a not particularly reliable source. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, This article in The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture gives a fairly succinct summary of the boundary changes -- it does not mention becoming unorganized in 1812. older ≠ wiser 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've excised that whole bit from the list and maps; thank you very much for your research. --Golbez 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Current work

I've added some of the tiny bits to the timeline, but:

1. I need dates and information on the two tiny changes to Indiana Territory
2. I need a specific date for the transfer of the parcel from Dakota Territory to Nebraska
3. I need a good start date for the Alaska boundary dispute

Anything else? --Golbez 11:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The map for March 4, 1789 shows Rupert's Land as including the northeast corner of Minnesota. This conflicts with this article, which places it only in the northwest corner, basically the Red River watershed. — Andy Anderson 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The area was poorly surveyed (obviously, considering the Lake of the Woods dispute) so the borders of that area were disputed. However, the Minnesota dispute is far less known and documented than the Maine dispute; all I know is both were resolved by the same treaty. --Golbez 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Did a quick review and I think the point there is that technically the dispute east of Lake of the Woods would've been with British Canada, not Rupert's Land (the Rupert's Land boundary being the Hudson Bay watershed). Kmusser 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Did the province of Canada extend that far west? Though you do have a point, at least part that area would have drained into Superior, not Hudson, and therefore it wouldn't have been Rupert's Land. Hrm. --Golbez 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, Canada was expanded to the Rupert's Land boundary by the Quebec Act in 1774. Kmusser 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Does this jive with my first map on Territorial evolution of Canada, which was traced, IIRC, from an official Canadian website? --Golbez 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, you have Ontario going that far west in the first frame so it looks good to me. Kmusser 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
            • A few of us have been having a discussion on this issue on the page Talk:Webster-Ashburton Treaty#Mesabi Range a Bonus?. I think I've made a convincing argument that there was no major dispute regarding this land. It should be included in the Northwest Territory and subsequent developments from 1783 onward. — Andy Anderson 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I'll check this and consider it, thanks. Wikipedia rocks. ;) --Golbez 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Regardless of whether the dispute was "major" (by whatever standards might be devised to rate such things), the boundary was not settled until the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. Whether the dispute was between the U.S. and Rupert's Land or the UK is another question.
                • I would define "major" as (a) whether it should show up on these maps at the scale used, and (b) whether it was generally argued by the governments involved. From what I can tell, the general route of the boundary was known and accepted by pretty much everyone from the Treaty of Paris (1783) onward — it was called the Grand Portage. The dispute over the Arrowhead Region shown in red on these maps existed only from 1824 to 1827, beginning after the survey work along the current border was completed. Apparently it was due to the persistence of only one person on the British side of the boundary commission, and so it doesn't qualify as "major" IMHO. He was finally forced to give up his chimera when presented with the Mitchell Map on which the boundary was based. The commission then proceeded to argue over minor variations that wouldn't show up on these maps; it was these that were settled by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. See the discussion in the latter link for a reference that describes this in detail. — Andy Anderson 07:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm inclined to agree that the entire Arrowhead region shouldn't be shaded as disputed -- only that the precise boundary was not clearly defined. Perhaps some sort of dashed or colored line could be used to indicate this rather than shading the entire arrowhead. older ≠ wiser 11:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related point, the part of Rupert's Land — the Hudson Bay Watershed — that lies west of the Lake of the Woods would seem to be a legitimate area of dispute between the U.S. and Canada. The Treaty of Paris (1783) describes the boundary in this area as being "on a due west course to the river Mississippi". So the first part could be correct, giving the U.S. much more land, or the second part could be correct, giving Britain much more land. Both can't be correct so there is inherently a dispute, and the region should be marked that way. — Andy Anderson 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this area was disputed until the Treaty of 1818. I think the disputed area of the Red River Basin is reflected in the maps, no? older ≠ wiser 01:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I think I mark the Red River Basin as owned indisputably by the UK. So y'all think I should change this to disputed? --Golbez 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- the maps only show the boundary being adjusted in 1818. This somewhat dated image from the USGS, Image:USA Territorial Growth 1790.jpg, does show the area as claimed by the U.S. -- though I'm not sure what the basis of the claim would be. The previous image in that series, Image:USA Territorial Growth 1775.jpg shows it as disputed between Britain and Spain. In most maps I recall seeing, up to the Louisiana Purchase, the boundary line runs south from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi. With the Louisiana Purchase, the boundary to the west became less clearly determined. older ≠ wiser 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen at least one map which included the Red River region within the Northwest Territory, though it was probably modern. — Andy Anderson 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this before, but the Jay Treaty of 1794 recognized that it might not be possible to draw a line due west from the the Mississippi to the Lake of the Woods. Article 4 states:

Whereas it is uncertain whether the River Mississippi extends so far to the Northward as to be intersected by a Line to be drawn due West from the Lake of the woods in the manner mentioned in the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and the United States, it is agreed, that measures shall be taken in Concert between His Majesty's Government in America, and the Government of the United States, for making a joint Survey of the said River, from one Degree of Latitude below the falls of St Anthony to the principal Source or Sources of the said River, and also of the parts adjacent thereto, And that if on the result of such Survey it should appear that the said River would not be intersected by such a Line as is above mentioned; The two Parties will thereupon proceed by amicable negotiation to regulate the Boundary Line in that quarter as well as all other Points to be adjusted between the said Parties, according to Justice and mutual Convenience, and in Conformity, to the Intent of the said Treaty.

But I don't know that there was ever any such amicable negotiations until the boundary was settled with the Treaty of 1818. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the War of 1812 got in the way :-) — Andy Anderson 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thing to add: the original boundary line would be from the northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods due west, which is at latitude 49.38°. The Treaty of 1818 moved the line south to 49° exactly. This is only about 30 miles, but it does show up on these wonderful maps you are drawing. And if you include this you may also want to include the full Mississippi watershed in Louisiana (as you do after its purchase). I appreciate your hard work! — Andy Anderson 07:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But by terms of the treaty that established the "original" boundary line, the United States had no claim to any territory west of the Mississippi River. It was not until the Louisiana Purchase that boundary came into question. Is there a reliable source that indicates any claim was made that latitude 49.38° should be the boundary line? older ≠ wiser 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The extract from the Jay Treaty above shows that this boundary was, in fact, in question by 1794, well before the Louisiana Purchase. The Treaty of Paris (1783) didn't say the U.S. had no claim, it makes what turned out to be a contradictory statement taken as a whole. The first part by itself makes sense on its own, and specifies that the boundary proceeds "to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course". This point and course are at 49.38° N. latitude, so that would seem to be the northernmost extent of this "questionable area". — Andy Anderson 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The extract from the Jay Treaty recognizes that the terms of 1783 Treaty of Paris may have been predicated on faulty geography. Did the U.S. ever lay claim to any territory to 49.38° N west of the Mississippi before the Louisiana Purchase (which significantly altered the situation)? I'm not aware there was ever any dispute that the northwesternmost point of Lake of the Woods was the northernmost limit -- but from that point, what territory was there that lay west of the Mississippi, which was also recognized as the westernmost limit of U.S. territory? older ≠ wiser 02:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the border ended up in this vicinity demonstrates that someone in the U.S. thought it should be there! — Andy Anderson 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs).

Well, sure. The Louisiana Purchase, with a very vaguely defined northern boundary, forced the issue. It was something of a happy coincidence that the 49th parallel was both near the Lake of the Woods and also approximately split the difference between the areas claimed by the U.S. and Britain west of the Lake of the Woods. That made it easier for both parties to agree on it as a boundary. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

didnt connecticut claim long island for a while? --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - until 1676, long before the start of this list. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase at the Rockies

Maps through 1817 are wrong at the NW corner of the Colony of Louisiana (and later Missouri Territory).

They show the boundary following the ridgeline of the Rocky Mountains NW all the way to the 49th parallel, when it in fact swings NE about 38 miles earlier, reaching the 49th parallel about 46 miles east of the ridgeline, because the Belly and Saint Mary Rivers in NW Glacier County, Montana, flow north, ultimately to Hudson Bay.

That triangle is similar in size to the width of the Idaho panhandle, and much larger than the Angle at Lake of the Woods, so should be shown in the same way as the Red River valley to the east is.

For a very precise definition of the "Hudson Bay / Gulf of Mexico Divide" see the map at Figure 3.3, pg 14 (PDF page 7) of StMary Diversion 2005 Overview And History, and for the entire area see USGS 1:250K topo where the Continental Divide crosses the border as "Livingston Range" at the extreme left, the North Fork Milk River crosses the border at the extreme right, and "Hudson Bay Divide" is the divide between the St Mary and Milk rivers from the border SSW down to the continental divide at map center bottom. Although initially flowing north into Canada, the Milk River is within the Louisiana Purchase because it swings back south, ultimately into the Missouri.

AP61 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

San Juans and the Pig War

The San Juan Islands were in dispute from 1846 to 1872, as described in the Pig War article (though the map there is poor, not naming the two straits in question - Haro Strait is of course the current boundary, while Rosario Strait is to the east of Orcas island, through the word "Cypress", and it is the islands in between that were disputed).

Too small to be shown on the maps, this should be listed in the "small changes" at the start of the article.

AP61 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both of these, I'll work on them next week. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Boston corners

I was just browsing around and noticed Boston Corner, New York ceded from Massachusetts to New York April 13, 1857 which could be mentioned here? --Roke 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should, yeah. No map, of course, unless it was a heavily zoomed in view of the maps of the states. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that this article be merged with Territorial acquisitions of the United States, as they seem to cover substantially similar topics. I don't understand what the relevant difference is between 'territorial evolution' and 'territorial acquisitions'; both are about how United States territory has changed throughout its history, and thus would be better covered in a single article. Please comment on this proposal below. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The other is about the US adding new land; this is about all changes, including (and especially) internal. That article is a list of the acquisitions; this is a list of the changes. These are different concepts. This article, for example, only chronicles the expansion of the United States 12 times, give or take, but there over 100 entries total. So while we could possibly include those in this, I consider them different topics - it seems to work better to give a good treatment (which may be lacking in that other article) to the various acquisitions made by the US over time, while dealing with all the myriad border changes (the vast bulk of them internal) on this list. --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I understand the difference between the two pages now, and see why it makes sense to have both - I will withdraw my merge proposal. (In any case, this article is long enough as it is already - having more information merged in wouldn't particularly help.) Terraxos (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Territory/Missouri border Dispute-Honey War

Why is this not in the article? Shouldn't there be some mention of the Honey War in the 1830's-1851 timeline, and reflected in the appropriate maps, since there are other internal border disputes already recognized in this article. There are several factors that make this dispute rather important: (1) both sides fielded militias, (2) there was some concern at the time of an invasion by Missouri, (3) a peace treaty had to eventually be signed, (4) the Supreme Court had to eventually step in and make a decree, (5) and this dispute occurred between a Free State & a Slave State and a tract such as this, if in dispute, would cause most serious trouble in Pre-Civil War America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.112.61.190 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Jfruh that the distinction between actually controlled territory and paper claims with no reality should be upheld for the 1846-50 period. The U.S. governed New Mexico as a territory not divided at the Rio Grande and unconnected to the Texas government from the day it was captured. Texas did continue to claim the territory, proclaimed a Santa Fe County in March 1848 without effect, and in 1849-50 threatened to send troops to take it from the U.S. government (other southern states also offered troops) but never did. Texas sent Robert Neighbors to try to organize Texas government; he succeeded only with El Paso County, in March 1850, and was rebuffed in the rest of New Mexico. Contrast this to South Texas where Texas established Cameron County in 1848 and held elections. Texas finally accepted the previously rejected offer to relinquish its northwestern claims in return for debt relief in the Compromise of 1850 when it was becoming clear that enforcement of its claim was getting nowhere.

I think the most accurate coloring would show South Texas as disputed until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and undisputed Texas after; and New Mexico and El Paso as disputed between Texas and the federal government rather than unchallenged parts of Texas until the Compromise of 1850. As late as December 1849 - January 1850, Senator Thomas Hart Benton's proposal called for Texas's western and northern boundaries to be set at the 102nd meridian west and 34th parallel north, showing that the land to the west and north was under dispute. Senator John Bell's proposal also would have given all land north of the 34th parallel to New Mexico instead of Texas. Later in 1850 the first draft of the Compromise made Texas's northwestern boundary a straight diagonal line from the Rio Grande 20 miles north of El Paso to the Red River at the 100th meridian west, the southwestern corner of Oklahoma.

California and New Mexico should also be shown as disputed from the date of U.S. takeover until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --JWB (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Territorial growth and loss of states

The leading paragraph (originally) said that only two states grew since statehood (Nevada and Missouri) and only two lost area (to form other states): Massachusetts and Virginia. While I don't have a problem with the first (and seems to be backed up by this article), I have a bit of a problem with the second. It seems that when Texas first appears as a state, it is much larger, its terirtory was eventually reduced to current borders, and the reduced areas form parts of NM, CO, WY, etc. I feel that Texas should be therefore added to Virginia and Massachusetts in the opening paragraph. I took the liberty of adding it myself, if there's a problem with that, let's debate it here and then remove it. --Canuckguy 18:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The extra land for Texas appears to have been de facto only, and when I get around to continuing my sprucing-up work for these maps, I'll probably recolor all of Texas as disputed - since it was never recognized as independent by Mexico, and the annexation was one of the main reasons for the Mexican-American War. However, now that I look at it again, yeah, for a short time after the war ended (Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 185), and before the Mexican Cession was divvied up (Compromise of 1850), Texas did indeed seem to have officially owned all that land. This could probably use more research, though. Good eye. --Golbez 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Canuckguy is correct, both the reference here and in State cessions document the Federal Government buying that land from the State of Texas in 1850. Kmusser 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if we're including Texas, we should probably include Georgia too -- it didn't cede its trans-Appalachian land until the early 1800s. I think the Texas example definitely needs more research, and it should be noted that the Repubilc of Texas, at least, did not control much of that disputed territory. For instance, as near as I can tell the Texan claim included the city of Santa Fe, which was the administrative center for New Mexico under Mexican rule, which obviously was not controlled by the Texans -- and I'm willing to bet it wasn't under Texan control between 1846 and 1850 either. I'd bet that the US paid Texas to abandon its claim to this land, rather than paying Texas to give up control of land under its de facto authority -- a somewhat subtle distinction, but an important one. I'll try to scare up an actual book on the subject. --Jfruh (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Texas situation is somewhat unique. The acts that authorized annexation [14] and admission as a State [15] were vague about the borders -- and included a qualification about "territory rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas". Curiously, the state was authorized to extend its eastern boundaries in 1848 [16], so Texas could theoretically be included in the list of states that grew as well as ones that shrank. For completeness, here is a link to the act adjusting the northern and western boundaries in 1850 [17]. FWIW, I agree that Georgia probably should be included in the list of states that shrank -- the state officers were selling land in Mississippi in the 1790s (the Yazoo land scandal). older ≠ wiser 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed Texas in one of the sections above but would like to put in a word here too, especially since some people seeing this section may not have looked at the earlier one. The Congressional resolutions linked above carefully avoid either endorsing or denying any specific territorial claims by Texas, probably because control of territories was already a North-South issue by that time. As Jfruh says, the U.S. paid Texas to abandon the claims, without endorsing their legitimacy.

Also, further up, Golbez says de facto only. I think you may have meant de jure only? Texas never had any de facto control whatsoever of New Mexico or points north, and its claim to de jure ownership was never recognized by either the U.S. or Mexican governments. In U.S. Congressional debates, support or opposition to the Texas claims split on sectional lines. --JWB (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We probably should include Georgia, and for that matter North Carolina and Connecticut - all three actively administered their western claims before ceding them (as did Virginia but they're already listed). Kmusser 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NC gave up its cession prior to the constitution taking effect; and while Connecticut had a claim on the Western Reserve, I am unsure if that land counted as part of the state, or what its status was. Any ideas? --Golbez 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to State of Franklin, the North Carolina government was still in control of the Tennessee region until 1790 or later. Who's right? Andy Anderson 01:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I went mostly by this passage in Southwest Territory: "North Carolina ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1789. As a condition of joining the Union, it ceded its claim to territory west of the Smoky Mountains under an act passed by the North Carolina General Assembly. The deed to the land was submitted to the 1st U.S. Congress on February 25, 1790, and accepted by Congress on April 2, 1790. On May 26, 1790, the territory was formally organized as the "Territory South of the River Ohio"." Therefore, since the map starts with the ratification of the constitution, I considered that land already ceded, if not yet accepted by Congress. Do you think I should include it as part of North Carolina until April 2 1790? --Golbez 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's best to go with the official transfer date, which at the earliest would be when the second of two parties accepts. Andy Anderson 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the original 13 states ceded their western land claims between 1776-07-04, and 1789-03-04. Technically, the original 13 states all achieved statehood on 1776-07-04, rather than the date they ratified the United States Constitution. --Buaidh 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since NC's cession was delayed, as well as Georgia's (but not for nearly as long), I've added it to the map. --Golbez 11:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Compactness

I tried making the maps alternately at left or right and getting rid of the clear templates (double curly brackets minus, Template:-) and got a more compact format that I think looks good. I would like to try this out in the article. --JWB (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I previewed and thought it looked good and was easy to match dates and maps, though I also considered putting headings at right when they go with a right-hand map. I'll see if I can do that now. --JWB (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. If it can work that might be nice, but as it was it wasn't working. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It looked pretty good to me (Both in Firefox 3 and IE 6 on Windows XP). Kmusser (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not immediately sure how to move the headings right but will keep looking for a good way.

But another thing - I now notice the dates are listed on the maps themselves, helping to match them. In fact with the alternating scheme, the maps actually seem to match the correct time periods for a territorial configuration, instead of being aligned with the start date for that configuration as previously - for example, the map labeled April 26, 1802 to March 1, 1803 becomes adjacent to both the text blocks labeled April 26, 1802 and March 1, 1803, instead of just the text block labeled April 26, 1802. Viewed this way, it is actually more logical. --JWB (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The arrows aren't working; the left-pointing one apparently isn't included in my font, and I have more than the basic fonts a typical Wikipedia user would use. It also still looks very jumbled and messy, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)