Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutral Strip / No Man's Land

1. The reference link (number 40) is broken. http://www.okhistory.org/outreach/affiliates/nomans.html is a page at the same site about the same topic, though I'm not sure if it's identical to the previous one.
2. That page sets the creation of No Man's Land at 1854 when the Kansas Territory was formed. This makes sense as previously it was adjacent simply to a large unorganized territory reaching north as far as Canada. However, this article currently shows creation of the Neutral Strip at the Compromise of 1850. --JWB (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not the only dead link. I've made a pass through the article to fix the dead links. Someone else needs to look at your concern #2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Golbez - could you comment on this issue and the following one? --JWB (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to handle all the myriad issues. Maybe a temp page where we can all discuss and such? I'll just drop the images for now, it's more important to figure out the list of changes. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest unclaimed until 1818?

Spain and Britain nearly went to war over it in 1789 - see Nootka Crisis, Nootka Convention. Also mentioned in Adams-Onis Treaty. --JWB (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the details of the rival claims are probably outside the scope of this list but "disputed" would probably be better label than "unclaimed".Kmusser (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If disputed between Spain and Britain, it's not clear where to draw lines. Britain made a specific claim to land around Nootka Sound, which is outside the U.S. map, and had more general claims based on Sir Francis Drake (who landed only in California) and Captain Cook (who mapped the whole coast including California). There is certainly not reason to draw a firm line between California/Nevada and the Northwest as this article's maps do, especially inland from the coast. During this period, the Russians were also present at Fort Ross in California. I'm adding at right an existing Wikipedia map showing Spanish and British claims to the Northwest but with boundary lines similar to the maps in this article. --JWB (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That line might mark the southern end of the British claim at the time these maps begin (1789), but I couldn't find any confirmation of that, various documents from the Nootka crisis seem to imply the British accepted Spanish ownership of California, but there is no boundary given to the British claim. Kmusser (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The animated file that is the source for File:Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1800.png seems to imply that the line is the northern boundary of New Spain, but I found numerous sources saying the northern boundary of New Spain was undefined until the Adams-Onís treaty. So I think you're right, there probably shouldn't be a line there at all.Kmusser (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've looked into and after much research believe that Britain never made a southern boundary claim, nor did Spain make a northern boundary until the Adam-Onis treaty with the US. When formal border diplomacy got serious Britain never pushed for anything south of the lower Columbia River--yet continued to routinely send multi-year fur parties to the Sacramento River delta and elsewhere south of the 42nd parallel. In short as far as I have been able to determine it is quite impossible to delineate most claims of this era and region. It was more about vast overlapping zones than border lines. The Nootka Conventions were not about borders but rather about the right of any nation to establish trading posts in lands unoccupied by other (non-indigenous) powers, regardless of formal claims of possession. Previously Spain had claimed the whole Pacific west coast at least to Russian Alaska and argued that the British could not even trade with natives along the coast without violating Spanish sovereignty. The Nootka agreements basically made sovereignty contingent upon occupation. Spain clearly occupied California (at least the coast to San Francisco or so) and just as clearly did not occupy th Oregon Country. No boundary lines were made though, and the question of just how far ownership extended from an occupied area was left vague. Mapping this kind of thing is quite tricky. Also yes, claims of the PNW pre-1818 were disputed by Russia as well--not only via the California post, but attempts to established posts at Nootka Sound and the mouth of the Columbia River, among others. Pfly (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case for revision. Do we have consensus on this? --JWB (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CT Western Reserve

It's not right that CT alone of those with western claims is represented in the map, for surely, VA is neglected, the same also for NY and MA. Another thing too, is that Virginia was the very first territory on the mainland, so all others were carved out of her; first Bermuda and New England, although New England's spiritual predecessor was New Albion--later known as Oregon Country, on the Pacific Coast. Barbados ought to be shown in connection to Carolina and Newfoundland with Maryland; whether or not Haiti had some connection to Louisiana and the same for Jamaica and Georgia, I am unsure as well. The major mistake is viewing America from this idea that it existed only since 1776, when its land development since then has followed previous land charters. The whole bit about Manifest Destiny and Sea to Shining Sea is entirely referenced to the Elizabethan period, to try and link up the claims by Raleigh and Drake. Plus, Nova Scotia was part of America before Canada. The actual historical progression was that it was part of America until 1776, after which NS decided to throw in its lot with the Crown's newfound conquest of Canada and was key to holding the French under control. The population pattern was the same as New England, just as Carolina followed that of Virginia; the same progress continued with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island being carved out of NS, just as GA was taken from Carolina. The map really looks like it was pulled out of a hat, rather than reflecting reality. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The list begins at the ratification of the Constitution; i.e. the formation of the United States. Which is the title and subject of the article. To go earlier would not be the United States; it would belong in an article on the territorial history of European colonies in the New World. The western claims of Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, etc. were all sold to the federal government prior to this date, but Connecticut's wasn't. See state cessions. So that explains most of your questions, though I dislike your insult at the work put into the article. You have pointed out no omissions or errors, just a misunderstanding as to the scope of the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article you are looking for is British colonization of the Americas. Kmusser (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1861

The year 1861 was a year of great tumult. I suggest the following minor changes to the maps for 1861:

• Image:United States 1861-01-1861-02-04.png

1. Show the unorganized territory that was previously the western portion of the Territory of Kansas as Unorganized territory.
2. Show South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana as Seceded.

Seceded as the green in other maps. The spesh man (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Re-date 1861-01-29, to 1861-02-08.

• Image:United States 1861-02-04-1861-02-28.png

1. Show the unorganized territory that was previously the western portion of the Territory of Kansas as Unorganized territory.
2. Show Texas as Seceded
3. Show only South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana as the Confederacy.

As grey like in other countries. The spesh man (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Show no states as Disputed.
2. Re-date 1861-02-08, to 1861-02-28.

• Image:United States 1861-02-28-1861-03.png

1. Show Texas as Seceded
2. Show only South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana as the Confederacy.
3. Show no states as Disputed.

• Image:United States 1861-03-1861-08.png|250px|right

1. Show only South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas as the Confederacy.
2. Show no states as Disputed or Seceded.
3. Re-date as 1861-03-02, to 1861-07-02.

• Create new image from Image:United States 1861-03-1861-08.png

1. Show no states as Disputed or Seceded.
2. Date as 1861-07-02, to 1861-08-01.

• Image:United States 1861-08-1862.png

1. Show only the Arizona Territory (CSA), the Indian territory, and the Neutral Strip (Oklahoma) as Disputed.
2. Re-date as 1861-08-01, to 1861-12-10.

• Create new image from Image:United States 1861-08-1862.png

1. Date as 1861-12-10, to 1861-07-14.

--Buaidh 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated below, when I get my PC set back up, I'll try these out, but I want to avoid complicating the map too much. I'll try some of these and see if they fit well. --Golbez 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Territory

I think File:United States 1789-03-1789-08.png is not accurate with respect to the Northwest Territory. The territory was established on July 13, 1787, by the Continental Congresss -- the U.S. Congress affirmed the previous ordinance on August 7, 1789. It was not unorganized territory on March 4, 1798 as indicated by the map. It had a functioning government. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but I see that the unorganized territory article says that an an unorganized territory is a territory for which the Congress has not enacted an organic act, Northwest Ordinance article says that the Congress affirmed such an act on August 7, 1789, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1784 article says that that previous ordinance did not define how the territories would be governed or settled before they became states. There's a long, rambling statement which touches on this in the 1999 Congressional Record at http://books.google.com/books?id=GAV2ZUZ6qPIC&pg=PA28020 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Northwest Ordinance of 1784 is incorrectly titled as is is not the Northwest Ordinance that was affirmed by Congress in 1789. The actual Northwest Ordinance was passed by the Continental Congress in 1787 and was re-authorized almost verbatim by the U.S. Congress in 1789. It most certainly did organize government -- there are many official acts by officers of the Northwest Territory prior to 1789. The rambling statement you mention confirms that the Northwest Ordinance was passed in 1787. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Land Ordinance of 1784 article, to which the Northwest Ordinance of 1784 article redirects (I didn't notice earlier that it was a redirect), speaks of a congressional resolution dated April 23, 1784 (see here) regarding territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual states, to the United States and to be offered for sale. Later, Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 (see here) outlined the establishment of the government of this territory. So, it appears to me, as you said above, that this territory should be considered to have been an unincorporated organized territory beginning on July 13, 1787 (see the Territories of the United States article, which relates to this but doesn't go back that far). This exchange led me to some interesting reading on pp 1745-9 here, but I'm out of my depth here and am going to drop out at this point. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than iI will chime in. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Land Ordinance of 1784 is not commonly known as the Northwest Ordinance -- naming it so seems peculiar to Wikipedia. Technically the concept of incorporated vs. unincorporated territory was unknown at that time, but in any case I don't see any reason to consider the land as being "unincorporated". The land was in fact claimed by several states -- so it seems hard to argue that it would be unincorporated after the individual states had ceded their claims on the land to the federal government. But like I said, the incorporated/unincorporated distinction was unknown at that time -- the salient detail is that the Northwest Territory most certainly had an "organized" government sanctioned by the Continental Congress by 1787 -- the map displayed in File:United States 1789-03-1789-08.png that labels the area as unorganized from March 4, 1789 to August 7, 1789 is wrong. older ≠ wiser 19:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick around a bit and respond to that. This started off with you asserting that File:United States 1789-03-1789-08.png was not accurate. As I understand it, your feeling is that "Unorganized territory" there should be changed to "Northwest territory". From what I've learned in these exchanges, that sounds generally right, or perhaps the territory might be characterized as "Unorganized" between April 23, 1784 and July 13, 1787. I could probably make such changes, but I see that the images were created and uploaded by User:Golbez, who surely knows more about this than I. I'd suggest giving him a shout on his talk page.

On the redirect at Northwest Ordinance of 1784, I see that it was created about a year ago and was recently moved by you to Land Ordinance of 1784. The only article which links to it is Northwest Ordinances, which characterizes as one of three such ordinances passed to regulate the settlement of the Northwest Territory. Offhand, I don't see much harm in just leaving it in place. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, there is relatively little harm, else I'd have just removed the image altogether till it got fixed. While the area was only organized as the Northwest Territory in 1787, there were various claims of governmental authority in the area. It likely could be rightly called unorganized from 1783 to 1787 -- Virginia established the Illinois County in 1778, which at least claimed authority of much of what became the Northwest Territory, until it ceded its claim in 1781. I'll note that there are no sources provided that calling the 1784 ordinance the "Northwest Ordinance of 1784". While the three taken together are commonly recognized as having profound impact on settlement of the Northwest Territory, the 1784 and 1785 ordinances are not commonly known as Northwest Ordinances of xxxx. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the Northwest Territory up to 1781 was part of Virginia, and should be designated as such, not as "Unorganized Territory". As older ≠ wiser has pointed out, the territory was organized by Virginia as Illinois County, even if that organization was not practically effective for the entire territory. Other States asserted various claims to parts of the territory, but they were junior to Virginia's, and, as far as I'm aware, were never much more than paper claims. The Territory was defended as part of Virginia in the French & Indian War and the Revolutionary War, and Virginia asserted practical jurisdiction over extensive parts of it (through surveys, military operations, and settlement). Shouldn't it be acknowledged as part of Virginia, perhaps with further acknowledgment of the competing claims of other States? Jdcrutch (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This bit of US history is really messy and confusing, in part because of the overlapping state claims and multiple cession proposals, and also because the details of the Northwest Territory span the era from before the Articles of Confederation to after the Constitution. I have trouble keeping all the details straight, but I think you are right--the map ought to say "Northwest Territory" instead of "Unorganized territory". The new federal government under the Constitution "carried forward" the Ordinance of 1787. The language used in 1789 is somewhat misleading though, as the act passed Aug 7, 1789, was titled "An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio", which might imply that no government existed previously. It's pretty clear that the Ordinance of 1787 under the Articles of Confederation did not cease with the adoption of the Constitution though. Certainly the Northwest was no less "organized" during the year or so between ratification of the Constitution and the passing of the 1789 ordinance. If nothing else the 1787 ordinance specified the general borders of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, more or less as they ended up being made. Anyway, has anyone pinged User:Golbez?

Also, I agree that the Northwest Ordinance page needs work. Wrt: "The Land Ordinance of 1784 is not commonly known as the Northwest Ordinance -- naming it so seems peculiar to Wikipedia." The book I have at hand, "American Boundaries" by Bill Hubbard (which seems quite good to me), uses the term "Ordinance of 1784" or "1784 Ordinance". Never "Land Ordinance". Thoughts on what the page ought to be called? There's a lot of interesting stuff about the 1784 ordinance that could be added to the page--not least of which involves early stabs at specifying how new states and their borders would be made (not to mention Jefferson's scheme being more visionary/idealistic than practical in some ways). Apparently the attempted State of Franklin justified itself and its boundaries on the 1784 ordinance.

Finally, as for the idea that "the Northwest Territory up to 1781 was part of Virginia"--it doesn't matter in this case, since the page starts with the situation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but which time the Northwest had become federal land, the public domain. Perhaps something could be said in the text about the Virginia Military District, which Virginia retained some control over (within the framework of the federal Northwest Territory though). In fact, I'd argue that the text for this map ought to be adjusted in a few ways. It mentions state cessions quite a bit but not the 1787 Ordinance. It implies, incorrectly I think, that the state cessions resulted in the territory becoming unorganized until the 1789 Ordinance. Pfly (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just chiming in to remark that the book mentioned (Hubbard, Bill (2009), American boundaries: the nation, the states, the rectangular survey, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226355917) is previewable online via Google Books. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

West Virginia in the Civil War

West Virginia in the Civil War should be shaded as territory claimed by the Confederacy, similar to Kentucky and Missouri, since it wasn't recognized as a Union state by Virginia or the Confederacy.

Good point... I'll take that into account in my rewrite of the maps and article that I'm [very slowly] working on. --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reconstruction

i really enjoy this article but the CSA states didn't just magically reappear in the Union. The statea came back in a 5 year process, and the maps should reflect that. It should also reflect th different military districts during Reconstruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.67.205 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Inter-state disputes

This article talks about the border disputes around Pennsylvania and Deleware, but those can't be unique. Somebody already mentioned Boston Corner that transferred from MA to NY, but even in tiny Massachusetts, there were adjustments between MA and RI up into the 1850s! I fear, and I don't know this for sure, that if we discussed every state border dispute here, we'd run into trouble real fast. Therefore, I move we get rid of the map of the Delaware/Pennsylvania dispute as WP:UNDUE and mention at the top this article doesn't talk about those sorts of things. Thoughts? CSZero (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing every single border dispute and change, that's the point of this article, to be meticulous. If it wasn't meticulous we wouldn't care what day things changed on, just have it by year or decade like every other map like this. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

it is a fact that the modern contingial US border was set here that is the border of the states that all are connected by US sovergn land or as the alaskans say the lower 48. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't; there have been many small adjustments since. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

At least for Washington State, part of the 48, their border in the San Juan Islands was still in dispute until the Pig War ended. 128.208.79.32 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And the border between Texas and Mexico was last changed on Novermber 24, 2009. There is yet another change that is currently pending approval. This is not surprising given that the U.S. and Mexico have a treaty that says the "widest channel of normal flow" at any point of the Rio Grande will always be the border. Jeff in CA 04:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kansas

I believe that the map detailing the admission of Kansas is inaccurate. It is important to show that 6 states already seceded, allowing the Kansas statehood bill to pass in the Senate. The House passed the statehood bill in April of 1860, but it was blocked in the Senate until 1861. The only reason Kansas became a state when it did was because multiple southern states had already seceded. The map does not show any states having seceded at the time of Kansas's admission to the USA. Had these states not seceded Kansas would not have become a state when it did. http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/kansas/kansas-bill.html

Similarly, the Colorado Territory and Dakota Territory are showing having been added after all of the southern states seceded, when they were actually formed before the firing on Ft. Sumter and the subsequent secession of Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMBurch1 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be nice if the maps for January 29, February 4, February 28, March 2, and August 1, 1861 were altered to show the proper status of the southern states in this crucial year. The CSA did not suddenly appear as a whole.  Buaidh  19:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree; as part of my (apparently exceptionally long) redo process of the article, I do plan to include all readmissions and secessions separately. I'll keep this in mind as we go along. --Golbez (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You do a fantastic job.  Buaidh  02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Aww, thanks. :) The main part of my redo is including surrounding countries, rather than have the US float in a void. And also to use better colors. It'll make the context for the acquisitions much better. I also plan to include all territories, incorporated or otherwise. (Example of my 'newer' style: Territorial evolution of Canada.) But my computer for a couple of years was too crappy to do any work, and I just got a new one and to be honest have been catching up on too many games from the last few years to do map work ;) --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana and the Adams-Onis Treaty

According to this article, upon statehood, Louisiana mysteriously ceded the northwestern corner of the Orleans Territory to the Louisiana Territory (later renamed Missouri Territory to avoid ambiguity and remove confusion with the new-formed state). However, as far as I know, this never happened. And until proper citation can be found, no such statement as: "The rest of the territory (the northwestern tip) was ceded to Louisiana Territory" belongs. I do know that following the Louisiana Purchase, the new territory was divided by the 33rd parallel, the Northern portion being named the District of Louisiana and the Southern portion being named Orleans Territory. That Orleans Territory (in its entirety) achieved statehood as Louisiana. I am also aware that there were boundary disputes, that the western boundary of Louisiana (the State of), and indeed the entire territory, was undefined. For instance, the "Sabine Free State" acted as a neutral buffer territory between New Spain and the United States of America. By the Spanish definition, the State of Louisiana should have covered only the Mississippi watershed to the west of the main body of the Mississippi River (and New Orleans). But the Americans claimed part of (Spanish) West Florida, i.e. the "Baton Rouge District" to the east, and that Louisiana extended at least as far west as the Sabine River. Beyond that, the western limits of the State of Louisiana remained undefined. However, Louisiana did not acquire its present configuration until the Adams-Onis Treaty (1821), when such territorial disputes were finally resolved. And if you look at the present state border of Louisiana with Texas, it is formed by the Sabine River but then arbitrarily veers off due north (IIRC, it is at the intersection of the Sabine River with the 32nd parallel). This is clearly a compromise boundary. But since the maps show Louisiana with its PRESENT shape from statehood on, even prior to the Transcontinental Treaty of 1821, that means that ALL 11 maps between April 30 1812 and July 10 1821 are wrong, at least in that regard.

This is a good point. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Todo list for a complete rewrite

It's time. This is going to be the list of every change to be noted in this list, and I mean EVERY change. Each change shall have an appropriately zoomed map. This is including all Confederate claims and territorial holdings, with a global view as necessary. The list itself, I think, should omit names and borders of other countries; it just complicates matters. Individual frames and animations can include those, but maps created for this list view should omit them.

I'm going to start with the absolute basics and add on from there, based on earlier discussions here, territories, etc. So if anyone watching this remembers something that needs to be added, please note it. This particular list omits anything not explicitly dealing with the U.S. as it was on that date; no border changes in Canada, no name changes in Mexico, no Texan independence. Those can be added in the individual frame maps, but they won't be in this article. The scope is too random, as it begins to rely on what projection the map has, etc. --Golbez (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Golbez! You're a hero for putting this together. Have you considered staging these maps on a tile server of any sort? Are you familiar with OpenHistoricalMap? We'd love to have this type of information up there. I'm currently playing around with getting the various phases of Maine's borders (fuzzy and firm) up as a test case. Jeffme (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it, no, but that seems interesting. But, you mean high-fidelity vectors? That's beyond my capability. I gave up on trying to handle the Rio Grande changes because they were poorly documented, politically and civilly irrelevant, and took up unneeded space. --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes to high fidelity vectors! Even if the drawings are lower-fidelity, they can be of value. No worries about things being "beyond" your capabilities - trust me, you've already done the heavy lifting. I'd like to send you my email, but not sure how to do it privately here on the wikithing. OHM is tied in with Wikimaps and Wikimedia & your work is some of the best stuff I've seen. I love it! Jeffme (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the boundaries on OHM (no time-based filters yet, but they're coming): Maine District of Massachusetts (1783), UK Disputed Territory (1783). Jeffme (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1780s

• June 21, 1788: Nine states having ratified it, the U.S. Constitution comes into effect. The capital is established at New York City.
  • This initial situation shows:
    • Nine states of the United States: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia;
    • One territory, the unorganized territory north and west of the Ohio river;
    • The Erie Triangle as unorganized territory;
    • The Connecticut Western Reserve as state land;
    • The fuzzy borders of northern Maine District;
    • The fuzzy borders of the area north of Lake Superior;
    • The dispute between West Florida and Georgia;
    • The dispute between Vermont Republic and New York and New Hampshire.
    • The remaining states of the Articles of Confederation are noted with a different color; unsure if this should be the 'foreign' grey or something else. These are Rhode Island, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina.
• June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies the Constitution, becoming a state.
• July 26, 1788: New York ratifies the Constitution, becoming a state.
• March 4, 1789: The first congress takes office. This might be a better starting point than June 21, we'll see.
• August 7, 1789: The Territory North West of the Ohio River is organized.
• November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies the Constitution, becoming a state.

1790s

• April 2, 1790: Congress accepts North Carolina's cession of its western counties, which had initially been ceded on December 22, 1789. The land became unorganized territory.
• May 26, 1790: The Territory South of the Ohio River is organized.
• May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies the Constitution, becoming a state.
• December 6, 1790: The capital is moved to Philadelphia.
• March 4, 1791: Vermont is admitted.
• September 9, 1791: District of Columbia is created from Maryland and Virginia.
• March 3, 1792: The federal government sold the Erie Triangle to Pennsylvania.
• June 1, 1792: The western counties of Virginia beyond the Appalachian Mountains were admitted as the 15th state, Kentucky.
• October 27, 1795: Pinckney's Treaty, also known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo, signed on October 27, 1795, and proclaimed on August 3, 1796, settles the northern border of West Florida as the 31st parallel.
• June 1, 1796: The Southwest Territory was admitted as the 16th state, Tennessee.
• April 7, 1798: Due to the Yazoo Land Fraud, an act was signed by President John Adams, authorizing him to appoint commissioners to negotiate with Georgia about ceding its western land. The act created Mississippi Territory in the region ceded by West Florida, corresponding to roughly the southern third of present-day Mississippi and Alabama except their panhandles, which were part of West Florida.

1800s

• July 4, 1800: Indiana Territory was formed from the western portion of Northwest Territory.
• July 10, 1800: Connecticut ceded its Western Reserve to the federal government, which made it part of Northwest Territory.
• November 17, 1800: The capital is moved to Washington.
• April 26, 1802: Georgia finally ceded its western claims, the Yazoo Lands, to the federal government, where it became unorganized land
• March 1, 1803: The southeastern portion of Northwest Territory was admitted as the 17th state, Ohio. The remainder of Northwest Territory was transferred to Indiana Territory.
• April 30, 1803: Louisiana Purchase. Addition of unorganized Louisiana Purchase and dispute with Spain over West Florida.
• March 27, 1804: The unorganized land ceded by Georgia was added to Mississippi Territory
• October 1, 1804: Louisiana Purchase split into District of Louisiana and Orleans Territory, which [maybe?] caused a new dispute with Spain.
• January 11, 1805: Michigan Territory split from Indiana Territory.
• July 4, 1805: District of Louisiana organized as Louisiana Territory.
• March 1, 1809: Illinois Territory split from Indiana Territory.

1810s

• October 27, 1810: By proclamation of President James Madison, the United States annexed the Baton Rouge and Mobile Districts of Spanish West Florida, declaring them to have been part of the Louisiana Purchase
• April 30, 1812: Orleans Territory admitted as Louisiana. [Note: Verify extent of Orleans Territory to see if anything actually had to be reassigned, or if the border was fuzzy]
• May 12, 1812: Mobile District of West Florida assigned to Mississippi Territory
• June 4, 1812: Louisiana Territory renamed Missouri Territory
• December 11, 1816: Indiana admitted.
• March 3, 1817: Alabama Territory created.
• December 10, 1817: Mississippi admitted.
• October 20, 1818: Treaty of 1818 established the western border between the U.S. and British North America, and created Oregon Country.
• December 3, 1818: Illinois admitted.
• 1818: Before getting this far back, review #Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan
• March 2, 1819: Arkansaw Territory created.
• December 14, 1819: Alabama admitted.

1820s

• March 16, 1820: Maine admitted.
• July 10, 1821: Adams-Onis Treaty establishes border between U.S. and New Spain; Floridas acquired.
  • Miller County becomes a dispute point. Oof.
• August 10, 1821: Missouri admitted.
  • Be sure to review #Louisiana and the Adams-Onis Treaty
• March 30, 1822: Florida Territory created.
• November 15, 1824: Arkansaw Territory shrank.
• May 6, 1828: Arkansaw Territory shrank.

1830s

• June 30, 1834: Michigan Territory enlarged.
• June 15, 1836: Arkansas admitted.
• July 4, 1836: Wisconsin Territory created; territories shuffled. [not going into detail on talk page]
• January 26, 1837: Michigan admitted.
• March 28, 1837: Missouri gained.
• July 4, 1838: Iowa Territory created. Start of Honey War issue sometime after, when missouri passes a law

1840s

• November 10, 1842: Eastern border established with British North America.
• March 3, 1845: Florida admitted
• December 29, 1845: Texas admitted, Arkansas gives up on Miller County. Should probably show how much of Texas [perhaps all] was claimed by Mexico.
• 1846: Start of San Juans/Pig War!
• June 18, 1846: Oregon County split between U.S. and U.K.
• December 28, 1846: Iowa admitted.
• March 13, 1847: DC retroceded land to Virginia.
• February 2, 1848: Mexican Cession acquired.
• May 29, 1848: Wisconsin admitted.
• August 14, 1848: Oregon Territory created.
• March 3, 1849: Minnesota Territory created.
• March 13, 1849: Honey War resolved.

1850s

• 1850: "In 1850 Britain ceded to the U.S. less than one acre of underwater rock (Horseshoe Reef) in Lake Erie near Buffalo for a lighthouse."
• September 9, 1850: Compromise of 1850. California admitted; Texas redrawn; Neutral Strip created; Utah and New Mexico Territories created.
• March 2, 1853: Washington Territory created.
• December 30, 1853: Gadsden Purchase acquired.
• May 30, 1854: Kansas and Nebraska Territories created; remainder is now Indian Territory.
• October 28, 1856: Baker Island and Jarvis Island claimed
• May 11, 1858: Minnesota admitted.
• October 31, 1858: Navassa Island claimed
• December 3, 1858: Howland Island claimed
• February 14, 1859: Oregon admitted.
• September 6, 1859: Johnston Atoll claimed by both US and Hawaii

1860s

• A note on the Civil War. Seceded states shall be colored as disputed. This map being ostensibly from the U.S. point of view will somewhat ignore the specifics of the CSA, simply showing that a region is claimed by a different party than the U.S. Thus, the timeline of joining the CSA or of the military districts is not included. For that, the more detailed CSA timelines are suggested; also the individual frame maps will include this information. A state will cease to be marked disputed when it is fully [not partially] readmitted to Congress.
  • I can be convinced otherwise, though. I'm looking at one of the newer maps I made for the CSA and it's slick enough that we may well be able to include the CSA in this, and not just the secessions.
• February 8, 1860: Texas claims Greer County in Indian Territory [confirm]. Also, Kingman Reef claimed.
• December 20, 1860: South Carolina secedes.
• January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
• January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
• January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
• January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
• January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
• January 29, 1861: Kansas admitted.
• February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
• February 28, 1861: Colorado Territory created.
• March 2, 1861: Dakota and Nevada Territories created.
• March 28, 1861: Arizona Territory secedes.
• April 17, 1861: Virginia secedes.
• May 6, 1861: Arkansas secedes.
• May 7, 1861: Tennessee secedes.
• May 20, 1861: North Carolina secedes.
• July 17, 1861: The Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory sign a treaty with the CSA; commonly this is taken to mean they were claimed by the CSA. We'll work with that here.
• November 28, 1861: Missouri is admitted to the CSA. The secession of Neosho probably doesn't qualify to be mentioned, but its accession to the CSA does. This should be the thinner shade of disputed, as the CSA never had control, merely claimed.
• December 10, 1861: Kentucky admitted to CSA. See above on how to deal.
• July 14, 1862: Nevada Territory gained.
• February 24, 1863: Arizona Territory created.
• March 4, 1863: Idaho Territory created.
• June 20, 1863: West Virginia admitted. Should now be colored thin disputed.
• May 26, 1864: Montana Territory created.
• October 31, 1864: Nevada admitted.
• May 5, 1865: CSA dissolved. Missouri and Kentucky no longer disputed. Arizona and Indian Territories no disputed. Other members of the CSA go to thinner disputed color.
• May 5, 1866: Nevada gained.
• July 24, 1866: Tennessee readmitted.
• March 1, 1867: Nebraska admitted.
• August 28, 1867: Midway Atoll formally taken possession of
• October 11, 1867: Department of Alaska acquired. Includes fuzzy border.
• June 22, 1868: Arkansas readmitted.
• June 25, 1868: Florida readmitted.
• July 4, 1868: North Carolina readmitted.
• July 9, 1868: Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted.
• July 13, 1868: Alabama readmitted.
• July 25, 1868: Wyoming Territory created.
• November 22, 1869: Bajo Nuevo Bank claimed

1870s

• January 26, 1870: Virginia readmitted.
• February 23, 1870: Mississippi readmitted.
• March 30, 1870: Texas readmitted.
• July 15, 1870: Georgia readmitted.
• 1873: Something about Montana and Dakota Territories changing land, see newberry
• October 21, 1872: San Juan Islands awarded to the U.S., formally ending the Pig War with Britain. [right date?]
• August 1, 1876: Colorado admitted.
• September 8, 1879: Serranilla Bank claimed (and again on September 13, 1880?)

1880s

• March 28, 1882: Dakota and Nebraska Territories shuffle
• May 17, 1884: Department of Alaska redesignated District of Alaska
• 1889: UK claims Jarvis
• November 2, 1889: North and South Dakota admitted
• November 8, 1889: Montana admitted
• November 11, 1889: Washington admitted

1890s

• May 2, 1890: Oklahoma Territory created
• July 3, 1890: Idaho admitted
• July 10, 1890: Wyoming admitted
• January 4, 1896: Utah admitted
• May 4, 1896: Greer County given to Oklahoma Territory
• August 12, 1898: Hawaii acquired
• January 17, 1899: Wake Island acquired
• April 11, 1899: Puerto Rico, Guam, and Philippines acquired

1900s

• 1900: Puerto Rico organized.
• June 7, 1900: American Samoa acquired
• 1900: Tutuila and Aunuu added to American Samoa
• June 14, 1900: Hawaii Territory organized
• 1903: Canal Zone?
• October 20, 1903: Fuzzy border in Alaska resolved
• 1904: Manua added to American Samoa
• November 16, 1907: Oklahoma admitted
• 1908 treaty with U.K./Canada changed the border in Lake Erie/Lake Ontario.

1910s

• January 6, 1912: New Mexico admitted
• February 14, 1912: Arizona admitted
• August 24, 1912: Alaska Territory organized
• 1917: Virgin Islands acquired

1920s

• March 28, 1921: Wedge disputed resolved
• May 10, 1922: Kingman Reef claimed
• 1925: Swains added to American Samoa
• 1925: Lake of the Woods shuffling
• 1927: Country Club Dispute resolved
• 1929: American Samoa formally made a territory?

1930s

• 1930s: Rio Grande Rectification Treaty
• May 17, 1932: Porto Rico renamed Puerto Rico
• 1935: US reasserts in Jarvis
• 1936: Virgin Islands organized
• April 6, 1939: Canton and Enderbury Islands condominium established

1940s

• December 9, 1941: [December 10 local time] Guam captured by Japan
• October 14, 1943: Philippines administered by Second Philippine Republic
• August 10, 1944: Guam retaken
• August 17, 1945: Second Philippine Republic ends
• July 4, 1946: Philippine independence
• July 18, 1947: Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands acquired

1950s

• 1950: Guam organized
• January 14, 1956: Banco removed per IBWC minute 204
• January 3, 1959: Alaska admitted
• August 21, 1959: Hawaii admitted, minus Palmyra

1960s

• January 14, 1964: Chamizal Dispute resolved
• June 8, 1968: Bancos removed per IBWC minute 231

1970s

• July 27, 1970: Some bancos removed per IBWC minute 237
• October 29, 1970: Some bancos removed per IBWC minute 239
• January 21, 1976: Some bancos removed per IBWC minute 250
• May 26, 1977: Rio Rico etc shuffled
• July 12, 1979: Canton and Enderbury Islands condiminium dissolved
• October 1, 1979: Canal Zone ceded

1980s

• September 3, 1983: Treaty of Tokehega cedes many Guano Islands to Tokelau [ignored]
• September 8, 1983: Cook Islands-US Maritime Border Treaty cedes islands to Cook Islands [ignored]
• September 23, 1983: Treaty of Tarawa cedes many islands to Kiribati [ignored]
• October 21, 1986: The Marshall Islands District of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands becomes the independent nation of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
• November 3, 1986: The Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Yap Districts of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands become the independent nation of the Federated States of Micronesia;[1] Mariana Islands District becomes the CNMI.

1990s

• October 1, 1994: The Palau District of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands becomes the independent nation of Palau, dissolving the TTPI.

Mexican boundary

• The Boundary Treaty of 1970 transferred 823 acres (3.33 km²) of Mexican territory to the U.S., in areas near Presidio and Hidalgo, Texas, to build flood control channels. In exchange, the U.S. ceded 2,177 acres (8.81 km²) to Mexico, including five parcels near Presidio, the Horcon Tract containing the little town of Rio Rico, Texas, and Beaver Island near Roma, Texas. The last of these transfers occurred in 1977.
• On November 24, 2009, the U.S. ceded 6 islands in the Rio Grande to Mexico, totaling 107.81 acres (0.4363 km²). At the same time, Mexico ceded 3 islands and 2 cuts to the U.S., totaling 63.53 acres (0.2571 km²). This transfer, which had been pending for 20 years, was the first application of Article III of the 1970 Boundary Treaty.
• The Chamizal Treaty, which ended a hundred-year dispute between the two countries near El Paso, Texas, transferred 630 acres (2.5 km²) from the U.S. to Mexico in 1967. In return, Mexico transferred 264 acres (1.07 km²) to the U.S.
• The Rio Grande Rectification Treaty of 1933 straightened and stabilized the 155 miles (249 km) of river boundary through the highly developed El Paso-Juárez Valley. Numerous parcels of land (174) were transferred between the two countries during the construction period, 1935–1938. At the end, each nation had ceded an equal area of land (2,560.5 acres (10.362 km²)) to the other.
• The Banco Convention of 1905 resulted in many exchanges of bancos (land surrounded by bends in the river that became segregated from either country by a cutoff, often due to rapid accretion or avulsion of the alluvial channel) between the two nations, most often in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Under the treaty, the following transfers involving Texas occurred from 1910–1976:

Year	# Bancos	Acres to USA	Acres to Mexico		Year	# Bancos	Acres to USA	Acres to Mexico
1910	57	5,357.2	3,101.2		1942	1	63.3	0
1912	31	1,094.4	2,343.0		1943	4	482.9	100.5
1928	42	3,089.9	1,407.8		1944	14	253.7	166.2
1930	31	4,685.6	984.3		1945	16	240.9	333.5
1931	4	158.4	328.7		1946	1	185.8	0
1932	2	159.7	0		1949	2	190.2	281.9
1933	1	0	122.1		1956	1	508.3	0
1934	1	278.1	0		1968	1	0	154.6
1939	1	240.2	0		1970	21	449.8	1,881.8
1940	2	0	209.5		1976	6	49.2	0
1941	6	224.5	246.9		Total	245	17,712 acres (71.68 km2)	11,662 acres (47.19 km2)

• In 1927 under the same 1905 Convention, the U.S. acquired two bancos from Mexico at the Colorado River border with Arizona. Farmers Banco, covering 583.4 acres (2.361 km²), a part of the Cocopah Indian Reservation at 32°37′27″N 114°46′45″W, was ceded to the U.S. with controversy. Fain Banco (259 acres (1.05 km²)) at 32°31′32″N 114°47′28″W also became U.S. soil.
• Proposed: Based on aerial surveys in 2008, there are 138 cases where the widest channel of normal flow of the Rio Grande has shifted from previous surveys. Therefore, the International Boundary Line is to be changed under Article III of the 1970 Boundary Treaty. The result is 138 proposed transfers of territory that remain pending further evaluation and approval by the International Boundary and Water Commission and the two governments. Upon resolution, the U.S. is to cede 7 islands and 60 cuts in the Rio Grande to Mexico, totaling 1,251.2 acres (5.063 km²), while Mexico is to cede 3 islands and 68 cuts to the U.S., totaling 1,275.9 acres (5.163 km²).

Jeff in CA (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Jeff_in_CA/Table of bancos transferred between Mexico and United States (1910–1977) for detailed information on locations, coordinates of latitude and longitude, and areas of each of the 247 banco transfers under the 1905 Banco Convention. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now updated the table at Talk:Jeff_in_CA/Table of bancos transferred between Mexico and United States (1910–1977) with the exact coordinate locations for all 247 bancos. I obtained all of the new information after submitting a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to the IWBC. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

If you're going for completionist, you could add in islands claimed under Guano Islands Act. Kmusser (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're including the Philippines, you should also include Cuba, it's status was the same until Cuban independence. Kmusser (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, yes, the guano islands. I want to include all territories big and small in this. As for Cuba, I waffled on that. Was the status really identical? Because [[2]] states that while Spain "transferred control of" the Philippines to the U.S., they merely "relinquished sovereignty" over Cuba and it wasn't specifically annexed by the U.S., simply under its military umbrella. Which might count, but is a weaker case than the other territories... but it might be equivalent to the TTPI. It's certainly worth discussing. And this all leads to another question: What of the U.S. sectors of post-war Germany? Or Okinawa? I definitely wouldn't want to include wartime control (Iraq, for example) but these were specifically under U.S. jurisdiction for many years after the end of the war. --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure the US never claimed to be sovereign over Cuba (or, for that matter, Haiti, the DR, Okinawa, Iraq, etc.) the way it did over the Phillipines and Puerto Rico. I think that's a fairly bright line that can be drawn.

Also, if you're doing Organic Acts, Puerto Rico's was in 1900, Virgin Islands' was in 1936, and Guam's was in 1950. PR and VI have had revisionary Organic Acts since, but maybe the important one to list is the one that actually made them organized territories. --Jfruh (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Cuba, I didn't know about the Teller amendment. I like the idea of using claim of sovereignty as a dividing line, that does avoid the issue of post-war Germany, which I think should be outside the scope of this article. The cases of long-term leases of the Canal Zone and Guantanamo would still be ambiguous though. Kmusser (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Was Canal Zone really a lease? Our article on it states explicitly that it was an unincorporated territory, and it is listed in the article of unincorporated territories quite separate from the "extraterritoriality" section which includes Guantanamo Bay. I've added the organic dates mentioned above. It's going to take some time to get the Guano Islands act in here, but I think it's important to have every damn thing the U.S. ever claimed. Anything less is arbitrary. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the sovereignty of the TTPI was somewhat ambiguous too, and I think we should be including that, so I don't know. Kmusser (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hrmmm. I would say include the TTPI because it's not like it would have been anything else. Canal Zone would be Panama; Guantanamo would be Cuba; there simply was no other claimant for the islands in the TTPI that I'm aware of. And, some of them did become part of the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure (though the Wikipedia trust territory article is sparse) that the "trust" in the name is meant to indicate that the trustee power is holding it "in trust" for the inhabitants until they can achieve self-government. It's not as if there's disputed sovereignty with another state, but rather that the nature of the claim is of administration rather than sovereignty. In practice the US obviously didn't feel that constrained in its behavior (it literally dropped atomic bombs on the islands, after all) but something to thinkg about anyway. --Jfruh (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

oh god what about Machias Seal Island? I do want to include any disputes where the U.S. claims something but that claim is disputed (as opposed to vice versa; so what if some random jerk claims Florida, it doesn't mean anything if they can't back it up, this is a map of the U.S., not of randomjerkville), but it seems like that's a lot of pixels for such a very, very, very small dispute. Hm. I think I have a new method of dealing with disputes, and so this one won't need to be displayed except when its status changes. You'll see! --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• The status of Cuba and the Philippines were/are not at all the same. Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the U.S. Spain relinquished all claim to sovereignty to Cuba but did not cede it to the U.S. See articles 1 and 3 of the Treaty of Paris (1898)[3].

• See the final paragraph of the History section and the Current status section in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands article re the status of the TTPI
• The Panama Canal Zone article calls the zone an "unorganized territory". The United States territory article says that United States territory is any extent of region under the national jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone article says, "On February 26, 1904, the Isthmian Canal Convention was proclaimed. In it, the Republic of Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a zone of land and land under water . From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States. The Canal Zone was abolished on October 1, 1979, as a term of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties of September 7, 1977. Torrijos–Carter Treaties#Implementation says that the U.S. relinquished control of the Panama Canal and all areas in what had been the Panama Canal Zone on December 31, 1999. It seems pretty clear there that the Zone was under U.S. jurisdiction from February 26, 1904 until December 31, 1999.
• Getting back to Cuba, the Cuban–American Treaty of 1903 says that that Republic of Cuba leases to the United States specific lands in Cuba, most notably the land that surrounds Guantánamo Bay, and stipulates that the United States "shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control", while recognizing "the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba". I read that as effectively granting the U.S. "jurisdiction" over the leased area so long as the lease is in effect. That would seem to qualify the leased area as a United States territory so long as the lease is effective as U.S. territories are defined in that article.
• The Machias Seal Island article says that sovereignty over the island is disputed between Canada and the U.S. but the article is not clear about which country exercises jurisdiction.

I'm not a topical expert, but thought I would comment. Re "I like the idea of using claim of sovereignty as a dividing line" above, this article does not stand in isolation and should harmonize with other articles (some linked above) having content in this topical area rather than contradicting them. Where contradictions between articles exist, they need to be worked out (see e.g., {{Contradict-other}}). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just made a suggestion here which might impact this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have enough data on when particular guano islands were claimed... and I don't think I care at this moment. The National Atlas of 1970, while marking much of what was ceded to Kiribati later as "Administered by United Kingdom - Claimed by United States" doesn't go into any more detail than that. If they don't care, then I don't think I care. They do mention the Canton and Enderbury Islands, so I will include that as well... but beyond that, I think I'm going to ignore any guano islands that don't become relevant outside of the initial guano claim. Thoughts? Fortunately since this is an inset it's easy to handle, once we figure out how. --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Occupations

What wartime occupations to include? I've been trying to find an objective, solid measure to go by, and I think I've come up with one:

• For nations occupying the U.S.: If there is at least a nominally civilian government installed, or if there is ever a government in exile, then it will be included. This allows for the Philippines but omits Guam, Attu and Kiska. And it of course allows for the CSA. (Why government-in-exile? That would only occur for a major occupation of a major place. So, not a small island and not a purely military target.)
  • Note that merely claiming U.S. land is not sufficient for inclusion; it must be at least in some part administered by the foreign or belligerent power. This can include token representation in the foreign or belligerent power's government, as that is a major step not usually afforded to insignificant claims.
• For the U.S. occupying other nations: This will be included solely if there is at any point in its history a civilian administration. That is to say, either the region gets representation in Congress (like the modern territories), has a governor appointed by the civilian structure of the U.S. government (like the earlier territories), or is under administration of a civilian department (like the insular areas). Regions purely under a military occupation, with no presence in the civilian structure of the U.S. government, will not be included. This means Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Haiti, Cuba, Iraq, etc. would all be omitted.

Basically, again, this is not a war map, and I'm not going to follow the lines of combat and control, hence the reliance on there being civilian control at some link in the chain. My main concern is Guam - that's the only one I'm really waffling on here. To include occupation or not to include? My thought is, would I include Guam on a map of Japan? And I don't think I would, it never having been annexed. Yet it had no civilian government either. So who would I label as the administrator? Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...

• It seems to me that a government in exile cannot exist for a territory not having an organized government, which the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was. They established and maintained a government in exile during WW-II. Without checking, I think that Puerto Rico was still organized under the Foraker Act of 1900 during WW-II, but that territory wasn't occupied by Japan. AFAIK offhand, other US territories occupied had no organized governments. and so no governments in exile.
• Re occupation of the Philippines by the US, the US accepted the surrender of Spanish forces and formally established a military government in the Philippines on 14 August 1898, and Spain formally ceded the Philippines to the US on 10 December 1988 1898. The US established the Taft Commission on 16 March 1900 and Taft was inaugurated as Civil Governor on 1 July 1901. The Philippines became an Organized Territory on 1 July 1902, with the passage of the Philippine Organic Act. I think that, from the POV of the US anyhow, the proclamation of the Philippine Declaration of Independence from Spain, the establishment of the Malolos Republic and the occurrence of the Philippine-American War did not effect US territoriality.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Panama Canal Zone (more)

• Colón, an exclave of Panama from 1903 to 1950, was surrounded by the Panama Canal Zone and the Caribbean Sea. After 1950 it was connected to the main territory of Panama.
• Panama City, from 1903–circa 1923, was an exclave of Panama surrounded by the Panama Canal Zone and the Pacific Ocean. Maps of the Canal Zone dated before 1923 clearly show these borders. Maps dated 1924 and later show a changed border that re-connected Panama City with eastern Panama.

Rewrite update

Anyone watching this, please please please take a look at Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/rewrite. I'm back to 1900. Please give ANY feedback you have, be it a missing frame, a better/more correct way of wording things, an error, etc. Anything. The main concern I have is how to handle Samoa - it was really a weird situation, with the treaty and the US taking control one day, the US naming it a few days later, and the islands ceding themselves over the next few years despite the US already really being in control, and none of this being ratified by Congress for decades. Could how I handled it be improved?

Also, the images containing zooms of Alaska (apart from the panhandle) aren't done yet as I need to draw Russia to do that and I wanted to wait.

Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As promised, I have obtained extensive information on the Rio Grande banco exchanges. See Talk:Jeff_in_CA/Table of bancos transferred between Mexico and United States (1910–1977) for detailed information on locations, coordinates of latitude and longitude, and areas of each of the 247 banco transfers under the 1905 Banco Convention. The next step is for me to obtain the maps that were attached to the IBWC minutes for banco transfers where the exact locations are not yet clear. I will also add similar coordinate locations for 25 non-contiguous land exchanges during the Rio Grande Rectification of 1934-38, as well as data for exchanges that took place under the 1970 Boundary Treaty. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now updated the table at Talk:Jeff_in_CA/Table of bancos transferred between Mexico and United States (1910–1977) with the exact coordinate locations for all 247 bancos. I obtained all of the new information after submitting a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to the IWBC. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I created the article Banco Convention of 1905, should you wish to refer to it. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)