Talk:Historical regions of the United States

Inclusion of Indigenous regions
Proposal to better include Indigenous regions as well as their annexations and cessions.

This proposal cites both Indigenous countries in their pre-invasion existence, their existence throughout colonization, and their cession, annexation, or otherwise elimination at the hands of the United States.

These are relevant polities. Two examples are:
 * The Maine Wabanaki-State Truth and Reconciliation Commission
 * Haudenosaunee, their stance that they never ceased to exist as a nation / country, and their continued use of their own passport.

My edits were reverted by user Drdpw, noting that these additions are "beyond the scope of this article." This article, however, has sections titled Regions annexed from or ceded by foreign powers and Ceded or purchased Native American regions. Indeed, the inclusion of Acadia under New England yet the exclusion of Dawnland and its constituent countries like Mi'kma'ki seems suspicious, especially in light of the aforementioned commission; Indigenous countries were, after all, foreign powers to the United States.

The two major changes to the page are:
 * The inclusion of an introductory section labelled Pre-colonial era with the subsection Indigenous countries, and
 * the changing of the section to Ceded, purchased, or annexed Native American regions from Ceded or purchased Native American regions

(Note the inclusion below of already published and vetted pages such as Mi'kma'ki, Lenapehoking, and Tsenacommacah. These are, obviously, established regions in reality, but also––and importantly––established pages on Wikipedia. I am uncertain, however, about the inclusion of other such entities such as Apacheria and Dinétah as they only came into the range of the United States well after invasion and the initial colonial period. A case in point is Comancheria which, as a country/empire, only arose after the establishment of the United States, so its inclusion under the section header Pre-colonial era would not suffice.)

They would look like:




 * Dawnland
 * Mi'kma'ki
 * Wolastokuk
 * Peskotomuhkatihkuk
 * Pɑnawɑhpskewahki
 * Ndakinna
 * Haudenosauneega
 * Lenapehoking
 * Scheyichbi
 * Nippenet
 * Tsenacommacah


 * Apacheria; until 1924; Apache Wars; invasion and annexation of various Apache countries
 * Black Hawk Purchase; $640,000; purchased 1832; Michigan Territory (eventually Iowa)
 * California Indian Reservations and Cessions; 1851–52; unratified treaties; California
 * Cherokee Outlet; $7,000,000; purchased 1893; Oklahoma Territory (eventually Oklahoma)
 * Cherokee Strip; a disputed two-mile wide tract of land between the Cherokee Nation and Kansas that was eventually ceded to Kansas in 1866
 * Comancheria; post-1848, after the Mexican–American War; annexed; Texas
 * Jackson Purchase; $300,000; purchased by Tennessee and Kentucky from the Chickasaw Nation in 1818
 * Lovely's Purchase; 1816 land purchase from the Osage Nation
 * Newe Segobia; annexation of the Western Shoshone Country; Treaty of Ruby Valley (1863) never ceded, simply the right to "traverse the area[, etc.]" ; Nevada
 * Platte Purchase; $7,500; purchased 1836; Missouri
 * Saginaw Cession; ceded 1819; Michigan Territory (eventually Michigan)
 * Yazoo land scandal; 1784–1810; annexation of Yazoo Country by the George state government

Danachos (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Off the top of my head, it seems like a reasonable addition, particularly the "Ceded, purchased, or annexed Native American regions" section. I can see some squidginess in the Pre-Colonial section that would make it hard to draw the lines between what counts as an Indigenous "nation" or not. Drawing those lines so that we have clear political entities linked to, as opposed to links to groups of people who were displaced, would be needed, I think. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It might be worth it to simply include already-created pages of Indigenous countries (e.g., using two European examples, listing Scotland or Flanders but not Scottish people nor Flemings). As such, the list would be:
 * Dawnland
 * Mi'kma'ki
 * Haudenosauneega
 * Lenapehoking
 * Scheyichbi
 * Tsenacommacah
 * Perhaps, as stated above in the original topic section, it could include as well:
 * Apacheria
 * Dinétah
 * But, it would therefore exclude the following, as even though the names of their countries are present, their pages only direct the reader to their nations' pages:
 * Wolastokuk
 * Peskotomuhkatihkuk
 * Pɑnawɑhpskewahki
 * Ndakinna
 * Nippenet
 * Danachos (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The changes you are trying to make here are beyond the SCOPE of this article,. You should probably write a new article to accomplish what you want, not add non-sequiturs into this article. (Also, note, there were no indigenous "countries" in the Columbian Exchange time period.  GenQuest  "scribble" 14:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @GenQuest, there are two bits to Danachos's additions. The indigenous countries in the colonial era is just part of it. Do you feel the "Ceded, purchased, or annexed Native American regions" additions are also out of scope, and if so can you elaborate on why? Those seem to fit well within the article's scope to me. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, that particular section looks like this:
 * Ceded or purchased Native American regions


 * Further information: Indian Land Cessions in the United States
 * $640,000; purchased 1832; Michigan Territory (eventually Iowa)
 * $7,000,000; purchased 1893; Oklahoma Territory (eventually Oklahoma)
 * a disputed two-mile wide tract of land between the Cherokee Nation and Kansas that was eventually ceded to Kansas in 1866
 * $300,000; purchased by Tennessee and Kentucky from the Chickasaw Nation in 1818
 * 1816 land purchase from the Osage Nation
 * $7,500; purchased 1836; Missouri
 * ceded 1819; Michigan Territory (eventually Michigan)
 * Those have long been a part of this article, their inclusion is not being challenged here. Drdpw (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they added in a few additional annexations to that section:
 * Apacheria; until 1924; Apache Wars; invasion and annexation of various Apache countries
 * California Indian Reservations and Cessions; 1851–52; unratified treaties; California
 * Comancheria; post-1848, after the Mexican–American War; annexed; Texas
 * Newe Segobia; annexation of the Western Shoshone Country; Treaty of Ruby Valley (1863) never ceded, simply the right to "traverse the area[, etc.]"; Nevada
 * Yazoo land scandal; 1784–1810; annexation of Yazoo Country by the George state government
 * I don't see a substantial difference between the Saginaw Cession and California Indian Reservations and Cessions, for example. Some of the others would need to be vetted to make sure the linked article is about the annexation/cessation and not (like Newe Segobia) to a general article about the people. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a list article, and as such, it is probably far from complete. Other cessions and acquisitions may still be out there that need to be added in.  That is not the issue here.  As you say, links to general articles would be discouraged and are unhelpful.  For example, the Yazoo land scandal is already there (through the Yazoo lands article that is already mentioned in the article) as well it should be. Apacheria was an informal area designated by historians and there was no resultant formal transfer of ownership (or cession) made to the US or its antecedents, and would not belong in the article.  GenQuest  "scribble" 17:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just want to make sure we have the scope clearly defined: 1) The link should be to an article (or article section) that is clearly about land transfer (purchase, cessation, annexation), and 2) It should involve an established area/polity at the time in question. So, as Drdpw noted below, California Indian Reservations and Cessions would be okay to add to the list; Yazoo land scandal is already mentioned elsewhere (albeit without a mention of the connection to Native Americans); and the other three are out of scope with the current links/articles. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two Yazoo articles should probably be merged. GenQuest  "scribble" 13:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , the article is focused on the acquisitions of what makes up the current United States by those governmental entities that were the US or its ancestral governmental entities, not what made up Indian tribal territories or today's Indian Nations. I'm still unclear on what Danachos' intent is with the out-of-scope content additions he was making. I'm all for the added knowledge he brings, but it seems to be something that would be a different article with an entirely different scope. It really doesn't belong here.  GenQuest  "scribble" 16:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand that for the pre-colonial additions (and agree that a new article is a reasonable approach), but at least some of the additions to the ceded/purchased section seem fully in scope involving post-colonial land acquisitions by treaty, purchase, or force. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. See my reply above. GenQuest  "scribble" 17:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of the five noted above, below "Yes, but...", only California Indian Reservations and Cessions" clearly fits in my estimation. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of California Indian Reservations and Cessions should, by default, encourage the changing of the subsection's title to "Ceded, purchased, or annexed Native American regions" as, without treaty ratification, the numerous countries of the various Indigenous nations within what is now California were neither ceded to nor purchased by the United States. –– Danachos (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * GenQuest, I am confused. As I read the article, there are numerous governmental entities that are/were unrelated to the US or "its ancestral governmental entities" listed. Examples include:
 * Acadia under New England
 * La Florida under Southern
 * Tejas under Far West
 * Kingdom of Hawaii under Independent entities later joined to the Union
 * The first three were the cession, etc. of provinces of foreign powers. The last one, especially, denotes the annexation of an Indigenous country (as its article says: "Hawaiʻi was briefly an independent republic until the U.S. annexed it through the Newlands Resolution on July 4, 1898...").
 * Quick answer: Acadia, La Florida, Tejas were all governmental entities that were pre-cursers to the governments (if at least part of their territory became part of the US, they are 'ancestral governmental entities.') These were colonial groupings that actually had recognized central governments and defined boundaries with their neighbors. Kingdom of Hawaii was indeed it's own country, with a monarch and defined territory that they claimed as owners. The US took it by force (through a coup d'état), as happened to Tejas and parts of Acadia.  GenQuest  "scribble"


 * Now, let's talk about Indigenous countries. The Kingdom, and later Republic, of Hawai'i is uncontestedly 100% an Indigenous country. Let's turn to the Haudenosaunee, who maintain the use of a[n albeit contested] passport to this day. Their country may not have been a nation-state in the way we understand them in our world right now, but a country ≠ a nation-state. Examples of non-nation-state countries include Scotland, Basque Country, Kurdistan, Silesia, Tibet, and Yorubaland. The article on country expressly states that it does not necessarily conform to the ~192 nations-states in the world today, giving Wales and the aforementioned Basque Country as examples.
 * Quick answer: First off, there were no Indigenous "countries" in what was to become the continental United States. (If you have non-revisionist, reliable sources for this, please present them here). The Iroquois tribes and allies were specifically a loose confederation of seperate tribes. Just like the Cherokee and others, they only had a "King," "Emperor," Headman," etc. when British colonial and or American state or federal governmental entities sought to create treaties to gain their land. The process was simple: they would unilaterally appoint a tribal leader in such a case to represent the whole peoples (and often bribe them as well) to gain their lands. These 'leaders' would be appointed by those who would gain the most from the signing of each treaty. The British, and then American, governments often referred to these straw-leaders by these made-up titles, and their (non-united) tribes as 'nations', while they were anything but. In fact, they could only represent small parts or single tribes of the whole.  It was expediently done to add a phoney legitimacy to these unfair treaties, and the indigenious appointees sometimes used these titles as bragging rights, but there was no true authority within the tribes.
 * The Indians did not claim or own land, and thought the whole idea was strange and repulsive. Owning land and/or territory in this manner was not the Native American way until the very last of the 18th-century (after the 1794 founding of the Cherokee Nation. These treaties and unsanctioned land cessions caused several civil wars within the Indian diaspora of the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, no tribes ever elected a national leader (one uniting all tribes under a single individual) until the Cherokee in 1794.  The other followed suit afterward to maintain a fighting chance and negotiating position with the federal government.  Those that didn't are basically gone.  GenQuest  "scribble"


 * So, why is the cession or annexation of one foreign power's province (e.g., Acadia of France or Spanish Florida) any different than another foreign power's, in this case, districts, e.g., Gespe'gewa'gi of Mi'kma'ki? How is the annexation, through the rupturing of a treaty, from the Western Shoshone foreign power of their country Newe Segobia any different? Additionally, Numunuu Comancheria is cited as an empire? Does an empire not a country make? –– Danachos (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these were considered countries or empires. GenQuest  "scribble" 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)