Talk:Indiana Territory

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


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

mel gibson


 * I like the current map, and how it shows where the territory came from and how it was later divided. I wonder, though, if it would useful to also include an image showing the undivided Indiana Territory at it's maximum, when it was just the western partition of the Northwest Territory.  There were no state lines in 1800, and it would have been a vast, uncontrollable territory to the people who first knew it. Mingusboodle (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, in 1800 there were only extremely sketchy and vague notions about the extent of the northwestern boundary -- the source of the Mississippi wasn't determined until about 1820. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the map is terrible. Perhaps show the initial boundaries of the territory only? This complicated map can be included elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.30.220 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * (after edit conflict) Relevant legislation:
 * The act of Oct. 31, 1803, which enabled the president to take possession was titled An Act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last ; and for the temporary government thereof. (emphasis added)
 * The act of March 26, 1804, that created Orleans Territory and the District of Louisiana was titled An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof. (emphasis added)
 * Section 12 of that act established the residue of the province of Louisiana as the "district of Louisiana". It did not merge or attach that to Indiana Territory. But rather stated that the "executive power now vested in the governor of the Indiana Territory, shall extend to, and be exercised in the said district." Similarly for the judges. They were to administer the district, but the district remained distinct from the Indiana Territory. Section 16, explicitly put an expiration into the act: the act was to become effective on October 1, 1804, and "shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress which may happen thereafter."
 * The act of March 3, 1805, which was among the last acts passed by the 8th Congress, established the permanent government of the district under the name Territory of Louisiana."
 * There is nothing in any of this to suggest that the district was ever "annexed" to Indiana Territory. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Re citations for similarities -- you make the statement that "This first attempt to govern the Upper Louisiana portion of the Louisiana Purchase was somewhat similar in how Louisiana (New France) had governed both sides of the Mississippi River as Illinois Country before France ceded the land east of the Mississippi to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris (1763) the land west of the Mississippi to the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) (which was announced in a 1764)." What are the similarities in the governments? The basis of comparison is unclear. Making such a comparative statement entails some synthetic analysis, which if it is not to be considered original research, needs a citation for the comparison. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The specific reference in the enabling legislation is [Section 12 http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=324] in which it specifically lays that the District of Louisiana "shall be organized and administered as follows" and then proceeds to say the Indiana Governor and Courts will have jurisdiction, that Indiana will draw up its laws and that the Indiana governor will organize militias in the district. The District of Louisiana is not self-governing.  It has no governor of its own and no capital.  So if its governors, laws, militia and courts are all governed from Indiana what territory is it a part of?  The nine months of Indiana governance of the west side of Mississippi is very notable.


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


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


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


 * Since it was not an organized territory and it had not been added to Indiana Territory, it was by default unorganized territory as there were no other organic acts pertaining to it up to that time. I'm not sure what you're referring to in you're last sentence. My last edit to the article removed a sentence fragment that you had left behind. I was unable to discern any significance behind the fragment. NB, I am going to move the complaints by the District residents to that article, as it is by far more relevant to that article than to this one. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, re-reading section 12, the act is in fact an organic act in that it organizes government of the District. But the District does explicitly remain a distinct entity from the Indiana Territory. Rather the powers of the Governor and Judges were temporarily extended to the District. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I did my edits adding details about Louisiana the article was unreferenced and would be considered either a stub or a start. The Louisiana portion is just a small but important piece of Indiana history and greatly adds to its notability.  The complaints give background to the discussion of the slavery issue.    The section is divided from the rest of the article.  Americasroof 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can live with the various edits now. It keeps the history cleaner to keep them on either of the river (although mentioning where they mingle).  Thanks for the vigorous debate.  Americasroof 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Original boundaries
The section contains the statements ''It also included the portion of present-day Ohio west of the Great Miami River. This latter parcel became part of the state of Ohio when it was admitted to the Union in 1803.'' However the map shows pretty much the reverse of this. The original boundaries according to the Act Creating Indiana Territory, 1800 were "all that part of the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio river, which lies to the westward of a line beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the mouth of Kentucky river, and running thence to fort Recovery, and thence north until it shall intersect the territorial line between the United States and Canada." When the state of Ohio was formed in 1803, the western boundary was defined as beginning from the mouth of the Great Miami River. The gore from the point opposite the Kentucky river to Fort Recovery to the Mouth of the Great Miami river was thus included in Indiana Territory. However the current phrasing is sourced to "Jervic, 53–54" and "Jervic, 110" (which I think is a typo for Jervis, Cutler & Le Raye, Charles (1971). A Topographical Description of the State of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Louisiana. Ayer Publishing). This should be sorted out. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fort Recovery is in Ohio, and several miles over the border. The bank oppoiste the mouth of the Kentucky River is in Indiana now. So the line started in present Indiana and ran diaganol across the present Ohio border and several miles into Ohio, and then due north to the Canadian border. When statehood was granted to Ohio, the border was changed, as you noted. So now there is a straight north south line from the northern border, due south to the ohio river, which is several miles west of the original line. So, the land east of that origina nort south line starting at recover, was taken from Indiana territory and given to ohio, and vica verse, the land that was west of that diagonal line from the kentucky river, was given to Indiana territory. So it is accurated to say that the territory held a slice of Ohio west of the miami river, because it did hold a narrow, about 250 miles long by 15 miles wide, strech that was given to Ohio. All of which was west of the Miami River Charles Edward 13:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that is true, although the crude drawing you include rather grossly overstates the area between Fort Recovery and understates the size of the gore from the mouth of the Kentucky River to Fort Recovery. As it the article is currently phrased, none of this detail is apparent and on the face of it appears to contradict the map showing the change in boundaries. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, that is why I call it a crude map. I reworded it to make more clear the orginal boundry was related to Fort Recovery, and not to the Miami. But how else would you summarily describe the land west of miami that was transfered to Ohio in 1803? Or, how do you suggest we reword it? Charles Edward 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the ambiguity is using the phrase "west of the Great Miami River" -- the larger portion of land that was transferred in 1803 was in the gore which went from Ohio to Indiana Territory. A thin slice that went to Ohio, which while technically "west" of the Miami, for the most part lies to the north of the river's headwaters. I suggest using the boundary descriptions from the original documents and then adding explanation as needed. A more detailed image might help. For instance, Image:Indiana Indian treaties.jpg give some indication of the size of the gore. There are a couple of editors such as User:Kmusser who will sometimes create maps on request. older ≠ wiser 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a request for a better map at WikiProject Maps/Requested maps. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I think the re-wording you made is also fine. I can see how someone unfamiliar withthe topic may be mislead by the wording of the original discription. It was here when I started, and hadn't given it much thought. Thanks for your help! This is my latest GA project, so any suggestions you ahve are appreciated.Charles Edward 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Original counties
When Indiana Territory was first created in 1800, it consisted of the following counties with creation dates in parentheses:
 * Knox County, Indiana (June 20, 1790)
 * Randolph County, Illinois (October 5, 1795)
 * St. Clair County, Illinois (April 27, 1790)

Wayne County, Michigan (18 Aug 1796) remained a part of the original Northwest Territory until the boundaries were adjusted with admittance of the state of Ohio in 1803. A portion of what became Indiana was a part of Hamilton County, Ohio (January 2, 1790) until creation of the state of Ohio. However, before that happened, Clark County, Indiana (February 3, 1801) was created in the gore that what was then still part of Northwest Territory. In 1803 upon Ohio statehood, besides the addition of Wayne County to Indiana Territory, Dearborn County, Indiana (March 7, 1803) was created. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that? The map in my book is different. Perhaps we should just remove that part? I am going to to look at a couple more books to see what I can dig up for certain. Charles Edward 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can check the articles on the counties here, but for a convenient external reference see FamilyHistory101.com (although currently somewhat cheesy-looking, the information is pretty solid as far as I have been able to tell--and I've checked quite a lot of the Michigan info independently). The formation map timelines are especially cool. Here are quick links to some of the more relevant items:
 * Illinois County Formation Maps
 * Indiana County Formation Maps
 * Michigan County Formation Maps
 * Ohio County Formation Maps
 * Illinois County Facts & Information
 * Indiana County Facts & Information
 * Michigan County Facts & Information
 * Ohio County Facts & Information
 * Cheers. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found a source too. . Looks like you are right! Thanks. Charles Edward 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we Dunn?
There are several references notes for a source by "Dunn," but I can't find any anything to tell me what the source is. Can someone help? I could use note#33 for a requested citation in Siege of Fort Harrison. Mingusboodle (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it, I just noticed your comment! :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071102122109/http://www.americanheritage.com:80/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619174831/http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Section order
Just as a casual reader, it seems odd to me that the "History" section comes after the list of officials and political issues. It's a little jarring to read how the territory was formed after I've already been through the previous sections. Would anyone oppose an effort to re-order the main sections? I'd like to move the history to the top, and maybe incorporate the Geographical Boundaries as a sub-section. That would give more context to Wikipedia readers when they get to the sections on government, elected officials, and political issues. Canute (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. I looked at several other U.S. territory articles, and they all have the history at the beginning of the article. Indyguy (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)